tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66406772024-02-28T03:19:07.593-05:00Envision Something BetterThis Blog is dedicated to the idea that we can make a better world than the one we have. If presented with a choice between the world as it is, or Something Better, people will choose the better vision for the future. Through education, sharing ideas, action, and a positive attitude, it is possible... if we just start realizing the possibilities.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-86538549833086486782011-08-30T12:10:00.000-04:002011-08-30T12:10:15.113-04:00Sorry to "go on hiatus" once againI had hoped to be able to blog here at least once a week, but life it just too hectic to keep this up.<br />
<br />
Between work, and soccer and the house, there just isn't time to write about events consistently.<br />
<br />
I have two new Op-Eds in the works and have not been able to finish either one, so it's also likely a motivational thing as well. I'll have to figure that out.<br />
<br />
So for regular readers, thanks for your interest and ideas.<br />
<br />
I'll see you here again at some point...<br />
<br />
- UniversalUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-3938577701461698932011-03-19T16:18:00.002-04:002011-03-19T16:20:25.012-04:00Keeping up with BloggingAs usual, it has been difficult to keep with with blogging along with other needed pursuits, such as work and family and music.<br />
<br />
The key things I've been noticing lately are that more people in the media (Joe Scarborough) seem to be at least bringing up the idea of the middle class taking the brunt of the current poverty trend we're all on, while the very rich sail away on their yachts. They don't do what's really needed which is to challenge the idea of tax cuts for the rich along with cutting government to balance the budget. Only <a href="http://robertreich.org/">Robert Reich</a> and <a href="http://www.thomhartmann.com/blogs/archive/201102">Thom Hartmann</a> write about the logic of raising taxes, especially on the very rich to get the economy going again.<br />
<br />
I've also been sensing the corner that history and speeches have painted President Obama into regarding Libya. He talks about liberty, (without helping in Bahrain, where the US 5th Fleet is based) but we shouldn't start bombing another country to try to free people, like we've done to Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Obama has said Quaddafy "has to go," so what now? The Arab states don't like American intervention, but they don't seem to be bellying up to do a no-fly zone on their own, so once again, the US and Europe will go in with guns blazing and make things worse.<br />
<br />
The problem with the Arab states in all of this is they are largely authoritarian and don't like these uprisings and so would rather leave the Libyan rebels to die. So we're in a position of having to do something militarily that we'd rather not, because of our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we feel obligated to because to do nothing would draw attention to our hypocritical foreign policy where we support dictators and undermine democracies whenever it suits the cause of "stability" which is what our leaders really value over any silly notions like "freedom" or "democracy."<br />
<br />
If I was president, here's what I would do. I would insist that Arab states take the lead militarily (if they are so opposed to US intervention in the region) and I would provide logistical support and would air-drop food and materiel to the Libyan rebels. This would help them continue their fight.<br />
<br />
The fundamental mistake the Libyan rebels made was pursuing a violent revolution. Tunisia and Egypt were peaceful and successful revolutions because modern media exposes harsh reprisals and most nations (except China) care enough about their international image that they will refrain under the glare of FaceBook and Twitter (and CNN...) Because they rebels chose violence, we are being drawn in and we should not be.<br />
<br />
- UniversalUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-37737626617902660982011-01-30T14:06:00.005-05:002011-01-30T14:13:23.311-05:00Jack sums it up quite nicely here<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I told Jack I would post this without further comment on my part. - U </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Excerpt from earlier Envision Something Better posting:</span> </span> <br />
<blockquote><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">"We know from the economy we see before us that lowering taxes does not raise wages or create consumer demand, nor create incentive to invest in jobs by the investor class, or automatically create jobs."</span></span></div></blockquote><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;"> <div>You need to look at whom benefited most from the Bush era lowering of taxes. People earning on the order of $400,000 and up got the lions share of the tax reduction, people with incomes below that level got a token tax reduction at best. The structure of the tax reduction, not the fact that there was a tax reduction can explain the phenomenon you describe. Workers did not receive a significant enough increase in their income as a consequence of the tax reduction to encourage an increase in spending. What did occur, and is documented in at least one government study, is that those in the working class that received a marginally significant tax reduction used what they got to retire debt. Those that received less used what they got to back-fill an already stressed household budget. The wealthy on the other hand had no incentive to create new jobs in the U.S. Return on investment is what drives the choices made by the investor class and at least at the moment, there are investments other than those that create domestic jobs that have a higher return on investment.<br />
<br />
</div><div></div><div>A tax plan that is not graduated will neither create jobs nor will it raise the wages of the working class. At best, the working class will be left treading water and at worst, see their spending power further erode. The only sane tax plan is to return to the tax structure that existed at the start of the Reagan era under which the highest income levels were taxed overall at close to fifty percent. At the same time, the working class paid on the order of thirty percent for taxes overall. If there is to be a change in tax structure at all, then it should be a meaningful tax cut for the lower classes which would do more to increase domestic spending than any other tax structure. Increasing taxes on the working class will not have the desired result of increasing their income, at least not for any amount other than one that would keep them treading water.<br />
<br />
</div><div></div><div>As evidenced by the recent Rhode Island gubernatorial race, the concept of a graduated income tax seems to have disappeared from the American consciousness. The only tax proposals the leading candidate was willing to put forward were regressive tax structures and they weren't even analyzed as the lesser of two evils but rather the best thing for our economy since sliced bread.</div></span></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-29650780388759233432011-01-21T13:26:00.006-05:002011-01-22T08:21:44.922-05:00Is supply and demand for labor enough to cause wage increases following income tax increases?<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Jack doesn't buy it:</span></b></div><blockquote style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">"(Your follow up) looks good as far as it goes but it's still based on the assumption that the labor market exists in a free market, supply and demand environment. This is not the case. </span></span> </blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">The buying power of companies is disproportionate to the selling power of labor, particularly in an environment where there are few if any legal barriers to exporting jobs overseas. Rather than taxes affecting labor, oligopoly control of the labor market is the chief determinant. Companies keep a comfortable (to them) level of unemployment in order to convince labor that it should be grateful to have a job and therefore willing to accept a lower wage.</span></span> </blockquote><blockquote style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: black;">The correlation between taxes and wages, because of the invalid free market assumption, may be no more valid than the correlation of sun spot activity and the level of the stock market which held for quite a number of years. Just because things happen together does not mean they are related in a cause and effect relationship."</span></span></blockquote><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">If I read this right, Jack asserts that because of the overwhelming dominance of business in our economy, there isn't a meaningful marketplace for labor in the US in which supply and demand forces interact to then respond to changes in tax policy, which is the basis of Hartmann's argument on raising taxes.</span><span style="font-size: small;"> The ability of companies to outsource labor takes away any bargaining power labor may have, even in response to pressure to get paid more if taxes were raised.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: black; font-size: small;"> </span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.truth-out.org/roll-back-reagan-tax-cuts65332">Hartmann argues</a> that there is a marketplace for labor that influences wages, and he doesn't hedge it in the context of international labor competition or decreased unionism, as I did previously:</span></span></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">As economist David Ricardo pointed out in 1817 in the “On Wages” chapter of his book <i>On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation</i>, take-home pay is also generally what a person will work for. Employers know this: Ricardo’s “Iron Law of Wages” is rooted in the notion that there is a “market” for labor, driven in part by supply and demand.</span><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span></span></span></blockquote><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">He continues with the points that I summarized in my original post on this topic, that if taxes are raised and they take a bigger bite of the paycheck, the worker will seek a raise, or possibly change jobs. The wage data support some relationship between taxation and wages in that within a year or two of tax increases, wages do start to increase. </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">But what is the mechanism for this and will it work in today's job market as described by Jack?</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Is there a way these supply and demand forces can work today, or must we wait for some other economic conditions to re-emerge before raising taxes could have any wage-raising effect like may have happened in the past?</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We can consider a few basic things about the labor market:</span></span></span><br />
<ol><li><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If there was no demand for labor, then there would be 100% unemployment. We are seeing a statistical <a href="http://www.bls.gov/">9.4% rate</a> with a much higher actual rate when those who've given up looking are figured in. Yet even with those dismal numbers, some people can find jobs. Some employers are looking for help, or at least keeping their help. There is some domestic demand for labor now, even in the Great Recession.<br />
</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">If there was no significant demand for labor, anyone who was even employed at all would be paid the federal minimum wage only and not much more. We do, however, see many workers paid more than minimum wage. They have better education, more specialized skills. So for some workers at least, there must be some domestic demand.<br />
</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Some jobs can't be outsourced. Most jobs in the US today are in the service sector. If you want to sell someone shoes in Boston, they could buy them online and take the chance they don't fit, or they could go to a local store, try them on and make sure they fit. That local store will need someone at least present to manage it and so a job that won't be outsourced to another nation. </span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The Bureau of Labor Statistics says this <a href="http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/1999/Nov/wk5/art05.htm">sector is where most domestic job growth</a> will come, suggesting continued demand for service labor here in the US.</span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">There is more demand for some workers than for others. Those with scarce skills, such as <a href="http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/careers/employment_trends/computer_science_careers.asp">computer scientists</a>, are needed badly in the US. We have to recruit from other countries to find enough to fill the available openings in the US.<br />
</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">So, if income taxes were raised on US computer scientists and this caused them to seek better paying jobs to offset the bigger share of taxes, wage inflation would appear in that part of the labor market. So I would assert that even today, wage inflation could occur and then lead to wage increases, at least for portions of the labor market where there is enough demand.<br />
</span></span></span></li>
</ol><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We could reasonably say then that wage inflation could occur even in today's domestic labor market for at least in-demand workers, but is the labor market so bad now that upward pressure from higher taxation would not lead to offsetting wage increases in general? Would higher taxes only lead to wage increases for in-demand job sectors and just squeeze everyone else more? </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>Consider this economic mechanism: </b>Could higher taxes for all lead to wage inflation for in-demand workers, who would then spend more and so generally <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/businesses-do-not-create-jobs65095">increase consumer demand</a> and then increase the need for more workers in less in-demand sectors and then hiring/job changing </span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">would follow in those sectors </span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">leading to across the board wage increases? (Real trickle-down economics..?)</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Perhaps this is the mechanism through which "Ricardo's Iron Law" functions and which also explains the lag in raising wages after a rise in taxation. In-demand labor gets raises first, then their <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/businesses-do-not-create-jobs65095">consumer demand rises</a> (these middle-class workers spend their raises vs the wealthy who save income increases, <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/roll-back-reagan-tax-cuts65332">see Hartmann's article</a>) and consumer demand rises, hiring/job changing increases, demand for labor goes up and then wages rise, even for less in-demand workers.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We know from the economy we see before us that lowering taxes does not raise wages or create consumer demand, nor create incentive to invest in jobs by the investor class, or automatically create jobs. Faced with this ongoing realty, vs "common sense" assumptions about tax reduction and prosperity that are not holding up, I think that eventually more people will become willing to give </span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">progressively </span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">raising taxes a chance, to see what happens. </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I would not be surprised if it leads to wage growth and increased demand. It would lead to less wealth for the rich, so they would oppose it (and continue to do everything they can to make sure no one even considers this idea) but if enough people are willing to risk it, we could see all of; better incomes for working people, better funding of good government, such as public schools and colleges, a reduced budget deficit and a reduced national debt as well. </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We would have a better America for everyone, including the rich.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What matters most for me is having hope for seeing improvement in the quality of life for my kids in the future USA. This is what I think our current leaders are frittering away with their tax cutting, gutting of reasonable and needed government and endless war spending.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What do you think kind reader? </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Send comments to jtcorey(at)gmail.com, or comment below.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- U.</span></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-83567544976174573132011-01-17T08:51:00.037-05:002011-01-18T20:52:45.445-05:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">How do supply and demand for labor cause wages to rise if taxes are raised?</span><br />
<br />
Jack Silvia wrote:<br />
<blockquote>"When taxes are raised, increases in wages soon follow because of the interaction of supply and demand for labor."<br />
<br />
You need to elaborate on this. How does an increase in taxes raise the demand for labor? Conservatives argue that raising taxes, particularly on the investment class, reduces the demand for labor. What is your argument against this position?</blockquote>======================================================<b><br />
</b><br />
After writing a long response, I realized it should have been shorter, so here's the meat and potatoes to start and the full course to follow. I'll try to be more succinct in the future... - U.<br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>Short answer excerpt:</b><br />
Regarding the conservative view that higher taxes reduce demand for labor we can see from current economic conditions that lower taxes do not cause the wealthy to add employees to their companies and create jobs. There are trillions of dollars on profits sitting in business bank accounts with no incentive to hire more employees. Large corporations have had a banner last year or two, but it isn't leading to hiring.<br />
<br />
Writer <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/businesses-do-not-create-jobs65095">Dave Johnson suggests</a> that we focus on improving demand rather than expecting tax cuts to cause companies to create jobs. It's the other way around. Demand causes companies to add jobs:<br />
<b></b><br />
<blockquote><b>Businesses Want To Kill Jobs, Not Create Them</b><br />
Many people wrongly think that businesses create jobs. They see that a job is usually at a business, so they think that therefore the business "created" the job. This thinking leads to wrongheaded ideas like the current one that giving tax cuts to businesses will create jobs, because the businesses will have more money. But an efficiently-run business will already have the right number of employees. When a business sees that more people are coming in the door (demand) than there are employees to serve them, they hire people to serve the customers. When a business sees that not enough people are coming in the door and employees are sitting around reading the newspaper, they lay people off. <b>Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Businesses have more incentives to eliminate jobs than to create them.</b> Businesses in our economy exist to create profits, not jobs. This means the incentive is for a business to create as few jobs as possible at the lowest possible cost. They also constantly strive to reduce the number of people they employ by bringing in machines, outsourcing or finding other ways to reduce the payroll. This is called "cutting costs" which leads to higher profits. The same incentive also pushes the business to pay as little as possible when they do hire. (It also pushes businesses to cut worker safety protections, cut product quality, cut customer service, "externalize" costs by polluting, etc.)</blockquote>Again, there is pressure to cut wages to increase profits, but if a company can't get workers, except at a higher cost due to the level of taxation (Hartmann's argument), they will have to pay more and so workers will have more to spend and the demand will develop, creating more jobs in a positive cycle, like we had during more prosperous times, when taxes were higher.<br />
<br />
==================================================== <br />
<br />
<b>Here's the long version. :)</b><br />
<a href="http://www.truth-out.org/roll-back-reagan-tax-cuts65332">Hartmann describes this process</a> as employers learning what employees will accept as pay in the labor market given whatever the current level of taxation is, otherwise they lose labor to other employers. If a total salary was $75,000 with an income tax of $18,000, the take-home pay is $57,000. If an employee stays with this arrangement, then the employer has an idea of what the current market is for that labor. If income taxes are raised, the take-home salary might decrease to $52,000 and the first effect is for the employee to feel the pinch. Throughout a population of workers, this will have the effect of them looking for other work that pays more, to offset the increased taxes and increase their take-home back to what it was. Over time with all labor acting in this way to some degree, upward pressure on wages develops.<br />
<br />
Hartmann refers to Alan Greenspan calling this "wage inflation." From a Wall Street point of view, a very bad thing, labor costing more. From a labor point of view these higher wages as taxes are increased are a good thing. As wages increase, a new equilibrium develops in the economy where working people have more money in their pockets to spend and this stimulates the economy where "trickle-down" economics does not.<br />
<br />
Conversely, as taxes are lowered, the initial take-home pay would initially be more, but then an employee might might accept a pay cut because they are still taking home enough to pay for their expenses. But this starts downward pressure on wages to reduce the cost of labor resulting in lower wages and less disposable income for working people over time. Higher taxes put upward pressure on wages. Lower taxes reduce that upward pressure and so wages start to drop.<br />
<br />
Hartmann's article describes that historically the data support that when taxes are raised, wages rise, as taxes are cut, wages begin to fall. Taxes and wages apparently find an equilibrium at whatever level taxes are at. At one equilibrium, workers have more money to spend compared to costs, such as housing. At another taxation equilibrium, workers have to borrow to keep up the middle class lifestyle and this is the pattern we have seen in the last few decades.<br />
<br />
Hartman is trying to uncover the specific economic process that has helped to lower or stagnate wages in the US labor market since the 1980s. I didn't have room to discuss this in the Op-ed, but I think that tax policy is part of the process, and what Hartmann does not discuss (likely for the same space reasons) is how American labor is also now competing with lower cost labor overseas and how unions have been weakened during this time as well, reducing upward pressure on wages in general. So together, tax policy, international competition and decreased unionism contribute to stagnant wages. Raising taxes would help toward raising wages, based on Hartmann's argument, even given the other factors, like international labor competition.<br />
<br />
Regarding the conservative view that higher taxes reduce demand for labor we can see from current economic conditions that lower taxes do not cause the wealthy to add employees to their companies and create jobs. There are trillions of dollars on profits sitting in business bank accounts with no incentive to hire more employees. Large corporations have had a banner last year or two, but it isn't leading to hiring.<br />
<br />
Writer <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/businesses-do-not-create-jobs65095">Dave Johnson suggests</a> that we focus on improving demand rather than expecting tax cuts to cause companies to create jobs. It's the other way around. Demand causes companies to add jobs:<br />
<b></b><br />
<blockquote><b>Businesses Want To Kill Jobs, Not Create Them</b><br />
Many people wrongly think that businesses create jobs. They see that a job is usually at a business, so they think that therefore the business "created" the job. This thinking leads to wrongheaded ideas like the current one that giving tax cuts to businesses will create jobs, because the businesses will have more money. But an efficiently-run business will already have the right number of employees. When a business sees that more people are coming in the door (demand) than there are employees to serve them, they hire people to serve the customers. When a business sees that not enough people are coming in the door and employees are sitting around reading the newspaper, they lay people off. <b>Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Businesses have more incentives to eliminate jobs than to create them.</b> Businesses in our economy exist to create profits, not jobs. This means the incentive is for a business to create as few jobs as possible at the lowest possible cost. They also constantly strive to reduce the number of people they employ by bringing in machines, outsourcing or finding other ways to reduce the payroll. This is called "cutting costs" which leads to higher profits. The same incentive also pushes the business to pay as little as possible when they do hire. (It also pushes businesses to cut worker safety protections, cut product quality, cut customer service, "externalize" costs by polluting, etc.)</blockquote>Again, there is pressure to cut wages to increase profits, but if a company can't get workers, except at a higher cost due to the level of taxation (Hartmann's argument), they will have to pay more and so workers will have more to spend and the demand will develop, creating more jobs in a positive cycle, like we had during more prosperous times, when taxes were higher.<br />
<br />
Another source that suggests that tax policy has negatively impacted working people comes from an article at <a href="http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/01/matt-yglesias">Mother Jones by Kevin Drum.</a><br />
<br />
Drum writes that researchers Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have found that changes in tax policy since 1979 have resulted in less overall wealth for the bottom 80% of wage earners and much greater wealth for the top 20%, especially the top 1%. Here's an interesting graphic:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqTdz_hfGWDX5RR4G0R_2cKZvwaDLEknldkrs2IRE5mkkpF4VtFbceVRS3KSoFlyVafiSR3z-PkMdA7BjOV9wjSD6gLVJ7l6pulPg-Nd2aGyggP8PRtGNX6dO-vRX23XE4XIPa3g/s1600/K_Drum_blog_pierson_inequality_growth_0.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5563161110102884418" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqTdz_hfGWDX5RR4G0R_2cKZvwaDLEknldkrs2IRE5mkkpF4VtFbceVRS3KSoFlyVafiSR3z-PkMdA7BjOV9wjSD6gLVJ7l6pulPg-Nd2aGyggP8PRtGNX6dO-vRX23XE4XIPa3g/s320/K_Drum_blog_pierson_inequality_growth_0.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 158px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 346px;" /></a><br />
<br />
This set of data suggests that if tax policy had been left as it was in 1979, most working people would be better off today and most wealthy people would still be wealthier, but they wouldn't be quite as wealthy. This higher level of taxation would have lifted all the boats. Lowered taxation since the 1980's has resulted in an almost identical transfer of wealth from the bottom 80% of earners to the top 1% based on these data, lifting only the yachts.<br />
<br />
This supports the argument that tax policy impacts how wealth is distributed in an economy. As taxes have been lowered the wealthy have gained significantly while income for working people has stagnated, likely through the process outlined by Hartmann.<br />
<br />
Sociologist William Domhoff has a terrific fact-filled site:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/">http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/</a><br />
<br />
One section is about wealth inequality and this graphic helps illustrate how much the gap between the very wealthy and the rest of us has grown just since 1990, never mind since 1979.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAj95GUOa5hSN6alIWboNzFgN8aUQtLB1JHfHsKjJy_ypK74iADF8gk7byo7QPjy9Xul5thQUlKtMKuBAEYBFZ_sU1KmVg2eW58fGx5Wc7KOorcqdO0Le-lp40DPBYLQTB0k3Ipg/s1600/Domhoff+wage+comparison+over+time+inflation+adjusted+v1.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5563171106953644466" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAj95GUOa5hSN6alIWboNzFgN8aUQtLB1JHfHsKjJy_ypK74iADF8gk7byo7QPjy9Xul5thQUlKtMKuBAEYBFZ_sU1KmVg2eW58fGx5Wc7KOorcqdO0Le-lp40DPBYLQTB0k3Ipg/s320/Domhoff+wage+comparison+over+time+inflation+adjusted+v1.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 273px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 320px;" /></a><br />
We could examine the exact process for a long time, but I think it's fair to say that there is a connection between tax policy and how wealth is distributed. It's why the very wealthy are so concerned about lowering taxes. Lower taxes re-distribute wealth upward. They feel it's more "fair" but the economy slows and becomes dysfunctional for the majority that it is supposed to benefit. Higher (progressive) taxes re-distribute it downward and then demand grows, jobs are created and the economy functions better, for more people. One re-distribution helps build a strong and stable middle class. The other destroys it and creates a less desirable country to live and work in. One functions for just a few. The other functions for everyone.<br />
<br />
If we continue with the current policy, which has for example, some capital gains taxed at a maximum of 15% where working labor is taxed higher (25 to 35%) we have a situation like in pre-revolutionary France where the tax burden was mostly on the Third Estate (working people) and that lead to instability and violent revolution.<br />
<br />
We should be wiser than that, but our leaders haven't shown much wisdom during my lifetime, so we'll need to talk about better ideas and try to get our leaders to listen and change things before the economy and society completely fall apart.<br />
<br />
Keep those messages coming.<br />
<br />
- UniversalUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-88519410570620798732011-01-16T07:19:00.005-05:002011-01-16T08:18:30.402-05:00My good friend, Dr. Jonathan Corey, recently had another Op-Ed piece printed in the Newport Daily News (RI). This time, the topic was taxation. Please read on and send more emails.<br /><br />- Universal<br /><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b>It’s time to end taboo against raising taxes on rich</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">Newport Daily News Op-ed Wednesday, January 12, 2011. Page A7.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">During an era of increased economic productivity, incomes for the middle and working classes have remained relatively flat, while income and wealth for the highest paid have grown almost exponentially. Why aren't economic growth and tax breaks for the wealthy resulting in more widespread prosperity?</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">It's time to speak the taboo. The rich pay too little in taxes. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">A recent article "Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts" by Thom Hartmann, an excerpt from his new book <span class="photosource">"Rebooting the American Dream: 11 Ways to Rebuild Our Country,"</span> is helpful in understanding how wealth inequity in the U.S. has increased, why it is a problem, and how we can save the American middle class. The article can easily be found online via a Google search.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">Hartmann's article reveals key understandings about taxation that we seldom hear about. One is that raising taxes affects the rich differently than the rest of us. The rich are defined by Hartmann as those making over about $400,000 per year (the top one percent of the population, worth about $19.1 trillion, averaging $8.3 million per household, controlling about 33 percent of the total wealth). They have such a surplus that even with a high income tax rate (above 50 percent) their spending stays about the same. With a low tax rate, as we see today, the surplus does not “trickle down” and is often sent to overseas banks or investments, not contributing to improvement of the domestic economy. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">For the rest of us, historical data show that when taxes are cut, wages drop. When taxes are raised, increases in wages soon follow because of the interaction of supply and demand for labor and so the tax cost is eventually offset. Then the higher wages are spent here, stimulating demand, creating jobs, raising the general standard of living and so meeting the needs of the People, as we experienced in the 1950s to 1970s when taxes were much higher. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">Additionally, when taxes are raised, individuals see a closer connection between the cost of government and their taxes and so government actually slows in growth or shrinks, such as during the Clinton Administration. Together, raising taxes and shrinking government helps to balance the Federal Budget. Compare that to the growth of government following the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, where government grew and then borrowed heavily to offset lost tax revenues, creating the multi-trillion-dollar national debt we face today.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">There are more reasons to raise taxes on the wealthy. Wealth inequality is normal, but at some point, it becomes dysfunctional for any society or economy. For example, when a relatively small number of people control too much of the total wealth in an economy, their participation in markets skews them, and the principles that drive markets cease to function because too few people are making buying and selling decisions where many more people should be. This leads to speculation, market bubbles, collapse and economic instability. With excessive inequity the impoverished remainder of the population doesn't control enough of the income to spend on consumer goods to keep demand up and create jobs. It's the downward cycle we are experiencing now. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">Current tax policy is re-creating a monied aristocracy that our Founding Fathers were wary of, for good reason. They pursue a self-serving agenda not conducive to the greater good. Today we’re seeing pressure to cut wages and pensions, cut spending on unemployment insurance, Medicare and Social Security, and to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for average Americans, while it’s unseemly to even suggest that the wealthy also sacrifice by paying their share as they easily did in the past.<br /><br />At some point, wealth inequality must be restrained for the greater good. To make an extreme example, imagine if Bill Gates had all the money in the economy and the rest of us were left to fight over the last dollar. In such a situation, we would likely agree that something should be done. So the question is, at what point between where we are now and further inequality do we as citizens in a society reasonably decide that too much wealth inequality exists and that it's time to reduce it to bring the economy back into a functional realm that meets the needs of the People? </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">We must progressively raise income taxes to a reasonable level to raise wages, reduce the counterproductive impact of wealth inequity, balance the Federal Budget, and restore funding for infrastructure, education and other necessary elements of widespread prosperity that good government fosters. This will get our economy functioning again for more than just the wealthy.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">--------------------------------</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">Jonathan Corey has a doctoral degree in behavioral science from the University of Rhode Island. He is an instructor of sociology at Bristol Community College. His research interests include, among other topics, the Psychology of Peace and Conflict.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-88576160720157632732011-01-02T08:56:00.002-05:002011-01-02T09:00:50.676-05:00<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">My good friend, Jonathan Corey, encouraged me to re-start this blog, so I'm starting off by posting an Op-Ed piece he had published in the Newport Daily News in Early September, 2010.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Please send letters and comments.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">- Universal</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">=============================================================<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Published in Newport Daily News Editorial Page September, 2010<br /></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The study of the Psychology of Peace and Conflict can provide a useful vocabulary to help us better understand how individuals and leaders think about conflict and reconciliation as well as provide insight into why some individuals and groups respond to conflict differently than others. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">One key term for understanding how individuals respond in conflict and reconciliation situations is “bias” which is displaying attitudes for or against something. Group bias is a particularly important type, because it combines strong individual self-identification with a group with strong negative beliefs about out-group members. For example, an individual might identify himself or herself as a vegetarian and also hold negative views toward meat-eaters. Another person may think that Fords are the only kind of car worth driving and that anyone who drives a Chevy must be deluded. Simple experiments in a classroom can show that even a temporary and mundane group identification, such as thinking that one belongs to a group who over-estimates dots on a screen as opposed to a group who under-estimates the number of dots, will lead to negative attributions from one group toward the other. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Research has also shown that bias makes it easier for groups to support violence toward one another. By contrast, other research has shown that creating conditions in which opposing groups work together toward a common goal can reduce the sense of group bias and negative attribution, and so can reduce the likelihood of violence between the groups. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Type of personality may also impact how individuals respond to events. A personality type called “Powerlessness” can be identified by a brief questionnaire and those who are strong in this personality type tend to think that they cannot affect social and governmental problems. Interestingly, this personality type then frequently tends to become involved in activism of various kinds such as involvement in protests.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Another personality type, called “Right-wing authoritarianism” (RWA), was first outlined in 1950 by Theodor Adorno and later by Robert Altemeyer. This personality type can be identified using a questionnaire with items like: “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important values children should learn.” Respondents rate their agreement or disagreement on a numeric scale. The key characteristics of RWA are submission to authority, conventional thinking, and support for authoritarian aggression. The RWA scale has been tested many times and has been found to be very reliable. It is interesting to note that investigators have not been able to find a "Left-wing Authoritarianism" personality type.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">High RWA individuals seem to submit to authority figures that may be identified as another personality type known as “Social Dominance Orientation” (SDO). Individuals with this personality type, also identified by a simple questionnaire, feel that they should lead others and that their particular group should dominate others.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Altemeyer once ran a “quasi” experiment in which he had students take part in an international relations simulation game conducted over three evenings at a college campus. He first had many students take the RWA and SDO surveys and then purposefully selected mostly low RWA students to play one night, then some high RWA students played also another night and then some high SDO students were also included the third night. He found that the mostly low RWA group made modest progress toward reducing conflict and improving living conditions globally. The game with the high RWA students resulted in higher levels of international conflict. The night with the high SDO students would have resulted in global nuclear war if the game had not run out of time. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This is far from an exhaustive review of relevant terms, and there is much more research available on these and related topics than can be discussed here. How citizens and leaders think and act about justice, peace and conflict should be influenced in part by knowledge of psychological concepts including group bias and personality types as part of understanding how we tend to think and act on the individual and group levels. From this we can also better understand our responses to events on the national or international levels.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Decisions about who leads us, and about the policies leaders devise and execute, should be informed by research about study of the Psychology of Peace and Conflict. This knowledge about our own thinking will make a difference over time in our national responses to conflict so that we may again have some hope for a future that includes periods of real peace with prosperity, periods that have become increasing rare for the United States in the past century, even until today. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> ============================================================</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1175810326236292462007-04-05T17:55:00.000-04:002007-04-05T18:05:19.786-04:00<pre style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Value in Valuing a Significant Middle Class</span><br /><br /><br />The difference between the so-called "First World" and the</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">so-called "Second and Third Worlds" can be summed up by the presence or</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">absence of a significant middle class.</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;"><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">These ordinal terms are specious to begin with, and perhaps</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">"industrialized" or "developing" worlds may be better terms to use, but</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">if we look at the US as a "first world" nation, we can observe a</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">relatively stable social and economic structure being in place. Rioting</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">over basic needs such as food, jobs or basic social justice happens from</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">time to time but we could view those kinds of occurrences as highly</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">unique. We have poverty, but it is currently experienced among a</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">minority of individuals representing all ethnic groups in some quantity.</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;"><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">If we take this very simplistic description as a snapshot of the current</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">status of the US, we could point to the larger number of people who</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">don't fall into the categories of either extreme wealth or poverty as</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">"middle class" and note that this large segment of the American</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">population focuses much energy and time on concerns such as gaining and</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">advancing in employment and housing, gaining access to education and</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">having some access to recreation and religion if desired, all with the</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">expectation of personal safety and potential social or economic</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">advancement. Such benign activity is what people around the world dream</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">of as a goal for themselves and their family, to not have to worry about</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">clean water, finding housing, or being able to access education or work.</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;"><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">When elites begin to view this bucolic middle class life as expendable</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">and not needing or deserving of support, (such as when Congress approves</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">laws such as NAFTA which destroy jobs here and also in other nations</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">such as Mexico, driving the illegal immigration problem) they fail to</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">see the stability advantages that a broad middle class brings to a</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">society. As jobs and economic stability are steadily lost, the middle</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">class shrinks and instability eventually increases. Enlightened</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">self-interest should encourage those in power to strive toward a society</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">that values a large middle class as a means to ensure stability for</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">themselves. </pre><pre style="font-family: arial;"><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">Why would some elites see the middle class as expendable? Just World</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">thinking and Social Darwinism may help explain. </pre><pre style="font-family: arial;"><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">If enough elites see the world as “just,” that is that “people get what</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">they deserve,” then they may over time influence the development of</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">government and society toward a state in which everyone is “on your</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">own.” This belief, which could be labeled in America as “rugged</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">individualism,” can be expressed through decreased social spending which</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">slowly erodes programs which could help people enter or remain in the</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">middle class.</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;"><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">“I got mine, you get yours.” “Survival of the fittest.” “I am wealthy,</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">therefore I must deserve that. Conversely, you are poor, therefore you</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">must be dumb and lazy, and so since the world is a just place, poverty</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">is what you deserve, and I will not share what I have to seek to undo</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">this inevitable process.” This may be the kind of social darwinist</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">thinking underlying our leaders’ lack of understanding about the</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">benefits of a strong middle class and so their lack of policy support to</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">sustain a strong middle class in America.</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;"><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">Under this social darwinism taxes may go down, but social needs go unmet</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">and some individuals steadily cease to be able to function as “middle</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">class” and so we see annual reports from the government itself reporting</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">millions gradually slipping from middle class status into that of</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">poverty. And as this poverty increases, we will see increased social and</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">economic instability such as nations like Brazil experience with its</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">small upper and middle classes and very large numbers who live in</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">poverty. Already America has some indicators of degrading public health,</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">such as infant mortality rates at about what some “third world” nations</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">experience.</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;"><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">What we should be doing is valuing what a middle class does for society</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">and seeking to grow it, rather than sacrificing it on the alter of</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">globalism. At the same time we should be seeking to grow middle classes</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">worldwide through fair trade and support of improved educational systems</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">globally. Instead, our nation focuses on ongoing war and defense</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">spending. Resources are wasted, and the elites pursuing these policies</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">are self-satisfied because “the world is a just place, and I must</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">deserve this power that I have, and those who are poor must deserve it…”</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;"><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">We have the ability to do better and I think we need to get an</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">understanding of this concern across to our nation, especially those at</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">the top who, whether we like the idea or not, have the power to</pre><pre style="font-family: arial;">influence these trends.</pre><span style="font-family:arial;"> </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1144703266073249542006-04-10T18:55:00.000-04:002006-04-10T17:11:50.816-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ending a Century of US Imperialism</span><br /></div><br />I am sure that some readers might see me as coming across as some kind of liberal softy on the issues, but I am trying to be rational and am seeking to identify the most <i>widely beneficial</i> paths, among numerous imperfect options, to deal with the issues we face.<br /><br />Our leaders in contrast take the path of what will most <i>immediately and directly benefit US policy</i> (and create profit for connected contractors and corporations), and negative effects upon those it actually affects are minimized and ignored. Their approach often literally leaves a "scorched Earth" in its wake. Iraq is only the latest example of this deadly style of decision making. (See also Haiti, the <a style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War">Philippines</a><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);">.</span>..)<br /><br />Reading this article below by retired Lt. General Greg Newbold of the US Marine Corps, I guess my point of view on this war at this point is not so far off from what others think. But for different reasons.<br /><br />The policies of this (and previous administrations) are contrary to our American and human values. Unlike this author, who blames our failures in Iraq on policy and strategy at the top, I criticize our leaders actions because the violent options they choose to follow are <u>unable</u> to create the peaceful outcomes they claim to be seeking.<br /><br />No matter the strategic choices made, this effort cannot succeed because it is unjust and it is unjust because it is violent.<br /><br />For this to succeed, we must be willing to do as the ancient Assyrians, Egyptians, Israelites, Greeks and Romans of the ancient world did. We would have to slay every able bodied man and boy, impale them on stakes for the world to see, pile up their skulls by the city gates and sell their women and children into slavery. That is how conquest worked in the ancient world, absolute terror and domination. Peace and justice were not valued. These ideas hardly existed at all. The ends (domination) matched the means (war).<br /><br />The idea of military domination cannot work long-term in the modern post enlightenment world.<br /><br />Because our modern means (war and violence) do not match our modern ends (peace, justice and <i>real</i> security), we cannot achieve the ends, and so because our leaders constantly choose violence, peace and justice is constantly pushed further away. This is not because peace and justice is unrealistic, it is because we keep allowing our leaders to fool us into thinking their choice, violence, makes sense.<br /><br />We need to wake up.<br /><br />Our modern version of conquest is a "cleaned up conquest" which cannot work, and since the ancient form is obviously evil, our logical enlightened course is to create a system of international relations based on law and not the raw power of state monopolized violence. This is why applying principles of nonviolence is crucial to re-inventing how we conduct international relations, now.<br /><br />The author below was on the inside. He knows what happened to bring this war about because he was there. This isn't some liberal guess based on media accounts. Yet it's too bad Newbold still thinks that throwing more good violence after bad makes sense. The cycle must stop.<br /><br />From the very beginning, I said we were being fooled, and some people thought I was way off. The passage of time is showing that to be suspicious of our leaders was, and still is, the wise position to take if you don't want to be fooled... again.<br /><br />Universal<br /><br />ps. Check the link on the<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War"> </a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War">Philippines</a>. There are many similarities between that war between Filipinos and the US from 1899 - 1902 and the current one in Iraq. There are invasions, scorching of whole towns, torture, manipulation of the press, scapegoating of low level soldiers. It's amazing how many parallels there are between that first war in which the US extended its power outward and the current one in which we are engaged today as we seek to extend the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century">American Century</a>."<br /><hr /><b>Why I Think Rumsfeld Must Go --<br /></b>by Greg Newbold (Lt. Gen., USMC, Ret.)<br /><a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1181587,00.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1181587,00.html</a><br /><br /><br />A military insider sounds off against the war and the "zealots" who pushed it<br /><br />"I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough ..."<br /><br />Two senior military officers are known to have challenged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the planning of the Iraq war. US Army General Eric Shinseki publicly dissented, and found himself marginalized. Lieutenant General Greg Newbold of the United States Marines, the Pentagon's top operations officer, voiced his objections internally and then retired, in part out of opposition to the war. Here, for the first time, Newbold goes public with a full-throated critique:<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"> Sunday, April 9, 2006 </span>-- In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam.<br /><br />Yet to those of us who were truly counterculture -- who became career members of the military during those rough times -- the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of, and casual about, war lead us into another one, and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement.<br /><br />It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again.<br /><br />From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness, and therefore a party, to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq -- an unnecessary war.<br /><br />Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable.<br /><br />I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat -- al-Qaeda.<br /><br />I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public.<br /><br />I've been silent long enough.<br /><br />I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning from this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood.<br /><br />The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and military leaders to get our defense policy right. <span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> They must be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice.</span><br /><br /></span>With the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership, I offer a challenge to those still in uniform: a leader's responsibility is to give voice to those who can't -- or don't have the opportunity to -- speak.<br /><br />Enlisted members of the armed forces swear their oath to those appointed over them; an officer swears an oath not to a person but to the Constitution. The distinction is important.<br /><br />Before the antiwar banners start to unfurl, however, let me make clear -- I am not opposed to war. I would gladly have traded my general's stars for a captain's bars to lead our troops into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda.<br /><br />And while I don't accept the stated rationale for invading Iraq, my view -- at the moment -- is that a precipitous withdrawal would be a mistake. It would send a signal, heard around the world, that would reinforce the jihadists' message that America can be defeated, and thus increase the chances of future conflicts.<br /><br />If, however, the Iraqis prove unable to govern, and there is open civil war, then I am prepared to change my position.<br /><br />I will admit my own prejudice: my deep affection and respect are for those who volunteer to serve our nation and therefore shoulder, in those thin ranks, the nation's most sacred obligation of citizenship.<br /><br />To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage.</span> It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting.<br /><br />The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. </span>Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results.</span><br /><br /></span>Flaws in our civilians are one thing; the failure of the Pentagon's military leaders is quite another. Those are men who know the hard consequences of war but, with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard.<br /><br />When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. A few of the most senior officers actually supported the logic for war. Others were simply intimidated, while still others must have believed that the principle of obedience does not allow for respectful dissent.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The consequence of the military's quiescence was that </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">a fundamentally flawed plan</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">(for different reasons than this author considers - U.)</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort.</span><br /><br />There have been exceptions, albeit uncommon, to the rule of silence among military leaders. Former Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki, when challenged to offer his professional opinion during prewar congressional testimony, suggested that more troops might be needed for the invasion's aftermath. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense castigated him in public, and marginalized him in his remaining months in his post. Army General John Abizaid, head of Central Command, has been forceful in his views with appointed officials on strategy and micromanagement of the fight in Iraq -- often with success. Marine Commandant General Mike Hagee steadfastly challenged plans to underfund, understaff and underequip his service as the Corps has struggled to sustain its fighting capability.<br /><br />To be sure, the Bush Administration and senior military officials are not alone in their culpability. Members of Congress -- from both parties -- defaulted in fulfilling their constitutional responsibility for oversight. <span style="color: rgb(0, 128, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Many in the media saw the warning signs, and heard cautionary tales before the invasion, from wise observers like former Central Command chiefs Joe Hoar and Tony Zinni, but gave insufficient weight to their views. These are the same news organizations that now downplay both the heroic and the constructive in Iraq.</span><br /><br /></span>So what is to be done? We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them.<br /><br />It is time to send a signal to our nation, our forces and the world that we are uncompromising on our security, but are prepared to rethink how we achieve it. It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly.<br /><br />And that we won't be fooled again.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1134243282580740092005-12-10T13:16:00.000-05:002005-12-10T14:39:59.313-05:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Nobel Peace Prize Winner ElBaradei agrees with Envision Something Better posting from August 2005.</span><br /></div><br />In a New York Times article set for publication on December 11, 2005, International Atomic Energy Agency General Director Mohamed ElBaradei calls for a new strategy for reducing the threat of nuclear war in general, and the threat posed by Iran specifically. In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, ElBaradei describes "feelings of insecurity and humiliation" as being at the root of why nations turn to nuclear weaponry. This is a common sense understanding, that our leaders ignore, but explains not only other nations' interest in nuclear arms, but our own as well.<br /><br />Repeat readers may recall a posting of mine from August 10 of this year, "Is Iran the Next US Target?" <a href="http://envision-something-better.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_envision-something-better_archive.html">Link to Posting here</a>. I wrote about how to reduce the nuclear threat posed by Iran last August. Here's a quote:<br /><blockquote>"Fear of the US and Israel is why Iran is seeking nukes. Instead of treating Iran as part of an "axis of evil" we should be trying to work with them to help them feel safe. What to do? We should leave Iraq, including all "enduring bases." If we meant to free Iraq, then do so now. Our presence there is perceived as a threat by Iran. The US should begin treating both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian issue with equality. This will send a positive message to the region and reduce tension for all, including Israel. The US should stop its current efforts to develop "<a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=tactical+nuclear+weapons&btnG=Search+News">tactical</a><a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=tactical+nuclear+weapons&btnG=Search+News"> nuclear weapons</a>" and re-commit to <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8&q=non-proliferation&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web">non-proliferation</a> for all, not just those the US doesn't favor. The US should reach out to Iran diplomatically and with exchange of citizens to seek the fostering of a positive relationship with that nation so that it doesn't feel threatened and doesn't feel the need to develop nukes."</blockquote>ElBaradei apparently agrees with my view that it is mistrust and fear which leads to proliferation. Though he does not draw the connection in his speech, I think it is clear that mistrust is also a cause of terrorism; therefore it is imperative that policies which create mistrust be examined and modified. This must be recognized as reasonable and necessary to actually achieving the goal of reducing the terror threat and increasing just conditions worldwide.<br /><br />Elbaradei's speech mentions that "we cannot respond to these threats by building more walls, developing bigger weapons or dispatching more troops,...these threats require primarily multinational cooperation." This too coincides with <a href="http://rco-outline.blogspot.com/">my calls for cooperation</a> as a better response to the threat we face, rather than responding with war as US leaders and our allies continually do.<br /><br />It is apparent from reading ElBaradei's speech that there is a latent understanding out there of the necessity of emphasizing principles like <a href="http://rco-outline.blogspot.com/">restraint, cooperation, and outreach</a> as a response to the threats we face, rather than continuing to believe in the possibility that an endless "war on terror" can actually bring about a positive future worth striving for. War has not achieved lasting positive outcomes as of yet before or since 9-11, and there appears to be little evidence that is will do so at any point in the future.<br /><br />We need new ways of understanding international relations. We must begin seeking win-win solutions to conflicts rather than continuing with the win-lose, zero-sum, expectations our leaders ascribe to which continually push them to war as a response. ElBaradei seems to agree with this view, as his suggestions point toward restraint, cooperation and outreach among nations and cultures.<br /><br />This is what I have been calling for, like a lone voice in the Blog wilderness.<br /><br />Read ElBaradei's speech and think about how we can do a better job of preventing and decreasing conflict. Don't just accept endless war without considering the possibility that other options exist. They do, but our leaders do not consider them or speak of them. They are not interested in non-war responses.<br /><br />We must begin to see these new options and expect our leaders to enact them. If our current leaders and political parties will not, then new leadership and new political parties which will be open to constructive and realistic possibilities must replace those who ignorantly, and stubbornly, lead us today.<br /><br /><a href="mailto:universal-ideas@excite.com">Let me know your thoughts.</a><br /><br />Universal<br /><br /><h1> <span style="font-size:100%;"><nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" "> ElBaradei Calls for Nuclear Arms Cuts </nyt_headline></span> </h1><nyt_byline version="1.0" type=" "></nyt_byline>By WALTER GIBBS <div class="timestamp">Published: December 11, 2005<br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/international/europe/11oslo.html?ei=5094&en=cfaa7a7bdb86d496&amp;amp;amp;hp=&ex=1134277200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1134238503-K1qlyPmlE+i0BHnANxqjpA">URL Here</a><br /></div> <!--NYT_INLINE_IMAGE_POSITION1 --> <nyt_text> </nyt_text><p>OSLO, Dec. 10 - The world should stop treating the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea as isolated cases and instead deal with them in a common effort to eliminate poverty, organized crime and armed conflict, the director general of the United Nations' nuclear monitoring agency said Saturday in accepting the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize.</p> <div id="articleInline"> <div id="inlineBox"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/12/10/international/10nobel184.1.jpg" alt="" border="0" height="265" width="184" /> <div class="image"><div class="credit">Pool photo by Jarl Fr. Erichsen</div> <p class="caption"> Mohamed ElBaradei signing the Nobel ledger Friday in Oslo. </p> </div> </div> </div><a name="secondParagraph"></a> <p>The director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, said a "good start" would be for the United States and other nuclear powers to cut nuclear weapon stockpiles sharply and redirect spending toward international development.</p><p>"More than 15 years after the end of the cold war, it is incomprehensible to many that the major nuclear weapon states operate with their arsenals on hair-trigger alert," Dr. ElBaradei, 63, said.</p><p> Despite some disarmament, he continued, the existence of 27,000 nuclear warheads in various hands around the world still hold the prospect of "the devastation of entire nations in a matter of minutes."</p><p>Feelings of insecurity and humiliation, exaggerated by today's nuclear imbalance, are behind the spread of bomb-development programs at the national level, said Dr. ElBaradei, who has headed the International Atomic Energy Agency since 1997. No less dangerous, he added, are the presumed efforts of extremist groups to acquire nuclear materials. With goods, ideas and people moving more freely than ever, the containment of nuclear technology must be part of a broad global effort, he said.</p><p>"We cannot respond to these threats by building more walls, developing bigger weapons or dispatching more troops," he said. "These threats require primarily multinational cooperation." Dr. ElBaradei said the manufacture and sale of nuclear fuel for power generation, which can also be enriched to make bombs, should be placed under multinational control, with his agency operating as a "reserve fuel bank" for accredited nations. </p><p>The Norwegian Nobel Committee divided the 2005 award between Dr. ElBaradei and the atomic energy agency as a whole. Dr. ElBaradei and Yukiya Amano, the agency's board chairman, were awarded diplomas and medals in a colorful ceremony before more than 1,000 dignitaries at Oslo City Hall.</p><p>The committee chairman, Ole Danbolt Mjos, lauded Dr. ElBaradei and his agency for resisting "heavy pressure" in 2003 to fall in line with an American contention that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program despite the failure of the agency's inspectors to find hard evidence. "As the world could see after the war in Iraq, the weapons that were not found proved not to have existed," Mr. Mjos said.</p><p>In what appeared to be an allusion to that episode, Dr. ElBaradei said: "Armed with the strength of our convictions, we will continue to speak truth to power, and we will continue to carry out our mandate with independence and objectivity."</p><p>For the Nobel committee, this year's choice of winners was a return to basics after last year's untraditional award to Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan environmentalist whose tree-planting campaigns are only tangentially related to war and peace. When Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist who helped develop dynamite, died in 1897, he left money in his will to honor someone each year "who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."</p><p>Dr. ElBaradei and the agency will split this year's prize money of 10 million Swedish kroner (about $1.3 million) and have promised their shares to charitable causes.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1131577142432617022005-11-09T17:57:00.000-05:002005-11-09T18:10:47.656-05:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Nonviolent "People Power" can provide a means to achieve lasting and positive social and political change, and is needed <span style="font-style: italic;">now</span> when there is a real leadership vacuum in the US Federal Government</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"></span></div> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br />Below is a great article by Jonathan Schell at The Nation summing up where we're at now with our national leadership.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As Schell writes, facts are steadily piercing the Bush "Administration's" faith-based reality and the failures and frauds are beginning to be revealed almost daily now. They are coming apart at the seams, but to them it's just business as usual.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">I have the word "Administration" in quotes because Schell here asks, if they aren't really governing, then do we even have a government? (This is illustrated by the lack of a real Federal response to Hurricane Katrina.) So he asks, if it isn't governing, what is it doing? ( </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It wishes to acquire, increase and consolidate the power of the Republican Party, h</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">e writes.)</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Schell writes that this willful ignorance of reality and facts can't be effective "</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">...as long as the system still functions. " </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">To me that's the problem. If Congress won't oversee the Executive Branch as it's supposed to, and the media won't ask the hard questions because they're afraid to, the what is left in the system to make it work? </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The answer is in nonviolent "people-power."</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As people become increasing disillusioned by a government that lies constantly through compliant media, and does nothing to make their lives better, they will become open to the idea of doing something positive for themselves. The American Civil Rights Movement is evidence to Americans and to the world that nonviolence is the best strategy we have to cause change without causing further conflict as occurs with the use of violence. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Look at events in France today. Young ethnic minorities are burning their own schools because of blind rage at the frustration felt by having no jobs, no real equality, and no real options. They obviously don't know about using nonviolence and so they "shoot themselves in the foot" by turning to violence as the Israelis, Palestinians, and our own government have done, for example. They entrap themselves in cyclical violence and they lose the support of others who would have been behind them had they responed nonviolently.<br /><br />Talk such as this sounds like mushy "kumbaya" to most, but that comes from lack of knowledge about what nonviolence really is.<br /></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Rosa Parks was just in the Rotunda in the US capitol after her death. If she had not used nonviolence, and Drs. King and LaFayette had not used it, there would still be segregation in the South and we'd still be experiencing violence such as the French are today. Instead, we have the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, and a changed nation which, far from being racially perfect, largely understands the benefits of integration and of equality of opportunity (even if our leaders do not.)<br /><br />The recent post Nazi parade riots of ethnic youths in Toldeo shows the continuing need for nonviolence education here in the US. We have a long way to go still, but it is clear that a nonviolent response in Toldeo would have been more effective in drawing attention to racial problems there, and the violent response by those youths was <span style="font-style: italic;">exactly</span> the response the Nazis wanted to use - to prove the inferiority of those ethnic youths. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Again, violence is the trap, and nonviolence is the way out.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Nonviolence is clearly superior to violence in achieving lasting social and political change. It is our best hope to save our youth, and re-take America and the World from those who use violence to enrich and empower themselves, as our ruling elite does systemically with war.<br /><br />Nonviolence and "people power" is the way to end the "rule" of those who hold power today, and bring about a new direction for America. It will take ongoing education and training, but hey, what else do we have going on?</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Universal</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Related links:</span><br /><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" href="http://www.uri.edu/nonviolence/" eudora="autourl">http://www.uri.edu/nonviolence/</a><br /><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" href="http://www.thekingcenter.org/" eudora="autourl">http://www.thekingcenter.org/</a><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> (You MUST visit this site) :)</span><br /><hr style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Letter From Ground Zero | posted November 2, 2005 (November 21, 2005 issue) </span><br /><h1 style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Faith and Fraud </b></h1> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Jonathan Schell</span><br /><a style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/schell" eudora="autourl">http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/schell</a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">A factitious picture of the world built up by the Bush Administration over its five years in power is now going to pieces before our eyes. Great jagged spikes of reality, like the crags of the iceberg that ripped open the staterooms of the Titanic, are tearing into it on all sides. The disrespected world of facts, an exacting master, is putting down this governmental insurrection against its ineluctable laws. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The pivot is of course the war in Iraq, which in its origins and conduct was and remains a colossal, blood-drenched fraud. But now a majority of the public has caught on and wants the United States to withdraw. In addition, a special counsel has reached directly into the White House and, for the first time since 1875, indicted an official who works there: </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the Vice President's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, who was trying to suppress the truth about the war by punishing a truth-teller, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">But of course, the Administration's rebellion against the factual world has gone far beyond the war. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The government has been mobilized across the board to erase or deride knowledge of everything from the largest problems now requiring the world's attention-</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">-such as global warming and the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their materials (while the Administration ransacked Iraq in vain for them)--to the comparative minutiae of domestic policy, such as the cost of prescription drugs, the extent of power-plant pollution and malfeasance in the award of Pentagon contracts. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As the fantasy explodes, new aspects of the machinery of falsehood are being brought into view. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The willful, concerted, energetic tenacity of the defense of fiction is notable. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The twenty-two pages of Libby's indictment portray the office of Vice President Cheney skillfully and relentlessly deploying all its resources to protect the single false allegation that Iraq was purchasing uranium in Niger before the war. Cheney and his team worked for weeks to marshal the information and misinformation with which to smear Wilson. Meetings were held to discuss just how to spread the dirt to reporters. A misleading identification ("former Hill staffer") for the designated smearer, Libby, was concocted. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Did the Administration know the truth and lie to others, so that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," as the head of British intelligence put it contemporaneously? Or was it that Bush officials "misled themselves.... And then they misled the world," as the United Nations inspector at the time, Hans Blix, has recently said--in keeping with the old principle of salesmanship that the most persuasive deceiver is a self-deceiver? Or did the Administration, like an overzealous policeman who believes someone is guilty and plants evidence on him to "prove" it, just believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and, combining faith and fraud, fix the facts to fit its belief? Whichever it was, the effort was arduous and protracted. And the same can be said of other assaults on factual truth and its tellers. For hiding the real world, with its powerful capacity to pour forth oceans of new facts every day, is not an inconsiderable task. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Perhaps that's why, in a more recent discovery about the Bush officials,</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> they turn out to have had a minimal interest in actually running things.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Many have noted that the Administration had no plan for running Iraq. But it took the federal response, or lack of one, to Hurricane Katrina to show that the same might be true of the Administration's approach to the United States. In light of this new surmise, other puzzles melt away: a Clear Skies Act that dirties the skies, a Social Security plan to address a financial shortfall that deepened the problem and so forth. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It has turned out that the Republican Party, which has long seen <i>government</i> as "the problem," not "the solution," is uninterested in <i>governing</i>. But if a "government" ceases to govern, can we call it a government? If a "supermarket" sells no food, can we call it a supermarket? We all keep referring to the "Bush Administration," yet administering seems to be the last thing on its mind.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">These disclosures bring a new question to the fore: If the Bush outfit is not governing, what </span><i style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">is</i><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> it doing? The answer comes readily: </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">It wishes to acquire, increase and consolidate the power of the Republican Party.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> At home the GOP is to become a "permanent majority for the future of this country," in the words of former Republican majority leader Tom DeLay, now also indicted, and abroad the country would be the imperial ruler of the globe. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">But if the manufacture of illusion is a shortcut to power, it is a poor long-term strategy in a democracy-</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">-as long as the system still functions. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The dream of the one-power world may have expired in intractable Iraq, but the dream of the one-party state at home is not yet dead. Bush's difficulty is that his chief opposition is not the weak-kneed Democrats, unable to mount effective opposition even to the Iraq War, but the neglected stuff of the real world. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">What is currently "voting" against Bush, you might say, is not so much the bloc of independents or security moms or any of the other slices of the demographic pie that public opinion pollsters examine but the molecules of carbon dioxide heating up the global air, the collapsed water purification system of Iraq, the dollars fleeing our Treasury, the wages emptying out of people's pockets.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The weekend following Libby's indictment, a surprising consensus emerged among outside political observers in both parties: Bush should admit error and hire new counselors who could "talk reality" to him, in the words of Ken Duberstein, a chief of staff to Ronald Reagan. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The White House quickly brushed the advice aside. Through a spokesman, Bush declined the opportunity to admit anything.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> And then, bright and early Monday morning, he nominated right-wing Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, in a trumpet call to rally his right-wing political army. As John Yoo, a right-wing former Bush Administration Justice Department official put it, </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"With this nomination, Bush is saying 'Bring it on!'" </span>No one would talk reality to Bush. He would fight the truth-tellers, and the truth they would tell him, to the end.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1130612252259162602005-10-29T14:50:00.000-04:002005-10-30T10:56:01.980-05:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Could Seeking Win-win Solutions Have Prevented US and UK Leaders of Being Guilty of the War Crime of Making a War of Aggression?</span><br /></div><br />The author of the article that follows, John Pilger, investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker, makes the case that the US and UK have committed the highest of war crimes, the act of causing a war of aggression to achieve geopolitical aims rather than acting in defense. (Germany did this with the Blitzkrieg of Poland, Czechoslovakia etc, at the start of WW2.)<br /><br />As Pilger indicates, under International Law, both the US and UK could be charged and potentially convicted of this. It won't happen, but technically, it's possible.<br /><br />The US used to support the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=International+Crimes+Court&btnG=Search">International Crimes Court</a> (ICC) under Clinton, but Bush has rejected the authority of this body and has waged a "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=campaign+of+impunity+Amnesty+International+icc&btnG=Search">campaign of impunity</a>" to make one-to-one deals with nations to keep our soldiers and CIA agents from being tried in this court. ("If you don't make a deal, we'll stop doing business with your country...") This is part of our recent leaders' pattern of acting to keep the US above any international law.<br /><br />America should stand for Something Better than ignoring international democracy, starting wars, and torturing prisoners.<br /><br />A <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Malcolm+Kendall-Smith+&btnG=Search">RAF</a><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Malcolm+Kendall-Smith+&btnG=Search"> officer </a>will soon be on trial in the UK because he refuses to go back to Iraq because he has determined that the war is illegal under international law. His trial could bring out much evidence of how the war was forced upon the world by leaders who wanted war to achieve specific geo-political ends. (See list below.) If this war wasn't really an act of defense, then it becomes a war crime under international law.<br /><br />So why have US and UK leaders gone to such extremes in regard to Iraq? Why have they risked being labeled in History as war-makers? Why have they been obsessed with taking Iraq?<br /><b><br /></b>Here's my best list (so far) of why this war has happened:<br /><br />Taking control of Iraq: <ul> <li><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=iraq+protect+oil+supplies&btnG=Search">protects 25% of the world's oil supplies</a> from falling into the control of Russia or China, or an Islamic power, and keeps it under US control. Even if we can't actually get much right now because of instability, no one else can either </li><li>the occupation prevents <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Iraq+trading+oil+in+Euros+&btnG=Search">Iraq from trading oil in </a><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Iraq+trading+oil+in+Euros+&btnG=Search">Euros</a><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Iraq+trading+oil+in+Euros+&btnG=Search"> </a>which Saddam was threatening to do, which would have threatened the US dollar value and the US economy, (Iran is now <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=iran+oil+bourse&btnG=Search">setting up an oil exchange</a> to do this, and now we see them in US crosshairs...) </li><li>Iraq provides a place to <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=iraq+enduring+bases&btnG=Search">base US </a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/hl=en&lr=&q=iraq+enduring+bases&btnG=Search">troops</a><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=iraq+enduring+bases&btnG=Search"> permanently</a> to keep expanding military control of the region, (note current events with Syria...) </li><li>the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=iraq+protect+israel&btnG=Search">US presence protects Israel </a>by eliminating a <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=saddam+support+palestinians&btnG=Google+Search">major financial supporter of the </a><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=iraq+enduring+bases&btnG=Search">Palestinians</a><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=saddam+support+palestinians&btnG=Google+Search">, Saddam</a>, and </li><li>provides a means for the US to act against the US and Israel's other regional enemies, such as <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=iran+us+relations+israel&btnG=Search">Iran</a>, and now most imminently, <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&q=syria%20us%20hariri%20UN&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=wn">Syria</a>. </li> </ul>This is mostly about maintaining the US's position as sole world superpower. Check the official US <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html">National Security Strategy</a> to see it in black and white.<br /><br />From this position of unmatched military strength, US leaders feel they they can best protect US interests. The problem is, this US approach costs many thousands of people their lives, and costs many billions of people the chance to live freely and in safety without interference from the US or its allies. War is not the way to "spread Democracy." It is the problem.<br /><br />With these strong geo-political needs pushing them, the US and UK made the war on Iraq happen, not by faking or falsifying, but by <u>filtering</u> facts that they had complete control over (and we citizens had few other sources with which to cross check these top-secret "facts") to make us all think Saddam was a threat (WMD, mushroom clouds etc...)<br /><br />Intelligence findings which supported the argument that Saddam was a threat were <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=iraq+wmd+intelligence+emphasized&btnG=Search">emphasized</a>, that which said he was no threat were <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=iraq+wmd+intelligence+suppressed&btnG=Search">suppressed</a>. In this way our leaders misled us and the world.<br /><br />Emerging documentation, like the "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Downing+Street+Memo&btnG=Search">Downing Street Memo</a>" now underscore this, and the recent "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=CIA+Leak+Case+%22case+for+war%22&btnG=Search">CIA Leak Case</a>" is related to this push for war through the manipulation of intelligence findings. (Joseph Wilson was one of only a <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22scott+ritter%22+%22joseph+wilson%22&btnG=Search">handful of people</a> in the world capable of countering US leaders' arguments for war with facts. That's why they went after him through his wife, CIA Agent Valerie Plame.)<br /><br />Think about it for a moment.<br /><br />If we can believe and accept that our leaders could do "dirty tricks" against Joseph Wilson, and that it is just normal "playing hardball" in Washington, then it's not beyond possibility that they "played hardball" with us too and misled us.<br /><br />We need to stop being either so naive, or so in denial about our leaders.<br /><br />With such a long list of reasons to invade Iraq, it's easy to understand why US leaders were so hell bent on taking Iraq, no matter the <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=cost+of+war+on+terror&btnG=Search">cost in dollars</a> or <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Iraq+civilian+casualties&spell=1">human lives</a>. If they don't use military force, then the worldwide status quo that they control will be threatened. Yet the current <a href="http://www.google.com/search?http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=globalism&btnG=Search">international status quo is unjust and oppressive</a> to billions of humans.<br /><br />We need a positive direction for the US and the World, not endless war.<br /><br />If our nation had a different approach to international relations over the years, we wouldn't be in this situation. Our leaders see challenges in <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=international+relations+%22win-lose%22+&btnG=Search">"win-lose" terms</a> which leads to conflict. Instead, if our leaders sought <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22win-win%22+solutions+nonviolence&btnG=Search">"win-win" solutions</a> to problems, we'd have better relations in the world and we'd have found ways to get beyond our thirst for oil, obsession with military power, etc...<br /><br />Our leaders are responding "normally" from an American perspective. We grow up thinking that violence can solve problems. Sit and watch cartoons on TV, most movies, and most video games, and you'll see conflicts "solved" through violence. The truth is, none of these conflicts are solved. They are just changed. The conflict is supressed for a time untill it appears again in a different form. This is no real solution. We see our leaders responding this same way, but on a much larger and more deadly scale.<br /><br />We need to teach and learn <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=new+ways+of+responding+to+conflict+transformation&btnG=Search">new ways of responding to conflict</a>, so future leaders can do better than our current ones do. We must recognize the trap of violence. We must recognize the self-made trap that the "War on Terror" is. We must decide to do Something Better for ourselves and our children.<br /><br />Universal<br /><hr /> John Pilger's site: <a href="http://www.johnpilger.com/" eudora="autourl">http://www.johnpilger.com</a><br /><br /><b>The Epic Crime That Dares Not Speak Its Name<br /></b>by John Pilger<br /><a href="http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct05/Pilger1027.htm" eudora="autourl">http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Oct05/Pilger1027.htm</a><br /><br />Thursday, October 27, 2005 -- A Royal Air Force officer is about to be tried before a military court for refusing to return to Iraq because the war is illegal.<br /><br />Malcolm Kendall-Smith is the first British officer to face criminal charges for challenging the legality of the invasion and occupation. He is not a conscientious objector; he has completed two tours in Iraq. When he came home the last time, he studied the reasons given for attacking Iraq and concluded he was breaking the law.<br /><br />Kendall-Smith's position is supported by international lawyers all over the world, not least by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, who said in September last year: The US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN Charter.<br /><br />The question of legality deeply concerns the British military brass, which sought Tony Blair's assurance on the eve of the invasion, got it and, as they now know, were lied to. They are right to worry; Britain is a signatory to the treaty that set up the International Criminal Court, which draws its codes from the Geneva Conventions and the 1945 Nuremberg Charter. The latter is clear: To initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.<br /><br />At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, counts one and two, Conspiracy to wage aggressive war and waging aggressive war,refer to the common plan or conspiracy. These are defined in the indictment as the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances. A wealth of evidence is now available that George Bush, Blair and their advisers did just that. The leaked minutes from the infamous Downing Street meeting in July 2002 alone reveal that Blair and his war cabinet knew that it was illegal. The attack that followed, mounted against a defenseless country offering no threat to the US or Britain, has a precedent in Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland; the lies told to justify both are eerily similar.<br /><br />The similarity is also striking in the illegal bombing campaign that preceded both. Unknown to most people in Britain and America, British and US planes conducted a ferocious bombing campaign against Iraq in the ten months prior to the invasion, hoping this would provoke Saddam Hussein into supplying an excuse for an invasion. It failed and killed an unknown number of civilians.<br /><br />At Nuremberg, counts three and four referred to War crimes and crimes against humanity. Here again, there is overwhelming evidence that Blair and Bush committed violations of the laws or customs of warincluding murder ... of civilian populations of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war.<br /><br />Two recent examples: the US onslaught near Ramadi this month in which 39 men, women and children -- all civilians -- were killed, and a report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur in Iraq who described the Anglo-American practice of denying food and water to Iraqi civilians in order to force them to leave their towns and villages as a "flagrant violation" of the Geneva Conventions.<br /><br />In September, Human Rights Watch released an epic study that documents the systematic nature of torture by the Americans, and how casual it is ... even enjoyable. This is a sergeant from the US Army's 82nd Airborne Division: On their day off, people would show up all the time. Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC [prisoners'] tent. In a way, it was sport ... One day a sergeant shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy's leg with a mini Louisville Slugger that was a metal [baseball] bat. He was the fucking cook!<br /><br />The report describes how the people of Fallujah, the scene of numerous American atrocities, regard the 82nd Airborne as the Murdering Maniacs. Reading it, you realize that the occupying force in Iraq is, as the head of Reuters said recently, out of control. It is destroying lives in industrial quantities when compared with the violence of the resistance.<br /><br />Who will be punished for this? According to Sir Michael Jay, the permanent under-secretary of state who gave evidence before the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee on 24 June 2003, Iraq was on the agenda of each cabinet meeting in the nine months or so until the conflict broke out in April. How is it possible that in 20 or more cabinet meetings, ministers did not learn about Blair's conspiracy with Bush? Or, if they did, how is it possible they were so comprehensively deceived?<br /><br />Charles Clarke's position is important because, as the current British Home Secretary (interior minister), he has proposed a series of totalitarian measures that emasculate habeas corpus, which is the barrier between a democracy and a police state. Clarke's proposals pointedly ignore state terrorism and state crime and, by clear implication, say they require no accountability. Great crimes, such as invasion and its horrors, can proceed with impunity.<br /><br />This is lawlessness on a vast scale. Are the people of Britain going to allow this, and those responsible, to escape justice? Flight Lieutenant Kendall-Smith speaks for the rule of law and humanity and deserves our support.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1123707213478599692005-08-10T17:02:00.000-04:002005-08-10T17:07:05.710-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Is Iran the Next US Target?</span> </span><br /><br /></div> <span style="font-style: italic;">Could Western leaders pursue other options? What could they be, and why don't Western leaders seek to prevent or reduce international conflict?</span><br /><br />Here we go again.<br /><br />As they seek to wind things down to a manageable simmer of daily death in the streets of Iraq, the attention of those in power in the US is now turning toward Iran because of their nuclear development, their anti-US and anti-Israel stances and their influence in the region and their closeness to China and Russia. All things that make those in DC quake.<br /><br />Israel may soon bomb <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=isfahan">Isfahan</a>, site of a major Iranian nuclear power plant that can produce materials that can be made into weapons grade material, anyway if we don't do something first. So to protect Israel and to expand its control of the region, the US will do what it did with Iraq, lie to convince Americans that there is an imminent threat to us, then bring things to a crisis point then bomb and/or invade.<br /><br />Here below, Rumsfeld states that they <u>know for certain</u> that bombs in Iraq are from Iran. Remember, they were certain about Iraq WMD too, and that turned out to be false. We should be cautious and suspicious of these people. They have not earned our trust.<br /><br />These conflicts result from the win-lose perspective that those who dominate our culture view all relationships through. Whether in business, society at large, or in international relations, instead of first seeking ways that all sides can be safe and prosperous, challenges are seen as threats and responded to with threats in return.<br /><br />Dominance is the goal, not a better world. This is the problem.<br /><br />For example, China <a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=cnooc&btnG=Search+News">recently sought to buy a US oil company</a> and was rebuffed. They will now go elsewhere, like South America or Asia to get the energy sources they require to fuel their growth. This is a lost opportunity for the US and another event that heightens tension rather than decreases it. Instead, the US could have acted with foresight and wisdom and worked to establish an energy sharing consortium with China, who we need to cooperate with so they will keep buying our debt to keep our economy going (until we get some fiscal sanity once again.) We could have begun working together to find and distribute energy in ways that all sides win. Instead, our leaders sow the seeds of future conflict.<br /><br />Fear of the US and Israel is why Iran is seeking nukes. Instead of treating Iran as part of an "axis of evil" we should be trying to work with them to help them feel safe. What to do? We should leave Iraq, including all "enduring bases." If we meant to free Iraq, then do so now. Our presence there is perceived as a threat by Iran. The US should begin treating both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian issue with equality. This will send a positive message to the region and reduce tension for all, including Israel. The US should stop its current efforts to develop "<a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=tactical+nuclear+weapons&btnG=Search+News">tactical</a><a href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=tactical+nuclear+weapons&btnG=Search+News"> nuclear weapons</a>" and re-commit to <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&q=non-proliferation&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web">non-proliferation</a> for all, not just those the US doesn't favor. The US should reach out to Iran diplomatically and with exchange of citizens to seek the fostering of a positive relationship with that nation so that it doesn't feel threatened and doesn't feel the need to develop nukes.<br /><br />This is how the US could lower the threat without going to war, but our leaders think <a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3224.htm">war is normal</a> and that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik">exercising power is how things get done</a>. It is these beliefs which are basic assumptions which our leaders ascribe to and which support aggressive responses rather than wise responses. We have options, but our leaders are not open to them. Even the so-called "opposition" in the US political system is unable to see such possibilities. They behave is if they are two wings of the same party.<br /><br />Imagine that your perspective is one that assumes war is normal and that war is just "the way it is," then making these boneheaded moves seems logical. Imagine that you own a defense contracting company that makes weapons or other materials of war, then finding a solution that would prevent later conflict with China or Iran would seem bad for business. Now imagine that war is seen as abnormal and considered a failure of leadership. From this perspective the US's shortsighted response to China's need for oil seems foolish and the response we are seeing with Iran looks like ignorant folly.<br /><br />In a similar way, the US and other Western powers need to begin seeing international relations from a fresh perspective, a way that seeks win-win solutions rather than win-lose outcomes as we currently suffer through daily.<br /><br />This is the change in values America must make if it is to survive. If our leaders are not open to these ideas, then we need new leaders. To achieve that, we need informed citizens who understand the benefits of seeking win-win solutions.<br /><br />This rush toward global military dominance and empire is national suicide. We cannot bear the cost physically or financially. The negative effects are not worth the power gained, if it's you or your loved ones who must actually fight the fight in the streets of the Middle East, that is.<br /><br />Keep on the lookout. Here comes another trumped up conflict that is avoidable, but our leaders don't seem much interested in avoiding them. Why should they, they are empowered and enriched through war.<br /><br />Universal<br /><h1><b><span style="font-size:180%;">Rumsfeld: Iraq bombs 'clearly from Iran'</span><br /></b></h1> <h3><span style="font-size:130%;"><b>Tehran denies involvement</b></span></h3> Wednesday, August 10, 2005; Posted: 10:35 a.m. EDT (14:35 GMT)<br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/10/iran.iraq/" eudora="autourl">http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/10/iran.iraq/</a><br /><br /><b>WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday that weapons recently confiscated in Iraq were "clearly, unambiguously from Iran" and admonished Tehran for allowing the explosives to cross the border.</b><br /><br /><br />Iran's defense minister denied the claims in a report carried by the state-run news agency IRNA.<br /><br />According to Ali Shamkhani, Iran is playing no role in Iraqi affairs, including "its alleged involvement in bomb explosions."<br /><br />The shipment of sophisticated bombs was confiscated in the past two weeks by U.S. and Iraqi troops in southern Iraq, senior U.S. officials said Monday.<br /><br />Although he would not comment on whether the Iranian government was directly involved, Rumsfeld said, "it's notably unhelpful for the Iranians to be allowing weapons of those types to be crossing the border."<br /><br />"What you do know of certain knowledge is the Iranians did not stop it from coming in," he said.<br /><br />Rumsfeld said the weapons create problems for the Iraqi government, coalition forces and the international community.<br /><br />"And ultimately, it's a problem for Iran," he added.<br /><br />When asked if that was a threat of possible retaliation, Rumsfeld replied, "I don't imply threats. You know that."<br /><br />"They (the Iranians) live in the neighborhood. The people in that region want this situation stabilized with the exception of Iran and Syria," he said.<br /><br />The U.S. officials said the weapons were more lethal and more sophisticated than the bombs typically used by Iraqi insurgents.<br /><br />After examining the truckload of weapons, intelligence analysts said the explosive parts are similar to those used by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.<br /><br />While there is no evidence Iran's government sanctioned the weapons shipment, the analysts said it may indicate a rogue element inside Iran is making the weapons and trying to ship them to Iraq's insurgents.<br /><br />Troops found the bombs inside crates seized near a border crossing on the Iraqi side, the officials said.<br /><br />Three senior U.S. officials told CNN the weapons were made in such a way that their blast would have been focused in a single direction, thereby increasing their lethality.<br /><br />One official said the shipment included "tens" of bombs.<br /><br /><i>Barbara Starr contributed to this report.<br /><br /></i><b>Related links:<br /></b><a href="http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2005/08/10/afx2177173.html&hl=en" eudora="autourl">http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2005/08/10/afx2177173.html&hl=en</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1123074627454942802005-08-03T06:08:00.000-04:002005-08-03T11:36:21.056-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">While Publicly Rejecting Torture, Bush Admininstration Secretly Supports it, Leads to Increased Terrorism.</span><br /></div><br />Two interesting articles help flesh out (1) an emerging pattern of use of torture by the US to "protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice" (Bush) and (2) the resulting effect which is to radicalize even more individuals into doing terrorist acts.<br /><br />These articles together show that the Bush Administration is obsessed with violence and war and, though publicly rejecting torture, is secretly using it wholeheartedly in the name of improving security, yet the clear result has been and continues to be an increase in terrorism.<br /><br />I said from the start that declaring a "war on terror" would only have negative effects and that it was a bad idea. I am currently researching the topic in that same vein, and finding little positive coming from the idea of a war on terror. This is a clear and obvious form of cyclical violence that our leaders have energized and fully joined in since 9-11.<br /><br />Americans who don't support these policies, yet remain silent, are implying their support through inaction. The "War on Terror" is destroying America by wasting its resources, its people, and its reputation on human rights. If you love freedom, you must somehow stand up against these polices. Every little thing helps.<br /><br />The "War on Terror" must end if we are to have any hope of a better, more peaceful and prosperous future. Our leaders, and their ideas, are the main obstacle to peace and prosperity for the world. They are the problem.<br /><br />Universal<br /><br /><br />http//www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080105I.shtml<br /><br />Bush Defies Military, Congress on Torture<br />by Marjorie Cohn<br /><br />Monday, August 1, 2005 -- After the grotesque torture photographs emerged from Abu Ghraib prison in April 2004, Bush said, "I shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated." He vowed the incidents would be investigated and the perpetrators would "be taken care of."<br /><br />Bush seemed shocked to learn of torture committed by US forces. But then someone leaked an explosive Department of Justice memorandum that had been written in August 2002. The memo presented a blueprint explaining how interrogators could torture prisoners and everyone in the chain of command could escape criminal liability for war crimes. It said the President was above the law. That memo set the stage for the torture of prisoners in US custody.<br /><br />Now we learn that, in early 2003, several senior uniformed military lawyers from each of the services voiced vigorous dissents to the policies outlined in the Justice Department's 2002 memo.<br /><br />Major General Jack L. Rives, the Air Force deputy judge advocate general, wrote that several of the "more extreme interrogation techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic criminal law" as well as military law. In fact, Rives added, use of many of these techniques "puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad." Rives was talking about the well-established concept of universal jurisdiction, according to which any nation has the authority to prosecute any person for the commission of war crimes.<br /><br />The tactics proposed in the 2002 memorandum also troubled Rives because he felt the new interrogation policies threatened to undo progress the military had made since the Vietnam War. Accusations of war crimes committed by US forces during Vietnam damaged the military "culture and self-image," Rives wrote. Post-Vietnam military programs that emphasize compliance with the laws of war have "greatly restored the culture and self-image of US armed forces," according to Rives.<br /><br />Moreover, Brigadier General Kevin M. Sandkuhler, a senior Marine lawyer, wrote that military lawyers believed the harsh interrogation system could have adverse consequences for American service members. These might include diminished "public support and respect of US armed forces, [as well as loss of] pride, discipline, and self-respect within the US armed forces." The interrogation regime could also jeopardize military intelligence-gathering and efforts to obtain support from allied countries.<br /><br />The Justice Department "does not represent the services; thus," said Sandkuhler, "understandably, concern for service members is not reflected in their opinion."<br /><br />But allegations of torture have persisted, even after these concerns were expressed. The continuing allegations have led influential members of Congress to propose amendments to a $491 billion defense bill that would prevent the mistreatment of prisoners.<br /><br />Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed an amendment to define who is an "enemy combatant" for purposes of detention and military trials of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. At present, Bush claims total discretion to make that determination.<br /><br />Republican Senator John McCain, a prisoner of war for six years during the Vietnam War, proposes an amendment to set uniform standards for anyone detained by the Defense Department. It would limit interrogation techniques to those contained in the Army field manual, which is currently being revised.<br /><br />McCain also proposes that all foreign nationals held by the US military be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross, as required by the Geneva Conventions. This would prevent the holding of "ghost detainees."<br /><br />The most significant amendment McCain advocates would prohibit the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in US custody, consistent with our obligations under the Convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.<br /><br />As ratified treaties, including the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention, are part of US law, it shouldn't even be necessary to pass amendments enshrining already binding obligations.<br /><br />Nevertheless, Bush has threatened to veto the spending bill "if legislation is presented that would restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."<br /><br />These are Bush's buzz words for opposing any interference with his unfettered authority to order the torture of prisoners in US custody.<br /><br />Bush persists in ignoring the warnings of our top military leaders, who believe American security is endangered by the harsh interrogation policies. And he threatens to defy Congress as well by opposing amendments that would hold him and his administration accountable for torture and inhuman treatment.<br /><br />A group led by Democratic Senator Carl Levin seeks an amendment calling for an independent commission, like the 9/11 Commission, to investigate the Bush administration's interrogation policies and mistreatment of prisoners.<br /><br />This amendment is probably the most threatening to Bush and his deputies. A truly independent investigation would likely uncover criminal liability all the way up the chain of command to the White House.<br /><br /><br />http//www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1540752,00.html<br /><br />Suspect's Tale of Travel and Torture<br />by Stephen Grey and Ian Cobain<br />© 2005 Guardian Newspapers Limited<br /><br />Tuesday, August 2, 2005 -- A former London schoolboy accused of being a dedicated al-Qaida terrorist has given the first full account of the interrogation and alleged torture endured by so-called ghost detainees held at secret prisons around the world.<br /><br />For two and a half years US authorities moved Benyam Mohammed around a series of prisons in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan, before he was sent to Guantánamo Bay in September last year.<br /><br />Mohammed, 26, who grew up in Notting Hill in west London, is alleged to be a key figure in terrorist plots intended to cause far greater loss of life than the suicide bombers of 7/7. One allegation, which he denies, is of planning to detonate a "dirty bomb" in a US city; another is that he and an accomplice planned to collapse a number of apartment blocks by renting ground-floor flats to seal, fill with gas from cooking appliances, and blow up with timed detonators.<br /><br />In an statement given to his newly appointed lawyer, Mohammed has given an account of how he was tortured for more than two years after being questioned by US and British officials who he believes were from the FBI and MI6. As well as being beaten and subjected to loud music for long periods, he claims his genitals were sliced with scalpels.<br /><br />He alleges that in Morocco he was shown photos of people he knew from a west London mosque, and was asked about information he was told was supplied by MI5. One interrogator, he says, was a woman who said she was Canadian.<br /><br />Drawing on his notes, Mohammed's lawyer has compiled a 28-page diary of his torture. This has been declassified by the Pentagon, and extracts are published in the Guardian today.<br /><br />Recruits to some groups connected to al-Qaida are thought to be instructed to make allegations of torture after capture, and most of Mohammed's claims cannot be independently verified. But his description of a prison near Rabat closely resembles the Temara torture center identified in a report by the US-based Human Rights Watch last October.<br /><br />Furthermore, this newspaper has obtained flight records showing executive jets operated by the CIA flew in and out of Morocco on July 22, 2002, and January 22, 2004, the dates he says he was taken to and from the country.<br /><br />If true, his account adds weight to concerns that the US authorities are torturing by proxy. It also highlights the dilemma of British authorities when they seek information from detainees overseas who they know, or suspect, are tortured.<br /><br />The lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, says "This is outsourcing of torture, plain and simple. America knows torture is wrong, but gets others to do its unconscionable dirty work.<br /><br />"It's clear from the evidence that UK officials knew about this rendition to Morocco before it happened. Our government's responsibility must be to actively prevent the torture of our residents."<br /><br />Mohammed was born in Ethiopia, and came to the UK at age 15 when his father sought asylum. After obtaining five GCSEs and an engineering diploma at the City of Westminster College in Paddington, he decided to stay in Britain when his father returned, and was given indefinite leave to remain. In his late teens he rediscovered Islam, prayed regularly at al-Manaar mosque in Notting Hill, and was a volunteer at its cultural center. "He is remembered here as a very nice, quiet person, who never caused any trouble," says Abdulkarim Khalil, its director.<br /><br />He enjoyed football, and was thought good enough for a semi-professional career. "He was a quiet kid, he seemed deep thinking, although that might have been because his language skills weren't great," says Tyrone Forbes, his trainer.<br /><br />In June 2001, Mohammed left his rented room off Golborne Road, Notting Hill, and travelled to Afghanistan, via Pakistan. He maintains he wanted to see whether it was "a good Islamic country or not". It appears likely that he spent time in a paramilitary training camp.<br /><br />He returned to Pakistan sometime after 9/11, and remained at liberty until April 2002, during which time, US authorities believe, he became involved in the dirty bomb and gas blast plots. His alleged accomplice, a Chicago-born convert to Islam, Jose Padilla, is detained in the US. Mohammed says interrogators repeatedly demanded he give evidence against him.<br /><br />Arrested in Karachi while trying to fly to Zurich, Mohammed subsequently entered a "ghost prison system" in which an unknown number of detainees are held at unregistered detention centers, and whose imprisonment is not admitted to the International Committee of the Red Cross.<br /><br />His brother and sisters, who live in the US, say the FBI told them of his arrest in summer 2002, but they were unable to find out anything else until last February. In recent days, the Bush administration is reported to have lobbied to block legislation, supported by some Republican senators, to prohibit the military engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment", and hiding prisoners from the Red Cross.<br /><br />Mohammed alleges he was held at two prisons in Pakistan over three months, hung from leather straps, beaten, and threatened with a firearm by Pakistanis. In repeated questioning by men he believes were FBI agents, he was told he was to go to an Arab country because "the Pakistanis can't do exactly what we want them to".<br /><br />The torture stopped after a visit by two bearded Britons; he believes they were MI6 officers. He says they told him he was to be tortured by Arabs. At one point, he says, they gave him a cup of tea and told him to take plenty of sugar because "where you're going you need a lot of sugar".<br /><br />He says he was flown on what he believes was a US aircraft to Morocco, while shackled, blindfolded and wearing earphones. It was, he says, in a jail near Rabat that his real ordeal began. After a fortnight of questioning and intimidation, his captors tortured him with beatings and noise, on and off, for 18 months. He says his torturers used scalpels to make shallow, inch-long incisions on his chest and genitals.<br /><br />Throughout, he was accused of being a senior al-Qaida terrorist and accomplice of Padilla. He denies these allegations, though he says that while tortured he would say whatever he thought his captors wanted. He signed a statement about the dirty bomb plot. At one point, he says, interrogators told him his GCSE grades, and asked about named staff at the housing association that owns his rented room, and about a man who taught him kickboxing in Notting Hill.<br /><br />After 18 months, he says, he was flown to Afghanistan, escorted by masked US soldiers who were visibly shocked by his condition and took photos of his wounds.<br /><br />During five months in a darkened cell in Kabul, he says he was kept chained, subjected to loud music, and questioned by Americans. Only after he was moved to Bagram air base was he shown to the Red Cross. Four months later he was flown to Guantánamo.<br /><br />Stafford Smith was first allowed to see him two months ago. He said there were marks of his injuries, and he is pressing the US to release the photos taken in Morocco and Afghanistan.<br /><br />Asked about the allegations, the Foreign Office said the UK "unreservedly condemns the use of torture". After consulting with the Home Office, MI5, and MI6, a spokesman said "The British government, including the security and intelligence services, never uses torture for any purpose. Nor would Her Majesty's Government instigate or condone the use of torture by third parties.<br /><br />"Specific instructions are issued to all personnel of the UK security and intelligence services who are deployed to interview detainees, which include guidance on what to do if they considered that treatment in any way inappropriate."<br /><br />The FBI, the US justice department, the Moroccan interior ministry and the Moroccan embassy in London did not return calls. The CIA declined to comment.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1109866704874532362005-03-03T12:11:00.000-05:002005-03-03T11:19:44.246-05:00<div align="center"><strong>Altertnatives to Bush's narrow solution on Social Security highlight deficits in US leadership</strong></div><br />I've been away too long...<br /><br />The Bush Administration has a narrow and single-minded idea of how Social Security can be "saved." There are actually many possibilities to address the problem.<br /><br />Bush's answer involves sending billions to Wall Street <strong>only</strong>, but below are numerous other ways in which the US could not only save Social Security, but actually make retirement BETTER for seniors, rather than selling diminished expectations.<br /><br />These are ways of working toward <strong>Something Better</strong>, and that's what our leaders fail to provide in their roles.<br /><br />That's why we need different leaders, and different values to live by.<br /><br />Universal<br /><br />Published on Monday, February 28, 2005 by CommonDreams.org<br /><strong>What A Rich Nation Should Really Be Doing About Social Security</strong><br />by Gar Alperovitz<br /><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0228-29.htm" eudora="autourl">http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0228-29.htm</a><br /><br />Listening to the debate between the Administration and even its most adventurous critics one would imagine that only an extremely limited range of Social Security options are even conceivable. One would also imagine that we live in an extremely poor society which is ultimately going to have to find ways to squeeze its seniors financially or somehow we will all perish. The truth is radically different.<br /><br />This is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. A serious progressive strategy should go far beyond the current debate by building upon this self-evident fact. It should affirm the goal of a truly bountifulrather than penny-pinchingfuture for its citizens when they retire. Here is the ball to keep your eye on: If the United States does merely as well in the 21st Century as it did during the difficult depression and war-dominated 20th Century, we Americans will be producing the equivalent of approximately $1 million a year for every four people by centurys endand the top 1% of households will be making an estimated $9-10 million. Clearly, if we so choose, we can afford a very, very generous plan.<br /><br />Oddly so far just about the only people who seem to recognize the obvious reality that a rich nation will be able to afford more rather than less as technological progress continues are a couple of maverick (but very high placed!) conservatives. Thus: The Nobel prize-winning conservative economist Robert Fogel has offered a comprehensive life-time savings and investment plan which would start retirement at age 55. Unlike proposals by both liberals and other conservatives which would delay retirement and make people work longer in order to save money for the Social Security system, a major goal is to allow people to retire at a younger and younger age as the nations wealth increases over the century. A tax of 2 or 3 percent applied progressively to the top half of the income distributionwould aide those with low incomes.<br /><br />Another leading conservative maverick, former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul ONeil has put forward a savings and investment plan which would produce the equivalent of a million dollar annuity for every American enough to easily guarantee $50,000 or more a year. It would begin with those currently in the 18-35 age bracket and would be supplemented by federal contributions for low income people. Like Fogel, ONeil argues: Those of us who are more fortunate can help those who are not. Several progressives have suggested equity-increasing approaches which might usefully be combined with the basic Fogel and ONeil concept. Hofstra University School of Law professor Leon Friedman, for instance, has proposed an annual one percent net worth taxon the top 1% of households in order to provide full Social Security financingand to also help reduce the national debt. Such wealth taxesare common in virtually every other advanced industrial and post-industrial society.<br /><br />A comprehensive plan by Colgate University economist Thomas Michl would ultimately establish a fully funded investment based system (as opposed to the current pay-as-you-goSocial Security design). This would include a broad range of stocks and bonds and would be financed by progressive income taxes and also by a new wealth tax. A plan by New School University sociologist Robin Blackburn would (1) expand Social Security; (2) pool private pension plans in order to reduce risk; and (3) institute a share levy-- an implicit wealth-like tax which would require firms to issue and set-aside stock equivalent to10-20% of profits each year in order to increase pension fund capital. A very general proposal to invest Social Security reserves which builds on current state pension fund precedentsand the Canadian national system has been offered by Boston College management professor Alice H. Munnell and Brookings fellow R. Kent Weaver. Importantly, as they observe, public management of such plans is hardly financial rocket science...Its worth recalling, too, that the Roosevelt Administrations Social Security program was originally based on a cautious investment approachlater abandoned because Keynsian economists worried it was draining purchasing power from the 1930s economy.<br /><br />The Clinton Administration also proposed a modestly progressive investment strategy of up to 14.6% of the Social Security Trust Fund. What is striking is that such precedents and the bolder proposals on both right and left all agree, first, that a rich country can afford more rather than less for its seniors as time goes on; second, that taxing those at the very top for this purpose is obvious and appropriate; and third that one or another form of investing makes sense financially if done under public authority.<br /><br />Even the most adventurous Democrats are currently mainly huddled in a defensive posture as they try to resist the onslaught of the Bush challenge. Yes, a defense against the Bush strategy is necessary. But No, it is not enough: What the right realized years ago is that the way forward is to begin laying bold proposals on the table. The question is how long it will take be before progressive politicians start doing the same. Gar Alperovitz is Lionel R. Bauman Professor of Political Economy at the University of Maryland. This article is adapted from his recent book '<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471667307/commondreams-20/ref=nosim">America</a><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471667307/commondreams-20/ref=nosim"> Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty and Our Democracy</a>' (Wiley 2005).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1101752008791800212004-11-29T05:51:00.000-05:002004-11-30T18:45:30.013-05:00Sorry for being away so long...
<br />
<br />
<br /><div align="center"><strong>Exchange programs have a big effect in the world.</strong></div>
<br />I have a project called <a href="http://rco-outline.blogspot.com/">Alternatives to the War on Terror: Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach</a>. In it I share an argument that by emphasizing war as the primary way that the US makes its relationship with the rest of the world, it prevents the US from making the kind of progress that we really want: more peace, more security, and more prosperity. It guarantees conflict as a self-fulfilling prophesy of eternal war. That we must expect better from our leaders is a main point as well. Check it out.
<br />
<br />One of the other main points is to suggest a better alternative to this emphasis: three principles that would make a huge difference and help us actually achieve our goals. They are: Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach, from the title of the project. The outreach portion is difficult to sell to people because exchange programs seem like "soft" initiatives that would have little impact.
<br />
<br />Then I stumbled upon the story below, about how new immigration rules in the US are causing many prospective foreign students to stay away from the US.
<br />
<br />This is a huge loss for America, but the story contains a very interesting tidbit: an exchange student to the US from the USSR eventually had influence upon the leadership of the Soviet Union as it was moving away from the socialist model.
<br />
<br />As you can read below, a Soviet party official, Aleksandr Yakovlev, was influenced by his time in the US and that change in him affected his influence on Soviet leaders including Gorbachev. His participation in education in the US, a form of exchange, helped change the USSR and helped change history.
<br />
<br />This is the greater power of positive relationships. This story illustrates how nonviolent student exchange, an example of Outreach, can bring about great change, without having to cost thousands of lives.
<br />
<br />This is a stark contrast to the views of the leadership in the US that believes that war is the best (and only) way to interact with the world following 9-11.
<br />
<br />Their obsession with war condemns all of us to live diminished lives that do not know what peace feels like.
<br />
<br />This anecdote below, about how a Soviet exchange student to the US helped change history - peacefully, shows the strength of the alternative that building positive international relationships provide.
<br />
<br />We don't need their wars to make a better world. There are powerful alternatives that work better.
<br />
<br />This is an understanding that US leadership would rather that you didn't have.
<br />
<br />You have it now.
<br />I hope that it empowers you.
<br />
<br />Universal
<br />
<br />New York Times
<br />OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
<br />You Can't Get Here From There
<br />By JOSEPH S. NYE Jr.
<br />Published: November 29, 2004
<br />
<br />Cambridge, Mass. Last year, the number of foreign students at American
<br />colleges and universities fell for the first time since 1971. Recent reports
<br />show that total foreign student enrollment in our 2,700 colleges and
<br />universities dropped 2.4 percent, with a much sharper loss at large research
<br />institutions. Two-thirds of the 25 universities with the most foreign
<br />students reported major enrollment declines.
<br />
<br />The costs to the American economy are significant. Educating foreign
<br />students is a $13 billion industry. Moreover, the United States does not
<br />produce enough home-grown doctoral students in science and engineering to
<br />meet our needs. The shortfall is partly made up by the many foreign students
<br />who stay here after earning their degrees.
<br />
<br />Equally important, however, are the foreign students who return home and
<br />carry American ideas with them. They add to our soft power, the ability to
<br />win the hearts and minds of others. As Secretary of State Colin Powell put
<br />it, "I can think of no more valuable asset to our country than the
<br />friendship of future world leaders who have been educated here."
<br />One cause of the recent decline has been increased competition from
<br />universities elsewhere, particularly in English-speaking countries like
<br />Britain and Australia. But most observers attribute our loss to a
<br />self-inflicted wound. Ever since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, getting
<br />an American visa has been a nightmare of red tape, and the hassle has
<br />deterred many foreign student applicants.
<br />
<br />Horror stories abound, like the Harvard postdoctoral student in biochemistry
<br />who went home to Beijing for his father's funeral, then waited five months
<br />for permission to return. And China, of course, had nothing to do with the
<br />attacks on Sept. 11.
<br />
<br />In an effort to exclude a dangerous few, we are keeping out the helpful
<br />many. Consular officials know that they face career-threatening punishment
<br />if they are too lax, but face little sanction if they are too strict. Add to
<br />those perverse incentives, the need to coordinate with the extensive
<br />bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security, and you have a perfect
<br />recipe for inertia. More resources can help speed the process, but little
<br />will happen until Congress and the Bush administration make the problem a
<br />higher priority.
<br />
<br />The admission of foreign students to the United States has been
<br />controversial in the past. During the cold war, the Eisenhower
<br />administration negotiated a student exchange program with the Soviet Union.
<br />Opponents argued that our Soviet enemies would misuse the student visas to
<br />send spies who would steal our scientific and industrial secrets. That did
<br />occur, but it was not the most important effect of the program.
<br />In the first exchange in 1958, one of the students was a young Communist
<br />Party official named Aleksandr Yakovlev. He was strongly influenced by his
<br />studies of pluralism with David Truman, the Columbia political scientist.
<br />Mr. Yakovlev eventually went home to become the director of an important
<br />institute, a Politburo member, and one of the key liberalizing influences on
<br />Mikhail Gorbachev. A fellow student, Oleg Kalugin, who became a high
<br />official in the KGB, said of the visa program: "Exchanges were a Trojan
<br />horse for the Soviet Union. They played a tremendous role in the erosion of
<br />the Soviet system. ...They kept infecting more and more people over the
<br />years."
<br />
<br />Starting in the 1950's, more than 110 American colleges and universities
<br />participated; some 50,000 Soviet academics, writers, journalists, officials
<br />and artists visited from 1958 to 1988. Imagine if the visa hawks had
<br />prevented Mr. Yakovlev and his like from entering the United States.
<br />Balancing security risks against the political and economic benefits of
<br />admitting foreign students has always been a problem. It is now doubly
<br />difficult in a post-Sept. 11 world, but the recent enrollment decline
<br />suggest we have not yet got the balance right.
<br />
<br />Joseph S. Nye Jr., a professor of government at Harvard, is the author, most
<br />recently, of "The Power Game: A Washington Novel."
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1098913365065314552004-10-27T17:27:00.000-04:002004-10-27T17:54:44.333-04:00<p align="center"><strong>Getting Beyond the Mainstream Debate</strong></p><p align="left">I attended a debate recently at my university between the College Republicans and the College Democrats. They both argued back and forth about how their candidate would essentially kill more terrorists than the other one would. </p><p align="left">I felt like I was watching two ants fight over a leaf inside of an ant farm.</p><p align="left">The audience was not allowed to speak, but I wanted to shout out, " have any of you ever thought that it might be more productive to stop trying to use war to make people love democracy, and start trying to set the right example so that people will choose it freely?" </p><p align="left">Of course I couldn't say that, they probably would have looked at me with a blank stare anyway. Thinking outside of the tiny box called the "war on terror" is heresy in the United States right now. Like the ant in the ant farm would not have been able to comprehend the idea of me looking in at them through the plastic, these young college students, brought up with a kind of mainstream thinking found in the media have probably never had a thought like mine cross their short-term memory.</p><p align="left">But I think Americans are good at heart, and if they knew the effects of their foreign policy on everyday people they wouldn't support it. </p><p align="left">Juan Cole recently wrote an article called <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0922-11.htm">"If America Were Iraq, What Would It Be like?" </a>Through proportional analogy, it makes clear how devastating our occupation is upon those people. If this were being done to America, we would consider the power doing it to be the most evil force in history, yet we can't seem to understand why the Iraqis are responding as they are.</p><p align="left">Cole's article helps us perform the simple act of trying to understand another person's perspective. This helps us to explain the violence that we are seeing now related to the war on terror, especially what we are seeing in Iraq.</p><p align="left">When the debate was over I passed out copies of the outline of my presentation "<a href="http://rco-outline.blogspot.com/">Alternatives to the War on Terror: Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach</a>." My presentation makes the point that we need to change our vision of how America will forge its relationship with the rest of the world. It's the idea that by framing it as a "war" we make it harder to achieve the goals that we all might agree we want to achieve: peace, prosperity, and security.</p><p align="left">As good as I think my ideas are, it was the article by Cole that I should have been passing out to these young college students. I believe Americans are good at heart, and if they understood the impact of what we're doing to other people, they would call for change in American policy and government.</p><p align="left">That's where the challenge is. </p><p align="left">Getting a sufficient number of people to understand the hypocritical and contradictory nature of our relationship to the world and begin to expect it to be more consistent and less hypocritical, and become something that the rest of the world would really want, rather than something to be forced upon them.</p>Universal <div align="center"></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1094736818158591662004-09-09T08:05:00.000-04:002004-09-09T09:33:38.156-04:00<strong>Bush will win battle of "miscommunicators."</strong>
<br />
<br />I'm starting to think that Bush is going to win because Kerry is trying to be Bush-light, and undecided voters make up their minds on simple ideas like if a candidate "seems smart" or "seems like a strong leader," not on specific policy statements or the candidate's record. That will tip the balance.
<br />
<br />Kerry is trying so hard to split hairs on policy that he comes across as indecisive.
<br />
<br />Bush on the other hand makes clear statements even when they contradict statements made days earlier, such as his flip on whether the war on terror is winnable. (He had a moment of clarity when he spoke to Matt Lauer, saying you can't "win" this kind of war, but when his handlers got to him, the next day he had to say "we will win" to keep up the facade that we are at war, when we really are not. We have a security problem.)
<br />
<br />So even when Bush flips, he does it in ways that are easier for people to understand than does Kerry, and so this clarity in "misleading" appears as "honesty" to certain voters. Every statement Kerry makes seems vague compared to Bush, even when both are misleading by not fully explaining their positions. So Bush wins the "miscommunication" battle, and so wins the election.
<br />
<br />These undecided voters will think "why vote for Bush-light when I can vote for the real thing?"
<br />
<br />The world on the other hand sees the US, led by Bush, as a scary force and so wants change. See below.
<br />
<br />Universal
<br />
<br /><strong>If the world could vote, it's Kerry in a landslide</strong>
<br />By Jim Lobe
<br />Full article at <a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI10Aa01.html">http//www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI10Aa01.html</a>
<br />
<br />WASHINGTON - If the people of the rest of the world could vote in November's US elections, Democratic Senator John Kerry would beat President George W Bush in a landslide. That is the finding of a poll conducted by GlobeScan Incorporated and its affiliates during July and August of nearly 35,000 people in 35 countries in all regions of the world.
<br />
<br />The survey, which was released by GlobeScan and the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) here on Wednesday, found that Kerry was favored over Bush by an average of 46% versus 20% in the 35 countries polled, but by a much larger margin among respondents in traditional US allies in Western Europe.
<br />
<br />"Only one in five [wants] to see Bush re-elected," said Steven Kull, PIPA's executive director. "Though he is not as well known, Kerry would win handily if the people of the world were to elect the US president."
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1093542908708024432004-08-26T12:14:00.000-04:002004-08-26T13:58:30.443-04:00<strong>Focusing on the Positive</strong>
<br />
<br />The purpose of this blog is to bring up solutions to problems rather than just air complaints as happens so much in the media and in blogs. Sometimes I find myself falling into that trap out of feelings of exasperation.
<br />
<br />Sometimes the news is so overwhelmingly bad, it seems to block out an awareness of the good that happens and the hope that we must have if we are to persevere and overcome.
<br />
<br />I read today about billions missing from funds that are supposed to help re-build Iraq, and about how the recent reports on the abuse at Abu Grhaib seem to be trying to direct everyone's attention away from the people at the top who should be taking responsibility for these failures. You can search for those yourself using Google News (see the link in the right column of this page.)
<br />
<br />I am writing today as a form of therapy. I realize that I need to re-focus my writing here on seeking to highlight positive solutions to the problems we face and to refrain from wanton criticism, which I have chosen to make the work of other blogs. It can feel good to harp on something, but I feel like there is an over abundance of that on the web. I haven't seen too much on solutions, which is why I made that the main purpose of this blog. I'm trying to fill a niche. (Now, how to get more people reading...?)
<br />
<br />Please check out my <a href="http://rco-outline.blogspot.com/">Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach</a> project pages for the main points of the presentation I do on rethinking the Global War on Terror. Criticism of that idea is part of the argument I make, but I go farther than others by offering a positive approach to take place of the emphasis on war.
<br />
<br />Please forward the link of this blog, and the link to my Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach project to anyone interested in creating <strong>Something Better</strong>.
<br />
<br />Universal
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1092228444104154542004-08-11T06:39:00.000-04:002004-08-11T08:55:15.926-04:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">The American System of Coke and Pepsi Politics.</span>
<br />
<br />This is from a Canadian paper. It hits the nail on the head. This is Coke and Pepsi politics. Tweedledum vs. Tweedledee. Two Yale, Skull and Bones members in "competition."
<br />
<br />This lack of significant differences between the candidates is the result of a system that protects the existence of two major parties, but systematically blocks out new parties and ideas. People blame Nader for running because it might hurt Kerry, but as you will see below, Kerry can't get out of his own way because he's trying to out-Bush, Bush.
<br />
<br />Can Pepsi be more Coke-like than Coke?
<br />
<br />Why is it bad for someone like Nader to try to get people thinking? Why are new ideas bad? Why are we so sold on the idea that competition and free markets are good, but we don't believe in a free market of ideas in politics? It's contradictory because its intention is to block competition and protect the status quo, not to help make America stronger, but to protect those with power.
<br />
<br />Some say this brings political stability. I say, it is at the cost of progress.
<br />
<br />We need <span style="font-weight: bold;">Something Better</span>.
<br />
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Eliminate the Electoral College</span> with a constitutional amendment. Give the People a vote that counts. (Remember that in 2000, the Supreme Court said that the American people have no constitutional right to elect a president, only the Electoral College does.) Turn to <span style="font-weight: bold;">Instant Runoff Voting</span> as a way of allowing multiple views and parties to have an impact on the ideas we think about. Encourage a free market of ideas and politics, instead of supporting a system that blocks new ideas, and supports the status quo.
<br />
<br />Universal
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1092175810357&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795">The Toronto Star:</a> Editorial: Kerry Fails the Iraq Test
<br />
<br /><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times;">What do Americans need in their president, post-9/11? Strong leadership, of course. Clear vision. Common sense. And in a dangerous, fast-changing world, the capacity to learn from past mistakes would be helpful.
<br />
<br />Senator John Kerry, the Democrat who hopes to elbow President George Bush from office on Nov. 2, promises all of the above and more. But there was little of it on display Monday, when Kerry responded to Bush's challenge to spell out where he stands on the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
<br />
<br />Rising to Bush's bait, Kerry said he would have cast the same Yes vote in Congress that he did on Oct. 11, 2002, to authorize the president to launch a pre-emptive war that began March 19, 2003, <i>even if </i>Kerry had known that Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al Qaeda terrorists, no weapons of mass destruction and posed no real threat to the world.
<br />
<br />"I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Kerry now says. Only he would have used that power more "effectively."
<br />
<br />This amounts to a sweeping claim by Kerry that America has carte blanche to make war on even bogus grounds, and in defiance of the United Nations and world opinion, so long as the war is waged effectively.
<br />
<br />It's depressing from a candidate who has attacked Bush for "misleading" the nation, who promises a better direction and who claims to want to re-engage with the world.
<br />
<br />Kerry's vote in 2002, while misguided, was defensible. Bush had exaggerated Saddam's threat, and had won over 7 in 10 Americans to the view that the Iraq war was justified.
<br />
<br />But since then, the U.N. has been vindicated. Saddam was contained; there were no ties to the 9/11 terrorists; and Iraq had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
<br />
<br />That leaves most Americans feeling misled, or duped. They can see the damage to U.S. prestige internationally. The loss of more than 1,000 American and allied lives, and 16,000 Iraqi lives . A $200-billion cost.
<br />
<br />And they see no easy exit.
<br />
<br />All this is baggage Bush should carry to the polls, alone. But Kerry has just re-endorsed his misguided policy, if not its clumsy delivery.
<br />
<br />No wonder Kerry is struggling to pull ahead in a race with a president who has not delivered promised jobs and who is seen as a friend of the rich and powerful.
<br />
<br />Practical politics undoubtedly prompted Kerry's reply. He is loath to admit he cast a foolish vote in 2002. He does not want to alienate voters who were similarly duped, and who are not keen to be reminded of it. And he must not be seen as "soft" on Saddam.
<br />
<br />But Kerry comes off looking like "Bush lite" on Iraq, rather than as a candidate with better values and a sounder program. He seems weak. Muddled. Has he learned nothing from a slew of American investigations that have exposed the sloppiness of U.S. intelligence and the shabbiness of the rationale for war?
<br />
<br />This is a letdown for American voters who yearn for a real alternative, and a healthier direction. It is not good news for the world, either.
<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1090514460460450832004-07-22T12:28:00.000-04:002004-07-22T12:43:09.643-04:00Just a Quick Note... (right.)
<br />
<br /> I've been speaking with community groups about the idea that there should be alternatives to the War on Terror so that we can have a positive goal to work toward as a civilization rather than glumly accepting unending warfare.
<br />
<br /> We need to work toward <span style="font-weight: bold;">Something Better</span>, otherwise, we will start regressing. That process is already starting to take form as violence spirals, civil liberties are infringed, poverty advances as opportunity retreats.
<br />
<br /> As a civilization, we need a positive set of ideas to work toward so that we can give our children a better world than we were given.
<br />
<br /> We must get people thinking about a positive vision in place of the negative outlook of the War on Terror.
<br />
<br /> We are failing to do this, which is why we need to promote and spread positive ideas like <a href="http://www.restraint-cooperation-outreach.blogspot.com/">Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach.</a>
<br />
<br /> If we don't make a positive choice, our generation will be seen by history as one that failed to stand up for Justice, Democracy, and Peace.
<br />
<br /> We must be bold and act for what we know is the right thing to do.
<br />
<br /> Drop me a line at the email adress at the top.
<br />
<br /> Regards,
<br />
<br /> Universal
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1089133284051378182004-07-06T12:06:00.000-04:002004-07-07T14:44:47.260-04:00<strong>As the Election Approaches...</strong>
<br />
<br />Today, Senator Jon Kerry , announced his running mate would be fellow Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
<br />
<br />The presidential candidate comes from a background of wealth and privilege. The vice presidential candidate comes from a working-class background.
<br />
<br />Let's hope these candidates, who display at least some of the diversity that exists in United States, if they are elected, perhaps they can help reconnect American federal government to the people in some way.
<br />
<br />In the last decades, the federal government policy has shifted from one which seeks to actively intervene in the lives of citizens, to one that is more detached and which considers programs with social benefit to be a form of socialism and therefore un-American.
<br />
<br />In these past decades , the gap between the rich and poor has grown significantly. The top 50% of income earners in America control 90% of the wealth. That means that the bottom half have to divide up only 10%. In other words, half of the country has to fight over the scraps.
<br />
<br />This is not to say that we should simply create more programs to give money to the needy, but are we investing in our society? Are we investing enough in our schools and our colleges? Are we creating the opportunity for people to succeed and become prosperous, or are our tax dollars going primarily to support programs that benefit corporations and ensure the continuation of the military policies that have brought us the war on terror?
<br />
<br />I have heard more than once, when tuning into the Rush Limbaugh show, the voice of listeners saying that they wish they could take their tax dollars away from these "social programs that are ruining America," and have them used for some other purpose.
<br />
<br />I feel the same way when I read about the money that's being invested in weapons systems that may not be necessary, such as the "Star Wars" missile defense system that is being ramrodded through Congress.
<br />
<br />Can I elect for my tax dollars to not be spent on such a wasteful endeavor?
<br />
<br />Couple the billions for that with the billions being spent in Iraq, and we have a huge drain on resources that could otherwise be used to create more educated people in America, a better infrastructure, a stronger middle class, greater social stability, or could go to targeted aid to help out the poorest countries of the world.
<br />
<br />Instead we have the fund for Iraqi reconstruction hemorrhaging billions to unscrupulous contractors to repair damage done by a decade of US support of Saddam, the First Gulf War, another decade of sanctions against Iraq, and a second war in Iraq.
<br />
<br />We have hammered Iraq for twenty years, and now Iraqis continue to pay in insecurity, and the American taxpayer continues to fork tax dollars over.
<br />
<br />Who is reaping the benefit of these tax dollars?
<br />
<br />Is it those who need a boost, even the Iraqi people, or is it those connected Americans who already enjoy the security and power that wealth brings?
<br />
<br />What is the purpose of the US's existence?
<br />
<br />Is it to control the world through military might?
<br />
<br />Is that how we will be, in Ronald Reagan's words, "a shining city on a hill"?
<br />
<br />Our emphasis as a nation is in the wrong place.
<br />
<br />This emphasis is put where it is, on military might, by a leadership who sees war as the best way to control events around the world.
<br />
<br />Because of this world view, we will live under the specter of endless warfare, until we realize what is happening and use our democratic rights to change our society and its leadership.
<br />
<br />This begins with the American People understanding the reality of the nation that they live in, rather than the myth.
<br />
<br />It requires getting beyond the simplified, comic book, good and evil view of the world promoted by national leadership.
<br />
<br />Americans need to put more effort into understanding the issues, and the full history behind them, so that they understand all aspects of current events, and not just the simplified and sanitized version presented by the mainstream media.
<br />
<br />We should be working toward a nation that makes sure that everyone has healthcare, that does its best provide jobs for everyone who wants one, and strives to make better jobs overseas, to provide an education to everyone who wants one, to create a fair playing field for all workers. Our nation should emphasize education and the development of constructive technology, rather than technology that is too often used for destructive purposes.
<br />
<br />Let's hope that Senators Kerry and Edwards are able to envision something positive for America rather than simply excepting the negative vision of the war on terror that is the current mainstream thinking.
<br />
<br />It takes work to make <strong>Something Better</strong>. We can all create this if we realize that we can and we choose to do it.
<br />
<br />UniversalUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1088095354678036332004-06-24T12:04:00.000-04:002004-06-24T12:44:19.300-04:00<strong>The US Continues to Repeat the Mistakes of the Past in Middle East</strong>
<br />
<br />I am long past the point of believing that the US government, and the elite power class that supports it, have any interest in making a more peaceful world. Like the re-arming of Japan that is underway today (see previous posting) the US is repeating an action which brought about terrible consequesnces for the world, this time again in the Middle East.
<br />
<br />The US government has forced an exemption from criminal prosecution for US forces and corporations in Iraq. This will only further alienate the Iraqi people, and the rest of the Islamic world, from whatever vision of "Democracy" the US has.
<br />
<br />Don't think so? See below from the Christian Science Monitor.
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0624/dailyUpdate.html">http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0624/dailyUpdate.html</a>
<br />The Washington Post reports that the US will unilaterally grant immunity from Iraqi law to its soldiers and private contractors beyond the June 30th transfer of power date. The Post also reports that Iraqi officials do not support the US move, and that the issue of US immunity has become an extremely contentious one in the region, with an already long history in the matter.
<br />
<br />A similar grant of immunity to US troops in Iran during the Johnson administration in the 1960s led to the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who used the issue to charge that the shah had sold out the Iranian people. 'Our honor has been trampled underfoot; the dignity of Iran has been destroyed,' Khomeini said in a famous 1964 speech that led to his detention and then expulsion from Iran."
<br />
<br />
<br />When leaders, who are in their positions supposedly because of their ability to lead, continue to pursue policies proven to be worthless, one can only conclude that they are pursuing these policies for reasons other than avoiding the kind of conflict that occured previously.
<br />
<br />There seems to be no real interest in creating a world with less conflict. Actions such as this repeating of a major mistake, which brought about the Iranian Revolution and the Hostage Crisis, is being done by people who know better, but choose this path regardless.
<br />
<br />Both Cheney and Rumsfeld were part of the Reagan/Bush political apparatus that organized the "October Surprise" which kept the hostages in Iraq until the day Reagan was inaugurated. They should know the effects of this kind of policy.
<br />
<br />A better electoral system, with the ability to hear from a greater diversity of citizens, would help create a politcal challenge to this Machiavellian power structure that continues to pursue conflict-causing policies.
<br />
<br />This is a systemic problem, which requires that we create <strong>Something Better</strong>, for our future, and the future of those to come.
<br />
<br />Keep those messages coming.
<br />
<br />UniversalUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1087403678041241572004-06-16T12:13:00.000-04:002004-06-16T12:36:39.500-04:00<strong>Still no Link Between Saddam and Al Qaeda</strong>
<br />
<br />A number of conservative writers have tried to prove (or strongly suggest) a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda on 9-11. (See links at bottom.)
<br />
<br />I would say the evidence of US support of Saddam in the 1980s is far greater than any evidence of Saddam supporting Osama in the 1990s. The galling thing is how US support of a tyrant is ignored by The Press while extremely weak evidence is amplified to make a false connection between Saddam and 9-11.
<br />
<br />It's obvious why the connection is being pushed: to justify invading and occupying Iraq.
<br />
<br />There are many days when it feels like we've fallen down the rabbit hole, and all logic is upside-down.
<br />
<br />Here's what the 9-11 Commission has to say about this:
<br />
<br />Let's hope their final report holds up and doesn't lead to a new cottage industry of conspiracy theories on 9-11. There are enough already...
<br />
<br />U.
<br />
<br /><strong>Panel Says No Signs of Iraq, Qaeda Link</strong>
<br />Wed June 16, 2004 11:22 AM ET
<br /><a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5438743">http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5438743</a>
<br />[]
<br />By Deborah Charles
<br />
<br />WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Investigators have found no evidence Iraq aided al Qaeda attempts to attack the United States, a commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings said on Wednesday, undermining Bush administration arguments for war.
<br />
<br />The report by commission staff said al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 and had explored the possibility of cooperation, but the plans apparently never came to fruition.
<br />
<br />President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney this week reiterated pre-war arguments that an Iraqi connection to al Qaeda, which is blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks, represented an unacceptable threat to the United States.
<br />
<br />However, the commission said in a staff report, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
<br />
<br />"There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11 -- other than limited support provided by the Taliban after bin Laden first arrived in Afghanistan," it added.
<br />
<br />The staff report was issued at the start of the commission's final two days of public hearings into the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. The hearings were called to find out how the United States failed to prevent the attacks and what it can do now to improve security.
<br />
<br />The report stood in contrast to comments this week by Vice President Dick Cheney, who said that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam had "long-established ties" to al Qaeda.
<br />
<br />Bush, asked on Tuesday about Cheney's comments, cited the presence in Iraq of Islamist militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as "the best evidence of (a) connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda."
<br />
<br />Bush said Saddam had also supported militants such as Palestinian guerrilla leader Abu Nidal was "no doubt a destabilizing force."
<br />
<br />Although Cheney and other officials had suggested Iraq might have played a direct role in the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush acknowledged after the war that there was no evidence of such cooperation.
<br />
<br />A separate draft report by the commission also describes confusion in the Pentagon on the day of the attacks, the New York Times reported. It said Pentagon procedures were "unsuited in every respect" for the attacks, and unprepared officials responded with a "hurried attempt to create an improvised defense." Continued ...
<br />
<br />Furthermore, the newspaper quoted commission chairman Thomas Kean as saying "there was a lot of chaos" in the White House response. It said commission members wanted to know why Bush was allowed to continue meeting with Florida schoolchildren after the attacks were known, and why Bush hopscotched around the country on Air Force One before returning to Washington.
<br />
<br />AL QAEDA TRYING TO STRIKE U.S.
<br />
<br />In a report entitled "Overview of the Enemy," the commission also said al Qaeda has changed drastically and become decentralized since the Sept. 11 attacks, but it still helps regional networks and will keep trying to strike the United States to inflict mass casualties.
<br />
<br />"Al Qaeda remains extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks," said the report.
<br />
<br />The commission said al Qaeda's ability to conduct an anthrax attack is one of the most immediate threats. Al Qaeda may also try a chemical attack using industrial chemicals, or by attacking a chemical plant or shipment of hazardous materials.
<br />
<br />The report said al Qaeda may modify "traditional tactics" to prevent detection.
<br />
<br />The CIA estimates al Qaeda spent $30 million a year before Sept. 11 for terror operations, to run the training camps and contribute to Afghanistan's Taliban militia. While it found no convincing evidence of government support, the panel said Saudi Arabia provided "fertile fund-raising ground" for al Qaeda.
<br />
<br />FBI and CIA experts are due to testify about the militant Muslim network and give a detailed timeline of the events leading up to the deadly attacks.
<br />
<br /><strong>Amazon.com links to book trying to prove a Saddam - Al Qaeda connection:</strong>
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060746734/qid=1087403142/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-5608669-6370504?v=glance&s=books">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060746734/qid=1087403142/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-5608669-6370504?v=glance&s=books</a>
<br />
<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006009771X/qid=1087402702/sr=1-19/ref=sr_1_19/102-5608669-6370504?v=glance&s=books">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006009771X/qid=1087402702/sr=1-19/ref=sr_1_19/102-5608669-6370504?v=glance&s=books</a>
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6640677.post-1086182479129107612004-06-02T08:12:00.000-04:002004-06-02T09:36:18.446-04:00<strong>Is the war on terror good for the world, or not?</strong>
<br />
<br />For the last few months , I've been working on a concept that I have been calling Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach as an alternative concept to the war on terror. I believe that the world wants and needs <strong>Something Better</strong> than a future vision for the world that envisions constant warfare between cultures.
<br />
<br />This blog is about solutions. Rather than just criticizing what is wrong with the world, I have been trying to come up with a better response to the threat of terrorism. Even though my background is in education, and I will soon begin doctoral studies in psychology, I feel that I am as qualified as anyone to think creatively about what could be better than the state of things today.
<br />
<br />Because this has been on my mind for while, I happened to run into a web site called Americans for Victory Over Terrorism.(AVOT) (<a href="http://www.avot.org/">http://www.avot.org/</a>) This group, led by former US Secretary of Education William Bennett, believes that the war on terror is the right response for America and the world.
<br />
<br />In reading their Statement of Principles, it is clear that they believe that the Muslim world in general is a danger to the West. They don't appear to make any distinction between Islamic extremists and the rest of the Muslim world. They believe that the only way to deal with this perceived threat is through military force. They also adhere to the belief that somehow the war on terror can be won in some way. This stance, which is the accepted dogma of today, is a trap for humanity. It is a negative choice , which is being forced upon the world by leaders of the West who control warfare.
<br />
<br />Humanity needs better leadership than this. Humanity needs better ideas than this, and so I am providing one. Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach. (See previous postings, and below.)
<br />
<br />As an exercise in debate, I couldn't help wondering what would be a better response to their statement of principles that is more logical, makes more sense, and has hope for a better tomorrow. I brainstormed some responses to their statements of principles, which contrasts their negative view for the future and present of the world for something more positive and hopeful.
<br />
<br /><blockquote>Read on, and let me know what you think.</blockquote>
<br />Universal.
<br />
<br />AVOT statements are numbered, <em>my responses are in italics</em>.
<br /><blockquote>Americans for Victory over Terrorism: (AVOT)
<br />Statement of Principles
<br /><a href="http://www.avot.org/stories/storyReader$11">http://www.avot.org/stories/storyReader$11</a></blockquote>
<br />
<br />1. America is confronted with an enemy no less dangerous and no less determined than the twin menaces of fascism and communism we faced in the 20th century. And as we were victorious over them, so we must prevail in this, the first war of the 21st century. AVOT will, as its first task, remind citizens of the paramount importance of this effort.
<br />
<br /><em>Terrorists are not the danger that the USSR was. USSR did have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Terrorists do not possess nuclear weapons at this point and should not if the US changes its emphasis from Iraq to non-proliferation. Despite strong US words about protecting the world from terrorism through war, unguarded nuclear plants worldwide are potential targets for ambitious terrorists, and the US has done little to fix the major security problem. If the US is serious, it will act "decisively" on non-proliferation as it "did" with Iraq. Pakistan, the chief nuclear proliferating nation continues to receive favor from the US. This seriously flawed approach increases a threat rather than decreasing it, and undermines US credibility in its claims to seek security through war.</em>
<br />
<br />2. The radical Islamists who attacked us did so because of our democratic ideals, our belief in, and practice of, liberty and equality. AVOT will take to task those who blame America first and who do not understand--or who are unwilling to defend--our fundamental principles.
<br />
<br /><em>Terrorists are only a small minority of the Muslim people of the world who see the hypocrisy in US pursuit of strategic concerns at the expense of moral ones. This gives this tiny group of extremists a moral reason to fight. By framing opposition to a small minority of terrorists as a "war," the US uses a broad response for a narrow problem, and so negatively impacts many Muslims who might otherwise not be negative about the West. The US talks of HR, but continues to support dictators such as Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, as it did Saddam in Iraq. The US supports Israeli policy at every turn despite the human rights abuses it has spawned. (Read on for statements regarding the Palestinians.) This hypocrisy is provocative and rather than deflecting criticism by pointing figers at those who "blame America first" the US must recognize this US contribution to the problem and revise its foreign policy to reduce this effect which only fuels further terrorism rather than decreasing it.</em>
<br />
<br />3. America's foreign policy should be guided by those same principles upon which America itself was founded. AVOT will call for a foreign policy that emphasizes democracy and human rights.
<br />
<br /><em>The best way for the US to honor human rights is to restrain its military forces so that innocent civilians are not killed in the process of "liberating" them. US policy does not consistently support HR and democracy and that is its fundamental weakness in being unable to find broad support around the globe. The US funded and supported Saddam Hussein's regime throughout the 80s. The US undermined the democracy in Haiti recently by facilitating the removal of Aristide. Much of the conflict we are experiencing today is related to immoral policies promoted by those in power then, and now. The US must consistently support a morally defensible position in its foreign policy rather than consistently supporting a strategic one, which undermines the very values it clams to be protecting.</em>
<br />
<br />4. In this war, our closest and most trusted allies must be our fellow democracies. AVOT will advocate steadfast support for our friends and oppose policies that place short-term "allies" above them.
<br />
<br /><em>This refers to Israel, which receives unquestioning US support despite numerous HR abuses and abrogations of UN resolutions. While Israel needs security, it will never achieve it through occupation or annihilation of Palestinians. At the same time Palestinians must turn to nonviolent means to achieve change to be able to live alongside an Israel which will remain. Unless the US increases efforts to bring about such reconciliation, this conflict will continue to fuel the worldwide terror threat, rather than decrease it.</em>
<br />
<br />5. By President Bush's declaration to Congress, America is at war with states that harbor terrorists or sponsor terrorism -- in all its guises. AVOT will inform Americans about nations that pose a threat to us or that help those that threaten us.
<br />
<br /><em>US intelligence on "states that harbor terrorists" is suspect following the lack of evidence of this before the invasion of Iraq, or since. Will the US genuinely identify terror threats, or will it use the spectre of terrorism to advance its strategic agenda? How can the US look outward to the world to find blame for the terror threat, when US sales of weapons, US support of dictators, US overlooking of Saudi Arabia as a terror threat, and US overlooking proliferators such as Pakistan continues. These actions undermine US claims to be seeking security. These policies all continue to contribute to an increased terror threat. </em>
<br />
<br />6. Because of the threat posed by radical Islamists and others, Americans will have to rethink many of their preconceptions about fighting terrorism. AVOT will defend policies that preserve civil liberties without sacrificing common sense and our common defense.
<br />
<br /><em>Here they're advocating openness to rights-threatening legislation such as the USA Patriot Act, and to endless war on terror. If they're interested in defending Democrctic values, they won't support legislation that limits it. It's contradictory to do so. The threat posed by radical Islamists is a major security threat, but not one that requires an endless war to deal with it. The major preconception that needs to be rethought is the one that causes US leadership to frame all major initiatives as "wars." This knee-jerk response provides those in power with license to pursue military and corporate agendas under the cover of fighting a war. The negative side effects of framing it in such a way are far greater than any gains, and so the cure for terrorism becomes worse than the disease. In the name of the 3,000 killed on 9-11, approximately 10,000 Afghans and Iraqis civilians have died. Now, because of this war approach, the most popular name to give newborn Muslim boys is Osama. This is how US power causes increased hate around the world, and in doing so increases the danger rather than reducing it.</em>
<br />
<br />7. The best defense is a good offense, and America must have a military capacity that enables us to defend ourselves while rooting out terrorists. AVOT will support an increased budget for the Department of Defense, research and deployment of a missile defense system, and an even more capable military.
<br />
<br /><em>A better offense for the US and the world would be a constructive one rather than a destructive one. A truly better offense would be an approach that does not increase the negative side effects that stem from fighting an endless world war to deal with what is a specific security problem associated with a relatively small number of extremists. Instead, the US and the West should pursue Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach. This positive approach seeks to change US policy and truly increase security by restraining military and intelligence forces to reduce the numbers of innocents killed, decrease the numbers of people whose homes are invaded by Americans in green fatigues. Cooperation involves the US taking part in multilateral security, economic, and environmental agreements that seek to secure all rather than securing the US at the expense of others such as Iraqis and Afghans. Examples of this would be true fair trade, and joining in the international effort to ban landmines. Outreach involves the significant support of exchange programs and sport programs to increase positive relationships between the West and the world. In this way, the US could replace an approach which is not succeeding, and can not succeed, with a world view that is positive, and has true potential to decrease the threat posed by conflict among religions and cultures.</em>
<br />
<br />8. Improving our gathering and effective utilization of intelligence is a necessity. AVOT will support responsible efforts by our nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies to collect and utilize more -- and more pertinent -- information and to facilitate interagency communication.
<br />
<br /><em>US intelligence power must be used to help the US understand how it relates to other powers in the world. It must not be used to undermine nations through subversion. To gather information is one thing, to use such personnel to weaken governments,often democratically elected ones, is contrary to American values, and reduces trust of the US worldwide. The US must change its Machiavellian approach to foreign policy and intelligence gathering so that these functions can begin to do more good than harm, as is currently the case. Through restraint of these powers, the US can gain more through gaining wide support than it can through shortsighted influence of events.</em>
<br />
<br />9. A necessary front in this war is the battle for international public opinion. AVOT will support radio, television, and other mass media patterned on Radio Free Europe to show how America has stood up for Muslims and other persecuted peoples throughout the years and to explain the virtues of democracy.
<br />
<br /><em>Will this radio message be honest about the history of the US in the past few years and the last century, or will it be a propaganda mechanism which touts only the reality which supports expanded US power and influence. Will such "outreach" treat its Muslim listeners as if they are knowledgeable about events and history, or will it offer a sanitized message that they are expected to accept without question? Will cultures beyond the West be treated with respect, which has a chance of positively influencing them, or will they be treated as something less worthy that must be forced to change either by force or by propaganda? The latter two cannot succeed.</em>
<br />
<br />10. Finally, we must understand our enemies better. AVOT will encourage scholarly research into various aspects of Islamic theology, history, and culture. AVOT will hold such scholarship to a serious and rigorous standard.
<br />
<br /><em>Is Islam the "enemy," or is it a small number of extremists that are the danger? Is "understanding the enemy" merely stereotyping them? To continue the mistake of over-generalizing a widely divergent and diverse Arab / Muslim culture risks continuing to alienate the very populations being sought for transformation. Such an arrogant approach has little chance of success. Instead, the West must accept the reality that Arab / Muslim culture will exist along with Western culture far into the future, and the best approach is to find ways to co-exist, and seek positive influence through positive interactions rather than through war. In the same way the Palestinians must accept the reality that Israel will continue to exist, the West must accept the existence of Muslim culture, and must find ways to share the planet. To continue the hopeless delusion of being able to eliminate all terrorism through war is to condemn all people, even those in the West to endless war, and the anxiety and instability it brings. We must do better than this by calling on leadership to move beyond the War on Terror paradigm toward and positive and realistic relationship with the world.</em>
<br />
<br /><em>Main theme: The US speaks as if it seeks security and peace, but the actions it takes, and the policies it pursues, ensure the opposite result, decreased security, and endless war. The world must become aware of this disconnect and must call upon the US to adopt a plan for operating in the world that matches its words and its values. The war on terror does not achieve this, Restraint, Cooperation, and Outreach does, and policies such as this should replace the folly of the war on terror.</em>
<br />
<br />Thanks for reading. Keep sending your e-mails.
<br />
<br />Universal
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0