Blackmail in California : Businesses Warned Against Support of Gay Rights

Ballot initiative stirrring up a storm: Pastor volunteers at phone bank in conservative-leaning Orange County on Oct. 16 to urge Californians to vote no on Prop. 8, which would outlaw same-sex marriages in the state. Photo by David McNew / Getty.

Certified letter from Proposition 8 umbrella group: Don’t support gay marriage.
By Lisa Leff / October 23, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO — Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California are warning businesses that have given money to the state’s largest gay rights group they will be publicly identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the gay marriage ban, too.

ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.

“Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error,” reads the letter. “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. … The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.”

The letter was signed by four members of the group’s executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, the lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com. A donation form was attached. The letter did not say where the names would be published.

The unusual appeal reflects the increasing tension surrounding the tight race over Proposition 8, which would change the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman. In recent days, both sides in the debate have accused their opponents of threatening their respective campaign volunteers and misleading voters.

San Diego businessman Jim Abbott, who owns a real estate company and is a member of Equality California’s board of directors, received one of the letters late Wednesday afternoon. His adult son called Abbott to read it to him.

“He characterized it as a bit ‘Mafioso,'” Abbott said. “It was a little distressing, but it’s consistent with how the ‘yes’ side of this campaign has been run, which is a bit over the top.”

Abbott, who married his same-sex partner at the end of August, estimated that over the last decade he has given $50,000 to Equality California, including a recent $10,000 gift to underwrite a San Diego event that raised money to defeat Proposition 8.

When asked whether ProtectMarriage.com planned to name businesses that have supported the No on 8 campaign, Prentice initially said he was unaware of any such effort.

“I’m not familiar of any organized attack against organizations that have given to No on 8,” he said Thursday.

But when asked about the letter to Equality California donors, Prentice confirmed they were authentic and said the ProtectMarriage.com campaign was asking businesses backing the other side “to reconsider taking a position on a moral issue in California.”

Prentice said it was his understanding it was intended for large corporations such as cable operators Time Warner and Comcast instead of small business owners like Abbott. Both Time Warner and Comcast are listed on Equality California’s Web site as corporate sponsors that gave $50,000 each to the group.

Companies that have contributed directly to one of the campaign committees collecting cash to fight Proposition 8, including one set up by Equality California, also were recipients of the letter, Prentice said. That list includes companies such as Pacific Gas & Electric, Levi Strauss and AT&T.

“I think the IDing of, or outing of, any company is very secondary to the question of why especially a public corporation would choose to take a side knowing it would splinter it’s own clientele,” he said.

Equality California executive director Geoffrey Kors said Thursday he has heard from two other business owners besides Abbott.

“It’s truly an outrageous attempt to extort people,” Kors said.

While an anti-Proposition 8 group called Californians Against Hate has posted lists of gay marriage ban donors on the Internet and even launched boycotts of selected businesses, Kors said that work has been independent of the official No on 8 campaign.

“They are going after our long-term funding and trying to intimidate Equality California donors from giving any more to the No on 8 campaign and from giving to Equality California ever again.”

While corporations often give to rival candidates for public office as a way of preserving their government access no matter who wins, tit-for-tat solicitations are almost unheard of in ballot initiative campaigns, said Robert Stern, president of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies.

“This is a proposition where you are on one side or the other. You vote yes or no, not yes and no,” Stern said.

Though unusual and disturbing, Stern said there was nothing illegal about ProtectMarriage.com hitting up Equality California supporters for money.

Sonya Eddings Brown, a ProtectMarriage.com spokeswoman, estimated that 36 companies were targeted for the letter and said those that do not respond with a contribution would be highlighted in a press release and on the campaign Web site.

She called the tactic “a frustrated response” to the intimidation felt by Proposition 8 supporters, who have had their lawn signs stolen and property vandalized in the closing days of the heated campaign.

Source / AP / SF Gate

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Health of All Is Affected by Preventable Pollution

These children are developmentally impaired as a result of lead poisoning. Haina, Dominican Republic. Photo: Blacksmith Institute.

Worst Forms of Pollution Killing Millions
By Stephen Leahy / October 23, 2008

UXBRIDGE, Canada – Gold mining and recycling car batteries are two of the world’s Top 10 most dangerous pollution problems, and the least known, according a new report.

The health of hundreds of millions of people is affected and millions die because of preventable pollution problems like toxic waste, air pollution, ground and surface water contamination, metal smelting and processing, used car battery recycling and artisanal gold mining, the “Top Ten” report found.

“The global health burden from pollution is astonishing, and mainly affects women and children,” said Richard Fuller, director of the New York- based Blacksmith Institute, a independent environmental group that released the list Tuesday in partnership with Green Cross Switzerland.

“The world community needs to wake up to this fact,” Fuller told IPS.

In previous years, the Blacksmith Institute has released a Top Ten list of toxic sites. The Institute continues to compile a detailed database with over 600 toxic sites and will release the world’s first detailed global inventory in a couple of years.

However, this year, rather than focus on places, it wants to bring specific pollution issues to world attention. And in particular highlight the health impacts — a 2007 Cornell University study that 40 percent of all deaths worldwide are directly attributable to pollution, he said.

Remediation and preventing much of this pollution are not only possible but cost-effective, especially when compared to other international efforts to improve health in developing countries.

Sometimes it is simply a matter of information and alternatives, as Fuller learned on a recent investigation in Dakar, the capital of Senegal, where children had died from lead poisoning. “Women from some poor areas of Dakar were hoping to make some money recycling car batteries and ended up accidentally killing their children,” he said.

In the tropics, car batteries only last a year or two and so there is a thriving recycling industry. However, much of this is done by very poor people who break open the batteries with axes and melt them down on open fires. Lead dust fills the air and children playing nearby inhaled the toxic lead dust, and some died.

“It is very difficult to die from lead poisoning, it takes an awful lot of lead,” Fuller said.

Fuller and colleagues measured the lead levels in the blood of surviving children and found levels 10 times the maximum allowed in the U.S. Lead is a potent neurotoxin and children are especially sensitive, as it affects their developing nervous systems and brains. “These are now the brain-damaged children of Dakar,” he said.

Blacksmith arranged to have the site in Dakar cleaned up but because it is an important source of income for the poor, the batteries are still collected but are now being shipped to proper recycling facilities. The World Health Organisation is trying to treat the affected children, he said.

“There is no simple, universal solution. It has to be solved on step by step, one place at a time basis,” Fuller noted.

Another of the biggest overlooked pollution issues comes from artisanal and small-scale mining involving some 15 million miners, including 4.5 million women and 600,000 children, the report finds. As much as 95 percent of the mercury used to recover the gold ends up in the environment. That mercury represents 30 percent of all mercury emitted into the global environment each year from all sources including power plants, according to the U.N. Industrial Development Organisation.

“It’s an enormous problem that transcends boundaries. That mercury ends up in the tuna we eat here in North America,” Fuller said.

Mercury is another potent neurotoxin and is dangerous in extremely small quantities. Hundreds of kilogrammes are used every day for gold recovery. “Artisanal miners are the poorest of the poor and you can’t just tell them to stop,” he said.

There are safer and more effective ways of recover gold using a simple tool called a “retort” but education and retraining is required. Blacksmith and its partners have had good success in teaching and then paying a leader in the community to train local miners on the safer technique.

“It doesn’t take that much money to solve these pollution problems,” he said.

And the pollution that affects the health of nearly a billion people and impairs countries’ economy development could be fixed in just 20 to 30 years with a concerted effort by the international community. “Governments are becoming interested in this. I’m cautiously optimistic,” Fuller said.

Education and other international development assistance efforts will fail without reducing the pollution burden that affects the mental and physical capacity of so many people. Even with a downturn in the global economy, the argument for cleaning up pollution is so “compelling that it will not stop countries from taking action”.

“Clean air, water and soil are human rights,” he said.

The World’s Worst Pollution Problems list is unranked and includes:

• Indoor air pollution: adverse air conditions in indoor spaces

• Urban air quality: adverse outdoor air conditions in urban areas

• Untreated sewage: untreated waste water

• Groundwater contamination: pollution of underground water sources as a result of human activity

• Contaminated surface water: pollution of rivers or shallow dug wells mainly used for drinking and cooking

• Artisanal gold mining: small scale mining activities that use the most basic methods to extract and process minerals and metals

• Industrial mining activities: larger scale mining activities with excessive mineral wastes

• Metals smelting and other processing: extractive, industrial, and pollutant-emitting processes

• Radioactive waste and uranium mining: pollution resulting from the improper management of uranium mine tailings and nuclear waste

• Used lead acid battery recycling: smelting of batteries used in cars, trucks and back-up power supplies

Source / IPS (Interpress Service)

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Lloyd Doggett Quizzes Ben Bernanke About the Bailout Debacle

In Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D., Texas) we have one of the clearer, more conscientious voices in Washington representing some of us.

This is a reminder to keep him informed of your best thinking on these and other subjects of federal concern. You can sign up to receive Lloyd’s newsletter at his official site, and that has gotta be a good thing, too.

I just received the following from Cong. Doggett about the bailout and his renewed communication with the Fed’s Ben Bernanke.

Mariann Wizard / The Rag Blog / October 24, 2008


Questioning Bernanke about the alleged oversight of the Bailout
By Lloyd Doggett / October 23, 2008

[United States Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat, represents the 25th District of Texas.]

Returning to Washington on Monday for a House Budget Committee hearing, I questioned Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Financial Stability Oversight Board, which is supposed to ensure proper execution of the bailout.

As you recall, over my opposition, President Bush signed the bailout into law.

… (Bernanke’s) responses reveal that no federal regulator has been fired or disciplined as a result of the regulatory failures that led to the bailout. Nor have any executives from troubled institutions benefiting from the bailout been required to forgo pay raises and bonuses.

Additionally, since the bailout, the Treasury Department has further weakened the very modest limitations contained in the legislation for ‘golden parachutes’ or departure bonuses. For example, if an executive earned $10 million in compensation annually and exercised stock options worth a total of $30 million in the prior three years, then his average annual pay would rise to $20 million, still entitling him to a golden parachute of $59.9 million. That is not a trimmed parachute.

Because my time was very limited, I could not raise all of my questions with Chairman Bernanke, but I did make additional observations with other witnesses… (W)e now have reports of yet another contradiction from bailout promoters. After being repeatedly told that some financial institutions are too big to permit them to fail, we are advised that some major banks, with the encouragement of the Treasury Secretary Paulson, will use their new taxpayer-funded loans to get bigger. Instead of making new loans available, they plan to acquire other banks.

Texas Cong. Lloyd Doggett Questions Ben Bernanke

Go to Cong. Lloyd Doggett’s website.

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Ayers and the Poisonous Nature of American Electoral Politics

What’s most remarkable about this article is the collection of quotes at the end of it from both Democrats and Republicans condemning the university for inviting Ayers to speak in the first place. What hypocrisy: this is a putative academic environment where all views are welcome. Electoral politics in this nation has become so poisoned that it would almost be better to cancel all of it and crown an emperor, or (my personal preference) drop everything and live in absolute anarchy.

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog


University of Nebraska-Lincoln Disinvites William Ayers after Death Threats, Financial Pressure
By Matthew Rothschild / October 23, 2008

William Ayers can’t catch a break.

After the McCain campaign has dragged his name through the mud and tried to attach it to Obama’s, Ayers is finding himself shunned even on a university campus.

Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was invited to deliver the keynote speech at an education conference at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln on November 15.

His address was billed as: “We Are Each Other’s Keepers: Research to Change the World.”

But on October 17, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln canceled the speech.

“The university’s threat assessment group monitored e-mails and other information UNL received regarding Ayers’s scheduled Nov. 15 visit, and identified safety concerns which resulted in the university canceling the event,” the administration said in a press release.

On October 23, the university released further details about these threats.

Mario Scalora, associate professor of psychology, was on the school’s threat assessment team. In an e-mail to the chancellor on the morning of October 17, he cited “substantial security concerns,” though he added, “We do not have any active death threats as yet.”

But a further analysis that he provided did contain thinly veiled death threats.

“Give me a sniper rifle and a good firing position, and I shall move Bill Ayers’ gray matter,” wrote one blogger who identified himself as “Lee Harvey Cornhusker.”

Another blogger wrote, “I wonder what flag he wants on his coffin.”

One caller was described as “very upset” and said there will be “hell to pay” if Ayers is not disinvited within 24 hours.

“Several subjects,” Scalora noted, were “making multiple contacts escalating in their rhetoric and emotion.”

There was other pressure, as well.

“Some donors threatened to withhold financial support to the university unless Ayers was disinvited,” the Lincoln Journal Star reported, including a foundation that has provided millions.

Many e-mails poured into the paper from people saying they would stop contributing. Kim Morsett wrote: ‘I say to all ALUMS NO MORE $$$$$$$$$ if he speaks.”

Another one said: “This is absolutely disgusting! Whoever made this decision should be removed from their position at UNL. No more contributions from me!!!!!!!!”

Someone named John wrote: “Every year for the past few years, I have donated $5,000 to the University of Nebraska. If Ayers is allowed to set foot on campus, that will end. Not a threat. A promise.”

State politicians also weighed in.

“This is an embarrassment to the University of Nebraska and the State of Nebraska,” Governor Dave Heineman told the paper. “Bill Ayers is a well-known radical who should never have been invited to the University of Nebraska.”

Nebraska’s Democratic Senator, Ben Nelson, urged the university to reconsider its invitation.

“I join many Nebraskans in disappointment that Bill Ayers has been invited to the University of Nebraska at Lincoln,” Nelson said. “His past involvement in a violent protest group and incendiary comments are not consistent with the agenda of unity that we need in America today.”

The chancellor of the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Harvey Perlman, sent out an e-mail to the faculty and staff on October 20 defending the initial invitation to Ayers and bemoaning the fact that the threats of violence impelled him to rescind that invitation.

“Most alarming,” he wrote, “were some responses that were threatening to the security of the campus. . . . The tone and tenor of the e-mails, the phone calls, and the blogs, suggested that the reaction to any Ayers’ visit would represent a significant threat to the safety of the campus. . . . I find it difficult to accept that the actions of a few individuals can deprive this university of its right to select speakers who can contribute to the education of our students. Nonetheless I take seriously the responsibility I have for the safety of members of this community, particularly the students. It seemed cancellation was the most responsible action. This university has always been able to invite and to host controversial speakers from all walks of life and all matters of persuasion. It is unnerving that the apparent escalating passion and violence of recent years makes the exercise of our traditional values more difficult.”

Some faculty members sharply criticized this decision.

It is a “chilling blow to academic freedom on our campus,” said one, “and there is a lot of frustration and anger from faculty, including some threats to leave.”

Source / The Progressive

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Ecuador : Nature has Inherent Rights


‘Breaking with tradition and establishing a bold legal precedent, Ecuador recently decided that nature should have rights of its own.’
By Anna Cederstav / October 23, 2008

Most environmentalists believe that nature has a right to exist for its own sake, but that’s not how the law works in our country.

In the United States, nature is defensible only if a human will miss the forest, species, or clean water when it is gone. To use the law, a human must first prove harm to their person.

If that proverbial tree falls in the woods and no human cares, no laws were broken. But if a tree falls and the hiker who depended on its shade is harmed, the U.S. legal system may provide some relief.

Breaking with tradition and establishing a bold legal precedent, Ecuador recently decided that nature should have rights of its own. Just for the sake of protecting nature and the intricate web of life that depends on it.

Although constitutions in other countries have long provided stronger protections than those available in the United States, guaranteeing for example the right of all citizens to enjoy an environment that is healthy and in equilibrium, as in Costa Rica, the right of nature to simply exist and continue to evolve for its own sake has not yet been guaranteed.

However, the Rights of Nature section in the Ecuadorian constitution that recently became law does just that. In Ecuador today, an ecosystem:

* Has the “right to exist” and—perhaps more importantly—to “persist.”

* Has the right to “maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, and functions.”

* Has the right to “its processes in evolution.”

And most important, any person, people, or community can take legal action to defend those rights without showing personal harm.

Rights of Nature provisions may finally provide balance in legal systems around the world that tend to view nature as only an economic resource for humans.

We congratulate our colleagues in AIDA and ECOLEX who contributed to the efforts that led to this great precedent.

There are some worries that this new take on the inherent importance of defending nature may be too associated with President Rafael Correa, and that these new provisions are only as strong as the party currently holding power in Ecuador.

But if the country remains stable, the Ecuadorian Rights of Nature could be a model for what may someday become standard practice in constitutions around the world.

Each year, the Earthjustice International Program tracks changes in national environmental laws from around the world. See recent reports from EarthJustice.

Source / Earthjustice

Thanks to Richard Kendrick / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Nonexistent Good News from Baghdad

Electrical wires span the streets in Baghdad, fed by private generators that provide backup for districts without power from the central grid. Photo: Marko Georgiev for The New York Times.

Wrecked Iraq: What the Good News from Iraq Really Means
By Michael Schwartz / October 23, 2008

As the Smoke Clears in Iraq: Even before the spectacular presidential election campaign became a national obsession, and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression crowded out other news, coverage of the Iraq War had dwindled to next to nothing. National newspapers had long since discontinued their daily feasts of multiple — usually front page – reports on the country, replacing them with meager meals of mostly inside-the-fold summary stories. On broadcast and cable TV channels, where violence in Iraq had once been the nightly lead, whole news cycles went by without a mention of the war.

The tone of the coverage also changed. The powerful reports of desperate battles and miserable Iraqis disappeared. There are still occasional stories about high-profile bombings or military campaigns in obscure places, but the bulk of the news is about quiescence in old hot spots, political maneuvering by Iraqi factions, and the newly emerging routines of ordinary life.

A typical “return to normal life” piece appeared October 11th in the New York Times under the headline, “Schools Open, and the First Test is Iraqi Safety.” Featured was a Baghdad schoolteacher welcoming her students by assuring them that “security has returned to Baghdad, city of peace.”

Even as his report began, though, Times reporter Sam Dagher hedged the “return to normal” theme. Here was his first paragraph in full:

“On the first day of school, 10-year-old Basma Osama looked uneasy standing in formation under an already stifling morning sun. She and dozens of schoolmates listened to a teacher’s pep talk — probably a necessary one, given the barren and garbage-strewn playground.”

This glimpse of the degraded conditions at one Baghdad public school, amplified in the body of Dagher’s article by other examples, is symptomatic of the larger reality in Iraq. In a sense, the (often exaggerated) decline in violence in that country has allowed foreign reporters to move around enough to report on the real conditions facing Iraqis, and so should have provided U.S. readers with a far fuller picture of the devastation George Bush’s war wrought.

In reality, though, since there are far fewer foreign reporters moving around a quieter Iraq, far less news is coming out of that wrecked land. The major newspapers and networks have drastically reduced their staffs there and — with a relative trickle of exceptions like Dagher’s fine report — what’s left is often little more than a collection of pronouncements from the U.S. military, or Iraqi and American political leaders in Baghdad and Washington, framing the American public’s image of the situation there.

In addition, the devastation that is now Iraq is not of a kind that can always be easily explained in a short report, nor for that matter is it any longer easily repaired. In many cities, an American reliance on artillery and air power during the worst days of fighting helped devastate the Iraqi infrastructure. Political and economic changes imposed by the American occupation did damage of another kind, often depriving Iraqis not just of their livelihoods but of the very tools they would now need to launch a major reconstruction effort in their own country.

As a consequence, what was once the most advanced Middle Eastern society — economically, socially, and technologically — has become an economic basket case, rivaling the most desperate countries in the world. Only the (as yet unfulfilled) promise of oil riches, which probably cannot be effectively accessed or used until U.S. forces withdraw from the country, provides a glimmer of hope that Iraq will someday lift itself out of the abyss into which the U.S. invasion pushed it.

Consider only a small sampling of the devastation.

The Economy: Fundamental to the American occupation was the desire to annihilate Saddam Hussein’s Baathist state apparatus and the economic system it commanded. A key aspect of this was the closing down of the vast majority of state-owned economic enterprises (with the exception of those involved in oil extraction and electrical generation).

In all, 192 establishments, adding up to 35% of the Iraqi economy, were shuttered in the summer and fall of 2003. These included basic manufacturing processes like leather tanning and tractor assembly that supplied other sectors, transportation firms that dominated national commerce, and maintenance enterprises that housed virtually all the technicians and engineers qualified to service the electrical, water, oil, and other infrastructural systems in the country.

Justified as the way to bring a modern free-enterprise system to backward Iraq, this draconian program was put in place by the President’s proconsul in Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer III. The result? An immediate depression that only deepened in the years to follow.

One measure of this policy’s impact can be found in the demise of the leather goods industry, a key pre-invasion sector of Iraq’s non-petroleum economy. When a government-owned tanning operation, which all by itself employed 30,000 workers and supplied leather to an entire industry, was shuttered in late 2003, it deprived shoe-makers and other leather goods establishments of their key resource. Within a year, employment in the industry had dropped from 200,000 workers to a mere 20,000.

By the time Bremer left Iraq in the spring of 2004, the inhabitants of many cities faced 60% unemployment. Meanwhile, the country’s agriculture, a key component of its economy, was also victimized by the dismantling of government establishments and services. The lush farming areas between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers suffered badly. The once-thriving date palm industry was a typical casualty. It suffered deadly infestations of pests when the occupation eliminated a government-run insecticide spraying program. Even oil refinery-based industrial towns like Baiji became cities of slums when plants devoted to non-petroleum activities were shuttered.

This economic devastation fueled the insurgency by generating desperation, anger, and willing recruits. The explosion of resistance, in turn, tended to obscure — at least for western news services — the desperate circumstances under which ordinary Iraqis labored.

As violence has subsided in Baghdad and elsewhere, demands for relief have come to the fore. These are not easily answered by a still largely non-functional central government in Baghdad whose administrative and economic apparatus was long ago dismantled, and many of whose key technical personnel had fled into exile. Meanwhile, in early 2006, the American occupation declared that further reconstruction work would be the responsibility of Iraqis. It is not clear into what channels the growing discontent over an economy that remains largely in the tank and a government that still cannot deliver ordinary services will flow.

Electricity: A critical factor in Iraq’s collapse has been its decaying electrical grid. In areas where the insurgency raged, facilities involved in producing and transmitting electricity were targeted, both by the insurgents and U.S. forces, each trying to deprive the other of needed resources. In addition, Bremer eliminated the government-owned maintenance and engineering enterprises that had been holding the electrical system together ever since the U.N. sanctions regime after the 1991 Gulf War deprived Iraq of material needed to repair and upgrade its facilities. Maintenance and replacement contracts were given instead to multinational companies with little knowledge of the existing system and — due to cost-plus contracting — every incentive to replace facilities with their own proprietary technology. In the meantime, many Iraqi technicians left the country.

The successor Iraqi governments, deprived of the capacity to manage the system’s reconstruction, continued the U.S. occupation policy of contracting with foreign companies. Even in areas of the country relatively unaffected by the fighting, those companies did the lucrative thing, replacing entire sections of the electric grid, often with inappropriate but exquisitely expensive equipment and technology.

A combination of factors — including pressure from the insurgency, the soaring costs of security, and an almost unparalleled record of endemic waste and corruption — led to costs well beyond those originally offered for the already overpriced projects. Many were then abandoned before completion as funding ran out. Completed projects were often shabbily done and just as often proved incompatible with existing facilities, introducing new inefficiencies.

In one altogether-too-typical case, Bechtel installed 26 natural gas turbines in areas where no natural gas was available. The turbines were then converted to oil, which reduced their capacity by 50% and led to a rapid sludge build-up in the equipment requiring expensive maintenance no Iraqi technicians had been trained to perform. In location after location, the turbines became inoperative.

Even before the invasion, the decrepit electrical system could not meet national demand. No province had uninterrupted service and certain areas had far less than 12 hours of service per day. The vast investments by the occupation and its successor regimes have increased electrical capacity since the invasion of 2003, but these gains have not come close to keeping up with skyrocketing demand created by the presence of hundreds of thousands of troops, private security personnel, and occupation officials, as well as by the introduction of all manner of electronic devices and products in the post-invasion period. Recent U.N. reports indicate that, in the last year, electrical capacity has slipped to less than half of demand. With priority going to military and government operations, many Baghdad neighborhoods experience less than two hours of publicly provided electricity a day, forcing citizens and business enterprises to utilize expensive and polluting gasoline generators.

In spring of this year, 81% of Iraqis reported that they had experienced inadequate electricity in the previous month. During the heat of summer and the cold of winter, these shortages create real health emergencies.

In 2004, the U.N. estimated that $20 billion in reconstruction funds would be needed for a fully operative electrical grid. The estimates now range from $40 billion to $80 billion.

Water: The Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which flow through the country from the northwest to the southeast, have since time immemorial irrigated the rich farming land that lay between them, nurtured the fish that are a staple of the Iraqi diet, and provided water for animal and human consumption. American-style warfare, with its reliance on tank, artillery, and air power, often resulted in the cratering of streets in upstream Sunni cities like Tal Afar, Falluja, and Samarra where the insurgency was strongest. One result was the wrecking of already weakened underground sewage systems. In the Sadr City section of Baghdad, for instance, where much fighting has taken place and American air power was called in regularly, there is now a lake of sewage clearly visible on satellite photographs.

The ultimate destination of significant parts of the filth from devastated sewage systems was the two rivers. Five years worth of such waste flowing through the streets and into those rivers has left them thoroughly contaminated. Their water can no longer be safely drunk by humans or animals, the remaining fish cannot be safely eaten, and the contaminated water reportedly withers the crops it irrigates.

Iraq’s never-adequate water purification system has proven woefully insufficient to handle this massive flow of contamination, while inadequate electric supplies insure that the country’s few functional purification plants are less than effective.

In many cities, the sewage system must be entirely reconstructed, but repairs cannot even begin without a viable electrical system, a reinvigorated engineering and construction sector, and a government capable of marshalling these resources. None of these prerequisites currently exist.

Schools: Education has been a victim of all the various pathologies current in Iraqi society. During the initial invasion, the U.S. military often commandeered schools as forward bases, attracted by their well-defined perimeters, open spaces for vehicles, and many rooms for offices and barracks. Two incidents in which American gunfire from an occupied elementary school killed Iraqi civilians in the conservative Sunni city of Falluja may have been the literal sparks that started the insurgency. Many schools would subsequently be rendered uninhabitable by destructive battles fought in or near them.

Under the U.S. occupation’s de-Baathification policy, thousands of teachers who belonged to the Baath Party were fired, leaving hundreds of thousands of students teacherless. In addition, the shuttering of government enterprises deprived the schools of supplies — including books and teaching materials — as well as urgently needed maintenance.

The American solution, as with the electric grid, was to hire multinational firms to repair the schools and rehabilitate school systems. The result was an orgy of corruption accompanied by very little practical aid. Local school officials complained that facilities with no windows, heating, or toilet facilities were repainted and declared fit for use.

The dwindling central government presence made schools inviting arenas for sectarian conflict, with administrators, teachers, and especially college professors removed, kidnapped, or assassinated for ideological reasons. This, in turn, stimulated a mass exodus of teachers, intellectuals, and scientists from the country, removing precious human capital essential for future reconstruction.

Finally, in Baghdad, the U.S. military began installing ten-foot tall cement walls around scores of communities and neighborhoods to wall off participants in the sectarian violence. As a result, schoolchildren were often separated from their schools, reducing attendance at the few intact facilities to those students who happened to live within the imprisoning walls.

This fall, as some of these walls were dismantled, residents discovered that many of the schools were virtually unusable. The Times’s Dagher offered a vivid description, for instance, of a school in the Dolaie neighborhood which “is falling apart, and overwhelmed by the children of almost 4,000 Shiite refugee families who have settled in the Chukouk camp nearby. The roof is caving in, classroom floors and hallways are stripped bare, and in the playground a pile of burnt trash was smoldering.”

The Dysfunctional Society: Much has been made in the U.S. presidential campaign of the $70 billion oil surplus the Iraqi government built up in these last years as oil prices soared. In actuality, most of it is currently being held in American financial institutions, with various American politicians threatening to confiscate it if it is not constructively spent. Yet even this bounty reflects the devastation of the war.

De-Baathification and subsequent chaos rendered the Iraqi government incapable of effectively administering projects that lay outside the fortified, American-controlled Green Zone in the heart of Baghdad. A vast flight of the educated class to Syria, Jordan, and other countries also deprived it of the managers and technicians needed to undertake serious reconstruction on a large scale.

As a consequence, less than 25% of the funds budgeted for facility construction and reconstruction last year were even spent. Some government ministries spent less than 1% of their allocations. In the meantime, the large oil surpluses have become magnets for massive governmental corruption, further infuriating frustrated citizens who, after five years, still often lack the most basic services. Transparency International’s 2008 “corruption perceptions index” listed Iraq as tied for 178th place among the 180 countries evaluated.

The Iraq that has emerged from the American invasion and occupation is now a thoroughly wrecked land, housing a largely dysfunctional society. More than a million Iraqis may have died; millions have fled their homes; many millions of others have been scarred by war, insurgency and counterinsurgency operations, extreme sectarian violence, and soaring levels of common criminality. Education and medical systems have essentially collapsed and, even today, with every kind of violence in decline, Iraq remains one of the most dangerous societies on earth.

As its crisis deepened, the various areas of social and technical devastation became ever more entwined, reinforcing one another. The country’s degraded sewage and water systems, for example, have spawned two consecutive years of widespread cholera. It seems likely that this year, the disease will only subside when the cold weather makes further contagion impossible, but this “solution” also guarantees its reoccurrence each year until water purification systems are rebuilt.

In the meantime, cholera victims cannot rely on Iraq’s once vaunted medical system, since two-thirds of the country’s doctors have fled, its hospitals are often in a state of advanced decay and disrepair, drugs remain scarce, and equipment, if available at all, is outdated. The rebuilding of the water and medical systems, however, cannot get fully underway unless the electrical system is restored to reasonable shape. Repair of the electrical grid awaits a reliable oil and gas pipeline system to provide fuel for generators, and this cannot be constructed without the expertise of technicians who have left the country, or newly trained specialists that the educational system is now incapable of producing. And so it goes.

On a daily basis, this cauldron of misery renews powerful feelings of discontent, which explains why American military leaders regularly insist that the country’s current relative quiescence is, at best, “fragile.” They believe only the most minimal reductions in U.S. forces in Iraq (still hovering at close to 150,000 troops) are advisable.

Even if Washington prefers to ignore Iraqi realities, military officials working close to the ground know that the country’s state of disrepair, and an inability to deal with it in any reasonably prompt way, leaves a population in steaming discontent. At any moment, this could explode in further sectarian violence or yet another violent effort to expel the U.S. forces from the country.

Michael Schwartz’s new book, War Without End: The Iraq War in Context (Haymarket, 2008), has just been released. It explains just how the militarized geopolitics of oil led the U.S. to dismantle the Iraqi state and economy while fueling sectarian civil war inside that country. A professor of sociology at Stony Brook State University, Schwartz has written extensively on popular protest and insurgency. His work on Iraq has appeared in numerous outlets, including TomDispatch, Asia Times, Mother Jones, and Contexts. A video of him discussing “wrecked Iraq” can be seen by clicking here. His email address is ms42@optonline.net.

Source / TomDispatch

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Seeking to Stop the Military Recruiters Dead

Barbara Harris discussing ways to educate parents about their right to keep information on their children from the military. Photo: Yana Paskova for The New York Times.

‘Counter-Recruiter’ Seeks to Block Students’ Data From the Military
By Javier C. Hernandez / October 22, 2008

Barbara G. Harris, 72, looked her troops in the eye. Staring out at mohawks on one side of the room, salt-white bobs on the other, she said in her delicately firm way: “Hold your ground. You have every right to stand there, and if anyone tells you differently, tell them your rights.”

Barbara Harris discussing ways to educate parents about their right to keep information on their children from the military.

A retired teacher and longtime peace advocate, Ms. Harris was tutoring 20 new enlistees in the art of “counter-recruitment,” her personal crusade to block recruiters for the United States military from contacting New York City high school students.

She had assembled the group in her war room, a space near Union Square lent by a sympathetic organization, where plants and antiwar signs line the walls, in preparation for a blitz Thursday evening at parent-teacher conferences, where Ms. Harris and the others plan to stand on sidewalks outside school buildings armed with opt-out forms and their best sales pitches.

“You don’t have a whole lot of time — that’s the point,” Ms. Harris told the volunteers, who ranged in age from college students to the Granny Peace Brigade, a New York group of older women started in 2005 to protest the Iraq war. “Don’t be frustrated by that. They do stop.”

Ms. Harris’s efforts this week come as the Department of Education is facing renewed criticism from the New York Civil Liberties Union on the issue of military recruitment, after changing its policy in September to allow recruiters to get data about high school students from a central office. In the past, recruiters had to go from school to school to get names, addresses and phone numbers for students.

Federal law requires that schools provide the military the same access as colleges and other prospective employers. Parents are allowed to block access to a child’s information by signing an opt-out form.

Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the United States Army recruiting command, said that he was unaware of Ms. Harris but that the military did not object to counter-recruitment efforts. “We would hope that we would have an open discourse and not have one group try to stifle the ability of the other group to speak,” he said.

Ms. Harris, who lives in Midtown, started counter-recruiting three years ago, troubled by what she saw as an increasingly aggressive attempt to recruit low-income and minority students into the armed forces (she calls it a “poverty draft”). She has made it her mission to inform students, parents and teachers of alternatives to joining the military. She was among 18 members of the Granny Peace Brigade arrested and charged with disorderly conduct at the Times Square recruitment center in 2005; they were later acquitted of all charges.

Her latest campaign caps a half-century of protests. In the 1950s, while her friends ducked under desks and talked of fallout shelters, Ms. Harris took to the streets, rallying against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

As the Vietnam War roiled, she focused on peace and women’s rights. She got a job teaching special-needs children at a public school in Pleasantville, N.Y., followed by a 21-year stint as a corporate trainer at AT&T. In the 1990s, Ms. Harris returned to the classroom, teaching English as a second language at the New School until her retirement in 2002. She has two children and two grandchildren.

Friends describe her as a protester who rarely raises her voice and makes it a point not to talk over others.

“She is an absolute wonder,” said Nancy Kricorian, coordinator for the city’s chapter of Code Pink, a women’s antiwar group Ms. Harris belongs to. “She can talk to the most rabid person, somebody who totally disagrees with what we’re doing, in an even and convincing way.”

Bev Rice, a member of the Granny Peace Brigade who planned to help with Thursday’s counter-recruitment effort, said: “Nothing appears to upset her. She’s just the type of person you want to do something for.”

Ms. Harris, who canvasses on parent-teacher nights in fall and spring, and talks with community groups about high school recruiting in between, estimated that 9 out of 10 parents she speaks with do not know about the opt-out form, despite the city’s requirement that principals distribute information about it.

“You give them the information, you see them change their minds,” she said. “They know their kids are vulnerable. They say: ‘They’re calling my baby and I don’t want them to speak to my child. What should I do?’ ”

Over the years, Ms. Harris watched as military recruiters became, in her eyes, unduly forceful in the hallways of New York high schools. Recruiters formed friendships with students, she said, and gave them the impression that being a soldier can cure all their struggles.

Ms. Harris said she does not mind if students join the military, as long as they are informed of the risks and other opportunities, and meet with recruiters off school grounds. But she said that as she spoke with students in poor neighborhoods like East Harlem, she discovered that many of them were unaware that they could get financial aid for college on their own and saw the military as their only option.

“For many of these young kids, especially boys, it’s a macho thing — you’re strong, you’re one of the team, you get this respect if you join,” she said. “If a young person wants to enlist, at least he or she knows what it’s about, what the truth about recruiting is. They can decide if that’s the best choice for them.”

Source / New York Times

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Here, Let Me Help You With That…

Cartoon by Joshua Brown.

Thanks to S. R. Keister / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Net Neutrality : Not a Sexy Issue, But Worth Fighting For


‘The concept of net neutrality is the guiding principle of a free and open Internet.’
By Dustin Michael Harris / October 23, 2008

Does anyone remember Y2K?

I realize eight years ago seems like an eternity, another lifetime even, but think back and recall how you approached the Y2K “crisis.”

Did you stock up on canned goods and batteries? Did you spend the New Year in an underground bunker?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making fun of you if you did. At the time, a lot of people were nervous. Some people even thought it might be the end of the world. Planes were supposed to fall out of the sky, while your kitchen appliances finally exacted their revenge on you and your family.

Largely, nothing happened. Y2K was a wash. The ball dropped, the planes kept motoring along and the blender stayed put.

I bring up Y2K not because I like mentioning irrelevant pop culture items, although that is a favorite hobby of mine. Does anyone remember “Alf?” But I digress …

No, I bring up Y2K because something good came out of it – institutions and government realized how important technology is to our society.

Many local, state and federal institutions upgraded their computer systems and improved the technology infrastructure as a result of the Y2K threat. The same is true for some corporations and private businesses.

Now, eight years later, the role of technology is even more important. We are a wired world with a wired global economy. It’s no wonder that both Barack Obama and John McCain address the issue of technology and network neutrality in their campaign literature.

Network neutrality is not something you’ll hear a lot about on CNN. It’s not a hot button issue, but it is very important and could have lasting effects on how the Internet shapes and delivers information.

The concept of net neutrality is the guiding principle of a free and open Internet. Net neutrality prevents Internet service providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down content based on the source.

For example, net neutrality prevents Comcast from tampering with the bandwidth regarding certain sites, essentially deciding which pages open right up and which pages won’t load at all.

Understandably, major communications giants are against the concept of net neutrality. There’s a lot of money to be made should ISPs be allowed to function as gatekeepers to the Internet. Users might have to purchase extra applications to open familiar sites or be forced to “pay for speed” at certain sites.

The site SavetheInternet.com has been a leader in the fight to preserve net neutrality because obviously there’s more at stake than simply being able to quickly download that old Devo tune you’ve been dying to hear. Allowing major corporations the ability to make difficult, even restrict, some of the information we view on the Internet is a very slippery slope. In many ways, it could become the digital version of burning books.

According to each of their Web sites, Obama and McCain differ in their support for network neutrality. Obama firmly supports it, while McCain “does not believe in prescriptive regulation like ‘net-neutrality,’ but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices.” The McCain site goes on to champion the senator’s efforts to protect consumer privacy and prevent spam.

Net neutrality is one of the many issues that will get lost in the economic firestorm we find ourselves in. But the question is, can we afford to ignore it?

Source / Naperville Sun

Thanks to Media Reform Daily / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The GOP’s Blame-ACORN Game

Graphic by Christopher Serra / The Nation.

‘Since the 1970s ACORN, which has 400,000 low- and moderate-income “member families,” has been warning Congress to protect borrowers from the banking industry’s irresponsible, risky and predatory practices.’
By Peter Dreier & John Atlas / October 22, 2008

An increasingly desperate Republican attack machine has recently identified the community organizing group ACORN as Public Enemy Number One. Among ACORN’s alleged crimes, perhaps the most serious is that it caused, nearly single-handedly, the world’s financial crisis. That’s the fantasy. In the reality-based world, it was ACORN that sounded the alarm about the exploitative lending practices that led to the current mortgage meltdown and financial crisis.

Since the 1970s ACORN, which has 400,000 low- and moderate-income “member families” in more than 100 cities in forty states, has been warning Congress to protect borrowers from the banking industry’s irresponsible, risky and predatory practices–subprime loans, racial discrimination (called “redlining”) and rip-off fees. ACORN has persistently called for stronger regulations on banks, private mortgage companies, mortgage brokers and rating agencies. For years, ACORN has alerted public officials that the industry was hoodwinking many families into taking out risky loans they couldn’t afford and whose fine print they couldn’t understand.

Now John McCain and his fellow conservatives are accusing ACORN of strong-arming Congress and big Wall Street banks into making subprime loans to poor families who couldn’t afford them, thus causing the economic disaster. McCain’s campaign is running a one-and-a-half-minute video that claims Barack Obama once worked for ACORN, repeats the accusation that ACORN is responsible for widespread voter registration fraud and accuses ACORN of “bullying banks, intimidation tactics, and disruption of business.” The ad claims that ACORN “forced banks to issue risky home loans–the same types of loans that caused the financial crisis we’re in today.”

For months, the right-wing echo chamber–bloggers, columnists, editorial writers and TV and radio talk-show hosts–has pitched in with a well-orchestrated campaign to blame the mortgage crisis on ACORN and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), the 1977 anti-redlining law. In a September 27 editorial, the Wall Street Journal wrote that “ACORN has promoted laws like the Community Reinvestment Act, which laid the foundation for the house of cards built out of subprime loans” and then falsely claimed the bailout bill would create a trust fund “pipeline” to fill ACORN’s coffers. On October 14 the Journal’s lead editorial, Obama and ACORN, described ACORN as a “shady outfit” and accused the group of being “a major contributor to the subprime meltdown by pushing lenders to make home loans on easy terms, conducting ‘strikes’ against banks so they’d lower credit standards.”

Discussing the mortgage crisis on his Fox News show, Your World, Neil Cavuto commented, “Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster.”

Over at the Washington Post, columnist Charles Krauthammer complained that the CRA had led banks and other lenders “to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads.” Holding forth on The O’Reilly Factor, Laura Ingraham laid the foreclosure problem on Bill Clinton, who “pushed all these institutions to lend to minority communities.” Many of the loans, she said, were “very risky.” Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a putative populist, echoed on the Hannity & Colmes Show: “The truth is that Democrats controlled the ability to fix this [the mortgage crisis]. It was their harsh regulation under the Community Reinvestment Act that started this ball rolling down the hill. “

On September 10 on Fox & Friends, National Review columnist Stanley Kurtz described ACORN as “a group of community organizers [who] specialize in putting pressure, really kind of intimidation tactics, on banks, to get these banks to make high-risk loans to low-credit customers…. They even show up at the homes of bank officials to scare them and their families. They send demonstrators into the lobbies of banks, all to get the banks to make these high-risk loans to people with low credit.” McCain’s anti-ACORN attack video is almost a word-for-word duplication of Kurtz’s comments.

The right-wing case against the CRA is entirely bogus–a diversionary tactic to take the heat off the financial services industry and its allies, like McCain. The CRA applies only to depository institutions, like commercial and savings banks, but thanks to Congress’s deregulation mania, there are now many other lenders, including private mortgage companies like CitiMortgage, Household Finance and Countrywide Financial (which was recently bought out by Bank of America). These outfits, which exist in a shadow world without government oversight, account for most of the predatory loans in trouble today.

When Congress enacted the CRA in 1977, the vast majority of all mortgage loans were made by lenders regulated by the law. In 2006 only about 43 percent of home loans were made by companies subject to the CRA. Indeed, the main culprits in the subprime scandal–the nonbank mortgage companies, which successfully grabbed the bulk of the mortgage market away from the CRA-regulated banking industry–were not covered by the CRA.

Wall Street investment firms–including Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns and Citigroup–set up special units, provided mortgage companies with lines of credit, then purchased the subprime mortgages from the lenders, bundled them into “mortgage-backed securities” and sold them for a fat fee to wealthy investors worldwide, typically without scrutiny. By 2007 the subprime business had become a $1.5 trillion global market for investors seeking high returns. Because lenders didn’t have to keep the loans on their books, they didn’t worry about the risk of losses.

Congress passed the CRA after many studies, using the banks’ lending data, had documented widespread racial discrimination in mortgage lending. The CRA encourages federally chartered banks to examine the credit needs of the communities they serve and to lend based on these needs–for small businesses, homes and other types of loans. It does not require banks to make loans to businesses or people who can’t repay them. It does not ask banks to engage in charity. It simply tells banks: don’t discriminate against qualified borrowers.

At first, many banks were reluctant to make loans to minority borrowers seeking to fix up their homes, buy new ones or start new businesses in urban neighborhoods. In the late 1970s and early ’80s, community organizing groups like ACORN, National People’s Action and others pushed banks and federal regulators to remove their racial blinders. Once they did so, banks discovered that many working- and middle-class black and Latino borrowers were excellent customers with good credit histories. These new markets generated good profits on stable loans with little risk.

The explosion of subprime mortgages was touched off in the early twenty-first century, as the number of lenders regulated by the government and covered by the CRA dramatically dwindled. In 2002 subprime loans made up 8 percent of all mortgages; by 2006 they had soared to 20 percent. Since 2004 more than 90 percent of subprime mortgages have come with exploding adjustable rates.

Not surprisingly, the foreclosure rates on subprime, adjustable-rate and other exotic mortgage loans have run four to five times higher than the foreclosure rates on conventional CRA mortgages. Testifying before the House Financial Services Committee in February, University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr reported that only about 20 percent of subprime mortgages were issued by banks regulated by the CRA. The other 80 percent of predatory and high-interest subprime loans were offered by financial institutions not covered by the CRA and not subject to routine examination or supervision. “The worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight,” Barr told Congress.

In contrast, the CRA actually penalizes banks for reckless, irresponsible or otherwise predatory lending. According to Ellen Seidman, director of the Treasury Department’s Office of Thrift Supervision from 1997 to 2001, federal regulators warned CRA-covered institutions that “badly underwritten subprime products that ignored consumer protections were not acceptable.” Lenders not subject to CRA did not receive similar warnings.

And unlike the institutions that offer unregulated predatory subprime loans, banks that make CRA loans are required by federal regulation to verify borrowers’ incomes to make sure they can afford the mortgages. In 2006 the Federal Reserve reported that just 11.5 percent of mortgages made by CRA-regulated institutions were high-cost loans, compared with 33.5 percent for lenders not covered by the CRA. Janet Yellen, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, has criticized those who blame CRA lending for the subprime crisis: “Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.”

While the CRA helped boost the nation’s homeownership rate, particularly among black and Latino borrowers, subprime and other exotic mortgages had very little impact on homeownership. Most subprime loans were refinances of existing mortgages. From 1998 through 2005, more than half of all subprime mortgages were for refinancing, while less than 10 percent of subprime loans went to first-time home buyers. Moreover, a significant number of borrowers who took out subprime loans could have qualified for conventional, prime-rate mortgages with much better terms. Even the Wall Street Journal acknowledges that “plenty of people with seemingly good credit are also caught in the subprime trap.” Brokers and lenders misled many of these homeowners, replacing safe thirty-year fixed-rate mortgages with deceptive, risky loans.

The CRA gave federal regulators the power to deny approval for lucrative bank mergers or acquisitions if the companies engaged in persistently irresponsible or discriminatory lending. Under Reagan and George W. Bush, regulators failed to enforce the law, so activist groups like ACORN used the CRA to hold banks accountable. They conducted their own studies, uncovered banks with a pattern of irresponsible lending, exposed these practices to the media and demanded that regulators do their job. To avoid costly and harmful confrontations, many lenders forged “community reinvestment agreements” with ACORN and other community groups, pledging to make loans to borrowers who could afford them and whose neighborhood banks had ignored them. According to a study by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, the CRA helped catalyze more than $1 trillion in bank lending.

ACORN and its allies, including the Center for Responsible Lending, the Greenlining Institute, the Center for Community Change and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, carried on the battle against abusive lenders on many fronts to ensure that loans in minority areas did not put borrowers in risky situations. ACORN’s homeownership counseling program for prospective borrowers was successful in helping families avoid taking out loans they could not afford. In 2006 the foreclosure rate of loans to borrowers who went through ACORN’s homeowner counseling program stood at .032 percent.

ACORN and other consumer groups fought for rules requiring lenders to document that borrowers had the ability to repay. They warned that adjustable-rate mortgages–those that started with a low “teaser” rate, which would adjust to a much higher rate later–were a ticking time bomb and that such loans should be made only to people who were able to afford the regular rates after the teasers had run out. But the lenders and the securitizers (Wall Street firms that packaged loans into mortgage-backed securities and sold them)–and too often the regulators and the lawmakers–didn’t heed the warnings. The industry convinced its political cronies that government regulation was too costly and cumbersome.

ACORN and its allies opposed banks whose fees and other charges inflated the cost of loans while padding their profits from transactions and diminishing the long-term safety of these loans. These groups denounced compensation systems that rewarded lenders and brokers for putting borrowers in higher-cost loans regardless of their credit-worthiness. They exposed the outrageous practice called “yield spread premium.” This is a kickback from lenders to brokers for selling loans that are more expensive than what borrowers qualify for. It is essentially a bonus for cheating the borrower and upping the risk of default. Earlier this year, after a long battle by the Center for Responsible Lending, the first state–North Carolina–made this practice illegal.

ACORN joined other consumer advocates and lawyers to promote the notion of “assignee liability”–arguing that companies that buy, and profit from, loans bear responsibility for illegal acts committed when those loans were originally made. Without it, the mortgage originators, who typically hold loans briefly before they sell them, can make fraudulent or risky loans without suffering any consequences. Again and again, Wall Street argued that it was too burdensome to scrutinize the loans they were buying or to be held responsible for the original transactions.

Several of ACORN’s battles were notably successful. It got some major lenders to reduce the outrageously high interest rates and fees they charged borrowers. For example, in 2001 ACORN persuaded Household Finance Corporation to abolish its practice of selling bogus credit insurance that had been costing a billion dollars a year straight out of homeowners’ pockets. ACORN’s activism spurred state attorneys general to sue Household Finance in 2002, forcing the firm to distribute a record $484 million to abused borrowers. In a separate suit against Household Finance, ACORN won a $150 million settlement that it put partly into a foreclosure prevention fund.

But ACORN and its counterparts have only been able to stick their fingers in the crumbling dike of American finance. Their warnings were prescient, but their victories were too small, their opponents too strong. So it is richly ironic that John McCain–a longtime ally of the banking industry whose mentor Phil Gramm orchestrated the 1999 Financial Modernization Act, opening the floodgates to irresponsible lending practices–is trying to scapegoat ACORN for the subprime crisis. Powerful business groups and their right-wing allies will continue to attack ACORN because it exposed and battled the real culprits of the financial crisis.

Peter Dreier is professor of politics and director of the Urban & Environmental Policy program at Occidental College. He is co-author of The Next Los Angeles: The Struggle for a Livable City (University of California Press, 2005) and Place Matters: Metropolitics for the 21st Century (2nd edition, University Press of Kansas, 2005) and co-editor of Up Against the Sprawl.

John Atlas, president of the New Jersey-based National Housing Institute–a nonprofit think tank, which publishes Shelterforce magazine–is writing a book, Seeds of Hope, about democracy, community organizing, poverty and the work of ACORN.

Source / The Nation

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Afghanistan: Kabul Is Under a Siege of Sorts

A typical doorman at a Kabul hotel. Photo: Tom Blackwell/National Post.

Tom Blackwell in Afghanistan: The bubble has burst
By Tom Blackwell / October 22, 2008

When I was last on assignment in Afghanistan, in May 2007, my few days in Kabul seemed in retrospect like a bit of an escape. They used to call the capital city a bubble: not immune from the terror that beset the country’s south, but relatively safe and fairly welcoming to foreigners. In Kandahar city, reporters have always had to be cautious, never lingering anywhere in public for long, being as inconspicuous as possible in traditional clothing. In Kabul last year, I walked the streets on my own without fear and did my job, with a translator, relatively freely. I recall buying Afghan naan bread and delicous pastries from street-front vendors, and found almost everyone curious and friendly. We would eat in restaurants catering chiefly to locals and not think twice about it. Well, 18 months later, the bubble has burst.

I arrived in Kabul from Kandahar last Saturday with some eagerness, realizing security throughout the country was deteriorating but expecting to enjoy a freer-wheeling time during my three-day visit. My translator – or fixer as we say – delivered the bad news before we even left the airport. I could no longer leave my well-barricaded guest house without escort, I should probably wear a shalwar kameez – the typical Afghan male dress – when we ventured into public places, and must keep the car doors locked at all times, he said. A spate of kidnappings and assassinations, more brazen bombings and an insurgency creeping ever closer to the city gates had made Kabul a very different place.

Much as I would like to publicly recognize my brave and resourceful fixer, I cannot name him. He is afraid that if his connection to Western media becomes known to the Taliban, his days would be numbered. Before we drove into a neighbourhood that was a little less safe than the city centre, he removed all the contact numbers from his cell phone for foreigners and government officials. The Taliban are known to check phones for such links, which amount to an offence that, in their world, is punishable by death. The city itself seemed more dominated than ever by concrete walls and barriers. Kalishnikov-toting security was everywhere.

All this was before Monday morning. As we drove to an interview, my fixer pointed to the radio, which was broadcasting the news in Dari. Just an hour or so earlier, a foreign aid worker had been shot dead in the street, walking to work. She was later identified as Gayle Williams, a 33-year-old Brit. The Taliban said she had been killed because she worked for a Christian-based organization and was prosletyzing. Her job, though, involved helping disabled Afghans.

Hope is not lost in Kabul, or Afghanistan. In fact, people remain remarkably hopeful. But they appear deeply depressed about the current reality, and for good reason it would seem. The capital city, with its billions in foreign money and its legions of foreign troops, is under a siege of sorts. Already, I was told, many business people – and their desperately needed investment dollars – have left for safer havens. What is needed now is for countries like Canada to publicly, bluntly acknowledge the direness of the situation, and focus like never before on somehow fixing it. Yet as the embassy and UN and NGO staff – all dedicated people, I know – speed by the roadblocks in their armoured, bullet-proofed Toyota Land Cruisers, one wonders if the reality has sunk in.

Source / National Post

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Mike Davis : Can Obama See the Grand Canyon?


‘Like the Grand Canyon’s first explorers, we are looking into an unprecedented abyss of economic and social turmoil that confounds our previous perceptions of historical risk.’
By Mike Davis / October 19, 2008

Let me begin, very obliquely, with the Grand Canyon and the paradox of trying to see beyond cultural or historical precedent.

The first European to look into the depths of the great gorge was the conquistador Garcia Lopez de Cardenas in 1540. He was horrified by the sight and quickly retreated from the South Rim.

More than three centuries passed before Lieutenant Joseph Christmas Ives of the U.S. Army Corps of Topographical Engineers led the second major expedition to the rim. Like Garcia Lopez, he recorded an “awe that was almost painful to behold.” Ives’s expedition included a well-known German artist, but his sketch of the Canyon was wildly distorted, almost hysterical.

Neither the conquistadors nor the Army engineers, in other words, could make sense of what they saw; they were simply overwhelmed by unexpected revelation. In a fundamental sense, they were blind because they lacked the concepts necessary to organize a coherent vision of an utterly new landscape.

Accurate portrayal of the Canyon only arrived a generation later when the Colorado River became the obsession of the one-armed Civil War hero John Wesley Powell and his celebrated teams of geologists and artists. They were like Victorian astronauts reconnoitering another planet. It took years of brilliant fieldwork to construct a conceptual framework for taking in the canyon. With “deep time” added as the critical dimension, it was finally possible for raw perception to be transformed into consistent vision.

The result of their work, The Tertiary History of the Grand Canyon District, published in 1882, is illustrated by masterpieces of draftsmanship that, as Powell’s biographer Wallace Stegner once pointed out, “are more accurate than any photograph.” That is because they reproduce details of stratigraphy usually obscured in camera images. When we visit one of the famous viewpoints today, most of us are oblivious to how profoundly our eyes have been trained by these iconic images or how much we have been influenced by the idea, popularized by Powell, of the Canyon as a museum of geological time.

Author and activist Mike Davis.

But why am I talking about geology? Because, like the Grand Canyon’s first explorers, we are looking into an unprecedented abyss of economic and social turmoil that confounds our previous perceptions of historical risk. Our vertigo is intensified by our ignorance of the depth of the crisis or any sense of how far we might ultimately fall.

Weimar Returns in Limbaughland

Let me confess that, as an aging socialist, I suddenly find myself like the Jehovah’s Witness who opens his window to see the stars actually falling out of the sky. Although I’ve been studying Marxist crisis theory for decades, I never believed I’d actually live to see financial capitalism commit suicide. Or hear the International Monetary Fund warn of imminent “systemic meltdown.”

Thus, my initial reaction to Wall Street’s infamous 777.7 point plunge a few weeks ago was a very sixties retro elation. “Right on, Karl!” I shouted. “Eat your derivatives and die, Wall Street swine!” Like the Grand Canyon, the fall of the banks can be a terrifying but sublime spectacle.

But the real culprits, of course, are not being trundled off to the guillotine; they’re gently floating to earth in golden parachutes. The rest of us may be trapped on the burning plane without a pilot, but the despicable Richard Fuld, who used Lehman Brothers to loot pension funds and retirement accounts, merely sulks on his yacht.

Out in the stucco deserts of Limbaughland, moreover, fear is already being distilled into a good ol’ boy version of the “stab in the back” myth that rallied the ruined German petite bourgeoisie to the swastika. If you listen to the rage on commute AM, you’ll know that ‘socialism’ has already taken a lien on America, Barack Hussein Obama is terrorism’s Manchurian candidate, the collapse of Wall Street was caused by elderly black people with Fannie Mae loans, and ACORN in its voter registration drives has long been padding the voting rolls with illegal brown hordes.

In other times, Sarah Palin’s imitation of Father Charles Coughlin — the priest who preached an American Reich in the 1930s — in drag might be hilarious camp, but with the American way of life in sudden freefall, the specter of star-spangled fascism doesn’t seem quite so far-fetched. The Right may lose the election, but it already possesses a sinister, historically-proven blueprint for rapid recovery.

Progressives have no time to waste. In the face of a new depression that promises folks from Wasilla to Timbuktu an unknown world of pain, how do we reconstruct our understanding of the globalized economy? To what extent can we look to either Obama or any of the Democrats to help us analyze the crisis and then act effectively to resolve it?

Is Obama FDR?

If the Nashville “town hall” debate is any guide, we will soon have another blind president. Neither candidate had the guts or information to answer the simple questions posed by the anxious audience: What will happen to our jobs? How bad will it get? What urgent steps should be taken?

Instead, the candidates stuck like flypaper to their obsolete talking points. McCain’s only surprise was yet another innovation in deceit: a mortgage relief plan that would reward banks and investors without necessarily saving homeowners.

Obama recited his four-point program, infinitely better in principle than his opponent’s preferential option for the rich, but abstract and lacking in detail. It remains more a rhetorical promise than the blueprint for the actual machinery of reform. He made only passing reference to the next phase of the crisis: the slump of the real economy and likely mass unemployment on a scale not seen for 70 years.

With baffling courtesy to the Bush administration, he failed to highlight any of the other weak links in the economic system: the dangerous overhang of credit-default swap obligations left over from the fall of Lehman Brothers; the trillion-dollar black hole of consumer credit-card debt that may threaten the solvency of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America; the implacable decline of General Motors and the American auto industry; the crumbling foundations of municipal and state finance; the massacre of tech equity and venture capital in Silicon Valley; and, most unexpectedly, sudden fissures in the financial solidity of even General Electric.

In addition, both Obama and his vice presidential partner Joe Biden, in their support for Secretary of the Treasury Paulson’s plan, avoid any discussion of the inevitable result of cataclysmic restructuring and government bailouts: not “socialism,” but ultra-capitalism—one that is likely to concentrate control of credit in a few leviathan banks, controlled in large part by sovereign wealth funds but subsidized by generations of public debt and domestic austerity.

Never have so many ordinary Americans been nailed to a cross of gold (or derivatives), yet Obama is the most mild-mannered William Jennings Bryan imaginable. Unlike Sarah Palin who masticates the phrase “the working class” with defiant glee, he hews to a party line that acknowledges only the needs of an amorphous “middle class” living on a largely mythical “Main Street.”

If we are especially concerned about the fate of the poor or unemployed, we are left to read between the lines, with no help from his talking points that espouse clean coal technology, nuclear power, and a bigger military, but elide the urgency of a renewed war on poverty as championed by John Edwards in his tragically self destructed primary campaign. But perhaps inside the cautious candidate is a man whosehumane passions transcend his own nearsighted centrist campaign. As a close friend, exasperated by my chronic pessimism, chided me the other day, “don’t be so unfair. FDR didn’t have a nuts and bolts program either in 1933. Nobody did.”

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

What Franklin D. Roosevelt did possess in that year of breadlines and bank failures, according to my friend, was enormous empathy for the common people and a willingness to experiment with government intervention, even in the face of the monolithic hostility of the wealthy classes. In this view, Obama is MoveOn.org’s re-imagining of our 32nd president: calm, strong, deeply in touch with ordinary needs, and willing to accept the advice of the country’s best and brightest.

The Death of Keynesianism

But even if we concede to the Illinois senator a truly Rooseveltian or, even better, Lincolnian strength of character, this hopeful analogy is flawed in at least three principal ways:

First, we can’t rely on the Great Depression as analog to the current crisis, nor upon the New Deal as the template for its solution. Certainly, there is a great deal of déjà vu in the frantic attempts to quiet panic and reassure the public that the worst has passed. Many of Paulson’s statements, indeed, could have been directly plagiarized from Herbert Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, and both presidential campaigns are frantically cribbing heroic rhetoric from the early New Deal. But just as the business press has been insisting for years, this is not the Old American Economy, but an entirely new-fangledcontraption built from outsourced parts and supercharged by instantaneous world markets in everything from dollars and defaults to hog bellies and disaster futures.

We are seeing the consequences of a perverse restructuring that began with the presidency of Ronald Reagan and which has inverted the national income shares of manufacturing (21% in 1980; 12% in 2005) and those of financial services (15% in 1980; 21% in 2005). In 1930, the factories may have been shuttered but the machinery was still intact; it hadn’t been auctioned off at five cents on the dollar to China.

On the other hand, we shouldn’t disparage the miracles of contemporary market technology. Casino capitalism has proven its mettle by transmitting the deadly virus of Wall Street at unprecedented velocity to every financial center on the planet. What took three years at the beginning of the 1930s—that is, the full globalization of the crisis—has taken only three weeks this time around. God help us, if, as seems to be happening, unemployment tops the levees at anything like the same speed.

Second, Obama won’t inherit Roosevelt’s ultimate situational advantage—having emergent tools of state intervention and demand management (later to be called “Keynesianism”) empowered by an epochal uprising of industrial workers in the world’s most productive factories.

If you’ve been watching the sad parade of economic gurus on McNeil-Lehrer, you know that the intellectual shelves in Washington are now almost bare. Neither major party retains more than a few enigmatic shards of policy traditions different from the neo-liberal consensus on trade and privatization. Indeed, posturing pseudo-populists aside, it is unclear whether anyone inside the Beltway, including Obama’s economic advisors, can think clearly beyond the indoctrinated mindset of Goldman Sachs, the source of the two most prominent secretaries of the treasury over the last decade.

British economist John Maynard Keynes.

Keynes, now suddenly mourned, is actually quite dead. More importantly, the New Deal did not arise spontaneously from the goodwill or imagination of the White House. On the contrary, the social contract for the post-1935 Second New Deal was a complex, adaptive response to the greatest working-class movement in our history, in a period when powerful third parties still roamed the political landscape and Marxism exercised extraordinary influence on American intellectual life.

Even with the greatest optimism of the will, it is difficult to imagine the American labor movement recovering from defeat as dramatically as it did in 1934-1937. The decisive difference is structural rather than ideological. (Indeed, today’s union movement is much more progressive than the decrepit, nativist American Federation of Labor in 1930.) The power of labor within a Walmart-ized service economy is simply more dispersed and difficult to mobilize than in the era of giant urban-industrial concentrations and ubiquitous factory neighborhoods.

Is War the Answer?

The third problem with the New Deal analogy is perhaps the most important. Military Keynesianism is no longer an available deus ex machina. Let me explain.

In 1933, when FDR was inaugurated, the United States was in full retreat from foreign entanglements, and there was little controversy about bringing a few hundred Marines home from the occupations of Haiti and Nicaragua. It took two years of world war, the defeat of France, and the near collapse of England to finally win a majority in Congress for rearmament, but when war production finally started up in late 1940 it became a huge engine for the reemployment of the American work force, the real cure for the depressed job markets of the 1930s. Subsequently, American world power and full employment would align in a way that won the loyalty of several generations of working-class voters.

Today, of course, the situation is radically different. A bigger Pentagon budget no longer creates hundreds of thousands of stable factory jobs, since significant parts of its weapons production is now actually outsourced, and the ideological link between high-wage employment and intervention—good jobs and Old Glory on a foreign shore—while hardly extinct is structurally weaker than at any time since the early 1940s. Even in the new military (largely a hereditary caste of poor whites, blacks, and Latinos) demoralization is reaching the stage of active discontent and opening up new spaces for alternative ideas.

Although both candidates have endorsed programs, including expansion of Army and Marine combat strength, missile defense (aka “Star Wars”), and an intensified war in Afghanistan, that will enlarge the military-industrial complex, none of this will replenish the supply of decent jobs nor prime a broken national pump. However, in the midst of a deep slump, what a huge military budget can do is obliterate the modest but essential reforms that make up Obama’s plans for healthcare,

In other words, Rooseveltian guns and butter have become a contradiction in terms, which means that the Obama campaign is engineering a catastrophic collision between its national security priorities and its domestic policy goals.

The Fate of Obama-ism

Why don’t such smart people see the Grand Canyon?

Maybe they do, in which case deception is truly the mother’s milk of American politics; or perhaps Obama has become the reluctant prisoner, intellectually as well as politically, of Clintonism: that is say, of a culturally permissive neo-liberalism whose New Deal rhetoric masks the policy spirit of Richard Nixon.

It’s worth asking, for instance, what in the actual substance of his foreign policy agenda differentiates the Democratic candidate from the radioactive legacy of the Bush Doctrine? Yes, he would close Guantanamo, talk to the Iranians, and thrill hearts in Europe. He also promises to renew the Global War on Terror (in much the same way that Bush senior and Clinton sustained the core policies of Reaganism, albeit with a “more human face”).

In case anyone has missed the debates, let me remind you that the Democratic candidate has chained himself, come hell or high water, to a global strategy in which “victory” in the Middle East (and Central Asia) remains the chief premise of foreign policy, with the Iraqi-style nation-building hubris of Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz repackaged as a “realist” faith in global “stabilization.”

True, the enormity of the economic crisis may compel President Obama to renege on some of candidate Obama’s ringing promises to support an idiotic missile defense system or provocative NATO memberships for Georgia and Ukraine. Nonetheless, as he emphasizes in almost every speech and in each debate, defeating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, together with a robust defense of Israel, constitute the keystone of his national security agenda.

Under huge pressure from Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats alike to cut the budget and reduce the exponential increase in the national debt, what choices would President Obama be forced to make early in his administration? More than likely comprehensive health-care will be whittled down to a barebones plan, “alternative energy” will simply mean the fraud of “clean coal,” and anything that remains in the Treasury, after Wall Street’s finished its looting spree, will buy bombs to pulverize more Pashtun villages, ensuring yet more generations of embittered mujahideen and jihadis.

Am I unduly cynical? Perhaps, but I lived through the Lyndon Johnson years and watched the War on Poverty, the last true New Deal program, destroyed to pay for slaughter in Vietnam.

It is bitterly ironic, but, I suppose, historically predictable that a presidential campaign millions of voters have supported for its promise to end the war in Iraq has now mortgaged itself to a “tougher than McCain” escalation of a hopeless conflict in Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal frontier. In the best of outcomes, the Democrats will merely trade one brutal, losing war for another. In the worst case, their failed policies may set the stage for the return of Cheney and Rove, or their even more sinister avatars.

[Mike Davis is the author of In Praise of Barbarians: Essays Against Empire (Haymarket Books, 2008) and Buda’s Wagon: A Brief History of the Car Bomb (Verso, 2007). He is currently working on a book about cities, poverty, and global change. Copyright 2008 Mike Davis]

Source / Progressives for Obama

Thanks to Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments