Saturday, September 27, 2008

THIS JUST IN! BARACK'S GAME PLAN!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
"I DID REAL GOOD, LAST NIGHT, REAL GOOD," SENATOR SWEETIE BARACK OBAMA INSISTED TO THESE REPORTERS. 
 
ASKED TO DEFINE REAL GOOD, HE DECLARED, "I REMAINED STANDING.  YEAH, I WAS ON MY FEET THE WHOLE TIME."
 
WHEN WE POINTED OUT THAT HE APPEARED TO CALL FOR THE REF AT SEVERAL POINTS, BARACK WHINED, "THAT'S BECAUSE THE QUESTIONS WEREN'T ABOUT IMPORTANT STUFF.  I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE SIGNATURE ISSUE."
 
THE SIGNATURE ISSUE?
 
"ME!  DID YOU NOTICE, IN THE END, I DELIVERED A KNOCK OUT BLOW.  I TALKED ABOUT MY DADDY.  JOHN MCCAIN DOESN'T HAVE A DADDY FROM KENYA.  I WAS ALL IN THE ZONE THEN.  WHEN IT COMES TO TALKING ABOUT ME, NOBODY DOES IT BETTER.  I'M GOING TO INSIST THAT THE NEXT DEBATE REVOLVE AROUND WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE THE EDITOR OF A COLLEGE PUBLICATION AND WHAT IT'S LIKE TO POSE FOR THE COVER OF MEN'S VOGUE.  IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE PLAY TO MY STRENGTHS.  WAIT AND SEE, I'M GOING TO WIN!"
 
 
 
 
Turning to TV, check your local listings.  NOW on PBS explores the bailout and attempts to answer for "Americans: How will this affect me?  This week, NOW on PBS goes inside the round-the-clock efforts in Washington to craft a bailout plan of monumental proportions."  Meanwhile, tonight's debate is on -- for both of the corporatist candidates at any rate.  PBS'  Washington Week is going to do two live broadcasts on Friday.  One before the debate and one after.  Gwen's guests will include Michele Norris (NPR), Michael Duffy (Time), David Wessel (Wall St. Journal) Dan Balz (Washington Post), and a scribe for the New York Times.
 
Four presidential candidates are shut out of tonight's debate.  Two are Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.  The other two?   Cynthia McKinney is the Green presidential candidate and she notes on the economic meltdown:
 
Last week, I posted ten points (that were by no means exhaustive) for Congressional action immediately in the wake of the financial crisis now gripping our country. At that time, the Democratic leadership of Congress was prepared to adjourn the current legislative Session to campaign, without taking any action at all to put policies in place that protect U.S. taxpayers and the global community that has accepted U.S. financial leadership. Those ten points, to be taken in conjunction with the Power to the People Committee's platform available on the campaign website at (http://votetruth08.com/index.php/resources/campaignplatform), are as follows:

1. Enactment of a foreclosure moratorium now before the next phase of ARM interest rate increases take effect;
2. elimination of all ARM mortgages and their renegotiation into 30- or 40-year loans;
3. establishment of new mortgage lending practices to end predatory and discriminatory practices;
4. establishment of criteria and construction goals for affordable housing;
5. redefinition of credit and regulation of the credit industry so that discriminatory practices are completely eliminated;
6. full funding for initiatives that eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in home ownership;
7. recognition of shelter as a right according to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to which the U.S. is a signatory so that no one sleeps on U.S. streets;
8. full funding of a fund designed to cushion the job loss and provide for retraining of those at the bottom of the income scale as the economy transitions;
9. close all tax loopholes and repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of income earners; and
10. fairly tax corporations, denying federal subsidies to those who relocate jobs overseas repeal NAFTA.

In addition to these ten points, I now add four more:

11. Appointment of former Comptroller General David Walker to fully audit all recipients of taxpayer cash infusions, including JP Morgan, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, and to monitor their trading activities into the future;
12. elimination of all derivatives trading;
13. nationalization of the Federal Reserve and the establishment of a federally-owned, public banking system that makes credit available for small businesses, homeowners, manufacturing operations, renewable energy and infrastructure investments; and
14. criminal prosecution of any activities that violated the law, including conflicts of interest that led to the current crisis.

Ellen Brown, author of "The Web of Debt" writes at http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/, "Such a public bank today could solve not only the housing crisis but a number of other pressing problems, including the infrastructure crisis and the energy crisis. Once bankrupt businesses have been restored to solvency, the usual practice is to return them to private hands; but a better plan for Fannie and Freddie might be to simply keep them as public institutions."

Too many times politicians have told us to support the "free market." The unfolding news informs us in a most costly manner that free markets don't work. This is a financial system of their making. It's now past time for the people to have an economic system of their own. A reading of the full text on the Congressional "Agreement on Principles" for the proposed $700 billion bailout reveals the sham that this so-called agreement truly is. Today our country faces an economic 9/11. The problem that is unfolding is truly systemic and no stop-gap measures that maintain the current bankrupt structure will be sufficient to resolve this crisis of the U.S. economic engine.

Today is my son's birthday. What a gift to the young people of this country if we were to present to them a clean break from the policies that produced this economic disaster, the "financial tsunami" that former Comptroller General David Walker warned us of so many months ago and instead offered them a U.S. economic superstructure that truly was their own.

Power to the People!

McKinney's running mate Rosa Clemente will be speaking at the International People's Democratic Uhuru Movement (InPDUM) Saturday, September 27th. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and he is also shut out of tonight's debate.  Nader notes that, more than any cash infusion, the country needs leadership with spine:
 
 
Congress needs to show some backbone before the federal government pours more money on the financial bonfire started by the arsonists on Wall Street.
1.Congress should hold a series of hearings and invite broad public comment on any proposed bailout. Congress is supposed to be a co-equal branch of our federal government. It needs to stop the stampede to give Bush a $700 billion check. Public hearings should be held to determine what alternatives might exist to the four-page proposal advanced by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson.
2.Whatever is ultimately done, the bailout plan should not be insulated from judicial review. Remember there is a third co-equal branch of government: the judiciary. The judiciary does not need to review each buy-and-sell decision by the Treasury Department, but there should be some boundaries established to the Treasury Department's discretion.  Judicial review is needed to ensure that unbridled discretion is not abused.
3.Sunlight is a good disinfectant. The bailout that is ultimately approved must provide for full and timely disclosure of all bailout details. This will discourage conflicts of interest and limit the potential of sweetheart deals.
4.Firms that accept government bailout monies must agree to disclose their transactions and be more honest in their accounting. They should agree to end off-the-books accounting maneuvers, for example.
5.Taxpayers must be protected by having a stake in any recovery. The bailout plan should provide opportunities for taxpayers to recoup funds that are made available to problem financial institutions, or to benefit from the financial institutions' rising stock price and increased profitability after being bailed out.
6.The current so-called "regulators" cannot be trusted. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), "the investigative arm of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog," must regularly review the bailout. We cannot trust the financial "regulators," who allowed the slide into financial disaster, to manage the bailout without outside monitoring.
7.It is time to put the federal cop back on the financial services beat. Strong financial regulations and independent regulators are necessary to rebuild trust in our financial institutions and to prevent further squandering of our tax dollars. The Justice Department and the SEC also need to scrutinize the expanding mess with an eye to uncovering corporate crime and misdeeds. Major news outlets are reporting that the FBI is investigating American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers.
8.Cap executive compensation and stop giving the Wall Street gamblers golden parachutes. The CEOs who have created the financial disaster should not be allowed to leave with millions in hand when so many pensioners and small shareholders are seeing their investments evaporate. The taxpayers are bailing out Wall Street so that the financial system continues to function, not to further enrich the CEOs and executives who created this mess.
9.Congress should pass the Financial Consumers' Information and Representation Act, to permit citizens to form a federally-chartered nonprofit membership organization to strengthen consumer representation in government proceedings that concern the financial services industry. As the savings and loan disasters of the 1980s and the Wall Street debacles of the last few years have demonstrated, there is an overriding need for consumers and taxpayers to have the organized means to enhance their influence on financial issues.
10.The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, separating traditional banks from investment banks, helped pave the way for the current disaster. It is time to re-regulate the financial sector. The current crisis is also leading to even further conglomeration and concentration in the financial sector. We must revive and apply antitrust principles, so that banking consumers can benefit from competition and taxpayers are less vulnerable to too-big-to-fail institutions, which merge with each other to further concentration.
11.Congress should impose a securities and derivatives speculation tax. A tax on financial trading would slow down the churning of stocks and financial instruments, and could raise substantial monies to pay for the bailout.
12.Regulators should impose greater margin requirements, making speculators use more of their own money and diminishing reckless casino capitalism.
Ask your representative a few questions: "What should be done to limit banking institutions from investing in high-risk activities?" "What should be done to ensure banks are meeting proper capital standards given the financial quicksand that has spread as a result of the former Senator Phil Gramm's deregulation efforts?" And, "What is being done to protect small investors?" 
P.S. Shareholders also have some work to do. They should have listened when Warren Buffett called securities derivatives a "time bomb" and "financial weapons of mass destruction." The Wall Street crooks and unscrupulous speculators use and draining of "other people's money" out of pension funds and mutual funds should motivate painfully passive shareholders to organize to gain greater authority to control the companies they own. Where is the shareholder uprising?
 
We've highlighted some of Jo Freeman's outstanding reporting on the 1976 political conventions recently.  Freeman also covered this year's Democratic and Republican convention for Senior Women Web and you can find her articles here.   We'll note this from her "Sarah Palin: A Risky Move and A Gift to the Women's Movement" (Senior Women Web):
 
 Like Hillary's 2008 run for President, Ferraro's 1984 run for the second spot brought all sorts of sexism out of the closet.  It was an eye-opener for everyone. In the end, this bold, risky choice didn't seem to affect the outcome.  The exit polls showed that having a woman on the ticket was a prime concern for only a few. These voters about equally divided between those who told pollsters that they voted for a woman and those who said they voted against one.
 
Ferraro's candidacy had a bigger effect on those who answered the annual polling question (in a different poll):  Would you vote for "a well-qualified woman of your own party for President"? After Ferraro a party gap appeared. Republicans were 50 percent more likely than Democrats to answer "No."   Republicans have continued to say they would not vote for a well-qualified (but unnamed) woman for President at a much higher rate than Democrats.
 
Wonder what they will tell the pollsters this year?
 
Governor Sarah Palin is the v.p. nominee on the Republican ticket.  Yesterday The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric aired the second part of Couric's interview with Palin.  Excerpt:
 
Katie Couric: As we stand before this august building and institution, what do you see as the role of the United States in the world?

Sarah Palin: I see the United States as being a force for good in the world. And as Ronald Reagan used to talk about, America being the beacon of light and hope for those who are seeking democratic values and tolerance and freedom. I see our country being able to represent those things that can be looked to … as that leadership, that light needed across the world.

Couric: In preparing for this conversation, a lot of our viewers … and Internet users wanted to know why you did not get a passport until last year. And they wondered if that indicated a lack of interest and curiosity in the world.

Palin: I'm not one of those who maybe came from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduate college and their parents give them a passport and give them a backpack and say go off and travel the world.  No, I've worked all my life. In fact, I usually had two jobs all my life until I had kids. I was not a part of, I guess, that culture. The way that I have understood the world is through education, through books, through mediums that have provided me a lot of perspective on the world.
 
Part one aired Wednesday evening and both links have text and video.  As Jo Freeman noted, Palin is following in Ferraro's footsteps (Palin has publicly acknowledged that and that she follows in Hillary Clinton's footsteps as well).  Genevieve Roth (Glamour) spoke with Ferraro to get her tips for Palin and Ferraro offers many worthwhile reflections and suggestions but probably sums it up the best with this: "The bottom line is, Sarah Palin doesn't need advice from me or anyone. She wouldn't be in the position she's in if she wasn't able to deal with the campaign."
 

Posted by at

Thursday, September 25, 2008

THIS JUST IN! SO EASILY CONFUSED!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
"THEY'RE SAYING I MAY HAVE TO DEBATE MYSELF," BARACK TOLD THESE REPORTERS NERVOUSLY.  "DEBATE MYSELF!  IN PUBLIC!  IS THAT EVEN LEGAL?"
 
THESE REPORTERS ASKED BARACK WHAT HE THOUGHT "DEBATE MYSELF" MEANT AND LEARNED THAT, NOT UNLIKE WHEN HE CLAIMED THERE WERE 57 STATES IN THE UNITED STATES, HE WAS MIXED UP. 
 
AFTER EXPLAINING IT TO HIM, BARACK BREATHED A SIGH OF RELIEF AND SAID, "OH, TALKING.  YEAH, I CAN HANDLE THAT."
 
 
Turning to the US presidential race.  Yesterday The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric featured part one of an interview (link has text and video) with Governor Sarah Palin (part-two airs tonight), the GOP vice presidential candidate.  Howard Kurtz (Washington Post) thinks he's found a mis-step in Palin's remarks, specifically in this section: "So, again, I believe that . . . a surge in Afghanistan also will lead us to victory there as it has proven to have done in Iraq.  And as I say, Katie, that we cannot afford to retreat, to withdraw in Iraq."  Kurtz offers, "The vice-presidential nominee may have misspoken in an attempt to say that President Bush's military surge in Iraq has been a success, but she did not qualify her remarks."  While she may have misspoken, there's nothing in her remarks that indicates she has.  In fact, her remarks are perfectly in keeping with top-of-the-ticket GOP nominee John McCain.  In the last months McCain has repeatedly declared victory in Iraq but the press has rarely paid attention.  There was some attention to his May 15th speech in Ohio which included, "The Iraq War has been won.  Iraq is a function democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension.  Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced.  Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent . . ."  Speech in full (text and video) at the McCain-Palin 2008 website.  Based on that and other speeches McCain has given over the summer, there is nothing inconsistent with Palin's answer.  (I don't happen to agree with her or McCain.  That's not the issue.  The issue is did she know what she was saying?  Why assume she didn't?  No one assumed he didn't, now did they?  McCain's repeatedly made those type of remarks and there's been no questioning of them.)  Let's stay with McCain's remarks for a moment because they have been noted in the snapshots.  McCain's statements on withdrawal are that most US servicemembers would be out by 2013.  What is "most"?  That's why the press should have focused on his repeated statements that the Iraq War had been "won."  (We're not going into the nonsense of 100-years which was a deliberate distortion of what McCain said.)  Presumably, McCain favors US service members stationed at the US Embassy in Iraq -- US service members are stationed at all US embassies.  What else does he support?  That's where the press has failed by refusing to explore.  And the most important question is: "If the war is won, why are US troops still in Iraq and when will they begin leaving?"  McCain's actually not fenced in with his remarks and the questions wouldn't be "gotcha" in nature.  He can sincerely believe the Iraq War has been won.  (I obviously disagree and do not think the illegal war can be won.)  But, as was pointed out in numerous snapshots, when you declare the war won then you're obligated to address what happens next.  That's where the press has been lax.  He, or Palin, can believe the Iraq War has been won.  They can still favor a US presence there (beyond the US Embassy).  They might argue that the provincial elections require US presence.  They might argue other things in addition.  But to know what they're going to say, they need to be asked. And they need to be listened to. Corey Flintoff (NPR) has apparently had McCain filtered through some 'left' voice which would explain this misrepresentation, "McCain has opposed any timetable for withdrawing troops, but he has suggested recently that if conditions warrant, he might reduce U.S. troop strength in Iraq by as much as half by the end of his first term in office."  While McCain has stated an opposition to timetables, he has stated most US service members would be out of Iraq by 2013 if he was elected president.  While he hasn't been pressed to define "most," it is more than "as much as half" as Flintoff wrongly interprets.
 
Couric wasn't afraid to ask Palin questions yesterday.  She wasn't afraid to ask Barack questions in July though there was mock outrage over that from those that don't know the first thing about journalism.  From the interview:
 
Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.
 
Part two airs tonight.  Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential candidate and she notes of the economic meltdown: "The crisis does not have to be treated as merely a 'market correction,' or the result of a few rotten appels in an otherwise pristine barrel.  This crisis truly represents the opportunity to introduce fundamental changes in the way the U.S. economy and its political stewards operate.  Responsible political leadership demands that the pain and suffering being experienced by the innocent today not be revisted upon them or the next generation tomorrow. But sadly, instead of affirmative action being taken in this direction, the Bush Administration ratches up the drumbeat for war, Republican Party operatives busily remove duly-registered voters from the voter rolls, and our elected leaders in the Congress go home to campaign while leaving all of us to fend for ourselves.  For the Administration and the Democrat-led Congress, I declare: MISSION UNACCOMPLISHED.  For the public whose moment this is, I say: Power to the People!"
 
McKinney's running mate Rosa Clemente will be speaking at the International People's Democratic Uhuru Movement (InPDUM) Saturday, September 27th.  Cynthia, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin have all offered to appear at the presidential debate scheduled Friday.  McCain has called off his appearance there.  Whether that changes or not, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has insisted he will be there.  McCain has stated that the focus should be on addressing the economic meltdown via the Congress.  Barack has stated, "It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess.  Part of the president's job is to deal with more than one thing at once."  Some foolish left and 'left' types have applauded that nonsense.  They're mistaken for several reasons including (a) the next president will not be sworn in until January (not on election day) and (b) great line . . . if you're John Edwards.  Edwards, you may recall, is not in the Senate.  Edwards could have made that line.  The response to Barack is, "Part of a sitting senator's job is to deal with more than one thing at once" including, you know, actually tending to the business you were elected to address in the 2004 election.  Equally true is that Barack's cancelled debates over the last 12 months.  Not just refused to accept offers, but cancelled debates.  The December 10th debate to be aired by CBS was cancelled by Democratic presidential candidates -- including Barack -- due to the writers' strike.  April 27th, and we're back to CBS again, Barack, and only Barack, cancelled the North Carolina Democratic Party presidential debate.  It was to be Barack and Hillary Clinton but Barack had bombed in the ABC debate the week before.  Staying with the Christ-child for a moment more, garychapelhill (The Confluence) notes Barack's latest, "Barack Obama is a bigot.  He has just launched a 'Faith, Family, Values Tour' which will feature Douglas Kmiec, a supporter of Proposition 8, a consitutional ban to California's legal gay marriage. Obama thinks that gay people can be used to help him get elected and then stab them in the back before they even get to the voting booth.   And you know what?  he's probably right.  That's because the largest gay rights advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, has been giving it up for free since they endorsed Obama, despite his long list of homophobic friends and associates."  He used homophobia to win North Carolina, why not use homphobia in the general?  It's not like his supposed 'progressive' followers called him out.  Laura Flanders, Amy Goodman, et al. didn't say one damn word.  And they're not saying a word now.
 
 
Of Barack and McCain and the potential Friday debate, Steve Conn (Dissident Voice) points out, "In their public statements, the two major party Presidential candidates and their corporate advisors scramble to avoid blame.  On Friday [. . .], these two candidates will debate.  The good citizen who warned of the impending crime, who is also a Presidential candidate), has not been invited.  According to the debate commission, funded by the two major parties, the rules don't allow it.  But, given his uniquely prescient warning to America, shouldn't he be allowed to say a few words about the crime?"
 
Conn is referring to to independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader who called out the Congressional response on Democracy Now! today, "I don't think the Democrats show any nerve that they are going to do anything but cave here. And the statements by Nancy Pelosi are not reassuring, which is, 'Well, it's the Republicans' bill, you know. Let them take responsibility for it.' That doesn't work. She's the Speaker of the House. The Democrats have got to say, 'Slow down. We're not going to be stampeded into this bill by Friday or Saturday. We're going to have very, very thorough hearings.' Otherwise, it's another collapse, at constitutional levels, of the Congress before King George IV."  Amy Goodman continued to trivialize Ralph's run by asking, in her fifth toss to him, "And, Ralph Nader, would you consider, given the stakes of this election, encouraging your supporters in swing states to vote for Barack Obama?"  Goodman hasn't had a sit down with Barack but she has interviewed him and she never asked him that question.  Goodman should answer why she thinks an independent candidate should fold up their campaign for the benefit of one of the 'majors'?  She should then be asked, in light of the layoffs in the news business, if she'd consider telling viewers in 'swing states' to watch CBS, NBC or ABC and stop watching her 'independent' program?
 
Ralph's response included: "I'm not at all impressed by Barack Obama's positions on this so-called bailout. It's just rhetoric. His Senate record has not reflected that at all.
As we campaign around the country--we're now in forty-five states plus the District of Columbia, and we're running five, six, seven percent in the polls, which is equivalent to nine, ten million eligible voters--we are going to try to rouse the public in a specific way: laser-beam focus on their senators and representatives. When these senators and representatives, if they allow this bailout deal in this general, vague manner to pass, when they go back home, they're going to hit hornets' nest. This is a situation where it doesn't matter whether the people back home are Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Nader-Gonzalez supporters. There's such a deep sense of betrayal, of panic, of stampede, of surrender, of cowardliness in Congress, that it's going to affect the election and the turnout. I'd like Barack Obama, actually, to support the Nader-Gonzalez ticket."
 
At the Nader - Gonzalez website, attorney Greg Kafoury explains:

 
Senator McCain has suspended his campaign in order to return to Washington to work on the proposed bailout situation.  McCain said, "We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved."  The Nader campaign wishes to point out that more than a third of registered voters are neither Republicans nor Democrats, and that Ralph Nader is registering between 5 and 8 percent in many major states, including swing states.  Is Senator McCain suggesting that only Republicans or Democrats are entitled to be heard on the most important domestic political crises in the last 70 years?  If the future of all Americans is at stake in the current crisis, shouldn't all Americans have representatives at the table?  We suggest that Mr. Nader, former Congressman Barr and any others who show significant levels of popular support should be included in any gatherings that are convened to resolve this crisis.  
Further, the fact that the Presidential debates scheduled for this Friday can be simply canceled by the Republican nominee shows the extent to which the debate commission is nothing but a creature of the two major parties, designed largely for the purpose of excluding third parties and independent candidacies form having a voice in our most vital public forum.  We call upon Senators McCain and Obama to recognize that we are all in this together, and to give representatives of the entire American electorate a seat at the table and a voice in the debates.
 
Meanwhile, New York's NOW president Marcia Pappas (Women's Outlook NOW) breaks down the realities about the feminist movement and political parties -- a breakdown that is overdue since so many seem to have forgotten the historical basics -- and offers, "We have become too attached to a political party. Leaders in my movment have cozzied up to the party operatives in DC and we have lost what little power we had. This is the reason why we are having trouble gaining them back.  There is no time like the present to detach from an abuser. I believe that political parties that take constituents for granted eventually end up abusing them more and more. This is what has happened over time.  It is high time that we pull ourselves away and hold every single politician's feet to the fire."
 

Posted by at

THIS JUST IN! BARACK

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
IF TRUE, IT'S PROBABLY NOT A GOOD THING TO ADVERTISE THAT YOU WERE PUNKED WHILE TRYING TO CONVINCE AMERICA THAT YOU HAVE THE EXPERIENCE TO LEAD. 
 
BUT BARACK LOVES TO PLAY THE DRAMA QUEEN AND CAN'T HELP HIMSELF FROM WHINING.
 
 
MEANWHILE THE LATEST POLLING PUTS MCCAIN AHEAD IN MONTANA, ANOTHER STATE BARACK ONCE CLAIMED HE WOULD WIN.
 
 
 
Turning to the US presidential race.  Joshua Frank offers a must read "Oppose Barack Obama? How Dare Thee!!" (Dissident Voice) about how "progressives" continue to express dismay with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama yet still continue to vote for him.  Frank runs through Barack's record including "Obama who says he wants an end to the war but has voted for its continuation and will leave troops and private mercenaries in the country to deal with the so-called insurgents -- even threatening to shift US forces to Afghanistan and Iran, where he's promised to bully our enemies into submission."  The cave on FISA, the support for the "Patriot" Act, the pro-nuclear, it's all there leading Frank to point out, "Obama has never been a true progressive.  He's another centrist Democrat that has done his best to appease all sides of the political spectrum".  Frank examines Norman Solomon "an Obama delegate at the convention in Denver and [who] sits on the board of Progressive Democrats of America, has an agenda: to usher Barack Obama into the White House because he sees John McCain as leading our country closer to the sacrificial ledge.  'Save the Country (read Empire) Vote Democrat' has become a common refrain among a certain segment of the left, one that echoes through progressive and even radical circles every four years like clockwork.  Go ahead and acknowledge their faults, they sing from on high, just don't you dare ditch the Democrats come Election Day, for the rapture will ensue.  Like others of his stature, Solomon has in the past dished out scare tactics in an attempt to threaten progressives into voting against their own interests, an approach not too unlike the Republican's who consistently undermine the concerns and needs of their base."  Frank goes on to demolish the fear card attempted re: Supreme Court and ends with a historical reminder.
 
GOP presidential candidate John McCain is in the news for proposing Friday's debate be called off.  McCain explains (McCain-Palin 2008, link has text and video): "America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, every corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen. Last Friday, I laid out my proposal and I have since discussed my priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward. Senator Obama has expressed his priorities and concerns. This morning, I met with a group of economic advisers to talk about the proposal on the table and the steps that we should take going forward. I have also spoken with members of Congress to hear their perspective. It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration's proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time. Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.  I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem."
 
Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and he writes of the economic meltdown in the US today:
 
I was up on Capitol Hill yesterday among the swarm of big bank lobbyists.

And the first thing I thought of was something my dad -- Nathra Nader -- used to say:

"Capitalism will always survive in the United States as long as the government is willing to use socialism to bail it out."

Dad was old school.
Dad emigrated to the U.S. in 1912 when he was nineteen.


(Here is a picture of Dad in 1978, leading a demonstration in Winsted, Connecticut, my hometown, to protest a Congressional pay raise.)

"When I sailed past the Statue of Liberty, I took it seriously," he would say.

Dad ran a restaurant in downtown Winsted -- the Highland Arms.

People used to say -- "At Nader's place, for a nickel you got a cup of coffee and ten minutes of conversation."

Dad didn't hesitate to skewer the greed of big business.

He especially opposed the drive by the chain stores to destroy family owned small businesses.

Dad was a man of many sayings.

"Congress is the best big business investment in the country," he would say. "It's one big leveraged sell-out."

When we were young, Dad would tell us:

"Don't look down on anyone and don't be in awe of anyone."

Or this one:

"Almost everyone will claim they love their country. If that is true, why don't they spend more time improving it?"

Dad knew early on that both political parties were under the thumb of big business. (Where did you think I got it from?)

Anyway, being on Capitol Hill yesterday got me to thinking about an idea that would help us push our substantive agenda onto the front burner of American politics.

A few years ago, I sat down at my manual typewriter and typed in 100 or so of my Dad's most memorable sayings and proverbs.

I thought you would enjoy having a copy of them.
So, here's the deal.
Our goal during this current fundraising drive is to hit $150,000 by the end of the month. (Thanks to your generosity, we're already at $36,000.)
If you donate any amount that has the number 3 in it -- as in -- we want a 3-way race -- by midnight tonight, we'll e-mail to you a collection of my Dad's sayings and proverbs.
That simple. 
Or $13.

Or $30.
But it has to have at least one three in it.
If it has a three in it, we'll e-mail you the 20 pages of Dad's sayings tomorrow.
You can share it with your friends and family.
Thank you for your ongoing support.
Together, we are making a serious difference -- and keeping our sense of humor.

Onward to November.
Ralph Nader

PS: And remember, if you donate $100 now, we'll ship to you a copy of The Ralph Nader Reader, a 441-page collection of my writings on Wall Street vs. Main Street, democracy, the corporate state, and our hyper-commercialized culture. If you donate $100 now, we will send you this diverse collection -- and I'll autograph it. (This book offer ends at 11:59 p.m. September 30, 2008.)
 
 

Posted by at

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

THIS JUST IN! DEBATE CAMP HORRORS!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
"I'M GOING CRAZY!" SENATOR SWEETIE BARACK OBAMA SCREAMED AT THESE REPORTERS OVER THE PHONE TONIGHT.  "I'M TRAPPED IN HELL!"
 
ACTUALLY IN A FLORIDA DEBATE CAMP.
 
BUT IT FELT LIKE HELL TO THE PRICKLY BARACK BECAUSE HE'D BEEN INFORMED THAT IN THIS WEEK'S DEBATE, HE'D NEED TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN HIMSELF.
 
"THAT'S CRAZY TALK!  I AM THE MOST INTERESTING PERSON IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD!  DO YOU WANT TO SEE MY SCRAPBOOK! I'VE GOT ALL MY MAGAZINES COVER IN THERE."
 
WE ASKED BARACK IF HE WAS SMARTING FROM THE CRITICISM FOR HIS SOCIAL SECURITY AD ON JOHN MCCAIN THAT HAS SOME CALLING UNSPORTSMAN LIKE CONDUCT ON BARACK AND OTHERS SAYING "THERE IS NO BASIS."
 
BARACK'S RESPONSE WAS A WHIMPER AND THEN HE WHINED, "NOT MORE ISSUES!  I HATE ISSUES!  ALL I WANT TO DO IS PUT ON A LITTLE LIP GLOSS AND POSE FOR THE CAMERA."
 
 
George Bryson's "Army Ordered to discharge soldier who found religon in Iraq" (McClatchy's Anchorage Daily News) reports that US District Judge John Sedwick has ordered that Private First Class Michael Barnes be released from the US military as a conscientious objector (with honorable discharge). Judge Sedwick found the army's claims that this was some maneuver on Barnes' part to avoid service were assertions the military failed to prove and that "testimony by a chaplain, a psychiatrist, fellow soldiers and Barnes himself proved the contrary." The ruling should shed a light on how the military really isn't in the place to 'judge' faith and that should have been evident in the case of Agustin Aguayo. The military's rejection of Agustin's claim was an offence to faith because it went against the teachings and beliefs of most faiths, with the military arguing, in effect, that faith was a static state of being and that it could not awaken or deepen. Obviously, most faiths advocate that belief that a believer grows in their faith. That can be seen in the stories describing the testings of Jesus Christ. (The testings of, not the teachings of.)

The process isn't going to change tomorrow. And it didn't change greatly during Vietnam. (1968 saw a shake up of the CO process and guidelines.) The peace movement of that period ended the draft and that is and was an important victory but the CO process is something that many members of Congress (at that time) would make sympathetic comments of but the issue was dropped. Following the end of the current illegal war, the peace movement would be smart to pursue this because the policy rarely changes in the midst of a war (of any war).

Religious faith is not necessary for CO status (though the military currently 'forgets' that and is allowed to get away with 'forgetting' it) but we're going to focus on that aspect due to the above ruling.

A counter-argument against CO status (and against war resistance) is, "You knew what you were signing up for." No, you didn't. You couldn't. And that is the story of the trials and testing of Jesus. You may think you do, but there is the abstract and there is the actual.

Stephen Fortunato was a CO during Vietnam and his case was not that different from Agustin's. Like Aguayo, Fortunato had an awakening and stopped carrying his weapon. (Agustin stopped carrying a loaded weapon.) Like Aguayo, Fortunato enlisted, he was not drafted. After his discharge, he attended Providence College and wrote a paper that was widely circulated at the time. In it, he noted:

I came to conscientious objection over a somewhat circuitous route -- via the Marine Corps. At the age of eighteen I freely enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve, more out of a spirit of adolescent adventure than anything else, and certainly not because I thought freedom would be better preserved if the government stuck an M-1 in my hands.
With all the passion and exuberance of youth I became a trained killer. I went to classes where I learned how to rip a man's jugular vein out with my teeth. I growled like a tiger when I was told to growl like a tiger. (It would indeed by edifying for religious and educational leaders to see their flocks brandishing bayonets and yelping and grunting on command, like well-trained jungle beasts -- all for the preservation of Western civilization!)
I was told that the Ten Commandments, however worthy they might be in civilian life, had to be suspended in the name of national interest. I was greatly impressed to see that an act perpetrated by the enemy was ipso facto vicious and deceitful, whereas the self-same act perpetrated by the United States was just and praiseworthy.
For two years I did my reserve duty without questioning the purposes or the means of the armed forces. It remained for one of the cruder excesses of military training to wrench me from the spiritual doldrums.
[. . .]
My first break with the ways of the military was emotional and intuitive. The contradictions of war and war preparations became clear and self-evident. It did not become a rational creature to permit himself to be led in cries for destruction of human life; a truly free man would not support a totalitarian system to defend freedom; one cannot bring about peace by threatening to incinerate mankind. No, I came to believe that a free man preserves his freedom by acting freely and not by following those would would herd men into regiments or send people scurrying like moles into bomb shelters. Most important of all, the free man must remain free not to kill or to support killing.
[. . .]
I knew I had arrived at conscientious objection. I was opposed in body and soul to the organized, budgeted, and officially sanctified use of violence called war. I was opposed to the compulsory and regimented aberration from the laws of God and reason, called conscription. I could no longer, in conscience, bear arms.
What course of action was I to take? I had freely enlisted in the reserves. But how free was I? Our society conspires in favor of the armed camp set-up we now live in. At the age of eighteen, I had not once considered military service as confronting me with a moral decision. It is one of the more gruesome paradoxes of our time than in a free -- or supposedly so -- society the atmosphere of choice on such a crucial issue had been so stifled.


Again, in 1968 the military's CO policies were updated and while that can be seen as a small vicotry the problem then is the problem today: the written policy is not really followed. During times of peace, it generally is and we may back off from the issue as a result. But following the end of this current illegal war, a serious investigation by Congress into how the written policy was followed or ignored is needed. Many members of the peace movement advocate for expanding the written policy (I'm not opposed to that) but the reality is that the written policy is yet again not being followed and that many attempting CO status would earn it under the current policy (as is) if it were only followed.
 
Turning to the US presidential race. The Democratic ticket is Obama-Biden.  Yesterday, the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric featured a segment with Senator Joe Biden.  Couric asked Biden how he was doing preparing for his debate with GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and, "Are you worried that you're going to have to pull your punches a bit because of her gender and you don't want to seem like you're bullying her? It's a different dynamic when it's a male/female thing, isn't it?"  Biden replied, ""I don't know, is it? We're sitting here doing it right now, aren't we? Look, all kidding aside. So maybe it's a generational thing but I don't start this thing thinking 'Oh my God, this is a woman, I had better treat her differently.'" On the Obama campaign's recent ad mocking John McCain's computer skills, Biden stated, "I thought that was terrible, by the way."  Couric asked, "Why did you do it then?"  Biden replied, "I didn't know we did it and if I had naything to do with it, we would have never done it."  And chugging down that high road, the Obama campaign unveils a new ad, as Wally and Cedric note, which deals with the very pressing 'issue' of what kind of cars GOP presidential nominee John McCain owns?  He owns one car, by the way.
 
Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and he writes (in US News & World Reports):
 
The broadcasts of the presidential debates this year will reach 60 million or more Americans. The array of candidates running includes two former members of Congress--Libertarian Bob Barr and Green Cynthia McKinney--as well as me, but viewers will see only two choices: a Democrat and a Republican. The rest of us are not invited.
Few voters likely know that the debate sponsor, the Commission on Presidential Debates, was created in 1987 by the two parties. Don't be fooled by its claim that its goal is to provide "the best possible information to viewers and listeners." Its purpose is to give the parties cover when they bar other legitimate candidates from debating.
 
 

Okay, time for action. 
The first Presidential debate is Friday. 
And we're getting stonewalled. 
They won't let Ralph Nader into the Presidential debates. 
So, here's what we're going to do. It's a two step process. Step one -- call Barack Obama. Tell Obama he should demand that Ralph Nader be included in the debates. And step two -- e-mail the Commission on Presidential Debates. And let them know you are onto their game. Here are the details. 
Step one:   
Call Barack Obama at 866-675-2008. 
Hit 6 to speak with a campaign volunteer. 
Once connected, politely deliver the following message: 
Hi, my name is ... I was wondering if Senator Obama, being a believer in equal opportunity and equal rights, could insist that Ralph Nader and other ballot qualified third party candidates be included in the upcoming Presidential debates? After all, Nader is on 45 state ballots. And he's polling well nationwide. And he could help Senator Obama challenge the corporate Republicans. True, Ralph would critique Senator Obama for his corporate ties also. But isn't that what democracy is about? Could you please leave this message for the campaign manager? Thank you.  
Step two:   
E-mail Janet Brown, the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates.   
Here's a sample e-mail:  
Dear Janet Brown: Greetings. You must be busy. Preparing for the first Presidential debate this Friday. So, I won't take much of your time. Just wanted to let you know that the American people were not born yesterday. We know the deal. Take that little private corporation that you run. Controlled by the two corporate parties. And funded by big business. For the purpose of excluding independent minded candidates. Friday, two Wall Street candidates are scheduled to be in the ring. Barack Obama and John McCain. The one candidate who represents the American people, Main Street, if you will, will be on the outside looking in. So, here's a simple request. Drop your exclusionary restrictions. And let Ralph Nader into the debates. It will be good for your conscience. Good for the American people. (I believe it was The League of Women Voters that called your corporatized debates "campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity, and honest answers to tough questions.") And good for democracy. Let the American people have a real debate for once. Main Street vs. Wall Street. Thank you. Signed your name.  
Onward to November  
The Nader Team
 
 

Posted by at

THIS JUST IN! FORGET THE ISSUES, CRIES BARACK!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
NOT EVEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND ALREADY LOWERING EXPECTATIONS!
 
 
OR MAYBE IT'S DUE TO HIS REFUSAL TO ADDRESS REAL ISSUES?
 
 
BUT TO BE SURE, WHEN A MCCAIN AD QUESTIONS ANYTHING ABOUT BARACK, HE WILL SHOW UP WHINING YET AGAIN AND ASKING WHY PEOPLE WON'T LET HIM FOCUS ON THE ISSUES.  JUDGING BY BARCK'S RECORD, HIS NEXT 'ISSUE' WILL BE TO 'EXPLORE' THE TYPE SOAP THE MCCAIN FAMILY USES.
 
 
 
NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (Morning Edition) reports on the growing tensions in Khanaqin, a city in Diyala Province (and, not noted by NPR, an oil rich area containing the Naft Khana oil field).  Garcia-Navarro notes that "Khanaqin is a disputed city that lies about 15 miles outside of the Kurdish provincial borders.  As far as the Iraqi government is concerned, it falls under the province of Diyala's control.  Last month the Iraqi government sent the Iraqi army into Diyala Province one of the most restive in the country to flush out al Qaeda in Iraq as part of that operation the Iraqi national security forces tried to move into Khanaqin but they were stopped by the Kurdish troops."  "Last month" is actually July 29th. During Saddam's rule, Kurds were expelled from Khanaqin and Arabs were brought in.  The illegal war changed that and now Arabs are expelled.  Garcia-Navarrot notes that "these days it's the Kurdish leadership that's been expanding its control since the US-led invasion in towns and cities outside of Kurdistan.  It's been deploying Kurdish forces and bankrolling local governments. Many Arab-Iraqis suspect that Kurds are trying to get control over an ever-widening swatch of land as a precursor to an eventual bid for independence. The Kurds deny it."  The report notes that the Iraqi military has been refused entry Khanaqin and that last week Abd al-Qadir al-Mufriji, Iraq's Defense Minister, and the US military's 2nd command in Iraq visited the region in an attempt to work out some understanding but none was reached and the Iraqi military is still refused entry and the Kurdish pesh merga patrol the city.
 
Khanaqin has been in the news before this month.  From the September 15th snapshot:
 
 
Saturday BBC reported, "A roadside bomb killed six Kurdish peshmerga fighters in Khanaqin town in Diyala province, north-east of Baghdad."  Sam Dagher (New York Times) observed that the Saturday bombing increased "tensions with the Iraqi government and local Arabs over the Kurds' presence in the area. The Kurdish presence in Khanaquin, and in other nearby areas, has been a growing source of tension. Kurdish forces have been moving the borders of their semiautonomous region in northern Iraq, in what they say is an effort to improve security. But the move has been viewed by many Iraqi and American officials as a threat to stability in areas that are already prone to violence." Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) reported before the bombing, "Kurdish leaders have expanded their authority over a roughly 300-mile-long swath of territory beyond the borders of their autonomous region in northern Iraq, stationing thousands of soldiers in ethnically mixed areas in what Iraqi Arabs see as an encroachment on their homelands. The assertion of greater Kurdish control, which has taken hold gradually since the war began and caused tens of thousands of Arabs to flee their homes, is viewed by Iraqi Arab and U.S. officials as a provocative and potentially destabilizing action."  An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy (at Inside Iraq) reviews the benefits for the Kurds and wonders if "is it right to cause a state to collapse into entities to realize your dream?"  The correspondent notes how the Peshmerga appears to decide what they will do and which areas (Kurdish or non-Kurdish) they will 'patrol.'  Of oil-rich Kirkuk, the correspondent notes that Kurds compose only an estimated 40% of the city's population but have "taken control of it and the Pershmerga handle the security there".  Of the Iraqi Constitution, the correspondents notes that "the Kurds objected to the statement that read 'Iraq is an Arab state and part of the Arab nation' pointing out that there are other ethnic groups that would be offended.  So the statement was struck out -- as if by a magic wand disregarding the other constituents of the Iraqi population.  Arabs constitute 84% of the population."
 
The Washington Post's Amit R. Paley noted then (September 12th), "The face-off between the Iraqi army and pesh merga has stoked fears of Arab-Kurdish strife just as Iraqis begin to recover from years of sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis."  The Foreign Relations Minister of the KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government), Falah Mustafa Bakir, disputed that in a letter to the Post published Sept. 18th where he maintained that "the city was peaceful until Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent Iraqi military forces there last month in an unwelcome and unnecessary provocation that sparked demonstrations by tens of thousands of residents.  This aggressive act caught the Kurdistan regional leadership by surprise, given that it occurred around the time that the KRG and other Iraqi parties had nearly reached agreement on a provincial election law, a key Iraqi benchmark.  Since then, the election law has stalled, and the KRG has negotiated with Baghdad for the redeployment of some Kurdish pesh merga forces, as noted in the article."  That's a curious re-writing of history.  The Iraqi military moved into Diyala Province on July 29th and the Kurdish lawmakers walked out of parliament over the issue of Kirkuk and provincial elections July 23rd.  From the July 23rd snapshot: "Turning to Iraq and starting with the latest in the provincial elections bill -- CNN reports it has been rejected today.  Yesterday, the Kurdish bloc in the Iraqi Parliament staged a walk-out over a bill regarding the alleged provincial elections that allegedly would take place October 1st. The walk-out means the already much postponed provinicial elections may be postponed further. . . .  Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) focuses on the struggle for the oil-rich Kirkuk, 'The disagreement centered on the multiethnic city of Kirkuk, one of several areas in Iraq where there are competing claims over which province a city or district belongs in. The question for Kirkuk is whether it should be absorbed into the Kurdistan region -- a particularly charged question because the city sits on some of the largest unexploited oil reserves in the country. Both Arabs and Kurds lay claim to the area.  At bottom, the disagreement is also about the ethnic identity of Iraq and about Arab frustration with the Kurds. Although the Kurds are a minority, they have proved adept at turning the political process to their advantage, often to the chagrin of larger ethnic and religious groups'." The walkout took place the 23rd, the move into Diyala began the 29th.  At best Falah Mustafa Baker has his dates mixed up.  Possibly due to traipsing around DC last week insisting "The KRG is part of the solution, not the problem, in meeting these Iraqi benchmarks" to the administration, the Pentagon and the State Dept.  Last week, UPI reported that despite Massoud Barzani's denials (he's the Kurdish prime minister) last week that there were no intentions to take over Diyala Province, the week prior he "pointed out that 99 percent of the Khanaqin population had voted in favor of Kurdish parties in 2005, suggesting the area would be incorporated into Kurdistan once constitutional issues over the Kurdish territories were resolved."
 
From possible conflict between warring sides to known conflict.  Maggie Fox (Reuters) reported late Friday on a UCLA study which argues, via satellite imagery, that the small drop in Baghdad violence can be attributed not to the 'surge' (escalation of US troops) but to the ethnic cleansing/violence which created the Iraqi refugee crisis (resulting in more than 4 million refugees -- external and internal): "The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed."  The study is published in Environment and Planning A, [PDF format warning] John Agnew, Thomas W. Gillespie, Jorge Gonzalez and Brian Min's "Baghdad nights: evaluting the US military 'surge' using nighttime light signatures" which notes at the start:
 
In this commentary we attempt to intervene in a way that applies some fairly objective and unobtrusive measures to a particularly contentious issue: the question of whether or not the so-called 'surge' of US military personnel into Baghdad -- 30000 more troops added in the first half of 2007 -- has turned the tide against political and social instability in Iraq and laid the groundwork for rebuilding an Iraqi polity following the US invasion of March 2003.  Even though the US media attention on the Iraq war has waned, the conflict remains a material and symbolic issue of huge significance for both future US foreign policy and the future prospects of Iraq as an effective state.
 
They continue:
 
In this paper we use remotely sensed information, specifically nighttime light imagery of Baghdad and other cities in Iraq, and correlate this, as best possible, with group-based information on ethnic distributions and violence by neighborhood.  
Our purpose is to assess the degree to which the overall nighttime light signature of the city and its distribution across neighborhoods have changed during the period of the surge.  If the surge has truly 'worked' we would expect to see a steady increase in nightime light output over time, as electrical infrastructure is repaired and restored, with little discrimination across neighborhoods.  The sistuation in other cities is used as a datum against which to compare the Baghdad trend.  Most of the other cities we examing have typically had much lower levels of ethnic intermixture and levels of violence than Baghdad.
 
And skipping further ahead:
 
The overall nighttime light signature of Baghdad since the US invasion appears to have increased between 2003 and 2006 and then declined dramatically from 20 March 2006 through December 2007 (table 1).  In other words, the period of the surge coincides with a decline in the nightime light of the city after an increase following the invasion and before the onset of the surge.  This result can be stated with a high degree of statistical confidence (Mann - Whitney U-test, P < 0.001).  The city as a whole, therefore, experienced a net decrease in its electricity output over the course of the surge.  This was not just temporary, and thus cannot be put down to military operations disrupting supplies, because the end date of 16 December 2007 is well after the most intensive military sweeps in the city."  
The second result is that the decrease in the nighttime light signature was not uniformly distributed across the city (table 2; figures 3 and 4). The neighborhoods of East and West Rashid int he southwestern section of the city have experienced the greatest decline in nighttime lights during the period of the surge.  These were historically mixed areas with a predominance of Sunnis, but between 2006 and 2007 they become highly segregated with signficant loss of total population (Jones, 2007).  The nighttime light intensity was also lower after the surge in Adhamiya (historically a Sunni area), Kadamiya (historically Shia), Rusfa, and Karada (historically mixed and/or Sunni neighborhoods).  However, there was no change or an increase in nighttime lights in Sadr City (one of the poorest areas of the city but overwhelmingly Shia), New Baghdad (heavily Shia), Karkh (Green Zone), and Al Mansour (historically mixed but by late 2007 heavily Sunni in its western periphery). This pattern of declines correlates closely with the map of ethno-sectarian violence and neighborhood ethnic cleansing presented in the Jones Report (2007) (figure 5).  Must of this was concentrated in the western and southwestern sections of the city before and during the surge.
 
And skipping further ahead:
 
Our findings suggest that in these terms the surge has had no observable effect, except insofar as it has helped to provide a seal of approval for a process of ethno-sectarian neighborhood homogenization that is now largely achieved but with a tremendous decline in the extent of residential intermixing between groups and a probable significant loss of population in some areas.  That is the message we take from the nighttime light data we have presented.  Furthermore, the nighttime light signature of Baghdad data when matched with ground data provided by the report to the US Congress by Marine Corps General Jones and various other sources, makes it clear that the diminished level of violence in Iraq since the onset of the surge owes much to a vicious process of interethnic cleansing.  This might resume if US forces withdraw.  But as the case we have made strongly implies, the massive residential segregation and population loss happened anyway even when US forces were present in increased numbers.  Perhaps they are not as central to events in Baghdad and Iraq as US government and popular opinion seems to believe.  They certainly have not been over the past two years.
 
Truest statement of the week II A note to our readers Editorial: Spending in an economic meltdown TV: Shrinkage and expansion Real Change vs. Small Change Arthur Krystal delivers a lesson in exclusion Cock Rock Hall of Fame Roundtable Coming Up Jerk off Artiste of the Week E-mails (Dona and Jess) Highlights
"Celebrity third-person "
"THIS JUST IN! BITTER SWEET SWEETIE!"

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)