Kate Braun: Samhain Seasonal Message


Tarot by Kate: Samhain Seasonal Message
By Kate Braun / The Rag Blog / October 22, 2008

“Yippie -i-yay, yippie-i-oh; Ghost Riders In The Sky

Friday, October 31, 2008 is Samhain, Halloween, 3rd Harvest, All Hallows Eve. Lady Moon is in her first quarter, in Sagittarius, presenting a waxing presence on Freya’s day. This celebration is a fire festival, calling for bonfires, backyard bar-be-cues, fragrant wood burning cozily in a fireplace or chiminea. If possible, I urge you to celebrate outdoors.

In addition to black and orange, colors associated with this festival are red, brown, and golden yellow. You (and your guests) may choose to wear these colors and they may also be used in your decorating scheme. Altar candles should be black, orange, white, silver, and gold. Any or all of these colors of candles will enhance your evening. Other decorations may include: pumpkins, gourds, cornstalks, cauldrons, apples, pomegranates, black cats, and brooms.

Plan your menu to include pumpkin, apples, mulled wines, and beef, pork, or poultry. Nuts, turnips, squash, beets, corn, gourds, and cider are also favorites to consider. Carving pumpkins into jack-o-lanterns is a popular activity, but originally it was turnips that were carved; the hollowed-out turnip with openings on the sides was used as a lantern while out after dark. The carrying of this turnip-lantern symbolized Lord Sun in the womb waiting to be born; the pumpkins we carve and illuminate from within also serve this purpose.

Samhain marks the beginning of a spiritual year, marking the onset of a time of transformation and growth of the soul while in a type of hibernation during the “time of no time” that exists between Samhain and Yule. Just as gestation of the body occurs in the womb’s dark warmth, so does the soul require a time to rest, reflect, and grow. This is a time when the veil between the worlds is thin, and many of the activities enjoyed at this time relate to divination. If you live near to or have access to a boundary stream (one that separates property owned by different people), you may perform this ritual: go to the boundary stream and, with closed eyes, take from the water 3 stones using your middle finger and thumb, saying as each is chosen: “I will lift the stone as Mary lifted it for her Son, For substance, virtue, and strength; May this stone be in my hand till I reach my journey‘s end.” Carry the stones home carefully and place them under your pillow. That night, ask for a dream that will give you guidance or a solution to a problem, and the stones will bring it to you.

Include time in your celebration to sit around the fire and tell stories from your past. Share family lore, recount the tales told to you by your grandmother. This is a time of honoring the past with such remembrances; they become more meaningful with each year’s repetition.

There are many, many activities that can be enjoyed at Samhain. A few are: bobbing for apples, scrying, making a Dumb Supper, candle divination, stone divination. One easy ritual for prosperity for the coming year is to throw the bones from your dinner into the bonfire (originally “bone-fire) to ensure healthy and plentiful lovestock in the year to come. In the morning, when the ashes are cool, spread them over your garden to bless the land.

Through food and activities we set the stage for this gestative growth; while many are fun to do and will engender laughter, the purpose is serious. Enjoy your party, but do not lose sight of the lessons.

Tarot by Kate 512-454-2293
www.tarotbykate.bigstep.com
kate_braun2000@yahoo.com

The Rag Blog

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

Corporate Contrition Is an Outdated Concept?

Members of the activist group ‘Code Pink’ waved signs marked with the words “shame” and “greed” when Richard S. Fuld Jr., CEO of now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, arrived to testify before the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Oct. 6. Photo: Karen Bleier, AFP / Getty Images

Why CEOs Don’t Say ‘Sorry’ Anymore
By Del Jones / October 21, 2008

Elected officials in the past have said “I’m sorry” for everything from marital affairs to cross-dressing to corruption, and CEOs tossed around apologies like horseshoes at the company picnic.

Not anymore. As the world comes to grips with the biggest financial crisis in seven decades, the mea culpa machine has ground to a halt. Apologies, encouraged in recent years by the crisis-management industry, have dried up – even apologies deployed as a business or political strategy.

Legal concerns weigh heavily on any words that might be construed as an admission of guilt. But also weighing heavily is the silence from politicians, regulators and past and present CEOs at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns, Countrywide Financial, Merrill Lynch and Washington Mutual. It’s been clear for weeks that the financial crisis has dammed the free flow of credit. But with each passing day, it’s also appears that the crisis has likewise dammed the free flow of taking responsibility.

When Lehman Bros. CEO Richard Fuld testified on Capitol Hill this month, members of Congress grilled him to own up. Fuld said he takes full responsibility for his decisions, that he “felt horrible about it,” but that the largest bankruptcy in history was due to circumstances beyond his control. Likewise, a trio of former AIG chief executives – Hank Greenberg, Martin Sullivan and Robert Willumstad – deflected blame in oral and written testimony to Congress.

Finger-pointers in Congress have found cover in public opinion polls that show most people blame CEOs for the crisis. But there is blame to go around, with Democrats choosing to ignore warnings about the possible implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Republicans supporting less regulation, says Harvard leadership expert Barbara Kellerman, who wrote a 2006 article in the Harvard Business Review titled, “When Should a Leader Apologize – and When Not?”

The absence of apologies has fed widespread outrage. Even CEOs in other industries are upset that they must now negotiate their companies through what appears to be an inevitable recession. While few CEOs in the USA have been outwardly critical of their counterparts in the financial sector, the founder and chairman emeritus of Kyocera, an electronics giant in Japan – where there is a culture of admitting mistakes – says what others may be thinking. CEOs who had a hand in the mess “should acknowledge their role and apologize, unreservedly, to their shareholders, stakeholders and the U.S. taxpayers,” Kazuo Inamori told USA TODAY through an interpreter. “They should sincerely reflect on their own management methods. They were too preoccupied with their own desires. They should acknowledge their own faults and, yes, apologize.”

However, no one in the U.S. believes they can get to the top by falling on their swords, says Dan McGinn, CEO of TMG Strategies, a public relations firm that counsels companies on threats to their reputations. McGinn says his personal belief is that there is more room for humility and honesty than most executives realize, and that the public hungers for candor and authenticity. Apologies, McGinn says, are wrongly perceived as a sign of weakness.

Yet, in the years before the crisis, apologies had become common, almost a sport, and examples can be found on YouTube from everyone from Don Imus to Jesse Jackson to Mel Gibson to Seinfeld’s Michael Richards, to Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money. Lawyers recommend against admitting wrongdoing, but companies had come to discount that advice to save reputations and get past bad news. In 2004, professors from the University of Michigan and Stanford University found that companies that accepted blame for poor performance in annual reports were more likely to outperform the market the following year.

Companies have found that heart-felt apologies can decrease the likelihood of lawsuits if they’re well crafted and don’t come off as “Sorry I got caught,” but express regret, assume responsibility and map out a plan to avoid repeating the offense, says Leslie Gaines-Ross, chief reputation strategist at public relations firm Weber Shandwick and a longtime student of apologies in crisis management.

Great apologies of the past

Past corporate apologies have come from JetBlue, Amazon, Nielsen, Seagate Technology, Sun Microsystems, Southwest Airlines, Texaco, Procter & Gamble, United Airlines, Ford Motor, Toshiba, Merck, Mattel, Taco Bell and Nike. Even Hank Paulson, now Treasury secretary and a key player in the global attempt at economic resuscitation, apologized to employees in 2003 when he was CEO of Goldman Sachs for implying that most of them were irrelevant to the firm’s success.

Steve Jobs issued an apology when Apple sold iPhones to its most eager customers for $599, then slashed the price two months later to $399. Whole Foods CEO John Mackey apologized for writing anonymous posts on financial message boards. Steve Hughes, the former CEO of tea-maker Celestial Seasonings, once wrote a letter of apology in the Boulder, Colo., Daily Camera for poisoning prairie dogs on company property.

Those may have seemed like bad deeds at the time, but they pale compared with the pink slips about to be distributed as a result of the credit crunch. The clock can’t be turned back, but a few sincere “I deeply regrets,” would help shift focus from what has happened to what needs to happen next, Gaines-Ross says. A 2006 Weber Shandwick study found that apologies had become so commonplace that their ability to allay public concern may be eroding. Even so, “CEOs should realize that an apology is not a sign of weakness, but an act of strength,” Gaines-Ross says.

Not sorry, and proud of it

Golden Gate University psychologist Kit Yarrow says both CEOs and elected officials operate in dog-eat-dog worlds where strength is rewarded and those with self doubt and regret don’t make it to the top. “It’s entirely possible that these individuals haven’t internalized that they’ve made mistakes and therefore, don’t feel responsible,” Yarrow says. “Many of the folks involved have trained themselves to avoid introspection and second-guessing. It gives you a thick skin and a sense of superiority that shields you from caring what people think of you. And if you don’t care what people think, you certainly wouldn’t feel the need to apologize.”

Other dynamics may be at play. The magnitude of the crisis has leaders frightened into taking the Martha Stewart/Pete Rose path of stubborn denial, which may have helped put one in prison and blocked the other from baseball’s Hall of Fame. The bigger the injury, the longer the wait. By the time Bridgestone CEO Masatoshi Ono apologized to the Senate Commerce Committee in 2000 for faulty tires, four years had passed since the problem first appeared and the Bridgestone/Firestone incident had become a case study in how not to handle a crisis. Ono retired shortly afterward. In 1995, Helge Wehmeier, then CEO of Bayer U.S., expressed deep regret on behalf of Bayer’s original parent company, I.G. Farbenindustrie, for its having been complicit in the Holocaust. Ten years later, then-CEO of Wachovia Ken Thompson apologized that two companies the bank acquired had owned slaves.

A key reason for the sudden lack of apologies may be that there is so much cover afforded. The financial problem is complex, and culprits abound, Kellerman says.

“When the waters are this muddy, it’s difficult to assign blame,” Kellerman says. She calls such cover “the blessing of many hands,” saying it allows those people and institutions responsible to hide, or even go on the offense and blame others.

“Individuals can ultimately convince themselves that they did what anyone would do in the same situation,” Yarrow says. “With so many players, it’s easy to shift blame. Under stress, the mind finds ways to protect itself from truths that can damage a positive self-image.”

Silence is golden during litigation

The strongest argument for silence may be the courtroom. Grand jury investigations have begun, Fuld and other executives have received subpoenas, and the standard advice of criminal defense lawyers is to say nothing, says Columbia law professor John Coffee. “Everyone remembers that six months after the fall of Enron and WorldCom, indictments began to come down, and it rained indictments for the next year,” he says. “Those who accept responsibility might become the lightning rod that attracts the first bolt of lightning from the prosecutors.”

“After two decades of class-action litigation, most general counsels will caution their CEOs against apologizing until the facts are thoroughly investigated and liabilities are determined,” McGinn says. “This is in conflict, of course, with the expectations of the media and the public.”

There is also a fresh crop of leaders running companies most often implicated in the crisis, which has so far allowed old leaders to step into the shadows. Edward Liddy replaced Willumstad at AIG, Herbert Allison replaced Dan Mudd at Fannie Mae, and David Moffett replaced Richard Syron at Freddie Mac, all last month. “Time is running out for apologies to be effective,” Gaines-Ross says. “If a few CEOs act contrite and take action, shareholders might breathe a sigh of relief and move on.”

Wrongdoers will have cover only for so long, and some CEOs and politicians eventually will be identified as key culprits, Kellerman says. She predicts they will likely be exposed by shareholder activists and Internet bloggers. Few hold hope of apologies from elected officials, who don’t have to protect the viability of a company and have only their own personal reputations to defend. Congressional apologies often require smoking guns and more often involve sexual scandal than acts of public harm. In Congress, harmful actions are blamed on others, Gaines-Ross says.

“It’s hard for most of us to imagine how someone could be responsible for such damage and loss to others and not feel an urgent need to apologize,” psychologist Yarrow says. “Obviously some of those investment bankers and politicians aren’t like the rest of us.”

“I think that the heavens, or natural common wisdom, may be suggesting that we try to live more down-to-earth and honest lives, ” says Kyocera’s Inamori, who is a Zen Buddhist priest. He says profit is society’s reward for serving its interests.

“In order to restore and revitalize capitalism, it is crucial that business executives regain this attitude,” Inamori says.

Copyright 2008 USA TODAY

Source / America On Line

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Welcome to the United States of Christianity


And the walls come tumbling down.
By Jeff Schweitzer / October 21, 2008

The last crumbling stones supporting the weakened wall separating Church and State have tumbled to ground. The Bush Administration no longer even pretends to honor the primary founding principle of our country. Religion has dominated Bush’s domestic and foreign policies from the start, but now Christianity has become a functioning arm of the federal government.

Bush has determined that he is above secular law, answerable only to god. We learn in a recently-disclosed memorandum, issued by the Department of Justice in 2007 but hidden until now, that King W declared himself able to bypass laws that forbid the use of taxpayer dollars to support religious groups hiring only like-minded faithful. Contemplate for a moment the significance and arrogance of that disdain for the rule of law. In subverting this particular bit of legislation, Bush has removed the last vestiges of secularism from our government. Despite the best efforts of our Founding Fathers, the United States is now officially a Christian Nation.

The memorandum granting Bush these extraordinary powers to topple our Constitution has a bad odor and sour taste but good pedigree in Bush’s long war on reason. In a perverted twist of logic, the memo concludes absurdly that even federal programs clearly covered by anti-discrimination laws can fund groups that blatantly discriminate against those who share a different faith. Giving taxpayer dollars to one sect that allows no non-sect members into the club is establishing religion. The First Amendment explicitly and precisely prohibits such acts. But to Bush the Constitution is nothing but old parchment to be ignored at will, whenever convenient.

Listen to the sick arguments made in defense of a deep intrusion of religion into government. Bush granted $1.5 million to World Vision, a group that has an open policy of hiring only fellow Christians. The money comes from a Justice Department program that prohibits the use of funds for any group that uses discriminatory hiring practices. Immediately that would disqualify World Vision from this DOJ pot of tax dollars. Well, then, how did Bush fund World Vision when clearly prohibited by law from doing so? The Justice Department invoked a 1993 law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which allows for some exceptions to anti-discrimination legislation if a federal statute would create a substantial barrier to the free exercise of religion. In other words, Bush argued that by not giving $1.5 million to World Vision, the federal government would create a “substantial burden” on that organization’s right to practice its religion. Only with complete surrender to faith, and by cutting all ties to logic, could that argument be made palatable. The bizarre conclusion is that the lack of federal dollars itself creates a burden to religious practice.

Bush has inverted the idea of separating Church and State. The default position now is that Church and State are one and the same, and that the two shall be separate only under extraordinary circumstances. Taxpayers must now fund discriminating religious organizations as a normal function of government. If we do not send our money to these organizations, we are preventing them from practicing their religion. By this perversion of our Constitution, anything less than open funding for religion would prohibit the free exercise thereof, destroying the words and meaning of the First Amendment.

Let us be clear about the ramifications here. The pillars on which this amazing country was built have been shaken by a powerful earthquake of anti-secularism. We are becoming ever more like the theocracies of the Middle East we claim to disdain. The logic, impetus, and drive to form these United States into a functioning union are now under attack. We should all tremble in fear as the ground shifts beneath us. Be afraid. Be very afraid for the future of our country. Iran is not a good model for us to follow.

Source / The Huffington Post

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Know Your Candidates and Their Endorsements

I agonised about posting this article, but I feel it is important to relate the facts without bias. There is another article below from McClatchy that suggests that the endorsement from Powell is not just an average endorsement. This is an important issue.

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog


The Bagman Cometh: Obama Embraces War Criminal’s Endorsement
By Chris Floyd / October 20, 2008

Come, let’s away to prison:
We two alone will sing like birds i’ the cage:
When thou dost ask me blessing, I’ll kneel down,
And ask of thee forgiveness: so we’ll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we’ll talk with them too,
Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out;
And take upon’s the mystery of things,
As if we were God’s spies: and we’ll wear out,
In a wall’d prison, packs and sects of great ones,
That ebb and flow by the moon.

I.

Democratic Party circles are in raptures over Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama. One can see the heavily-blinkered logic behind their elation; now that our national politics has been reduced to a petty squabble over spoils among shifting factions in the imperial court, a nod from a consummate courtier like Powell is indeed a glittering prize for an ambitious prince.

But out in the real world, where the operations of imperial power have left smoking trails of murder and ruin across the globe, the “endorsement” of a man who played an indispensable role in the slaughter of more than a million innocent people in a war of Hitlerian aggression should be regarded as a thing of shame, and vociferously rejected by anyone with a scintilla of honor or morality.

In fact, it is not too much of a stretch to say that Colin Powell is more responsible for the mass murder spree in Iraq than any other person except George W. Bush, who gave the actual order for the hit. For it was Powell who “made the sale” for the Bush Faction’s deceitful warmongering campaign, with his infamous February 2003 presentation to the UN, laying out the false evidence about Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction. After that farrago of artfully delivered lies, the American Establishment – urged on by the fawning, bloodthirsty commentariat – lined up solidly behind the war. After all, if Colin Powell – so “reasonable,” so “honorable,” so “honest” and “bipartisan” – stood foursquare behind the Bush case for war, then it must be ironclad.

This was, again, the logic of courtiers, with little connection to reality. Powell’s reputation as a wise, moderate, impartial statesman – the very thing that made him the most effective shill for the war crime in Iraq – was itself almost entirely a fiction. By the time he made his shameless UN appearance, Powell had already spent almost four decades as a bagman – and frontman – for some of the most vicious and ugly elements in American politics and government. From the My Lai massacre to Iran-Contra, from Washington’s long and murderous collusion with Saddam to its long and murderous campaigns to remove him, Powell has been instrumental in perpetrating or covering up atrocities and abominations on a gigantic scale. [For details, see Robert Parry’s investigation, “The Truth About Colin Powell.”]

Since his departure from the Administration – after staying on long enough to see Bush reconfirmed in power – Powell and his legion of apologists have peddled the myth that he was “stabbed in the back” in his UN presentation: given a false bill of goods with assurances they were true, misled and manipulated by incompetent intelligence analysts and Machiavellian White House insiders, etc., etc. Such stories may help Powell sleep better at night, and they have certainly helped rehabilitate his fictional reputation to the extent that his endorsement is once more considered a worthy prize. But they suffer from one small defect: they are blatantly false.

Powell knew – knew beyond a shadow of a doubt – that he was offering rank lies, cooked intelligence and dubious assertion to the world at his UN presentation before the war. Earlier this year, Jonathan Schwarz provided a devastating demolition of Powell’s UN testimony, showing how it was belied at almost every point by the actual intelligence reports – which Powell had read before the presentation. Powell knew the case for war against Iraq was riddled with holes – holes patched with outright fabrications and the knowing manipulation of data. He presented it anyway; he made the sale. And a million innocent human beings have die for it.

II.

But Powell was selling aggression against Iraq long before his UN fan-dance in February 2003. In fact, he was the mouthpiece that the Administration used in May 2002 – even before the White House began to “roll out the product” of a concentrated warmongering campaign – to signal Washington’s firm intent to invade Iraq even if UN inspectors went into the country and found no weapons of mass destruction. The cat of war crime was out of the bag – and out in open – in the spring of 2002, and it was Powell who untied the strings.

Here’s what I wrote on May 17, 2002, in The Moscow Times:

Quietly, without fanfare, in a bland statement issued by its most “moderate” front man, the Bush Regime crossed another moral Rubicon last week, carrying the once-great republic they have usurped deeper into the blood-soaked mire of international criminality.

The move – committing the United States of America to a policy of Hitlerian military aggression – was little noted at the time. A quick soundbite, maybe, on a couple of the more wonky TV news shows; a brief quote buried somewhere in the thick gray sludge of the “serious” papers. The Regime guaranteed its poison pill would go down sugarcoated by picking Secretary of State Colin Powell as its mouthpiece.

It was a masterstroke of propaganda, really. The former general has long been regarded by the “serious” media on both sides of the Atlantic as a “moderate” maverick on Bush’s hard-right team. Liberal commentators praise Powell as a “restraining influence” on more bellicose insiders like Cheney and Rumsfeld, and a wise, guiding hand for a president unschooled in the subtleties of world diplomacy.

It’s all a sham, of course. Powell is nothing more than a lifelong bagman for powerful interests. His willingness to play ball, to look the other way, has made him a convenient tool for the some of the most violent and undemocratic forces ever to pollute American society.

His first job on the Inside was an attempted whitewash of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam; it didn’t quite work, but he won points for his obfuscatory efforts and went on to a plum job in the crime-ridden Nixon White House. Then came Iran-Contra, the criminal conspiracy of drug-running and terrorism operated directly out of the Reagan-Bush White House. Powell illicitly sent missiles to the terrorist regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, then helped with the ensuing cover-up. For this service, he was made head of the entire U.S. military.

He then directed the illegal American aggression against Panama, when President George H.W. Bush killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent civilians in a hissy fit against his old CIA employee Manuel Noriega. Powell, like Bush, had long known Noriega was a murderous drug dealer, but they found him useful, and plied him with plaudits and cash – until Bush needed to prove his tough-guy cojones to Reaganite critics in the Republican Party….

So what better man to announce George W. Bush’s adoption of Adolf Hitler’s moral code? Powell sat down with the media sycophants on ABC’s “This Week” and calmly – moderately – laid out the new doctrine. The subject, of course, was Iraq. The UN was working on a deal that would allow international inspectors back into the country to verify that Saddam Hussein no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction.

These inspections were vital because, as George W. never ceases to remind us, Saddam Hussein is so evil that he “gassed his own people.” …But Junior always omits the inconvenient fact that one year [the attack], Daddy Bush signed an executive order mandating closer U.S. ties to Saddam’s regime. Daddy Bush showered Saddam with endless financial credits and mountains of “dual-use technology” – which the dictator duly used to develop his WMDs – right up until the day before Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Needless to say, Powell, as head of Daddy’s military, was complicit in this lunatic operation and raised no demur, “moderate” or otherwise.

Flash forward to the present day. Junior Bush is now in the White House. For months, he has threatened military action against Iraq if Hussein fails to verify the destruction of his WMD capacity. (At the same time, of course, Junior undercuts international treaties that would require monitoring of his own biochemical warfare facilities. There’s a good reason for that: the Regime is now preparing to develop offensive biochemical weapons, in contravention of international and U.S. law, the Village Voice reports.)

The world braces for another conflagration in the Mesopotamian sands. But then Saddam blinks. He starts talking with the UN. He renounces aggression. He tries to make up with Kuwait. Sooner or later, the inspectors will go back in – no cause for war now, right?

Wrong, Powell told the sycophants last week. The “moderate” secretary said that even if UN inspectors go in and verify compliance, the Bush Regime still “reserves its options” to do anything necessary, including military invasion, to effect a “regime change.” Bush himself has already acknowledged that nuclear force is among those “options.”

So there it is. The United States now openly claims the right to launch an all-out attack on any nation in the world whose regime it doesn’t like – even if that nation is not engaged in active military aggression or terrorism – and even if the mere threat of aggression has been defused by UN monitoring.

No provocation necessary. No legality required. Just a thuggish elite raining death on the world, for profit and power, sowing hatred for the once-great nation they have hijacked – and ensuring more death and terror for its people.

This then is the bloodstained hand that Barack Obama has clasped so warmly, so triumphantly, on his march to power. As for Powell, he has proven himself once more the ultimate courtier. In the latest intramural tussle in the imperial court, his keen and practiced eye has picked out the coming man – and so he has jettisoned the faction he has served for so long, and latched on to the winning side yet again. (As he did previously for a while with Bill Clinton.) And why not? Powell has always been a faithful servant of America’s militarist empire – no matter who its temporary manager might be.

Chris Floyd is the author of Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime.

Source / Information Clearing House

Source / McClatchy

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

High, High Hopes : Turning Houston Blue

Larry Joe Doherty, Congressional candidate from Houston, maps out a strategy. Photos by Dave Mann.

Can the Democrats sweep Houston? (Maybe. But don’t hold your breath…)
By Dave Mann

This article appears in the Oct. 17, 2008, issue of The Texas Observer.

You normally don’t think of Houston as a bastion of Democratic Party politics. For years the city has been dominated by the oil industry and the GOP—they’ve often seemed one and the same. Houston gave us George H.W. Bush, Tom DeLay and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, and some of the nation’s most prolific Republican campaign donors call the city home.

Democrats are hoping to overcome that profile. They’re pouring tons of money into a campaign to transform the Houston area into a Democratic stronghold they hope will help swing future state and national elections. Their goals aren’t small. Many within the party believe Houston is the key not only to recapturing Texas for Democrats but also to putting the state back in play in presidential elections. All of which makes Houston one of the most important battlegrounds in the country this year.

That may sound grandiose, but to understand the Democrats’ strategy, you have to consider that Houston is essentially its own swing state within Texas. Harris County, which encompasses the city and its suburbs, is home to 3.9 million people, outnumbering the populations of 23 states, and is roughly the same population as Oregon. Now consider that Harris County—in theory, at least—is already Democratic. Surveys and polls repeatedly show that more of its eligible voters identify with Democrats. It’s just that many of those people don’t vote. Moreover, the area is growing. Subdivisions are sprouting at the city’s edge like weeds. The people moving in are mostly Democrats. Harris County is undergoing a demographic shift that will soon put Anglos in the minority.

Practically speaking, a Democrat can’t win a statewide race in Texas without carrying Harris County. If the party can increase its turnout just enough in this presidential year to turn Harris County blue, Democrats will control five of the state’s largest counties and could become competitive again in races for governor, lieutenant governor, and U.S. Senate. Democrats are feeling the urgency to capture a statewide race and at least one chamber of the Texas Legislature by 2010 to gain a say in the next round of legislative and congressional redistricting.

But Houston’s size and shifting demographics have local Democrats dreaming well beyond the Governor’s Mansion. They talk of a day when Houston could be for Texas what Philadelphia has been for Pennsylvania—a metro area that votes so overwhelmingly Democratic it provides a large enough advantage to deliver the state almost by itself. (In the 2004 election, Philadelphia handed Democrats a 400,000-vote edge in the state’s largest population center—a margin Republican areas of Pennsylvania couldn’t surmount.)

Big Hopes in Big H: Gerry Birnberg is chairman of the Harris County Democratic Party.

Harris County Democratic Party Chair Gerry Birnberg points out that if big margins in Houston could help a Democratic presidential candidate capture Texas, the Electoral College map would shift decisively. He says New York and California likely will vote Democratic for a generation. “If you can start a presidential cycle with California, New York and Texas already in your column, there is not an electoral map you can draw that a Republican candidate can win,” Birnberg says. “Harris County is ground zero. We don’t get there without Harris County.”

Democrats have never lacked for grandiose plans. Execution is usually the problem. In the here and now, Harris County Republicans still hold every county office and every district judge position. The GOP has carried Harris County in every presidential election since 1964.

For the past two years, though, local Democrats have worked toward flipping Harris County in 2008. They’ve recruited more candidates than ever before, raised money specifically for the effort, and designed a comprehensive campaign that coordinates the state and county party apparatuses with candidates on advertising, voter registration, and get-out-the-vote operations.

At the same time, circumstances seem to have conspired to favor Democratic gains. Corruption scandals engulfed a county commissioner, the county judge, the sheriff, and the district attorney (who eventually had to resign)—Republicans all.

And in March, the Democratic presidential primary ignited unprecedented voter interest and turnout, which seem likely to carry over into the general election.

It all seemed like the proverbial perfect storm to sink Houston Republicans in 2008—that is, until a very real storm arrived September 12. Hurricane Ike devastated the area, knocking out electricity for nearly three weeks in some neighborhoods. The storm and its aftermath precluded weeks of campaigning and voter registration, a period when no one, including campaign staff, was thinking about politics—the sort of interruption that typically benefits an incumbent.

If Democrats don’t sweep Harris County this year, it might take a while. In 2010, statewide campaigns for governor, lieutenant governor and perhaps U.S. Senate may suck up much of the Democratic campaign money in the state, and Barack Obama won’t be at the top of the ballot to bolster turnout. Ike or no Ike, Harris County’s Democrats think this is their year.

For inspiration, Houston Democrats need only look north to Dallas County, where Republicans also dominated local politics, at least until 2006, when Democrats swept every administrative and judicial office in the county. Although the area had been trending Democratic, the GOP was somehow caught off-guard, and the rout stunned Republican strategists statewide. Strategists in both parties realized immediately where the next battleground would be.

The GOP retained control in Harris County two years ago, but the margin was already shrinking. Democrats won 48.5 percent of the countywide vote in 2006, an increase from previous years. “They were competitive, but they all lost,” says Richard Murray, political scientist at the University of Houston.

For Gerry Birnberg, the improved 2006 showing was an important first step. A lawyer by trade, he’s been involved in county politics since the early 1970s. Back then, Houston was so thoroughly Democratic that some political operatives didn’t even want to admit to working for Republicans. The first case Birnberg argued before the U.S. Supreme Court involved printers who feared that if they put their names on Republican political mailers—as state disclosure laws required—their careers would be finished.

Read all of it here.

Source / The Texas Observer

The Rag Blog

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

McCain on Iraq : Ignorant and Contradictory

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, tells a crowd in Columbus, Ohio on May 15, 2008, that the Iraq War can still be “won.” Photo by AP.

A Confused McCain Lunges About on Iraq and the Occupation
By Sherman De Brosse / The Rag Blog / October 21, 2008

This is the third in a series by Rag Blog contributor Sherman De Brosse, a retired history professor, on John McCain, his shady involvements, past and present, and his wrong-headed and ill-informed political positions.

John McCain was in Iraq, seemed confused, and Joseph Lieberman had to lean over and prompt him. Iraq is a complicated situation, so it was easy to misspeak, and we overlooked the matter. Now he is confused about what job General Petraeus has and is talking about the Iraq/Pakistan border. He has repeatedly said that Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq were trained in Iran; although, there is no evidence to prove this. Indeed, Al Qaeda people are Sunni and would be uncomfortable in Shiite Iran. Moreover, McCain must not have known that Iran is still holding one of Osama’s eleven sons under house arrest.

The problem has become that Senator McCain misspeaks so often on this subject and contradicts himself (flip-flops?) so frequently that it has become a troubling pattern. His pronouncements on the Iraq war are so frequently simplistic and uninformed that they call into serious questions his claims about foreign policy expertise.

Just before the invasion, he put on his military expert hat, and said, “I have no qualms about our strategic plans.” It would be a quick victory and another glorious chapter in United States military history.

The ”expert” Mc Cain now brags about criticizing and rejecting Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The fact is that it took McCain 18 months to reach that conclusion. All that time and beyond, he said George W. Bush was doing just fine. True, he did call for an increase in troop level all along.

He thought then and still believes that the Iraq War could be won if more troops on the ground increased the level of physical security. That seems to be his definition of “victory.” Even many with stars on their shoulders claim victory must be defined as a political settlement that brings peace and reconciliation between the different factions in Iraq. That has not come about, and McCain has never explained how he would accomplish this. Barack Obama has always defined victory in these terms; and he has set the standard for the defense of the surge in the same way. McCain does not seem to see any relationship between a good political settlement and victory. So maybe his criticisms of Barack Obama on the success of the surge are honest and not some cheap political slight of hand.

McCain also claims too much credit for the surge, itself — the introduction of more troops. Things have improved on the streets because David Petraeus started putting troops in the neighborhoods. He had long advocated this but had been restrained from doing so. In claiming too much for the surge, McCain slights Petraeus and indirectly claims too much credit for himself.

Maybe McSame reaches the conclusion that the Iraq insurgence and war will be imposed on the ground by military force because he sees this through the prism of a foreign policy fundamentalist—good v. evil. Simple as that.

For quite a while, he was warning that the Shiites could take over Iraq. He sang this odd song long after the Bush Administration had decided to ally with the pro-Iran Shiites. One wonders if he knew that Shiites and the Sunni Al Queda do not get along over a significant period of time.

Of late, he sounds the alarm that Al Qaeda could take over. Al Qaeda was never more than a tiny presence there. We and some of the Sunni states in the region touted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as a powerful Al Qaeda leader, even though he did not get along with Osama bin Laden. Since the Jordanian intelligence killed Zarqawi, his small organization in Ramadi has collapsed and other wannabe Al Qaeda leaders cannot even be found there.

Still McCain droned on about Al Qaeda in Iraq and how Iraq is the center of the War on Terrorism. In an interview with Bill Bennett, he said of Al Qaeda, “These guys want to follow us home… It is not Iraq they are after, my friend. It is us.” His insistence on that central role of Al Qaeda in Iraq suggests that he might still think that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11.

In February he again warned that the Al Qaeda could take over Iraq. Al Qaeda had only appealed to a tiny segment in the radical religious element among the Sunnis.

And now almost no one identifies himself as Al Qaeda. An aid, who must have understood a little more, tried to explain the claim by saying the Senator meant that Sunni extremists might create a small state there. Of course, the Shiite majority would destroy it and would even have the help of Jordan and the Kurds, neither of whom can brook Sunni religious extremists.

Lately, McCain has been claiming that the surge made possible the “Anbar awakening” — the decision of some sheiks to come over as US allies. The problem was that the “Anbar awakening” occurred four months before the Surge began. McCain insisted to Katie Couric that his position was an historical fact and CBS cut that segment rather than air footage that would embarrass McCain. That occurred the same day that his campaign distributed information that the media was overwhelmingly in support of Obama.

He has also bragged how the Surge has protected those sheiks even though their leader, Abddul Sattar Abu Riisha was murdered in September, 2007, during the surge.

Months ago, 141 members of the Iraqi parliament voted that the US should establish a timeline for withdrawal. Now Prime Minister al-Maliki has all but endorsed Obama’s 16 month time frame, and the Bush administration might be moving closer to that position.

One wonders if Mc Cain can find a way to get in line with these new developments. Perhaps, since he has been able to take positions that are completely inconsistent with the facts in Iraq. He may well get away with flip flopping, clinging to historical inaccuracies, and a policy that does not really define victory. Most people do not know much about Iraq and there is no evidence that the corporate media will call him on flip flopping or misinformation, There is widespread opposition to the war, but it is pretty thin. Current polling information suggests that McCain may not have to pay for Republican mistakes in Iraq so long as casualties there remain relatively low.

McCain put the Iraq question on ice by repeating his angry assertion that Obama will not recognize the Surge was a success. He probably is not confused — simply dishonest — when he overlooks the fact that the Sunni chieftains allied with the United States — the so-called “awakening” — before the Surge began. This is also true of our decision to pay fighters $300 a month to refrain from violence. So, he still has some truth on his side as American casualties are down. But the main criteria for success was buying times for the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia to resolve their differences. There has been no progress here.

The surge has had some success because it has placed large parts Iraq on lockdown. Our policy there permitted ethnic cleansings in neighborhoods to be completed long before the surge started. With neighborhoods cleansed, all that was left was for the US to come in and wall it off or lock it down, like a cell block. That will reduce the level of violence for a time, but it is not a long term solution. Now people trying to return to their homes are being killed or subjected to violence. The flow of Christians out of the country or into monasteries and protected enclaves has now reached a floodtide. In this matter McCain’s lack of accuracy probably represents a combination of confusion, opportunism, and disinterest in specifics.

Barack Obama must show that the Surge has only worked in a limited way and demonstrate that McCain’s many misstatements on Iraq are not mere gaffes. They show genuine confusion and — yes — almost profound ignorance. After all McCain’s trips to Iraq and attendance at Senate hearings, it seems to be a sad fact that he is either a prisoner of an outworn ideology, or worse, he has a very poor learning curve. This is no time to put foreign affairs in the hands of an impulsive man who cannot master specific information. We honor this hero for his service to this great republic, but it is too dangerous to reward him with the presidency.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Keith Olbermann : Special Comment: Divide and Conquer, Again?

Keith Olbermann offered a “Special Comment” tonight on his show Countdown, criticizing the McCain campaign and other Republicans, like Michele Bachmann, for their use of divisive politics during the campaign. The full text follows.

‘A Special Comment tonight about the last five days of the divisive, ugly, paranoid bleatings of this Presidential race.’
By Keith Olbermann / October 20, 2008

I have frequently insisted I would never turn the platform of the Special Comment into a regular feature.

But as these last two weeks of this extraordinary, and extraordinarily disturbing, presidential campaign project out in front of us, I fear I may have to temporarily amend that presumption.

I hope it will be otherwise, but I suspect this will be the first of nightly pieces, most shorter than this… until further notice.

And thus culminating in the sliming of Colin Powell for his endorsement of Senator Obama.

There was once a very prominent sportswriter named Dick Young whose work, with ever-increasing frequency, became peppered with references to “my America.”

“I can’t believe this is happening in My America”… — “we do not tolerate these people in My America” — “this man does not belong in my America”.

His America gradually revealed itself.

Insular. Isolationist. Backwards-looking. Mindlessly flag-waving. Racist. No second chances. A million rules, but only for the other guy.

Dick Young died in 1987, but he has been re-born in the presidential campaign as it has unfolded since last Thursday night.

In that time, Governor Sarah Palin, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, McCain spokesperson Nancy Pfotenhauer, and Rush Limbaugh, have revealed that there is a measurable portion of this country that is not interested in that which the vast majority view as democracy or equality or opportunity.

They want only… control — and they want the rest of us, symbolically, perhaps physically… out.

Governor Palin:

“We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington D.C.,” you told a fund-raiser in North Carolina last Thursday, to kick off this orgy of condescending elitism.

“We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation.”

Governor, your prejudice is overwhelming.

It is not just “pockets” of this country that are “pro-America” Governor.

America… is “pro-America.”

And the “Real America” of yours, Governor, is where people at your rallies shout threats of violence, against other Americans, and you say nothing about them or to them.

What you are seeing is not patriotism, Governor.

What has surrounded you since your nomination, has been the echoing shout of mob rule.

Indeed, that shout has echoed to Minnesota, where the next day an unstable Congresswoman named Michele Bachmann added to the ugly cry.

“I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America, or anti-America. I think people would love to see an expose’ like that.”

For nearly two years, Ms. Bachmann, who made her first political bones by keeping the movie “Aladdin” from being shown at a Minnesota Charter School because she thought it promoted paganism and witchcraft, has had a seat in the government of this nation, a seat from which she has spewed the most implausible, hateful, narrow-minded garbage imaginable.

Well, Congresswoman, you have gotten that “expose'” you wanted, have you not?

Though not perhaps in the way you imagined.

Since giving voice to your remarkable delusion that there are members of Congress who are “anti-America,” and the extraordinary tap-dance of sleaze and innuendo about Senator Obama which followed…

…the challenger for your house Seat, Elwyn Tinklenberg, has been inundated by donations — 700 thousand dollars in the three days after you spoke.

Because the America you perceive, Congresswoman — with its goblins and ghosts and vast unseen hordes of traitors and fellow travelers and Senators who won’t ban “Aladdin” — exists only in your head, and in the heads of the others who must rationalize the failures in their own lives and of their own policies as somebody else’s fault — as a conspiracy to deny them an America of exclusionism and religious orthodoxy and prejudice, about which they must accuse, and murmur, and shout threats, and cleave the nation into pro-America and anti-America.”

And back it comes to the McCain campaign.

And Senator McCain’s talking head, Ms. Pfotenhauer, who on this very network Saturday, and seemingly without the slightest idea that dismissive prejudice dripped from every word, analyzed the race in Virginia.

“I can tell you that the Democrats have just come in from the District of Columbia and moved into northern Virginia,” she said. “But the rest of the state, ‘real Virginia,’ if you will, I think will be very responsive to Senator McCain’s message.”

Again, a toxic message…

The parts of the country that agree with Nancy Pfotenhauer… are real — the others, not.

Ms. Pfotenhauer, why not go the distance on this one?

It was Senator McCain’s own brother who called that part of Virginia nearest Washington “communist country.”

Cut to the chase, Madam.

No matter the intended comic hyperbole of Joe McCain…

This is the point — isn’t it?

Leave out the real meaning of “Communism,” Madam — Joe McCain reduced it to a buzz-word; it has no more true definition right now than does “Socialism,” or the phrase “a man who sees America like you and I see America.”

It’s about us… and them.

The pro-… and the anti.

Never mind, Madam, that the bi-secting of this country you would happily inspire, means taking a tiny crack in a dam and not repairing it but burrowing into it.

It is not enough that Senator McCain and Senator Obama might differ.

One must be real and the other false.

One must be pro-America and the other anti.

Go back and — as your boss Rick Davis said today — “re-think,” Mr. McCain’s insistence not to drag the sorry bones of Jeremiah Wright into this campaign.

And whatever you do, Ms. Pfotenhauer, allow no one enough time to think… about the widening crack in the dam.

And now all of this comes together to attack Colin Powell.

“Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race,” writes Rush Limbaugh… the grand wizard of this school of reactionary non-thought.

“OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I’ll let you know what I come up with.”

It is not conceivable that Powell might reject McCain for the politics of hate and character assassination, or just for policy.

In the closed, sweaty world of the blind allegiances of Limbaugh — one of “us” who endorses one of “them,” must be doing so for some other blind allegiance, like the color of skin.

The answer to this primordial muck, must be addressed to one man only.

Senator McCain — where are you?

I disagree with you on virtually every major point of policy and practice.

And yet I do not think you “anti-America.” I would not hesitate to join you in time of crisis in defense of this country.

Fortunately you did not echo this chorus of base hatred.

But neither have you repudiated it.

What is “pro-America”, Senator?

Is it pro-America to call a man a racist because he endorses a different candidate?

Senator, you have based your campaign on many premises, but the foremost (and the most nearly admirable) of all of them, have been the pitches about “reaching across the aisle,” and putting, as your ubiquitous banners reed, “country first.”

So when Colin Powell endorses your opponent, you say nothing as your supporters and proxies paint him in this “Anti-America” frame and place him in Governor Palin’s un-real America.

Senator McCain — did not General Powell just “reach across the aisle?” Did he not, in his own mind at least, “put country first?”

Is it not your responsibility, Senator, to, if not applaud, then at least quiet those in your half of our fractured political equation?

Is it not your responsibility, Senator, to say “enough” to Republican smears without end?

Is it not your responsibility, Senator, to insist that, win or lose, you will not be party to a campaign that devolves into hatred and prejudice and divisiveness?

And Senator McCain, if it is not your responsibility… whose is it?

Source / MSNBC

The Rag Blog

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

Bathroom Humor

Thanks to Harry Edwards / The Rag Blog

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

Attaining World Peace Is Elimination of Injustice


World Peace is More Than Just the Silencing of the Guns
By Peter Chamberlin / October 20, 2008

World peace is more than just the silencing of the guns, it is the elimination of the injustice that has compelled the men to reach for those guns in self-defense against the aggression. In the currently building world war (which is based on lies and deceptions), the mission is to identify all of the men who believe in self-defense and eliminate them. Both sides believe that everyone has the right to self-defense, but the aggressors in this war believe that they have a “divine right” (because of their intellectual superiority) to disarm and rule the rest.

The “war on terror” is the intellectual’s war, the neocon intellectuals. To them, most of the human race is an inferior species, sheep, to be led for their own good. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, look at the economy, to see how smart they really are and just exactly where they are leading us.

We are standing at the edge of the abyss because we have gone along with all the lies. Without “acceptable” lies, the neocons are nothing but arrogant snobs. Without public acceptance of the “official version” of events, there would never have been a terror war. Without the attack upon our families in New York and Washington in 2001, we would not have been “tickled” into taking-up arms in self-defense against the henchmen and patsies our government offered-up to us to cover its own crimes.

For there to be peace in the midst of a war engineered by a would-be master race the cold penetrating light of reality must emasculate the acceptable lies agreed to in secret back room meetings, which allow sheer gangsterism and extortion from weaker adversaries to masquerade as “diplomacy and negotiations.”

The incessant lies emanating from the Pentagon, the White House and especially from the CIA have to be silenced. If the war of terror, based on lies is to be turned into a world at peace, based on simple truth, then we have to illuminate the secret killings in dark places that show the true face of the war against innocence being waged by Nazi-like regime.

It must be shown that we have been embracing the force of true evil that runs and ruins this Nation today. By exposing the accepted lie that the innocent Muslim people who are merely resisting our aggressions upon their homelands are “terrorists,” we remove the blinders we have accepted from the true authors of terror in the terror war. By accepting US and Pakistani military reports on “collateral” kills, we embrace the popular lie that only “militants and terrorists” were killed by the one-eyed “Terminator” drones. We dishonor ourselves and our ancestors by accepting the lies that babies were “militants!”

We have to get solid evidence out to the world. A good place to start would be to follow the wise example set by the Israeli human rights organization “B’Tselem,” by supplying camcorders to Pakistani families in North and South Waziristan, to document the indiscriminate killing of entire families, the “tickling” operations described so cleverly by CIA Director Michael Hayden. With video evidence (translated into English) of the aftermath of American genocidal attacks it would be much easier to organize resistance to those attacks and serve as evidence in later war crimes trials. It would be beautifully ironic if the American-adopted Israeli tactic of “targeted assassinations” with missiles is exposed by the same video tactic that has revealed Israeli brutality against the helpless in occupied Palestine.

According to Director Hayden, the real value of these attacks with “Hellfire” missiles upon mud-brick family dwellings and religious schools is in the reactions caused by the killings. In other words, the value of the attack is as much in the number of male family members who rise to avenge these terror attacks as it is in the “high value target” occasionally killed. The tactic described by Hayden is the latest manifestation of contemporary American “counter-insurgency” techniques.

The main idea involved in fighting an “insurgency” within a populated area in this manner is to find and co-opt local leaders, like Baitullah Mehsud, around which to create the impression of a growing shadowy “counter-insurgency.” These inept local “contras” get blamed for the ensuing wave of violence committed by US Special Ops, their in addition to the gangster-like attacks they carry-out on their own. These units perform the same task as the Terminator-drones, that of initiating the cycle of retribution. They bomb and murder civilians, in order to motivate their male relatives to take-up arms and avenge their relatives, focusing in particular upon killing of local Shia, to instigate inter-faith conflict.

The concept of fighting a global war by limited means is an evil idea, concocted by the vainest, most self-centered self-worshippers the planet has ever been plagued by. The idea that your intellect is so superior to every other human mind that the best thing that could ever happen to the human race would be for you to rule over them, no matter what it cost in human lives to place you in that position of power, is the idea that drove Adolf Hitler. The men who have brought us the neocon war plan of total world conquest, by limited means, are no less evil, nor less vain than Hitler (the neocon’s favorite bogeyman).

By choosing to fight “the long war,” on a limited basis, they have accepted the idea of killing a major portion of human life, even risking the destruction of the entire planet. The idea of a generational war serves as a sorting mechanism, a gory laboratory for identifying and separating those who will willingly accept the unfair suffering life forced upon them and their families under the new “matrix,” from those persistent independent-minded souls who will resist. The war of terror is to identify potential resisters and to eliminate them, leaving behind only docile malleable slave sheep, to serve as functional “copper-tops.”

The idea that there could ever be world peace as long as the matrix exists is part of the illusion that hinders the formation of a real resistance.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Martti Ahtisaari warned on Friday:

“world peace efforts hampered by credit crunch…The international financial crisis is hampering efforts towards world peace.”

The former Finnish president said a lack of economic development in war-torn countries would make it harder to resolve conflicts:

“It will not help us to solve conflict with no economic development in those countries. It is becoming more and more difficult…We are avoiding taking the tough decisions that are needed.”

This is pure B.S. Contributing to the war of aggression by aiding in reconstruction efforts, while hostilities continue will never bring anything like world peace. The whole idea of “good faith” re-construction by the same monstrous war machine from which the original devastation flowed is an exercise in propaganda and disinformation intended to distract those of us who would form an army of worldwide resistance.

This requires a change of attitude on the part of the aggressor, first, admitting that the US and its allies are the aggressors. The entire terror war has been a manufactured event designed to maintain the US position of global authority. We have to refute the acceptable lie that we have been a victim and that our great war plan simply failed, while we openly admit that the war has been a criminal act of aggression in every conceivable way, from the very beginning. We have committed the most serious crimes in pursuit of our plans to plunder and subjugate the earth, crimes against the human race, crimes against Our Creator, Himself.

We have destroyed entire nations in our mad rush to fend for ourselves and perpetuate our system of inequality that creates immense wealth for true believers by siphoning-off the bread of life from the rest. Until this warfare of greed stops decimating the human race there can never be world peace.

For their ever to be peace, there must be an end to the hostile force that drives men’s aggression and turns simple day-to-day existence into a daily fight for life. The forces that are driving the individual wars that are being merged into one big war, must be stopped. The lands and peoples devastated in their aggression must be rebuilt and compensated for the crimes committed upon them, out of the US Treasury, with money which would formerly have been allotted to further military aggression.

peter.chamberlin@yahoo.com

Source / Information Clearing House

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged | Leave a comment

They’re Not Done Robbing Us Yet !!!!!


Administration Floats New Stimulus Plan
By Jeannine Aversa / October 20, 2008

Momentum is building for a fresh dose of economic stimulants to boost the country out of the doldrums – perhaps by putting more money in Americans’ pockets. The White House said Monday that President Bush was open to some sort of action after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned the slump could drag on without the extra bracing tonic.

On Wall Street, stocks bolted higher, with the Dow Jones industrials rising 413 points. There also were some new signs that credit conditions were thawing a bit.

The national economy, already wobbling, has been rocked by a trio of hard punches from the housing, credit and financial crises. With a recession widely seen as inevitable, if not already under way, the focus in Washington has shifted to the questions of how bad, how long and how to limit the pain.

There is increasing talk of a post-election special session calling Congress back to the Capitol. But urgency varies greatly according to whom you talk to – and when.

“We’re continuing to have conversations with members of Congress, and we’re open to ideas that they would put forward … that would stimulate the economy and help us pull out of this downturn faster,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said around noon Monday, shortly after Bernanke endorsed the need for a fresh and “significant” round of government action.

A couple of hours later, Bush seconded Perino’s remarks, but he also said in a more optimistic tone: “I have heard that people’s attitudes are beginning to change from a period of intense concerns – I would call it near panic – to being more relaxed.” He commented after a closed meeting with business leaders in Alexandria, La.

If congressional leaders and Bush – who has been cool to more federal stimulus spending given already exploding budget deficits – were to hash out an acceptable package, it would require a special session after the Nov. 4 elections.

If an agreement can’t be worked out, the effort probably would be taken up by the next Congress and the next president. Democrat Barack Obama has strongly advocated more government stimulus, while Republican John McCain is keeping his options open.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and fellow congressional Democrats are pushing a package that could cost as much as $150 billion. Some economists, however, have advised them in recent days that to have a real impact, the total would have to be far larger, as much as $300 billion.

As part of that package, Democrats want to resurrect a $61 billion House-passed measure that included about $37 billion in public works spending, $6 billion to extend jobless benefits, $15 billion to help states to pay their Medicaid bills and $3 billion in food stamp assistance for the poor.

The Democrats also are considering a second round of tax rebates to follow the $600 to $1,200 checks most individuals and couples got earlier this year. That money, going directly to consumers in hopes they would spend it, could push the price tag much higher.

Unemployment – now at 6.1 percent – is expected to hit 7.5 percent or higher next year. And millions of Americans have been watching their retirement nest eggs and home values shrivel.

One-third of Americans are worried about losing their jobs, half fret they will be unable to keep up with mortgage and credit card payments, and seven in 10 are anxious that their stocks and retirement investments are losing value, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll of likely voters released Monday.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Democratic leadership, predicted Congress would return in November. “We couldn’t have gotten a better supporter for a stimulus package than Ben Bernanke,” Schumer said. “His support will change the stimulus from a possibility to a reality.”

Pelosi said, “I call on President Bush and congressional Republicans to once again heed Chairman Bernanke’s advice and as they did in January, work with Democrats in Congress to enact a targeted, timely and fiscally responsible economic recovery and job creation package.”

However, in an interview with The Associated Press last Friday, Pelosi had said Congress is unlikely to approve a tax rebate before Bush leaves office, and she signaled that prospects were dim that Democrats would be able to strike a deal with the president on an economic aid package during a post-election session.

In February, Congress enacted a $168 billion stimulus package that included tax rebates for people and tax breaks for businesses. The rebate checks did help to lift economic growth in the spring. After that, though, consumers cut back sharply and businesses have retrenched in turn.

“With the economy likely to be weak for several quarters, and with some risk of a protracted slowdown, consideration of a fiscal package by the Congress at this juncture seems appropriate,” Bernanke told the House Budget Committee. It marked the first time Bernanke endorsed the need for another round of economic stimulus.

The Fed chief suggested that Congress design the package to limit the longer-term affects on the government’s budget deficit, which hit a record in the recently ended budget year and is undoubtedly headed higher.

Bernanke said the package also should include provisions “to help improve access to credit by consumers, home buyers, businesses and other borrowers.”

He also left the door open to further interest rate reductions by the Federal Reserve itself.

Fed policymakers meet next on Oct. 28-29, and many economists believe they will again lower their key rate – now at 1.50 percent – to bolster the economy. Just a few weeks ago, the Fed and the world’s other major central banks joined forces to ratchet down rates, the first coordinated action of that kind in the Fed’s history.

There were some signs that credit problems were improving a bit. Bank-to-bank lending rates fell for a sixth straight day on Monday. Demand for Treasury bills, regarded as the world’s safest investment, lessened somewhat but remained relatively high in a sign that there was still much fear in the markets.

Last week, the Treasury Department announced it would inject up to $250 billion in U.S. banks in return for partial ownership. So far this year, 15 banks have failed, including the largest U.S. bank failure in history, compared with three last year. And major Wall Street investment firms have been swallowed by other companies, have filed bankruptcy or have converted themselves into commercial banks to weather the financial storm.

Associated Press Writers Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Andrew Taylor and Ben Feller contributed to this report.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Source / America On Line

Thanks to Mariann Wizard / The Rag Blog

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

Camilo Mejia in Austin : Private Rebellion, Public Resistance


‘Mejia’s primary message is that conscience, not combat, is the source of our freedom.’
By Susan Van Haitsma / The Rag Blog / October 20, 2008

When Camilo Mejia walked into the auditorium of UT’s Garrison Hall where he was to speak last Thursday night, his first reaction was to shake his head at the large book-cover images of himself that were projected onto screens in front. He’s a humble guy, and self-promotion is not his leaning.

But, he’s on the Resisting Empire speaking tour with the new Haymarket Books publication of The Road from Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia: An Iraq War Memoir, so he was in Austin to promote both the book and the mission of his fellow Iraq Veterans Against the War: immediate and unconditional withdrawal of occupation forces from Iraq, adequate care for all veterans and reparations for Iraq.

With his youthful good looks, casual attire and backpack slung over his shoulder, Mejia could have been one of the many students in his audience. But, when he began to speak, his seriousness revealed a deeper level of experience. He invited the five other members of Iraq Veterans Against the War who were present to join him in the front and take questions from the crowd, creating an instant IVAW panel that personified the variety of membership within the rapidly growing organization.

As chair of the board of IVAW, Mejia reported that from seven original members who organized the group in July 2004, IVAW membership has expanded to about 1400, including the most quickly growing contingent: active duty soldiers. One of the newest chapters formed at Ft. Hood this year.

Mejia stressed the importance of the camaraderie that he and other vets experience through their involvement with IVAW. The sense of shared purpose and belonging mirrors an aspect of military life they value. He also said that in his role with IVAW, he has learned a new sense of what leadership entails: “respect, communication and shared ideals,” rather than leadership based on fear and punishment that he was trained to demonstrate as an army staff sergeant.

Mejia’s primary message is that conscience, not combat, is the source of our freedom. When a soldier is in the midst of combat, it is very difficult to think about moral implications. “You’re under so much pressure; there’s so much fear, so much fatigue.” Soldiers can’t be expected to weigh right and wrong in the middle of a firefight. Drilled in reflexive fire training and armed with powerful weapons, they don’t have to get an order to kill civilians; they’re just thrown into situations where they do it. Mejia said that in the five months he was in Iraq, his unit killed 33 civilians. Only three were armed.

Mejia talked about following orders to abuse Iraqi prisoners. He describes this also in the new film, Soldiers of Conscience, a documentary that happened to air in Austin the same night that Mejia spoke here. While in Iraq, Mejia felt conflicted about what he was doing, but it wasn’t until he was home on a two week leave that he had the time and distance to really think about it. “Some people say, ‘once a soldier, always a soldier,'” he says in the film. “Well, once a human being, always a human being.”

Through his interviews, his appearances in documentaries like Soldiers of Conscience and The Ground Truth, his speaking tours and in his own incisive writing, Mejia has modeled what IVAW has been aiming to do as a group through the “Winter Soldier” hearings and panels. As he said in the concluding remarks of the initial Winter Soldier hearings held in March ’08 — now transcribed in a new book (also published by Haymarket Books), Winter Soldier, Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations,

“Iraq Veterans Against the War has become a source of stress to the military brass and to the government … We have become a dangerous group of people not because of our military training, but because we have dared to challenge the official story. We are dangerous because we have dared to share our experiences, to think for ourselves, to analyze and be critical, to follow our conscience, and because we have dared to go beyond patriotism to embrace humanity.”

Winter Soldier testimony from the March hearings can be seen on the IVAW website, and the book can be ordered there, too.

As terrible as it is to hear the testimonies of these veterans, it is even more terrible to have lived the stories, either as a soldier or as an Iraqi or Afghan civilian. As US Marine veteran Anthony Swofford writes in his foreword to Winter Soldier, “Do not turn away from these stories. They are yours, too.”

As I walked home from Mejia’s presentation, I passed the brilliantly burnt orange-lit UT tower, on which is inscribed the new testament passage, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” I passed the Cesar Chavez statue that includes several Chavez quotes, such as “You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore,” and “You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride.”

We don’t turn away from civil rights stories, from freedom movement stories, because they are our stories. Veterans who are using their voices and actions to try to stop war are joining this proud legacy, exchanging weapons for the power of truth. The freedom they are gaining is ours, too.

During the final presidential debate, the candidates and the moderator prodded one another to explain how they would pay for particular programs and policies they believe will help the US recover from its economic crisis.

Yet, with all the talk about taxes and scarcity of federal funds for what America needs, the candidates and the moderator avoided discussing the primary reason that funds for education, health care, alternative energy and civic infrastructure are in such short supply: war spending. In fact, even apart from the huge costs of the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the US uses approximately half of it’s federal tax revenue, excluding trust funds like Social Security, to fund the military budget.

Whether or not one approves of this federal spending priority — and I obviously don’t — the fact of its effect on our economic crisis should be faced squarely, not swept under the table.

If candidates won’t talk about the war’s costs, there are war veterans who will.

Camilo Mejía grew up in Nicaragua and Costa Rica before moving to the United States in 1994. He joined the military at the age of nineteen, serving as an infantryman in the active-duty army for three years before transferring to the Florida National Guard. After fighting in Iraq for five months, Mejía became the first known Iraq veteran to refuse to continue to fight in Iraq, citing moral concerns about the war and occupation. He was eventually convicted of desertion by a military court and sentenced to a year in prison.

Mejía currently serves as the chair of the board of Iraq Veterans Against the War, and is the author of Road from Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia: An Iraq War Memoir (new edition, Haymarket Books 2008). In Road from Ar Ramadi, Mejía tells his own story, from his upbringing in Central America and his experience as a working-class immigrant in the United States to his service in Iraq – where he witnessed prisoner abuse and was deployed in the Sunni triangle – and time in prison. In this stirring book, he argues passionately for human rights and the end to an unjust war.

Susan Van Haitsma / The Rag Blog

[Susan Van Haitsma also blogs as makingpeace at Statesman.com and at makingpeace.]

Find Road from Ar Ramadi: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia at amazon.com.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Signs of a Sick Society: the Election

Who says conservatives don’t understand political theatre? This is one of the finest examples of agit-prop ever caught on video. A really grand nation we’ve got here, filled with cynical, self-serving racist folks. Wonderful place …

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog

Muslims for McCain Reject Protesters
October 20, 2008

In a confrontation caught on video, three people outside a John McCain presidential rally in Woodbridge, Va., this past weekend handed out “Obama for Change” bumper stickers that featured the Communist hammer and sickle and the Islamic crescent on them.

One of the anti-Barack Obama protesters told McCain supporters that Islam teaches its followers to “deceive the infidels in order to progress Islam.”

The man, who chose not to give his name, said Obama “is a socialist with Islamic background.” When pushed to back up his claim, he said, “There’s a lot of background … I can’t do that right now.”

Several moderate McCain supporters, that included both Muslims and Christians, angrily denounced the group distributing the anti-Obama materials. A man who identified himself as a Muslim McCain delegate from the GOP convention even stepped in and said the campaign doesn’t endorse this kind of message. Under pressure, the protesters eventually left the premises.

Source / America On Line

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment