Censorship Revisited : Tommy Smothers Gets his Due

Tommy Smothers overlooking a valley in his Sonoma vineyard – he still gets together with brother Dick to perform their routine. Photo by Kim Komenich / San Francisco Chronicle

Tommy Smothers: ‘I dedicate this Emmy to all people who feel compelled to speak out, not afraid to speak to power, won’t shut up and refuse to be silent.’
By Joel Selvin / October 22, 2008

“No comedian’s wife thinks he’s funny,” Tommy Smothers says as he surveys the panoramic vista from his hilltop home and vineyard in the middle of Sonoma’s Valley of the Moon. “The first few years of the marriage, maybe. I was funny as hell the first couple of years.”

Smothers first repaired to this peak 40 years ago to lick his wounds after CBS abruptly pulled the rug out from under the top-rated “Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour” on the eve of its fourth season, the culmination of constant harassment and surveillance by the network’s censors during the show’s three seasons.

At last month’s Emmy Awards, Smothers accepted a belated trophy for his contributions to the team that won the 1968 writing award for the show’s final season; Smothers left his name off at the time, fearing the inclusion would draw controversy. When he accepted his Emmy last month, he was typically plainspoken and eloquent at the same time, a Smothers hallmark. (The speech is on YouTube.)

“Freedom of expression and freedom of speech aren’t really important,” he told the audience, “unless they’re heard. The freedom of hearing is as important as the freedom of speaking. It’s hard for me to stay silent when I keep hearing that peace is only attainable through war. There’s nothing more scary than watching ignorance in action. So I dedicate this Emmy to all people who feel compelled to speak out, not afraid to speak to power, won’t shut up and refuse to be silent.”

September was a watershed moment for the Smothers Brothers in another respect: The long-awaited release of the comedy show’s third and final season on DVD, this time including the portions of the show CBS censored, including Harry Belafonte singing “Don’t Stop the Carnival” as footage of violence outside the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago rolled behind him.

NPR television critic David Bianculli will publish his oral history of the Smothers Brothers show next year. What started as a last-ditch effort by the network to salvage TV’s dying variety-show format became a landmark series in television history.

Act of repression

The muzzling of the Smothers Brothers at the height of the Vietnam War and the era of student protest was an emblematic act of political repression three months after Richard Nixon was elected president. But the firing of the Smothers Brothers has echoed through the years, becoming a case study in mass media censorship. The brothers, who arrived on the small screen as clean-cut, wholesome folk song parodists, stumbled into the turbulent times.

“Instead of vacuous comedy, we thought, ‘Let’s do something with some bite,’ ” Smothers, says. “There was the Vietnam War, voters’ rights – all sorts of issues that we thought we could reflect and develop a point of view. We didn’t even know it was important until they said ‘You can’t say this.’ Forty years later, people are still talking about it. Isn’t that amazing?”

The Emmy sits on the top of a grand piano cluttered with family photos. Smothers, 71, and his wife of 18 years, Marcy, have two teenagers (Smothers also has a grown son from an earlier marriage). Medical school skeletons, some wearing costumes, are stationed around the spacious living room that looks out over the valley. Smothers sits in a chair next to a table with a pair of lamps shaped like giant kernels of candy corn.

“I had mixed feelings,” he says about the award. “It’s in the past – what’s the difference? Then my wife and kids got excited about it, and I started to think maybe this is pretty cool. I started to think about what am I going to say. Because we were silenced for it 40 years ago doesn’t mean we have been converted. So I made my little statement. Steve Martin introduced me. My brother thought it was cool, pretty neat.”

From the standpoint of today’s TV fare, the old Smothers Brothers shows look decidedly tame. One of the first bits that raised the network’s ire involved nothing more flagrant than comedian David Steinberg saying Moses burned his feet on the bush, and “there are many Old Testament scholars who to this day believe it was the first mention of Christ in the Bible.”

But it wasn’t the lame anti-war jokes or comedian and presidential candidate Pat Paulsen’s editorials on gun control that earned the “Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour” its place in history. “The silencing made it more important, the issue of being censored,” Smothers says. “If they had just not picked up the show, it wouldn’t have been that big an issue.”

Government censorship isn’t necessary in a free-enterprise system, Smothers says, citing reasons that prove he hasn’t mellowed a bit in four decades. “The country doesn’t have to stop people from saying stuff. The corporations do it for them. Look at the Dixie Chicks. The corporations are fighting things for other people. That’s fascism in action. Fascism is when private industry owns the government.”

Tom and Dick Smothers started out as a folk-singing comedy team, then got political on their “Comedy Hour” in the ’60s. SF Chronicle File Photo 1971.

Developing the act

The two brothers (and a sister – Tom, Dick and Sherry) grew up in Southern California. Tommy and Dickie began to develop an act while students at San Jose State, an act they polished at North Beach nightclubs in the ’50s. Their 1961 album, “Live at the Purple Onion,” established them as leading clowns on the folk-music scene. They are celebrating their 50th anniversary in show business and perform as many as 60 concerts a year.

“We were famous before we were good,” Smothers says. “Now we’re good, not famous.”

The act has changed little over the years. Tommy Smothers started playing yo-yo about 25 years ago – when he does yo-yo tricks, they are funny, and when they don’t work, even funnier – and he usually carries one in his pocket.

Tom and Dick Smothers not only mined the fascination of the day with folk songs, but also the passive-aggressive relationship between brothers – “Mom always liked you best” – a role that often spilled over into their offstage life.

“We’ve been 2 feet apart for 50 years. He’s always on my left. I’m always on his right. Same with our baby pictures. We’ve been looking at each other that far away. We’ll get offstage and he’ll look at me and say, ‘When are you going to have that cyst fixed?’ “

Smothers says all that stopped after an 18-hour couples-counseling session about 15 years ago.

The counselor “changed everything basically by saying, ‘Stop the nonsense – you’re professionals, cut out all this brother s-,’ ” Smothers says. “We could fight. We could clear a room.”

Smothers replanted 45 acres on the hillsides surrounding his home after phylloxera took the old grapevines. When he and Dick, 68, first moved to Sonoma and bought property outside Kenwood, they started producing Smothers Brothers Wine, but long ago changed the name to Remick Ridge, after their grandfather.

“People would say Smothers Brothers is a good wine, but it has a funny finish – things like that,” says Smothers.

Dick left Sonoma long ago for Florida, but his older brother has developed a keen appreciation of the role the straight man plays in comedy teams.

“The straight man in vaudeville was paid more than the comic,” he says. “That was the skilled position. The straight man could introduce acts, and you could put him with a funny guy and have him control that. If you don’t believe the straight man, you don’t believe the comic. Look at Bud Abbott, Dean Martin, Dan Rowan. I learned this in 50 years in the business – the quality of the straight man defines how good the act is.”

When he first moved to the property, he lived in a cabana next to the swimming pool and then slowly built a barn, garage and magnificent home over the years. He has grapevines trained to grow along his rooftop, a tomato plant sprawling onto his patio and rosebushes he prunes himself.

The firing clobbered the Smothers Brothers, who spent years recovering their careers and, in many ways, their lives as well.

“It took three years to get my sense of humor back,” he says. “I started taking everything seriously. I became the temporary poster boy for the First Amendment, freedom of speech. Twenty years later, there’s Howard Stern.”

Humor reclaimed

He and his brother went off separately, as Smothers struggled to find himself. “Everything was so serious,” he says. “Then I saw Jane Fonda on the ‘Tonight Show’ one night talking about burning babies. I think Cesar Chavez was on the same show. It was like an epiphany for me – there was no joy, no sense of humor, no laughter. It just turned me around.”

He leaves and returns with a calligraphic print he and his wife sent out some years before as a Christmas card. It is a quote from Alistair Cooke that reads:

“In the best of times, our days are numbered anyway. So it would be a crime against nature for any generation to take the world crisis so solemnly, that it put off enjoying those things for which we were designed in the first place: the opportunity to do good work, to enjoy friends, to fall in love, to hit a ball, and to bounce a baby.”

With a playwright’s timing, his wife arrives, fresh from working out, a trim woman who hosts a radio talk show in Santa Rosa.

“OK, so she’s 25 years younger,” says Smothers. “If she dies, she dies.”

“I didn’t think that was funny the first time,” says his wife.

In Tommy Smothers’ life, everybody else is a straight man.

Source / SFGate

Thanks to Carlos Lowry / The Rag Blog

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

Hannah Strange :
McCain Operative Makes ACORN Seem Like Peanuts

photo of Nathan Sproul

Republican operative Nathan Sproul has been investigated for voter suppression.


McCain campaign paid Republican operative accused of voter fraud

By Hannah Strange | October 22, 2008

See Keating law firm donates $50,000 to McCain campaign,’ Below.

John McCain paid $175,000 of campaign money to a Republican operative accused of massive voter registration fraud in several states, it has emerged.

As the McCain camp attempts to tie Barack Obama to claims of registration irregularities by the activist group ACORN, campaign finance records detailing the payment to the firm of Nathan Sproul, investigated several times for fraud, threatens to derail that argument

The documents show that a joint committee of the McCain-Palin campaign, the Republican National Committee and the California Republican Party, made the payment to Lincoln Strategy, of which Mr Sproul is the managing partner, for the purposes of “voter registration”.

Mr Sproul has been investigated on numerous occasions for preventing Democrats from voting, destroying registration forms and leading efforts to get Ralph Nader on ballots to leach the Democratic vote.

In October last year, the House Judiciary Committee wrote to the Attorney General requesting answers regarding a number of allegations against Mr Sproul’s firm, then known as Sproul and Associates. It referred to evidence that ahead of the 2004 national elections, the firm trained staff only to register Republican voters and destroyed any other registration cards, citing affidavits from former staff members and investigations by television news programmes.

One former worker testified that “fooling people was key to the job” and that “canvassers were told to act as if they were non-partisan, to hide that they were working for the RNC, especially if approached by the media,” according to the committee’s letter. It also cited reports from public libraries across the country that the firm had asked to set up voter registration tables claiming it was working on behalf of the non-partisan group America Votes, though in fact no such link existed.

Such activities “clearly suppress votes and violate the law”, wrote John Conyers, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The letter suggested that the Judiciary Department had failed to take sufficient action on the allegations because of the politicisation of the department under the then-attorney general, John Ashcroft.

The career of Mr Sproul, a former leader of the Arizona Republican Party, is littered with accusations of foul play. In Minnesota in 2004, his firm was accused of sacking workers who submitted Democratic registration forms, while other canvassers were allegedly paid bonuses for registering Bush voters. There were similar charges in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Oregon and Nevada.

That year, Mr Sproul’s firm was paid $8,359,161 by the Republican Party, according to a 2005 article in the Baltimore Chronicle, which claimed that this was far more than what had been reported to the Federal Elections Commission.

Mr McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin have been linking allegations of registration fraud by ACORN, the community group, to the Obama campaign.

ACORN has been accused of registering non-existent voters during its nationwide drive, with reports of cartoon characters such as Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse being signed up.

The organisation insisted that these are isolated incidents carried out by a handful of workers who have since been dismissed.

However, the Republican nominee insists that the group is involved in fraudulent activities, noting that Mr Obama, before leaving the legal profession to enter politics, was once part of a team which defended the organisation. At last week’s debate, he said that ACORN was “perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history”, a claim which the Obama campaign says represents political smear.

The revelation of Mr Sproul’s involvement with the McCain campaign – he has also donated $30,000 to the ticket and received at least another $37,000 directly from the RNC – could undermine his case.

“It should certainly take away from McCain’s argument,” Bob Grossfeld, an Arizona political consultant who has watched Mr Sproul’s career closely, told the Huffington Post. “Without knowing anything of what is going on with ACORN, there is a clear history with Mr Sproul either going over the line or sure as hell kicking dirt on it, and doing it for profit and usually fairly substantive profit.”

In May this year, both ACORN and Mr Sproul were discussed at a hearing of the House subcommittee on commercial and administrative law. One Republican member, Congressman Chris Cannon, concluded: “The difference between ACORN and Sproul is that ACORN doesn’t throw away or change registration documents after they have been filled out.”

Source / Times Online, U.K.

Law firm founded by convicted racketeer Charles Keating is big McCain donor.

Keating law firm donates $50,000 to McCain campaign.

Those voting for the first time this year may not have even been alive during the Keating Five scandal, the political corruption case that threatened to end John McCain’s political career back in 1989. Much to the chagrin of those Democrats gesticulating wildly at the very silent elephant in the room, the Obama campaign has largely refrained from touching upon the issue, perhaps preferring to leave past associations well alone, for understandable reasons.

But sometimes history throws little reminders into our present path, and this is one of those times. Campaign finance records have revealed that the law firm founded by Charles Keating – before he went to jail for fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy for his activities as chairman of Lincoln Savings and Loans – has made donations totalling over $50,000 to McCain’s campaign.

The Center for Responsive Politics has done the maths, and says: “In amounts ranging from $200 to $2,300, about 30 partners and employees of the legal firm Keating, Muething and Klekamp, as well as their family members, have contributed $50,200 to McCain’s 2008 campaign. All but two of the contributions came in July, and all but three of those July donations were logged on July 31, suggesting they were delivered at the same time. As with any bundle of campaign contributions, it’s difficult to determine which donor was the “bundler,” the person who solicited the contributions on the campaign’s behalf. McCain’s online roster of bundlers, which purports to name any individual bundling $50,000 or more for the campaign, does not associate any of McCain’s major fundraisers with the Keating firm.”

This is not improper in itself, and the only Keating included in the bundle is William J. Keating, Jr., Charles Keating’s nephew, who is listed as a partner in the firm and contributed $1,000.

But it reminds us of McCain’s role in “The Keating Five,” a group of senators who received a total of $1.4 million in campaign contributions connected to Keating and personally intervened with government regulators to allow Lincoln Savings and Loans to make highly risky investments that defrauded thousands of investors and cost taxpayers $3.4 billion.

Keating, now 84, once wrote to McCain that “I’m yours till death do us part”. Could he be keeping his promise?

Sarah Strange / Source / Times Online / Oct. 22, 2008

The Rag Blog

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

Bachmann to Talk Radio : Obama’s Views are ‘Against America’

“I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views…

“The people that Barack Obama has been associating with are anti-American, by and large…”

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota.

Bachmann Doubles Down:
‘Barack Obama’s Views Are Against America’

By Matt Corley / October 22, 2008

On the defensive over her controversial Hardball appearance last Friday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) told the St. Cloud Times yesterday that she regretted suggesting that Barack Obama held “anti-American” views. But at the same time Bachmann was apologizing for her remarks to traditional media outlets, Bachmann continued to cast aspersions on Obama’s patriotism in a series of appearances on right-wing radio shows.

On Hugh Hewitt’s radio show yesterday, Bachmann declared that “Barack Obama’s views are against America”:

BACHMANN: All I did on Chris Matthews is I questioned Chris Matthews and said, “look, if John McCain had friends like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and Father Pfleger, you’d be all over him Chris, but you’ve laid off of Barack Obama.” And so, he was using the word “Anti-American” and I told Chris, what I question are Barack Obama’s views. Because Barack Obama’s views are against America. They won’t be good for our country.

On Mike Gallagher’s radio show this morning, Bachmann attacked Obama’s policy proposals, asking rhetorically, “Are they for America or will they be against traditional American ideals and values?”:

BACHMANN: And they can’t take it because the point is what are Barack Obama’s policies? Are they for America or will they be against traditional American ideals and values? And I’ll tell you what. Punishing tax rates, redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, inputing censorship in the form of the un-Fairness Doctrine and taking away the secret ballot from the worker has nothing to do with traditional American values. That’s why your listeners need to know. Otherwise the United States may be literally changed forever.

When Gallagher asked, “How is it not reasonable to wonder if that’s anti-American?,” Bachmann did not disagree with him. Instead, she simply replied, “what I did is touch a nerve, just like Joe the Plumber touched a nerve.”

During her appearance on Gallagher’s show, Bachmann claimed that media scrutiny of her “anti-American” comments was a coordinated effort “to get my scalp on a platter.”

Transcript:

HEWITT: Now Michele, you’ve got a great organization, you’ve got a great great reputation and so, I assume your guys are not folding under the pressure that they’re rallying. Is that true?

BACHMANN: Yes, I mean, we’re working hard, but we just don’t have the financial resources that they have. I did all the work that I needed to. Laid all the foundation, but this will be like nothing we’ve ever seen. Plus, it’s the in kind donation that all the local media, local TV stations, they’re all running statements saying that I’m Joe McCarthy and that I am saying that Barack Obama is anti-American.

All I did on Chris Matthews is I questioned Chris Matthews and said, “look, if John McCain had friends like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and Father Pfleger, you’d be all over him Chris, but you’ve laid off of Barack Obama.” And so, he was using the word “Anti-American” and I told Chris, what I question are Barack Obama’s views. Because Barack Obama’s views are against America. They won’t be good for our country. And so, anyway, it went on from there. And if people want to read the transcript, you know, I encourage them to please read the transcript. But all of a sudden this is out of control and the Speaker of the House made a visit here to Minnesota to make sure that I’m taken out.

[…]

BACHMANN: I touched something that’s off limits. I called Chris Matthews on the carpet and I said, “Chris, look, if John McCain had named as two of his three life mentors, Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger.”

GALLAGHER: Right.

BACHMANN: “You would have been all over him. You have failed to do your due dilligence as the national media to check out Barack Obama.” And they can’t take it because the point is what are Barack Obama’s policies? Are they for America or will they be against traditional American ideals and values? And I’ll tell you what. Punishing tax rates, redistribution of wealth, socialized medicine, inputing censorship in the form of the un-Fairness Doctrine and taking away the secret ballot from the worker has nothing to do with traditional American values. That’s why your listeners need to know. Otherwise the United States may be literally changed forever. If Barack Obama becomes the next president, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, Harry “We lost the war” Reid, the head of the Senate. And then they have the power to appoint three more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs to the Supreme Court. What are we going to do then?

GALLAGHER: Well, that’s precisely whats at play here. I mean, you know, I was watching CNN, Willie Brown from San Francisco talk about all, the agenda of pushing forth gay marriage, and you know, under a liberal Democrat president and Democrats in the Congress, I mean, as San Francisco goes, let’s face it, so goes the rest of the country. I mean we’ll see a different country than the one we recognize. And yet your comments were so mainstream. I mean, and that’s what’s fascinating. There’s nothing you said, even on the show, and I know that you’ve been now, people tried to corner you about your comments on the show. You didn’t say anything that isn’t what ordinary Americans are wondering about a presidential candidate who talks about spreading around the wealth and cavorting with a guy like Bill Ayers and a woman like Bernadine Dohrn who wants to overthrow capitalism. How is it not reasonable to wonder if that’s anti-American?

BACHMANN: And what I did is touch a nerve, just like Joe the Plumber touched a nerve by questioning Barack Obama’s punishing high tax rates.

GALLAGHER: Right.

BACHMANN: And then Barack Obama saying that he wants to spread the wealth around. That’s exactly what happened to me on Chris Matthews. I touched a nerve, which shows how ultra hyper-sensitive leftists are right now in this country. They know we’re a center-right country and they know Americans would shrink back if they truly come to understand how Obama will radically change this country. I mean they’re so afraid, Nancy Pelosi came here to Minnesota. She went in front of the media and she said to the Minnesota media that me, Michele Bachmann, has dishonored the position that I hold in Congress and that my statements discredit me as a person.

GALLAGHER: Wow.

BACHMANN: And then she got on her plane and left. I’ll tell you, right now…

GALLAGHER: She’s got a bigger plane, by the way, she didn’t like the plane she had originally. She demanded a bigger plane so she could fly around the country and discredit people like Michele Bachmann.

BACHMANN: And that’s why shows like the Today Show are banding together with Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews to get my scalp on a platter. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews alone have raised $1 million for my opponent just since last Friday.

GALLAGHER: You’re kidding me.

BACHMANN: No no, over a million dollars in online contributions.

GALLAGHER: Wow.

BACHMANN: In that amount of time to take out my scalp. They’re serious about it. Because they can’t stand that I’m fighting them. And Nancy Pelosi also pledged to donate $1 million toward my opponent. So, $2 million have come in since Friday to make sure that I lose this election. That’s why I need. I’m desperate for help right now or else I lose.

Source / ThinkProgress

Bachmann Calls For McCarthyite Investigation Into Anti-American Activities Of Liberals

Appearing on MSNBC’s Hardball today, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) attacked the patriotism of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), based on his alleged relationship to former Weather Underground member William Ayers and the values of Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. “I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views,” said Bachmann. “That’s what the American people are concerned about.”

She then went further, suggesting that all liberal views — held by people such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, professors, and all Americans who identify themselves as “liberals” — are “anti-American.” When host Chris Matthews, stunned by her remarks, asked Bachmann how many people in Congress hold anti-American views, she responded, “You’ll have to ask them.”

Bachmann called on the media to conduct investigations into the anti-American activities of members of Congress, similar to Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s discredited House Un-American Activities Committee hearings in the 1950s. “I think people would love to see an exposé like that,” she claimed. Watch it:

Source / ThinkProgress / Oct. 17, 2008

Also see GOP, eyeing House losses, pulls out of key races / AP / Oct. 22, 2008

And Suddenly, Bachmann race looks different by Pat Doyle / Star-Tribune / Oct. 21, 2008

And Oops! Bachmann regrets anti-Obama statement by Jimmy Orr / Christian Science Monitor / Oct. 22, 2008

The Rag Blog

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

Republican Smear Ad : License to Drive


The Worst Campaign Ad of the Entire Season?
By Kyle Munzenrieder / October 20, 2008

Wonkette has this ad starring America’s (and by that I mean, the America Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin talk about, the “pro-American America”) two most feared terrorists from the National Republican Trust PAC (as in, not directly related to McCain). Ha ha, yes it is hysterically, ridiculously, sad and desperate, and not at all based in any sort of fact. Actually, the version of Mohamed Atta’s drivers license they feature is a fake.

For one, the expiration date is 09-11-01. Morbid.

Also it said it was issued in September ’99, but Atta didn’t get his license until April ’01. And wait, who was in charge of Florida then? Jeb Bush and a Republican-controlled Legislature. Not that they’re at fault either, but if I had a PAC, I could make a pretty good smear ad out of it, that is if I decided I didn’t really need any semblance of dignity.

Oh, look there’s a moving image version too. Ugh.

For the record, disgraced formed NY Gov. Elliot “Client 9” Spitzer had this whole “give driver licenses to illegal immigrants” plan, and in the primaries, Obama said he supported it. It was mainly an issue because Hillary changed her stance on it a couple of time. Now it’s linked, for absolutely no reason, to terrorism, because people are horrible, horrible racists or deeply partisan twats who aren’t above using the worst fear-based tactics to score a win for their guy.

Source / Miami New Times

The Rag Blog

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

Robbed Blind by Those Who Control Our Society


The Rules Are Set in Stone For the Rabble
By Peter Offermann / October 22, 2008

I am struggling lately with finding meaningful and rational events to provide a basis for sanity.

The world events that are currently happening are surreal in themselves but what I really struggle with is people’s reaction to them. It appears like most everyone is hypnotized to not see the predator terror birds currently in our living rooms. It’s business as usual as the birds wreak havoc and pick off choice morsels [victims] with impunity.

I guess people can’t cope with the emotional fall from grace of going from feeling invincible to realizing that they are but puny prey to a much more powerful predator. I rarely see anyone these days and when I do I am mostly at a loss for words because my reality is so different from theirs.

My neighbors are mostly nice people but simply see a different world than I do. A few of them are starting to get it and now take me a bit more seriously as they see [then unthinkable] events I told them were going to happen 3 years ago going on around them now. Almost all of them still see this as a temporary blip on the event horizon and continue on about their business assuming the terror birds will transform back into budgies and things will return to normal soon.

What people are going through now is similar to what I went through in 1999 when overnight I went from being wealthy and on top of the world to penniless without influence as a result of a bank fraud.

Current world events are at a stage relative to the first few weeks of my realizing in 1999 that I and 64,000 other people were caught in a bank fraud. First there was optimism that events weren’t as bad as they appeared but this soon changed to the grim realization that “yes” it was indeed that bad. Then for a few months there was hope that the protections built into modern society by our governments would save us from the worst of the events.

This is where the world is now; people realize their lifestyles are imperiled but they still have faith that justice will prevail and that the government they support to protect them will mentor their cause and put right an illegal wrong. There is still hope of returning to the past.

I’ll continue to describe the stages I went through after 1999 as I think world events taking place now will follow the same progression because the same group of people who perpetrated the fraud in 1999 are behind the events taking place now.

Once I realized that the events I was caught in were more than a temporary blip I became proactive in seeking justice. I very quickly came to the shockingly surreal realization from utilizing the official channels of justice that they [channels of justice] were not what they appear to be to naive people like myself. Instead of being constructed to provide justice for all it became obvious that they are designed to protect the privileged few from the rabble like me.

The order our courts keep is mostly to train the rabble to follow the rules. The rules are set in stone for the rabble; however it quickly became apparent that for the chosen few the rules are infinitely flexible. For this elite class of people the courts are designed to manipulate the rabble to allow them, the rulers, whatever they desire. Laws can be/are created, changed or ignored to suit their tastes.

Then as now my life was surreal as those around me continue[d] to live their lives as if the edifices of justice are real. Trying to explain otherwise to people just made them think I was crazy. Sure they saw what happened to me but they assumed I did something wrong and it would/could never happen to them.

I started to research those behind the “isolated” incident I had been caught in and soon came to the even more surreal realization that the incident wasn’t isolated and that the whole world was/is at the mercy of a small group of predators who can do whatever they please, wherever they please, whenever they please. I now realize that any sense of power we have while living within the system they control is nothing more than a mirage. We are completely at their mercy.

While this was playing out emotionally my physical circumstances were dire. I was a foreigner in Mexico with no lifeline to big brother. It was sink or swim on my own even for the most basic necessities such as food and shelter. Even the lowest of the poor were now above me as they at least knew how to get along without money and mostly had minimal shelter.

Obviously I survived. I was mostly shunned by those that had been my contemporaries although a few did give a helping hand in the form of work or shelter in the form of house sitting arrangements. This help was appreciated but it was a huge fall from grace as I now was dependent on the goodwill of others.

I went from being able to have virtually any toy I desired to having nothing but an old truck, a laptop and about $250 in a matter of weeks. It was an emotional struggle but surprisingly as I continued to survive without all the trimmings I began to appreciate that almost everything I had previously owned was excess baggage that weighed me down instead of making me more fit/powerful/happy. I began to rejoice in the freedom of not needing to carry all that weight.

I also realized that our sense of dependence on our “baggage” is what keeps us controllable by our masters. If we fear life without our toys we will tow the line no matter how onerous the task.

A lot of our baggage dependence relates to keeping up with the Jones’ and provides the means to the masters to profit from the labours of those who “need” to keep up with their neighbors.

After spending time among the poor in Mexico I realized that for them their homes and bodies were not temples to be garnished with bangles to make them attractive to their peers, they were simply maintained in usable condition with the least amount of effort possible. Even in Mexico only the very poorest of the poor live this way. Most mexicans have fallen prey to television and revel in conspicuous consumption.

Conspicuous consumption is the norm in the modern world and is what I struggle with the most since returning to Canada after 12 years away. I see the majority of people around me working their butts off in order to conform with some societal ideal of successful living. Most of their activity is now meaningless to me.

I have again become encumbered with a fair amount of baggage but it is with the clear realization that life can and does go on without it if one is prepared to take responsibility for their own lives. This means independence from those intent on managing others for their own benefit. My home and self are now maintained solely to provide maximum benefit/enjoyment to me, not to impress others with my success/power/wealth.

Knowing I can (prefer to) survive without excessive baggage allows me to consider not following the rules/norm of the masters and instead build a life according to my own desires.

It is currently still a very lonely endeavor as the majority still struggles towards a very different goal leaving little in common to communicate about. However I have hopes that as more people realize they have been robbed blind by those who control their society they will come to appreciate the aspects of life which are important to me.

Peter Offermann – peter@oceanfalls.org.

Source / Information Clearing House

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged | Leave a comment

Abstention: The Vote of the Unrepresented

Why don’t we have the choice “None of the above” on our ballots? It is a legitimate question and one that an honest electoral reform would address. The big piece of election reform can never be enacted as long as lobbyists remain such a powerful force in the US. When corporate and private finance is removed from all elections and replaced by closely-regulated public finance, we will achieve a modicum of meaningful election reform.

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog


Elections USA: do they matter? 100 million nonvoters send a stinging message of disenchantment
By Linda Averill / October 2008

Legions of people opt out of voting in the U.S. But they are not civic slackers. They’re on to something. Whether disinterested or disgusted, they are casting a vote of no confidence in the electoral system. And it is entirely justified.

The real point of elections is to get enough people voting to legitimize the authority of politicians. Then, they can drag us into wars, bail out bankers in the middle of an economic meltdown, and “earmark” tax dollars to their biggest donors. It happens at every level of government, from City Hall to the White House.

Just as riot is the language of the unheard, abstention has become the vote of the unrepresented. In a debate on voter apathy, blogger Bud Wood put it this way: “It just doesn’t make much difference who or what gets into office. The results are more of the same.”

Whose democracy? There are 100 million nonvoters in the U.S., and they are overwhelmingly people who are economically disenfranchised. They are poor, young, disabled, unemployed and foreign-born, especially Asian and Latino.

Only 48 percent of folks in the bottom income bracket go to the polls. Compare this to 77 percent among those with annual incomes above $50,000. Those earning over $100,000 per year make up 15 percent of eligible voters, but 19 percent of actual ballot-casters. And this percentage rises on up the wealth ladder.

But even active voters are turned off. A study called the “Vanishing Voter” showed disenchantment among voters and abstentionists alike. More than 75 percent felt that “candidates will say almost anything to get elected.” Over one third agreed that “most politicians are liars or crooks.” The only statement that doubled in support among nonvoters was that “Republicans and Democrats are alike.”

It’s true. Big bucks dictate the agendas of both parties. In 2008, Obama and McCain will set new records for spending —over a half billion dollars. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, champions of banking and investment deregulation, are top donors to Obama and Biden, a darling of credit card sharks. Exxon and Chevron back McCain and Palin, a proselytizer for drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.

Even new Democrats and Republicans find it difficult to enter government. In 2006, 407 House seats were up for reelection, with 383 held by incumbents. Of these incumbents, 94 percent prevailed, because they got all the money and media. A good many ran unopposed! This helps explain why turnout drops well below 40 percent during midterm elections.

Meanwhile, workingclass voters are kicked to the curb. Take Latinos for example. Voter forums showed that their concerns include basics such as “buying gas or buying food,” insufficient medical care, soaring war costs, and immigration. So what do both parties offer? Nothing.

In June, the Senate voted 92 to six for $257.5 billion in unrestricted war funds. The House vote was 416 to 12.

On healthcare, McCain and Obama leave untouched the sacred profits of the medical/pharmaceutical industry. On immigration, they offer more crackdowns.

It’s rigged! Actually, many abstainers would vote if they could. Other countries give people a day off to go to the polls, but not the U.S.

In 2004, 45 percent didn’t vote because they were too busy or exhausted, disabled or ill. Another 12 percent were stopped by registration problems, inconvenient polling locations and transportation issues. Translation? This means millions of workingclass voters face insurmountable obstacles, from electoral incompetence to outright dirty tricks on the part of politicians.

In Florida, the notorious ballot software is still flawed, and polls close by 7 p.m. A county in Virginia recently misled students to believe they could lose dependent tax status — and the benefits that bestows — if they registered to vote at their school address. In Wisconsin, the attorney general wants to cross-check every voter who registered since January 2006. This means long voting lines and disenfranchisement for those who can’t resolve discrepancies, including typos.

The list goes on. And systemic, undisguised racism explains why the overwhelming majority of those denied the vote each election are workingpeople of color.

Another 4-5 million are disenfranchised by states that deny the vote to ex-felons, 36 percent of them African American. Noncitizens have no representation, even though they are affected by everything the government does and may have lived here for years.

Minor parties? With such a gap between politicians and people, third parties should flourish. Instead they are blockaded by the money and might of the Democrats and Republicans. Election laws, written by the major parties, make it extremely difficult for minor parties even to appear on the ballot.

Outrageous rules, media censorship, private financing of campaigns, and sheer thuggery have marginalized political parties that compete with labor’s fake friend, the Democratic Party. This includes even parties like the Greens, who simply want to reform capitalism.

It’s not people who vote socialist or Green who throw away their votes. The system does it! U.S. elections are “winner take all.” If a socialist gets 20 percent of the vote, a Green gets 15 percent, and a Democrat gets 51 percent — all votes go to the Democrat.

Things weren’t always so sewn up. At the start of the 20th century, socialists ran on explicitly pro-labor, anti-capitalist platforms. And they won seats — more than 1,200 offices nationwide.

To eliminate the threat this posed, the Democrats and Republicans launched a political witch-hunt. Socialist party offices were raided, pro-labor representatives were denied their seats, radicals were tossed in jail, and restrictive ballot laws were passed.

Raise hell, whoever wins! After this country revolted against the English king, only a few white men with money and property could vote. The fight to gain the franchise by workers without land and Blacks and women was long and brave. It presumed that voting equals democracy and is the path to making society better.

If only it were true. Instead, wealth has concentrated into the hands of fewer people, alongside political power.

The economic elite write the laws to meet their needs. Karl Marx called it bourgeois democracy: by and for the capitalists. Its opposite is democratic socialism: the economic and political rule of the majority, the working class.

Today, politicians may look and sound more like ordinary working people; history is being made with the first Black Democratic presidential nominee and female Republican vice-presidential candidate.

But the empire under the make-over hasn’t changed.

Both parties put on quite a spectacle during elections to persuade voters of how different they are. Election 2008 is no exception. And true, there are minor differences. But whoever wins, things keep getting worse for working and poor people — whether they vote or abstain.

The answer is ringing in a whole new social system, and the way to get there isn’t at the ballot box. The route is through mass radical action that will settle for nothing less.

But your vote isn’t worthless. Send a message — use it to protest your false choices and demand real ones!

Then follow the advice of union organizer Mother Jones. More than a century ago, she declared, “I have never had a vote, and I have raised hell all over this country. You don’t need a vote to raise hell! You need convictions and a voice!”

Linda Averill, a bus driver and union activist, has twice run for Seattle City Council on the Freedom Socialist Party ticket. Email her at LindaEAverill@peoplepc.com.

Source / Freedom Socialist Newspaper

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | 1 Comment

545 People – Let’s Kick the Bastards Out !!


The 545 People Responsible For All Of U.S. Woes
By Charley Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 235 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Don’t you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O’Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O’neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts – of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can’t think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it’s because they want them in Lebanon.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses – provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

This article was first published by the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper

Source / Information Clearing House / Original publication date unknown

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged | Leave a comment

Global War on Terror : A Report Card


F is for Failure:
The Bush Doctrine in Ruins
By Tom Engelhardt / October 21, 2008

On the brief occasions when the President now appears in the Rose Garden to “comfort” or “reassure” a shock-and-awed nation, you can almost hear those legions of ducks quacking lamely in the background. Once upon a time, George W. Bush, along with his top officials and advisors, hoped to preside over a global Pax Americana and a domestic Pax Republicana — a legacy for the generations. More recently, their highest hope seems to have been to slip out of town in January before the you-know-what hits the fan. No such luck.

Of course, what they feared most was that the you-know-what would hit in Iraq, and so put their efforts into sweeping that disaster out of sight. Once again, however, as in September 2001 and August 2005, they were caught predictably flatfooted by a domestic disaster. In this case, they were ambushed by an insurgent stock market heading into chaos, killer squads of credit default swaps, and a hurricane of financial collapse.

At the moment, only 7% of Americans believe the country is “going in the right direction,” Bush’s job-approval ratings have dropped into the low 20s with no bottom in sight, and North Dakota is “in play” in the presidential election. Think of that as the equivalent of a report card on Bush’s economic policies. In other words, the Yale legacy student with the C average has been branded for life with a resounding domestic “F” for failure. (His singular domestic triumph may prove to be paving the way for the first African American president.)

But there’s another report card that’s not in. Despite a media focus on Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the record of his Global War on Terror (and the Bush Doctrine that once went with it) has yet to be fully assessed. This is surprising, since administration actions in waging that war in what neoconservatives used to call “the arc of instability” — a swath of territory running from North Africa to the Chinese border — add up to a record of failure unprecedented in American history.

On June 1, 2002, George W. Bush gave the commencement address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The Afghan War was then being hailed as a triumph and the invasion of Iraq just beginning to loom on the horizon. That day, after insisting the U.S. had “no empire to extend or utopia to establish,” the President laid out a vision of how the U.S. was to operate globally, facing “a threat with no precedent” — al-Qaeda-style terrorism in a world of weapons of mass destruction.

After indicating that “terror cells” were to be targeted in up to 60 countries, he offered a breathtakingly radical basis for the pursuit of American interests:

“We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long… [T]he war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act… Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world.”

This would later be known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s “one percent doctrine” — even a 1% chance of an attack on the U.S., especially involving weapons of mass destruction, must be dealt with militarily as if it were a certainty. It may have been the rashest formula for “preventive” or “aggressive” war offered in the modern era.

The President and his neocon backers were then riding high. Some were even talking up the United States as a “new Rome,” greater even than imperial Britain. For them, global control had a single prerequisite: the possession of overwhelming military force. With American military power unimpeachably #1, global domination followed logically. As Bush put it that day, in a statement unique in the annals of our history: “America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge — thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace.”

In other words, a planet of Great Powers was all over and it was time for the rest of the world to get used to it. Like the wimps they were, other nations could “trade” and pursue “peace.” For its pure folly, not to say its misunderstanding of the nature of power on our planet, it remains a statement that should still take anyone’s breath away.

The Bush Doctrine, of course, no longer exists. Within a year, it had run aground on the shoals of reality on its very first whistle stop in Iraq. More than six years later, looking back on the foreign policy that emerged from Bush’s self-declared Global War on Terror, it’s clear that no President has ever failed on his own terms on such a scale or quite so comprehensively.

Here, then, is a brief report card on Bush’s Global War on Terror:

High-Value Targets

1. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda: The Global War on Terror started here. Osama bin Laden was to be brought in “dead or alive” — until, in December 2001, he escaped from a partial U.S. encirclement in the mountainous Tora Bora region of Afghanistan (and many of the U.S. troops chasing him were soon enough dispatched Iraqwards). Seven years later, bin Laden remains free, as does his second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri, probably in the mountainous Pakistani tribal areas near the Afghan border. Al-Qaeda has been reconstituted there and is believed to be stronger than ever. An allied organization that didn’t exist in 2001, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, was later declared by President Bush to be the “central front in the war on terror,” while al-Qaeda branches and wannabe groups have proliferated elsewhere.

Result: Terror promoted.

Grade: F

2. The Taliban and Afghanistan: The Taliban was officially defeated in November 2001 with an “invasion” that combined native troops, U.S. special operations forces, CIA agents, and U.S. air power. The Afghan capital, Kabul, was “liberated” and, not long after, a “democratic” government installed (filled, in part, with a familiar cast of warlords, human rights violators, drug lords, and the like). Seven years later, according to an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate, Afghanistan is on a “downward spiral”; the drug trade flourishes as never before; the government of President Hamid Karzai is notoriously corrupt, deeply despised, and incapable of exercising control much beyond the capital; American and NATO troops, thanks largely to a reliance upon air power and soaring civilian deaths, are increasingly unpopular; the Taliban is resurgent and has established a shadow government across much of the south, while its guerrillas are embedded at the gates of Kabul. American and NATO forces promoted a “surge” strategy in 2007 that failed and are now calling for more of the same. Reconstruction never happened.

Result: Losing war.

Grade: F

3. Pakistan: At the time of the invasion of Afghanistan, the Bush administration threw its support behind General Pervez Musharraf, the military dictator of relatively stable, nuclear-armed Pakistan. In the ensuing years, the U.S. transferred at least $10 billion, mainly to the general’s military associates, to fight the Global War on Terror. (Most of the money went elsewhere). Seven years later, Musharraf has fallen ingloriously, while the country has reportedly turned strongly anti-American — only 19% of Pakistanis in a recent BBC poll had a negative view of al-Qaeda — is on the verge of a financial meltdown, and has been strikingly destabilized, with its tribal regions at least partially in the hands of a Pakistani version of the Taliban as well as al-Qaeda and foreign jihadis. That region is also now a relatively safe haven for the Afghan Taliban. American planes and drones attack in these areas ever more regularly, causing civilian casualties and more anti-Americanism, as the U.S. edges toward its third real war in the region.

Result: Extremism promoted, destabilization in progress.

Grade: F

4. Iraq: In March 2003, with a shock-and-awe air campaign and 130,000 troops, the Bush administration launched its long-desired invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, officially in search of (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad fell to American troops in April and Bush declared “major combat operations…ended” from the deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier against a “Mission Accomplished” banner on May 1st. Within four months, according to administration projections, there were to be only 30,000 to 40,000 American troops left in the country, stationed at bases outside Iraq’s cities, in a peaceful (occupied) land with a “democratic,” non-sectarian, pro-American government in formation. In the intervening five-plus years, perhaps one million Iraqis died, up to five million went into internal or external exile, a fierce insurgency blew up, an even fiercer sectarian war took place, more than 4,000 Americans died, hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars were spent on a war that led to chaos and on “reconstruction” that reconstructed nothing. There are still close to 150,000 American troops in the country and American military leaders are cautioning against withdrawing many more of them any time soon. Filled with killing fields and barely hanging together, Iraq is — despite recently lowered levels of violence — still among the more dangerous environments on the planet, while a largely Shiite government in Baghdad has grown ever closer to Shiite Iran. Thanks to the President’s “surge strategy” of 2007, this state of affairs is often described here as a “success.”

Result: Mission unaccomplished.

Grade: F

5. Iran: In his January 2002 State of the Union address, Bush dubbed Iran part of an “axis of evil” (along with Iraq and North Korea), attaching a shock-and-awe bull’s-eye to that nation ruled by Islamic fundamentalists. (A neocon quip of that time was: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.”) In later years, Bush warned repeatedly that the U.S. would not allow Iran to move toward the possession of a nuclear weapons program and his administration would indeed take numerous steps, ranging from sanctions to the funding of covert actions, to destabilize the country’s ruling regime. More than six years after his “axis of evil” speech, and endless administration threats and bluster later, Iran is regionally resurgent, the most powerful foreign influence in Shiite Iraq, and continuing on a path toward that nuclear power program which, it claims, is purely peaceful, but could, of course, prove otherwise.

Result: Strengthened Iran.

Grade:
F

Unlawful Enemy Combatants

6. Lebanon: Vowing to encourage a “democratic,” pro-western Lebanon and crush the Shiite Hezbollah movement, which it categorized not only as a tool of Iran but as a terrorist organization, the administration green-lighted Israel’s disastrous air assault and invasion in the summer of 2006. From that destructive war, Hezbollah emerged triumphant in its southern domain and strengthened in Lebanese national politics. Today, Lebanon is once again close to a low-level civil war and the influence of Syria, essentially the unmentioned fourth member of the President’s “axis of evil,” is again on the rise.

Result: Hezbollah ascendant.

Grade: F

7. Gaza: As part of the President’s “freedom agenda,” the administration promoted Palestinian elections on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip meant to fend off the rising strength of the Hamas movement, which it considered a terrorist organization, and promote the power of Fatah’s president Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas, however, won the election. The U.S. promptly refused to accept the results and, with Israel, tried to strangle Hamas in its Gaza stronghold. Hamas today remains entrenched in Gaza, while Abbas is a weakened figure.

Result: Hamas ascendant.

Grade: F

8. Somalia: In 2006, using U.S. trained and funded Ethiopian troops, the Bush administration intervened by proxy in a Somali civil war to oust a relatively moderate Islamist militia on the verge of unifying that desperate country for the first time in a long while. Two years later, the situation has only deteriorated further: the capital Mogadishu is in chaos, militant Islamists have retaken much of the south, those Ethiopian troops are preparing to withdraw, and the Bush-backed government to fall. At least, ten thousand Somalis have died and more than a third of the population, a jump of 77%, needs aid just to survive.

Result: Catastrophe.

Grade: F

9. Georgia: Promoting Georgian democracy — and an oil pipeline running through its territory that brought Central Asian energy to Europe while avoiding Russia — the administration armed, trained, and advised the Georgian military, backed the country for NATO membership, and looked the other way as its leader launched an invasion of a breakaway region (where Russian troops were stationed). Support for Georgia was part of a long-term Bush administration campaign to rollback Russian influence in its “near abroad,” especially in Central Asia (where results would, in the end, prove hardly more promising). The Russian military promptly crushed and then demolished the Georgian military, brought the future usefulness of the oil pipeline into question, and sidelined NATO membership for the foreseeable future. In response, the Bush administration could do nothing at all.

Result: Humiliating defeat.

Grade: F

Axis of Evil Extra Credit Target

10. North Korea: Calling North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il variously a “dwarf,” a “pygmy,” and simply “evil,” and his regime “the world’s most dangerous,” Bush targeted it in his “axis of evil” speech. As an invasion of Iraq loomed, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made clear that the U.S. was willing to fight and win wars “on two fronts.” The administration turned its back on modestly successful, Clinton-era two-party negotiations that froze North Korea’s plutonium-processing program, began overt — and possibly covert — campaigns to undermine the regime, and regularly threatened it over its nuclear weapons program. The invasion of Iraq evidently led North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il to the obvious shock-and-aweable conclusion and he promptly upped the pace of that program. In 2006, the country tested its first nuclear weapon and became a nuclear power.

Result: Nuclear proliferation encouraged.

Grade: F

Collateral Damage

11. Global Public Opinion: In the 2003 National Security Strategy of the United States was this infamous line: “Our strength as a nation-state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes and terrorism.” In other words, the U.N., the International Criminal Court, and al-Qaeda were all thrown into the same despised category, along with, implicitly, international public opinion. Who needed any of them? The result? With the help of its torture policies and its prison camp at Guantanamo for public relations, the Bush administration achieved wonders. Never has global opinion of the U.S. been lower (or anti-Americanism more rampant) than in these years — and when the administration needed allies, they were hard to find (or expensive to buy).

Result: Public diplomacy in the tank.

Grade: F

12. The American Taxpayer: The Bush administration estimated that the war in Iraq might cost the U.S. $50-60 billion, the war in Afghanistan far less. By now, those wars have officially cost more than $800 billion, close to $200 billion in the last year (at an estimated $3.5 billion a week). Their real long-term costs are almost incalculable, though they will certainly reach into the trillions. The full price tag of the Global War on Terror, including the costs of extraordinary renditions, as well as the building and maintaining of offshore prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, and elsewhere, is unknown, but historians looking back will undoubtedly conclude that the squandering of such sums helped push the U.S. toward financial meltdown.

Result: Priceless.

Grade: F

Evaluation

If you want a final taste of pathos — to deal with the disasters it created, the Bush administration has finally turned to the most un-Global-War-on-Terror-like diplomatic maneuvers. It rushed an envoy to North Korea to save a disintegrating nuclear deal (while agreeing to remove that country from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terror), is preparing the way for possible negotiations with parts of both the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban (call it “reconciliation”), and is evidently considering setting up a “U.S. Interest Section” in Teheran soon after the election.

In these last years, the Bush administration’s deepest fundamentalist faith — its cultish belief in the efficacy of military force above all else — has proven an empty vessel. With its “military strengths beyond challenge” all-too-effectively challenged, Bush’s second-term officials are finally returning to some of the most boringly traditional methods of diplomacy and negotiation — under far more extreme circumstances and from a far weaker position — while their former neocon supporters scream bloody murder from right-wing think tanks in Washington and the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. “Having bent the knee to North Korea,” former U.N. ambassador John Bolton wrote recently in that paper, “Secretary [of State] Rice appears primed to do the same with Iran, despite that regime’s egregious and extensive involvement in terrorism and the acceleration of its nuclear program.”

And they do have a point. This administration does now seem to be on bended knee to the world.

As with Pandora’s Box, however, what the Bush administration unleashed cannot simply be taken back. A new administration will not only inherit an arc of instability that is truly aflame, but the paradigm, still remarkably unexamined, of a Global War on Terror. Now, there is a disaster-in-the-making for you.

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the American Age of Denial. The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), a collection of some of the best pieces from his site and an alternative history of the mad Bush years, has recently been published. To listen to a podcast in which he discusses this article, click here.

Copyright 2008 Tom Engelhardt

Source / TomDispatch

Thanks to David Hamilton / The Rag Blog

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

Sarah Louise : A Reality Check List

Sarah Louise, cover girl: Easy to look at, but…

‘Eight years of one socially inept moron has caused enough international cringing wouldn’t you think?’
By Larry Ray
/ The Rag Blog / October 22, 2008

Sarah Louise, as she would be called if she was a Southern girl, is real easy to look at. A great talker too, an animated, articulate beauty queen. Sarah Palin’s good looks and personality, plus her huge drive for power and control have made her mayor of a small town in Alaska and ultimately the Governor of that state for the past 22 months. Now she could possibly be Vice President of the USA. It is time for a voter reality check list. Would you vote for any Vice Presidential candidate who:

* Was plucked from relative obscurity and offered as a candidate less than two months before you are to vote, and who refused to release any medical records whatsoever?

* Who has been cloistered from the press except for a couple of national interviews which showed embarrassing ignorance of basic facts, a clueless inability to answer even softball questions and who thinks the Vice President, “Runs the Senate?”

* Who has recently been judged by bipartisan peers to have abused power as a State Governor and who is under continuing investigation for alleged petty and personal pressuring of underlings and other actions?

* A person about whom you really know nothing at all except the carefully orchestrated campaign hoopla and that he or she can easily reel off lies, half truths and the nastiest rabid fear mongering character assassination in recent Republican history?

* A mother of five children, with three of them still adolescents and one of those a Down Syndrome baby who demands extra special parental care?

* A fundamentalist, glossolalia speaking Pentecostal, whose teen aged daughter will be giving birth to a bastard child unless a rushed up wedding can be planned right after the election? Would it dare be a White House wedding if the the candidate won?

Now, imagine the Veep and her oilfield worker hubby, who lacks a college degree, in the real world of white tie state dinners making small talk with learned dignitaries and leaders from around the world. Eight years of one socially inept moron has caused enough international cringing wouldn’t you think?

Senator McCain’s desperate, cynical selection of Sarah Palin should be reason enough to run like you had seen a pink snake if asked to vote Republican. But as a final test, take McCain and Palin’s own campaign key words and hold them both up to those claims. If you think they pass then go to the polls with a clear conscience:

. . .Transparency – Leadership – Responsible Change – Ready on Day One . . .

Ready to vote now?

[Retired journalist Larry Ray is a Texas native and former Austin news anchor. He also posts at The iHandbill.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Iraqi Cabinet Rejects Revised SOFA*

Well, this will make things interesting insofar as the Bush administration is not especially willing to concede any further points in the agreement. As Juan Cole points out,

By the time a draft agreement was circulated last week (text courtesy Raed Jarrar), the US military had found itself confined to bases by next June and constrained to leave by 2011; civilian contractors were open to prosecution in Iraqi courts; and off-duty US troops who commit crimes might also find themselves before a qadi or Muslim court judge. There was no mention of long-term bases.

Behind the scenes, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani mobilized opposition to the original Bush demands, as an infringement on Iraqi national sovereignty.

In all likelihood, Iraq will go to the UN Security Council for a one-year renewal of the Multinational Forces Mandate. But the Iraqi politicians and people are voting, by their reluctance to acquiesce in the Bush/ al-Maliki plan for a SOFA, for something much closer to Obama’s plan.

Something’s got to give, and I hope it isn’t the Iraqi government.

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (C) and Iraqi cabinet ministers, March 16, 2008 in Baghdad, Iraq. Photo: Getty Images.

Iraq’s cabinet rejects current draft of U.S. troop accord
By Leila Fadel / October 21, 2008

BAGHDAD — Shiite Muslim government ministers raised objections Tuesday to a “final draft” of an agreement to authorize U.S. troops to remain in Iraq, and after a four-and-a-half-hour cabinet meeting Iraq’s government spokesman said that the agreement wouldn’t be finalized in its current form.

The clock is ticking: The United Nations mandate under which U.S. troops are in Iraq expires on Dec. 31.

The agreement, which has been the subject of negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq for more than seven months, sets the end of 2011 as when U.S. troops are to be gone from Iraq.

However, Humam Hamoudi, the Shiite lawmaker who chairs the parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said that Shiite representatives found the wording on the U.S. troop departure too vague and subject to unacceptable conditions. Lawmakers also want to strike a clause that would give the Iraqi government the right to extend the agreement without parliamentary approval if it felt that was advisable.

Hamoudi said that Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki himself raised objections to the draft agreement. “The prime minister said ‘What (the Americans) have given with the right hand they have taken away with the left hand,’ ” Hamoudi said.

Government spokesman Ali al Dabbagh made it clear the current draft won’t be approved as written. “There are amendments that need to be made to the current draft in order to raise the agreement to a nationally acceptable level,” he said in a written statement after the meeting of the cabinet, which is formally known as the Council of Ministers.

It wasn’t clear what would happen next.

U.S. officials said they weren’t disposed to continue negotiating an agreement that was supposedly already in its final form and which U.S. officials have been circulating to members of Congress and talking up to the news media. If there’s no agreement when the U.N. mandate expires, however, U.S. troops would be in the country illegally and probably would be confined to their bases, Iraqi officials have said.

“There is great reluctance to engage further in the drafting process,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters at the Pentagon. “I don’t think you slam the door shut, but I would say it’s pretty far closed.”

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was traveling in Latvia, warned that the Iraqi security forces can’t secure Iraq on their own.

“We have pushed this as the top priority for months now,” Mullen said. “It’s time for the Iraqis to make this decision.”

Maliki’s been publicly critical of the agreement since the start of the negotiations and has hinted numerous times that Iraq has the option not to sign the agreement or renew the U.N. mandate.

A senior Iraqi official, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the topic, said he doubts Maliki would press for the agreement to be approved by parliament if his cabinet doesn’t agree to its terms. Maliki asked that officials submit their objections to the agreement in writing by Wednesday afternoon.

The cabinet is the second government group to object to the agreement. The country’s Political Council for National Security also couldn’t come to a decision. Both groups include representatives from nearly all Iraq’s political parties. Neither, however, includes followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr, who wholly rejects the accord and has demanded that U.S. troops leave now.

“He genuinely understands that there needs to be an agreement,” the official said of Maliki. “But he feels that he has been passed a hot potato.”

According to an official who was present, Maliki made no effort to defend the agreement or to press for its approval during the hours-long cabinet session where minister after minister voiced objections to specific clauses. Only the Kurdish alliance endorsed the latest draft.

The agreement has changed significantly in the favor of the Iraqi government during the months-long negotiations, which Americans began by asking for hundreds of bases inside the country and immunity from Iraqi laws for both American troops and private security contractors.

Those requests were pared down. The current agreement calls for the Americans to leave Iraqi cities by June 30 and to be gone from the country by the end of 2011. American troops would be immune from prosecution by Iraqi authorities as long as they were on duty, but private contractors would be subject to Iraqi law.

(Nancy A. Youssef in Washington contributed to this article.)

Source / McClatchy

The Rag Blog

* SOFA = Status of Forces Agreement

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

The Bailout Monster : Feed Me!


Just wait until next month, sucker.
By Roger Baker / The Rag Blog / October 22, 2008

See ‘Fed to Provide Up to $540 Billion to Aid Money Funds’ by Craig Torres and Christopher Condon, Below.

Dividing $540 billion by the US population of 300 million equals $1800 per capita for just this one bailout aimed to stop a run on money market funds. While you weren’t looking, your long term tax burden just got that much higher. But it is worth it to prevent “Great Depression II,” right? Just wait until next month, sucker.

The lenders to the capitalists (the investment bankers and hedge funds) are now drowning in an ocean of the bad debt and failing securitized derivatives they issued. The more fair weather credit deals that got done, the more profits that were made by everyone while the bubble economy was booming.

Paulson and Bernanke will swear to god that this latest money market bailout will be enough to stop a widening panic that might otherwise bring down the whole US economy, so we naturally agree. The federal reserve and treasury team can never run out of enough money to use to try to revive capitalism.

Note that we are really talking about generating and injecting enough strategic bailout dollars to overcome investor fear. But how many dollars might be required is not economics; its about psychology. Nobody can say whether it might not take a big enough dose of dollar liquidity to cause hyperinflation as the side effect of trying to restore investor confidence. The feds risk crippling the economy by adding either too much money or not enough, with stagflation a likely element leading to the final outcome.

Everyone familiar with finance knows that the banks don’t hold nearly enough ready cash or callable reserves to actually pay back all their lenders. Thus keeping lenders happy depends on using psychology to keep everyone from trying to take their money out and discovering it just isn’t there. All the bank may really is a bunch of increasingly bad long term loans that were based on a booming economy that likewise
isn’t there anymore.

Therefore, if everyone really did try to draw out their money all at once, they might have to wait a long time and even then might only get back fifty cents on the dollar. Deflationary psychology tends to feed on itself (look at Japan), much like the optimism of booms. Whatever the correct numbers on eventual payout, the feds will have to try to use financial manipulations that generally reduce and dilute the value of dollars to try to hide what is sooner or later going to be bad news.

Why bad news rather than even slow recovery? It takes ever more oil to keep expanding our oil-addictive global economy, but now oil is peaking. This fact alone is enough to ensure that a large part of current global investments will never earn the profits to pay back their loans.

Fed to Provide Up to $540 Billion to Aid Money Funds
By Craig Torres and Christopher Condon / October 21, 2008

The Federal Reserve will provide up to $540 billion in loans to help relieve pressure on money-market mutual funds beset by redemptions.

“Short-term debt markets have been under considerable strain in recent weeks” as it got tougher for funds to meet withdrawal requests, the Fed said today in a statement in Washington. A Fed official said that about $500 billion has flowed since August out of prime money-market funds, which with other money-market mutual funds control $3.45 trillion.

The initiative is the third government effort to aid the funds, which usually provide a key source of financing for banks and companies. The exodus of investors, sparked by losses following the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., contributed to the freezing of credit that threatens to tip the economy into a prolonged recession.

“The problem was much worse than we thought,” Jim Bianco, president of Chicago-based Bianco Research LLC, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. Policy makers are trying to prevent ‘Great Depression II’ by stemming the financial industry’s contraction, he said.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. will run five special units that will buy up to $600 billion of certificates of deposit, bank notes and commercial paper with a remaining maturity of 90 days or less. The Fed will provide up to $540 billion, with the remaining $60 billion coming from commercial paper issued by the five units to the money-market funds selling their assets, central bank officials told reporters on a conference call.

‘Lot of Pressure’

“This will take a lot of pressure off the Fed and the Treasury,” David Glocke, head of taxable money market funds for Valley Forge, Pennsylvania-based Vanguard Group Inc. Glocke said he’ll be more willing to shift money he’s invested in U.S. Treasuries back into financial-sector commercial paper covered by the plan.

U.S. money-market mutual funds held more than 63 percent of outstanding unsecured commercial paper and 39 percent of asset- backed commercial paper at the beginning of September, according to Alex Roever, a New York-based analyst at JPMorgan.

Commercial paper, which typically matures in 270 days or less, is used by companies to finance payroll, rent and other daily expenses.

The new program is called the Money Market Investor Funding Facility, and officials said it’s intended as a backstop for money-market mutual funds to use as needed to meet redemptions.

Liquidity Buffer

Today’s action shows that two programs set up last month by the Fed and U.S. Treasury to help money-market funds haven’t stabilized the industry. A Fed official told reporters today that the funds don’t have much of a liquidity buffer remaining.

Last month, the Fed agreed to give loans to banks so they can buy asset-backed commercial paper from money funds. There was $122.8 billion of such loans outstanding as of Oct. 15. The Treasury separately used a $50 billion emergency pool to offer money funds guarantees against losses.

The central bank’s announcement today “is a big event,” BlackRock Inc. Chief Executive Officer Laurence Fink said during an earnings conference call with analysts and investors. “It is the first thawing.”

BlackRock and JPMorgan were members of the consortium of money managers that put together the plan and presented it to the Fed, people briefed on the matter said.

Money-market funds have been hurt by their inability to sell back at par the commercial paper they bought from banks and other issuers, Fed officials said.

The new program “should improve the liquidity position of money market investors,” the Fed said in its statement.

Special Units

Each of the five special units will buy assets from up to 10 separate bank and financial company issuers. The program may be expanded to include purchases from other money-market investors.

The special-purpose vehicles will finance 10 percent of their purchases by selling asset-backed commercial paper. That paper won’t be eligible for the Fed program that extends credit to banks to buy such assets, a central-bank official said.

The New York Fed will lend the remaining 90 percent to the facilities on an overnight basis at the discount rate, which stands at 1.75 percent.

Each special-purpose vehicle will only purchase debt with the top short-term ratings of A-1, F1 and P-1 given by Standard & Poor’s, Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service respectively.

The Fed said the facility will be in place until April 30 unless extended by the Board of Governors. Fed officials said they will announce a start date by the end of the week.

In addition to the three programs to aid money funds, the Fed next week will start an unlimited program to purchase commercial paper directly from issuers, after companies had to pay more to borrow or were cut off from that market.

Turmoil Worsened

Turmoil worsened among money-market funds after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on Sept. 15, and the breakdown of the oldest money-market fund the following day.

The $62.5 billion Reserve Primary Fund announced Sept. 16 that losses on debt issued by Lehman had reduced its net assets to 97 cents a share, making it the first money fund in 14 years to break the buck, the term for falling below the $1 a share that investors pay.

Institutional investors have since pulled $341 billion from funds that can invest in corporate debt, or 28 percent of assets in those funds.

The Treasury responded to the initial run three days after the Reserve fund faltered by introducing the guarantee program. While that calmed investors, fund managers didn’t resume buying commercial paper because it can’t be sold quickly without realizing a loss.

“There have been very few or no bids at all” in the secondary market, Debbie Cunningham, head of taxable money funds for Pittsburgh-based Federated Investors Inc. Federated had $231.1 billion in money-market funds at the end of August.

“This is another important piece in the puzzle,” Cunningham said. “It will be very helpful in bringing more normal market tendencies back for investors.”

Source / Bloomberg

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Karl Rove: Still a Criminal, No Matter How Many Times He Escapes

Embedded video from CNN Video
Protester Tries to Handcuff Karl Rove
October 22, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO – An anti-war protester confronted former Bush administration aide Karl Rove while he spoke at a San Francisco mortgage bankers’ meeting.

A statement by the group Code Pink identified the woman as 58-year-old Janine Boneparth, who tried to handcuff Rove in what she called a citizen’s arrest for “treason.”

Rove, who was speaking Tuesday at the Mortgage Bankers Association’s annual convention, elbowed Boneparth away as she was escorted off the stage.

In total, five Code Pink members were removed from the hall during Rove’s appearance. The organization says none of the five women were charged.

Source / AP / America On Line

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment