William Broyles : Mission Impossible in Iraq

Last updated June 27, 2008

Screenwriter and former Texas Monthly editor William Broyles.

William Broyles was the founding editor of Texas Monthly – back when this magazine about and for Texas was actually edited by a Texan. Broyles produced an innovative, adventuresome publication that created a splash on the national journalism scene, and I had the honor of being associated with Bill and the magazine in those early days. Bill was an honorable man, an excellent editor, a true friend and a dream to work with.

Bill Broyles later edited Newsweek and is the author of Brothers in Arms, an account of his return to Vietnam as a journalist 15 years after leading a platoon there as a young Marine lieutenant. He has since become a highly regarded screenwriter with one academy award nomination under his belt (for Apollo 13, which he wrote with Al Reinert).

Bill has returned to write a guest editorial in the July, 2008, issue of Texas Monthly in which he – as current editor Evan Smith puts it – “makes a passionate case for an immediate end to the Iraq war, in which his son, David, served honorably.” And what an eloquent case he makes.

The text of that column appears below.

Thorne Dreyer / The Rag Blog / June 24, 2008

Why we should end the war in Iraq — now.
by William Broyles

My grandfather served in World War I, my father in World War II. I was a Marine in Vietnam. The longest love affair of my life is with the United States Marine Corps. I believe in its values, its commitment, its ethic of sacrifice and excellence. In a soft world of self-indulgence, there’s no fat in the Marine Corps soul. I’m so proud of my service that forty years later tears still come to my eyes when I hear the first words of the Marine Corps hymn: “From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli.”

Shortly after 9/11, my son David, who had just graduated from the University of Texas with a degree in English, enlisted with great idealism. He endured grueling training to become an Air Force pararescueman (which is like a Navy SEAL) and served three tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan with elite Special Operations troops. When he was in the war zone, I couldn’t answer the phone at night. I couldn’t watch the news. I couldn’t understand how the rest of the country was acting as if there weren’t a war on. And I was one of the lucky ones. My son came home.

With each tour in Iraq, my son’s idealism eroded. He no longer believed the war was crucial to America’s security. He still served with pride and dedication, but his dedication was no longer to the elusive goals of the war—it was to his own honor, to the men in his unit, and to its lifesaving mission. His team members were some of the finest Americans I’ve ever met. They did their duty and then some. But they deserved better. Everyone who has served and sacrificed in Iraq does.

When David finished his enlistment, he dedicated himself to helping wounded American veterans. He started a nonprofit and swam the Strait of Gibraltar with another military buddy to raise money. Matt Cook, whose story of his own service in Iraq appears in this issue (“Soldier”), produced Swim, a documentary about their effort. The film features real men and women who were terribly injured and disfigured. They are among thousands of Iraq war veterans whose faces look like melted wax, who can’t see or hear or walk, whose disability benefits were delayed or denied, whose spouses lost their jobs trying to take care of them, who’ve lost their homes and been forgotten. More than a thousand a month attempt suicide. Twenty percent are affected with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injuries, including David’s best friend.

When you send men and women to war, you don’t just ask them to risk their lives. You ask them to do what every fiber of their being and every value tells them not to do: You ask them to kill. There’d better be a good reason. You’d better be willing to use overwhelming force, and you’d better have clear objectives and a sound exit strategy. You’d better not run the war with such incompetence that many of its former military leaders believe it’s been botched (Texas Monthly Talks). Because if you abuse the patriotism and the sacrifice of the men and women you send to war, you create a hole in their souls—and in the soul of America.

When I see friends from the National Guard or the Reserves called up, then called up again, then called up yet again; when I see former troops who served multiple tours in the war zone pulled out of civilian life and sent back to the war; when I see talk show hosts and politicians cheerleading for a war they wouldn’t dream of serving in themselves, I take it personally. When the remains of dead young Americans are brought home in secret and some are cremated in pet cemeteries; when we’ve created nearly 5 million refugees in Iraq and taken in just 692; when we cage people without trials for years and treat them like animals; when supporters of the war oppose a new GI Bill that would give enough money for veterans like my son to go to college—when they say the men and women who served three and four war tours deserve only enough to cover a fraction of their college education, even though they gave 100 percent of their service—that’s personal too.

I’ve had enough of this war. I’ve had enough of the pictures of good American families, the mom with her arms around her children and the caption saying she’d just celebrated her wedding anniversary when she was killed in Iraq. I’ve had enough of the pictures of wounded Americans trying to learn to walk or talk or eat again. I’ve had enough of the pictures they won’t let us see but which I can too vividly imagine. Of the Iraqi children dead in our bombings, their homes destroyed, their families blown away. Of the millions of Iraqi refugees without homes or jobs. Of the return of Islamic fundamentalism to Iraq in our wake, with women murdered for not being married or not wearing a head scarf.

I’ve had enough of throwing billions of our hard-earned dollars down a rat hole of corruption. Fifteen billion unaccounted for by the Pentagon. Nine billion unaccounted for by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Another $1.8 billion in seized Iraqi assets that simply disappeared. When I’d finished my year in Vietnam, I couldn’t wait to get on that freedom bird and go home, but they wouldn’t let me leave. You know why? Because I’d signed out a shovel and hadn’t returned it. A shovel! The supply sergeant told me the taxpayers had paid for that shovel and I’d better bring it back or he wouldn’t sign my departure papers. I had to buy one for five bucks on the black market and turn it in before I got my ticket home. That’s how America used to do things.

How much will this war cost, all in? Three trillion dollars? Four (the current long-term estimate)? Think of what we could do with that. We could provide universal health care, fix Social Security, rebuild America’s crumbling dams and bridges, fund an energy policy to free us from foreign oil, and on and on. We could truly invest in our security and prosperity before it’s too late. Instead, we’re squandering our precious blood and resources in Iraq, a country the size of California, trying to determine the destiny of 27 million people who are riven by tribal and religious differences we can’t fathom and who speak languages we don’t understand.

Our brave American troops can overthrow Saddam Hussein, they can “surge” to provide temporary security in selected areas, they can train and advise the Iraqis. They’ve done all that, and done it well. But they can’t control the destiny of Iraq. We’ve been fighting there longer than we fought in World War I and World War II put together. That’s long enough. It’s time for the Iraqis to step up and take over their own country. It’s time for us to get out and let them.

Every day we stay we spend lives and treasure we can’t afford to lose. Every day we stay we strengthen our adversaries. Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah are all far stronger today than when the war began. The president of  Iran tours Baghdad and is greeted with the flowers Dick Cheney promised us. Our leaders visit in secret and seldom dare leave the Green Zone. The main Shiite leader forbids his millions of followers to sell Americans a single grain of rice. Our allies today are the same Sunni warlords we fought yesterday, who support us for the same reason Osama bin Laden once supported us against the Russians in Afghanistan—because it’s good for them, for now.

Once we’re gone, we won’t continue to fuel the hatred of the Muslim world. We won’t make more terrorists with each bomb we drop and each carful of civilians we blast apart, and we won’t alienate people around the world who used to look to us for moral leadership. The president warns that if we were to leave tomorrow, the terrorists would be emboldened, those bent on genocide would be empowered, and our prestige would plummet. But our presence has already done that. If we stay five or ten more years, the same things could happen the day we leave.

The truth is, no one can predict what’s going to happen when we get out. In 1968 presidential candidate Richard Nixon said he had a plan to end the Vietnam War. He changed his mind after he was elected. He said we couldn’t settle for defeat. We had to win. If we got out right away, he told us, our mortal enemies would win. The Soviet Union would be strengthened around the world, and Chinese Communists would establish a beachhead in Southeast Asia. America would be on the road to disaster. Sound familiar? Nixon kept the war going another five years. Some 22,000 more Americans died, and so did as many as a million more Vietnamese.

Was Nixon right? Was that terrible carnage worth it? Well, four years after the last American helicopter left Saigon, the Vietnamese went to war against . . . guess who? The Chinese Communists. And fourteen years after America pulled out, the Berlin Wall fell. It was the Soviet Union that collapsed, not America. Everything that Nixon had predicted was wrong. We were stronger after we got out of Vietnam, not weaker. The same could happen when we get out of Iraq.

Yes, everyone wants freedom. But they also want to be safe in their homes. They want their children to be safe in their schools. And they love their countries the same way we do. They don’t want foreigners telling them how to run their country, kicking down their doors, and dropping bombs on their villages any more than we would. Because even if we believe that we’re doing it for them, that we’re America and we’re the good guys, their children are still dead, their parents are still buried in the rubble, and they will still hate us—until the day we leave.

So let’s bring our troops home now. Let’s give them parades and take care of them and their families. They deserve it. Let’s give the Iraqis economic, technical, and diplomatic support to help them stand up for themselves. Let’s play the Marine Corps hymn and call a whole new generation of Americans to the honor of military service, and this time let’s give them the leadership they deserve.

Source. / Texas Monthly

Rag Blogger responses:

This is a pretty good editorial for the middle of the road, uninformed, somewhat racist, and reflexively patriotic out there. I’m glad it is in that upscale Sears & Roebuck catalogue, Texas Monthly. William Broyles went to Vietnam and said he really liked war, in his article “Why Men Love War”, Esquire, Nov. 1984. He had a great male bonding/identity building experience and he is not about to give it up. Because of this he cannot finally explain why war is essentially wrong. What if the U.S. had used overwhelming force, great body armor, well armored Humvees, and had “won” the war decisively and quickly? What if every soldier was given the best GI Bill and great medical service? What if the U.S. had rebuilt everything it broke in Iraq? And in the end Exxon/Mobil still got control of Iraq’s oil and our gasoline was fifty cents a gallon instead of four dollars a gallon? Would that be o.k.?

The war was essentially wrong and there is no way it could be anything other than wrong. The problem is not that troops were disrespected, money was wasted or even that lives were lost but that war is murder for profit. War is theft on a large scale. Nationalism and patriotism exist to manipulate the majority for the profit of the few. I don’t want to sing the Marine anthem or any other, ever. I volunteered for Vietnam and volunteered to be a combat medic with an Army infantry company. I was thoroughly disgusted by what I experienced. I have not one good thing to say about any of it. I do not secretly think being in the Army in Vietnam was the high point of my life, or openly as Broyles does. Vietnam caused me to completely re-think, reconstruct, my worldview but I do not thank the Army for that. Did not William Broyles tell his son that the U.S. only fights wars for the profit of the war mongers at the expense of everyone else? Did he not beg his son not to join the military? And if he did not, why not? The military is not a sports team. One cannot serve honorably while murdering people or helping others to murder. I am not excused because I was a medic (or cook or clerk) rather than a rifleman or a bomber pilot.

Doug Zachary and I discussed this at length and agree whole heartedly that using the abuse of our soldiers as an argument against this, or any war, without a sharp critique of war itself, can still serve the empire.

Those who are injured in combat should get the best medical care as every American and non-American should receive. Everyone, including soldiers, should have an equal opportunity to as much education as they can usefully absorb. I don’t mind pointing out contradictions between what is promised to soldiers and what they actually get but even if they got it all war would still be absolutely wrong, sick, and the antithesis of our humanity. There will be a next war until a great majority of people come to understand why war itself is wrong. The “why” includes words and phases people who think like Broyles cannot utter: class struggle, imperialism, wage slavery, surplus value, racism and all demonizing/dehumanizing stereotyping , no nationalism/patriotism but simply one human family.

Alan Pogue / The Rag Blog

I completely agree with you, Alan, regarding the horror of war and the simple, unadorned fact that everyone who participates in it is an accessory to the murder it perpetrates.

And what you state in the beginning of your post is so true–that’s precisely what makes a piece like this incredibly valuable. Middle-of-the-roaders, fence-sitters, and even conservatives might be moved to give their chiseled-in-stone opinion of the war another thought as a result of this effort by Mr. Broyles. And for that, I thank him, despite his not embracing the peace movement. I’m afraid he doesn’t “get it.”

Speaking of which…I ran into General Ricardo Sanchez on Saturday while buying groceries. He was signing books at one of our larger HEB’s, and there wasn’t a line, so he and I talked for quite a while. His story of growing up on the “edge of America” in Rio Grande City, a town I am very familiar with, is very compelling; he was one of many children in a family of Mexican immigrants and he had to maintain incredible discipline in his life to avoid ending up picking cotton, as he describes in his book. He is certainly to be commended for that drive. Unfortunately, he does not grasp that the amazing industry he showed by working so hard, by achieving so much, is for the wrong cause–for that of militarism. Ironically, he gets that the unrestrained sprees undertaken by corporations like KBR are at least partially responsible for the mess in Iraq–but he can’t see the bigger picture of corporate greed and military might, working in tandem.

But the most amazing thing happened at the end–when I bought one of his books and he wrote an inscription for me. I told him what I do, that I work for Texans for Peace, I described Charlie Jackson’s trips to Iraq, I explained what part I played in the survival of Christian Peacemaker Teams hostages–and what did this all add up to for him? “Thank you for your part in the war effort on behalf of the United States of America,” he began. Because to him, as he explained, and I marveled, it’s all the same thing. Peace is part of the war effort. Working to save hostages is part of the war effort. People here at home–part of the war effort. I just smiled and shook my head. He’s not going to change. He’s fifty-six years old, and he believes he has lived his entire adult life in the service of his country, he believes he has done his country “proud.” Okay, so some morons in the White House screwed up what he worked hard to achieve in Iraq–a military victory–but that is all he will ever understand.

I can’t begin to think how many more there are just like him.

Alyssa Burgin / The Rag Blog

Friends,

I went to college with Bill (as he was known then). He was Editor of the student newspaper in 66(?) the year he graduated. He was very active. I recall later being surprised to learn he served in Viet Nam.

I think his pride in the Marine Corps, and by extension in military service is perhaps understandable, but as misplaced as any sort of pride in military activity. It isn´t just this war, or this one and Viet Nam which have been mistakes. It is not just the wars the US has lost that have caused problems, and have built the empire. Pres. Eisenhower, as he was LEAVING office warned of the military industrial complex, but it is too bad he didn´t begin efforts to overcome it while he was in power. As long as we keep preparing for war, we will use military force to resolve problems or to enforce the American way of life, meaning our empire. Most people see some of the wars we have fought, and won, as necessary. But if want to stop the necessity of wars, we must work against militarism in all forms.

Yes, the TM, and Bill, should have stood against the war much much earlier.

Paz,
Val Liveoak

The Rag Blog

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

Just Like Congress Rolled Over

Adam Zyglis.

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

House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran


Proposed actions could lead to war with Iran
by Andrew W Cheetham

A US House of Representatives Resolution effectively requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.

H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also “demands” that the President impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran.”

Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution has attracted 146 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the bill in the past two days.

In the Senate, a sister resolution S.RES 580 has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a week’s time, it has accrued 19 co-sponsors.

AIPAC’s Endorsement

Congressional insiders credit America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby for the rapid endorsement of the bills. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference June 2-4, in which it sent thousands of members to Capitol Hill to push for tougher measures against Iran. On its website, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ”Stop Irans Nuclear Proliferation” and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill.

AIPAC has been ramping up the rhetoric against Iran over the last 3 years delivering 9 issue memos to Congress in 2006, 17 in 2007 and in the first five months of 2008 has delivered no less than 11 issue memos to the Congress and Senate predominantly warning of Irans nuclear weapons involvement and support for terrorism.

The Resolutions put forward in the House and the Senate bear a resounding similarity to AIPAC analysis and Issue Memos in both its analysis and proposals even down to its individual components.

Proponents say the resolutions advocate constructive steps toward reducing the threat posed by Iran. “It is my hope that…this Congress will urge this and future administrations to lead the world in economically isolating Iran in real and substantial ways,” said Congressman Mike Pence(R-IN), who is the original cosponsor of the House resolution along with Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Chairman of the sub committee on Middle East and South Asia of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Foreign policy analysts worry that such unilateral sanctions make it harder for the US to win the cooperation of the international community on a more effective multilateral effort. In his online blog, Senior Fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Ethan Chorin points out that some US allies seek the economic ties to Iran that these resolutions ban. “The Swiss have recently signed an MOU with Iran on gas imports; the Omanis are close to a firm deal (also) on gas imports from Iran; a limited-services joint Iranian-European bank just opened a branch on Kish Island,” he writes.

These resolutions could severely escalate US-Iran tensions, experts say. Recalling the perception of the naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the international norms classifying a naval blockade an act of war, critics argue endorsement of these bills would signal US intentions of war with Iran.

Last week’s sharp rise in the cost of oil following Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz’s threat to attack Iran indicated the impact that global fear of military action against Iran can have on the world petroleum market. It remains unclear if extensive congressional endorsement of these measures could have a similar effect.

In late May, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly urged the United States to impose a blockade on Iran. During a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in Jersusalem, Olmert said economic sanctions have “exhausted themselves” and called a blockade a “good possibility.”

Source. / Global Research / Posted June 18, 2008. Go there for text of resolution.

Proposed bill needs attention, opposition
By Robert Naiman and Mike Lynn / June 23, 2008

The U.S. House of Representatives is considering a new resolution that could effectively demand a blockade against Iran — an act that would be widely seen as an act of war and could invite Iranian retaliation, possibly leading us into a shooting war.

Over the last three weeks, 77 House Democrats and 92 Republicans have agreed to cosponsor this resolution, but we think many do not realize its dangerous implications.

This resolution (H. Con. Res. 362) was introduced by Representative Gary Ackerman. The most alarming provision “demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”

Such a blockade imposed without United Nations authority (which the resolution does not call for) would be seen as an act of war. Congressional sources say the bill might first go to committee, which gives us a little more time to pressure our representatives. But whether or not it goes first to committee, or directly to the floor of the House, action on H. Con. Res. 362 is needed now. We urge you to ask your representative not to support this dangerous step toward war with Iran.

Congressional leaders seem to have assumed that there would be little opposition to this punitive measure against Iran, and they have put it on a fast track to passage. But due to the threat of war, many organizations and reasonable members of Congress are working overtime to stop this bill.

Please take action now — ask your representative to oppose this dangerous path that could lead directly to war with Iran.

You can find the full text of the resolution and list of co-sponsors
here.

Source. / United for Peace and Justice

Thanks to Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog

The Rag Blog

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

The Hard Human Surface


I’m doing a brave pushup
near the middle of the road
with my back legs paralyzed
and folded under me helplessly
under my newly crushing weight
as I hold my head up high
looking for danger though
unable to move out the way
of the next car already
rapidly approaching

I’m stunned and shocked
and surprisingly calm
after all what can I do
I always do my best
I’m very careful as a rule
and run so very fast that
no others ever catch me
running up and down trees
looking just a blur speeding
upside down the underside
of long stiff branches
until you see me leaping
into mid air as if gravity
weren’t real and landing
on a distant bending twig
then on the ground and onto
the hard human surface
and quickly dash across
in a flow of short athletic hops
into the heavy moving wall
that appeared out of nowhere
and just as quickly disappeared

I partly stand here tall as can be
more frozen than in deep winter
in treetop nest in wild blue norther
with my mind clear again even
on this 100-degree summer day
when I’d simply been trying
to conduct my business
I have an acorn to dig up
I’m hungry and now I hurt
I’m scared and hope for the best
maybe I can try again to move now

The Hard Human Surface

Larry Piltz
June 2008
Indian Cove / Austin, Texas

The Rag Blog / Posted June 23, 2008

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Food For Thought


Turning Your Lawn into a Victory Garden
Won’t Save You — Fighting the Corporations Will

By Stan Cox / June 23, 2008

The corporate agriculture industry would like nothing better than to see us spend all of our free time in our gardens and not in political dissent.

I didn’t mean to lead anyone down the garden path. Adding my small voice to those urging Americans to replace their lawns with food plants wasn’t, in itself, a bad idea. But now that food shortages and high costs are in the headlines, too many people are getting the idea that the solution to America’s and the world’s food problems is for all of us in cities and suburbia to grow our own. It’s not.

Don’t get me wrong: Growing food just outside your front or back door is an extraordinarily good idea, and if it’s done without soil erosion or toxic chemicals, I can think of no downside. Edible landscaping can look good, and it saves money on groceries; it’s a direct provocation to the toxic lawn culture; gardening is quieter and less polluting than running a power mower or other contraption; the harvest provides a substitute for industrially grown produce raised and picked by underpaid, oversprayed workers; and tending a garden takes a lot of time, time that might otherwise be spent in a supermarket or shopping mall.

So it was in 2005 that our family volunteered our front lawn to be converted into the first in a now-expanding chain of “Edible Estates,” the brainchild of Los Angeles architect/artist Fritz Haeg. We already had a backyard garden, but growing food in the front yard (which, as Haeg himself points out, is a reincarnation of a very old idea) has been a wholly different, equally positive experience.

Our perennials and annuals are thriving, we’ve gotten a lot of publicity, and I’ve been talking about the project for almost three years. Yet neither of our gardens, front or back, can stand up to the looming agricultural crisis. Good food’s most well-read advocate, Michael Pollan, has written that growing a garden is worth doing even though it can make only a tiny contribution to curbing carbon-dioxide emissions. He might have added that growing food is worth it even if it does very little to revive the nation’s food system.

World cropland: the pie is mostly crust

The edible-landscaping trend is catching on across the country, and with food prices rising, it has taking sadly predictable turns. A Boulder, Colo. entrepreneur, for example, has tilled up his and several of his neighbors’ yards and started an erosion-prone, for-profit vegetable-farming operation. It will supplement his income, but it won’t make a nick in the food crisis.

That’s because the mainstays of home gardening — vegetables and fruits — are not the foundation of the human diet or of world agriculture. Each of those two food types occupies only about 4 percent of global agricultural land (and a smaller percentage in this country), compared with 75 percent of world cropland devoted to grains and oilseeds. Their respective portions of the human diet are similar.

Suppose that half of the land on every one-acre-or-smaller urban/suburban home lot in the entire nation were devoted to food-growing. That would amount to a little over 5 million acres (pdf) sown to food plants, covering most of the space on each lot that’s not already covered by the house, a deck, a patio, or a driveway. (And in many places it couldn’t be done without cutting down shade trees and planting on unsuitably steep slopes).

That theoretical 5 million acres of potential home cropland compares with about 7 million acres of America’s commercial cropland currently in vegetables, fruits, and nuts, and 350 to 400 million acres of total farmland. The urban and suburban area to be brought into production would not approach the number of healthy acres of native grasses and other plants that are slated to be plowed up to make way for yet more corn, wheat, soybeans, and other grains under the newly passed federal Farm Bill.

A nationwide grow-your-own wave would send good vibes through society, ripples that could be greatly amplified by community and apartment-block gardening. But front- and backyard food, even if everyone grew it, would not cover the country’s produce needs, much less displace our huge volume of fresh-food imports.

We could, instead, plant every yard to wheat, corn, or soybeans, which would account only for a little over two percent of the US land sown to those crops. Other policies, like dispensing with grain-fed meat and fuel ethanol, would free up far more grain-belt land than that.

Not even a poke in the eye

I’ve played a part in the promotion of domestic food-growing, and I now I seem to hear daily from people who believe that it’s the best alternative to industrial agriculture (as in, “I’ll show Monsanto and Wal-Mart that I don’t need their food!”). Even though most prominent home-lot food efforts, like the “100-Foot Diet Challenge,” also try to draw attention to bigger issues, the wider message can get lost in the excitement. Whatever its benefits, replacing your lawn with food plants will not give Big Agribusiness the big poke in the eye that it needs, nor will it save the agricultural landscapes of the nation or world.

To do that, the big-commodity market must be not just modified but overthrown. Until then, most of that two-thirds or more of the human calorie and protein intake that comes from grains and oilseeds (directly in most of the world or among Western vegetarians, largely via animal products for others in this country) will continue to be served up by a dirty, cruel, unfair, broken system.

Essential for providing vitamins, minerals, and other compounds, a highly varied diet is important, and home gardens around the world help provide such a diet. But with a world population now approaching seven billion people and most good cropland already in use, only rice, wheat, corn, beans, and other grain crops are productive and durable enough to provide the dietary foundation of calories and protein.

Grains made up about the same portion of the ancient Greek diet as they do of ours. We’ve been stuck with grains for 10,000 years, and our dependence won’t be broken any time soon.

The United States emulate Argentina and a handful of other countries by raising cattle that are totally grass-fed instead of grain-fed and thereby consuming less corn and soybean meal. But most of the world is utterly dependent on grains. The desperate people we saw on the evening news earlier this year, filling the streets in dozens of countries, were calling for bread or rice, not cucumbers and pomegranates.

Capitalism: It doesn’t go well with food

Humanity’s attachment to cereals, grain legumes, and oilseeds has acquired a much harder edge in the industrial era, but as a base for political and economic power, the staple grains have always been unsurpassed. Because they hold calories and nutrients in a dense package that can be easily stored for long periods and transported, the more fortunate members of ancient societies could accumulate surpluses. Those surpluses are recognized by the majority of scholars as necessary to the birth of market economies, which allowed the prosperous to exercise control over society’s have-nots. Eventually, states used control over grains to exert political power over entire populations.

Few foods could have filled that role. Noting that before grain agriculture came along, ancient Egyptians might have gathered a surplus of various foods from nature, most of them highly perishable, economic historian Robert Allen once wrote, “If all a tax collector could get from foragers was a load of waterlilies that would wilt by next morning, what was the point of having them?” The Pharaohs managed to exert control over the area’s population only after people started farming wheat and barley.

The even bigger problem with grains — which are short-lived annual plants, grown largely in monoculture — is that they supplanted the diverse, perennial plant ecosystems that covered the earth before the dawn of agriculture. We’ve been living with the resulting soil erosion and water pollution ever since.

Then, when grains became fully commodified a couple of centuries ago, things really started to go downhill. In discussing his new book Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System, Raj Patel cited India as an example: “The social safety nets that existed in India under feudal society had been knocked away by the British. If people couldn’t afford food, they didn’t get to eat, and if they couldn’t buy food, they starved. As a result of the imposition of markets in food, 13 million people across the world died in the 19th century. They died in the golden age of liberal capitalism. Those are the origins of markets in food.”

Indeed, if capitalism were a wine, it would be a wine that doesn’t go well with any type of food.

Most food today is produced not as an end in itself but as a by-product of a global economy with the singular goal of turning maximum profit. That is a dysfunctional arrangement, as Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, the founder of ecological economics explained almost 40 years ago in his book The Entropy Law and the Economic Process: “So vital is the dependence of terrestrial life on the energy received from the sun that the cyclic rhythm in which this energy reaches each region on the earth has gradually built itself through natural selection into the reproductive pattern of almost every species, vegetal or animal … Yet the general tenor among economists has been to deny any substantial difference between the structures of agricultural and industrial productive activities.”

Industrial or commercial output can be increased by building more capacity, stepping up the consumption of inputs, taking on more workers, and pushing workers harder and for longer hours. Farming, by contrast, is inevitably bound by the calendar — by month-to-month variation in the capacity of soil and sunlight to support the growth of plants. It depends fundamentally on the productivity and the habits of non-human biological organisms over which humans can exert control only up to a point.

That clearly isn’t the ideal pattern for efficient wealth generation, so the past century has seen relentless efforts to mold agriculture into the factory model as closely as possible and, where that can’t be done, to graft more easily regimented industries — farm machinery, fertilizers, chemicals, food processing, the restaurant industry, packaging, advertising — onto an agricultural rootstock. In the US, the dollar outputs of those dependent industries are growing at two to four times the rate of agriculture’s own dollar output, putting ever-greater demands on the soil.

With a wholesale shift toward mechanization of US agriculture, 75 percent of economic output now comes from fewer than 7 percent of farms; furthermore, there has been a steep rise in the proportion of farms owned by investors living in distant cities (some of them perhaps avid urban gardeners).

Because, as Georgescu-Roegen showed, there’s a fundamental difference between the farm and the factory, the well-used term “factory farming” represents more an aspiration than an accomplished fact. Nevertheless, agribusiness’s attempts to defy natural rhythms and achieve industrial efficiency have been ecologically devastating. The biofuel craze, encouraged by subsidies that continue in the new Farm Bill, compounds the problem.

“We must cultivate our garden,” and …

To repair the broken system that supplies the bulk of the nation’s diet will require Americans to step out of the garden and into the public arena. Beyond working to get a better Farm Bill passed five years from now, we have to work together to break the political choke-hold that agribusiness has on federal and state governments.

With land and wealth being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands (and with more prisoners than farmers in today’s America) we have actually reached a point at which land reform is as necessary here as it is in any nation of Latin America or Asia. Only when we get more people back on the land, working to feed people and not Monsanto, will the system have a chance to work. Most home gardeners know that the root of the problem is political, but the agricultural establishment would like nothing better than to see us spend all of our free time in our gardens and not in political dissent.

Ironically, it’s that great troublemaker Voltaire who has too often been trotted out (and too often misquoted) as an advocate of withdrawing from the tumult of society, into tending one’s own property. Voltaire was indeed a gardener, and he did end his most famous novel by having Candide, after surviving so many far-flung hazards, utter those famous words to his fellow wanderer Dr. Pangloss: “We must cultivate our garden.”

However, with the publication of Candide in 1759, Voltaire entered the most politically active part of his life, as he “went on to a series of confrontations with the consequences of human cruelty that, two hundred-odd years later, remain stirring in their courage and perseverance,” in the words of Adam Gopnik.

If Voltaire could find the time for both gardening and radical political action, then all of us can do it.

[Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. His book, Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, was just published by Pluto Press.]

Source. / AlterNet

The Rag Blog

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

Another One Bites the Dust


George Carlin: American Radical
By John Nichols / June 23, 2008

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately. — George Carlin.

The last vote that George Carlin said he cast in a presidential race was for George McGovern in 1972.

When Richard Nixon, who Carlin described as a member of a sub-species of humanity, overwhelmingly defeated McGovern, the comedian gave up on the political process.

“Now, there’s one thing you might have noticed I don’t complain about: politicians,” he explained in a routine that challenged all the premises of today’s half-a-loaf reformers. “Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you’re going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain’t going to do any good; you’re just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here… like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There’s a nice campaign slogan for somebody: “The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.”

Needless to say, George Carlin was not on message for 2008’s “change we can believe in” election season.

His was a darker and more serious take on the crisis–and the change of consciousness, sweeping in scope and revolutionary in character, that was required to address it.

Carlin may have stopped voting in 1972. But America’s most consistently savage social commentator for the best part of a half century, who has died at age 71, did not give up on politics.

In recent years, in front of audiences that were not always liberal, he tore apart the neo-conservative assault on liberty with a clarity rarely evidenced in the popular culture.

Recalling George Bush’s ranting about how the endless “war on terror” is a battle for freedom, Carlin echoed James Madison’s thinking with a simple question: “Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they?”

Carlin gave the Christian right–and the Christian left–no quarter. “I’m completely in favor of the separation of Church and State,” Carlin said. “My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.”

Carlin’s take on the Ronald Reagan administration is the best antidote to the counterfactual romanticization of the former president–in which even Barack Obama has engaged–remains the single finest assessment of Reagan and his inner circle. While Carlin did not complain much about politicians, he made an exception with regard to the great communicator. Recorded in 1988 at the Park Theater in Union City, New Jersey, and later released as an album–What Am I Doing in New Jersey?–his savage recollection of the then-concluding Reagan-Bush years opened with the line: “I really haven’t seen this many people in one place since they took the group photograph of all the criminals and lawbreakers in the Ronald Reagan administration.”

But there was no nostalgia for past fights, no resting on laurels, for this topical comedian. He read the papers, he followed the news, he asked questions–the interviews I did with Carlin over the years were more conversations than traditional Q & A’s–and he turned it all into a running commentary that focused not so much on politics as on the ugly intersection of power and economics.

No one, not Obama, not Hillary Clinton and certainly not John McCain, caught the zeitgeist of the vanishing American dream so well as Carlin. “The owners of this country know the truth: It’s called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”

Not just aware of but steeped in the traditions of American populism–more William Jennings Bryan and Eugene Victor Debs than Bill Clinton or John Kerry–Carlin preached against the consolidation of wealth and power with a fire-and-brimstone rage that betrayed a deep moral sense that could never quite be cloaked with four-letter words.

“The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they’re an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They’ve got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying–lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else,” ranted the comedian whose routines were studied in graduate schools.

“But I’ll tell you what they don’t want,” Carlin continued. “They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. You know what they want? Obedient workers–people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they’re coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in the big club.”

Carlin did not want Americans to get involved with the system.

He wanted citizens to get angry enough to remake the system.

Carlin was a leveler of the old, old school. And no one who had so public a platform–as the first host of NBC’s “Saturday Night Live,” a regular on broadcast and cable televisions shows, a best-selling author and a favorite character actor in films (he was even the narrator of the American version of he provided the narrative voice for the American version of the children’s show “Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends”)–did more to challenge accepted wisdom regarding our political economy.

“Let’s suppose we all just materialized on Earth and there was a bunch of potatoes on the ground, okay? There’s just six of us. Only six humans. We come into a clearing and there’s potatoes on the ground. Now, my instinct would be, let’s everybody get some potatoes. “Everybody got a potato? Joey didn’t get a potato! He’s small, he can’t hold as many potatoes. Give Joey some of your potatoes.” “No, these are my potatoes!” That’s the Republicans. “I collected more of them, I got a bigger pile of potatoes, they’re mine. If you want some of them, you’re going to have to give me something.” “But look at Joey, he’s only got a couple, they won’t last two days.” That’s the fuckin’ difference! And I’m more inclined to want to share and even out,” he explained in an interview several years ago with the Onion.

“I understand the marketplace, but government is supposed to be here to redress the inequities of the marketplace,” Carlin continued. “That’s one of its functions. Not just to protect the nation, secure our security and all that shit. And not just to take care of great problems that are trans-state problems, that are national, but also to make sure that the inequalities of the marketplace are redressed by the acts of government. That’s what welfare was about. There are people who really just don’t have the tools, for whatever reason. Yes, there are lazy people. Yes, there are slackers. Yes, there’s all of that. But there are also people who can’t cut it, for any given reason, whether it’s racism, or an educational opportunity, or poverty, or a fuckin’ horrible home life, or a history of a horrible family life going back three generations, or whatever it is. They’re crippled and they can’t make it, and they deserve to rest at the commonweal. That’s where my fuckin’ passion lies.”

Like the radicals of the early years of the 20th century, whose politics he knew and respected, Carlin understood that free-speech fights had to come first. And always pushed the limit–happily choosing an offensive word when a more polite one might have sufficed. By 1972, the year he won the first of four Grammys for best comedy album, he had developed his most famous routine: “Seven Words (You Can’t Say on Television).”

That summer, at a huge outdoor show in Milwaukee, he uttered all seven of them in public – and was promptly arrested for disturbing the peace.

When a version of the routine was aired in 1973 on WBAI, the Pacifica Foundation radio station in New York,. Pacifica received a citation from the FCC. Pacifica was ordered to pay a fine for violating federal regulations prohibiting the broadcast of “obscene” language. The ensuing free-speech fight made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rile 5-4 against the First Amendment to the Constitution, Pacifica and Carlin.

Amusingly, especially to the comedian, a full transcript of the routine ended up in court documents associated with the case, F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).

“So my name is a footnote in American legal history, which I’m perversely kind of proud of,” recalled Carlin. Proud enough that you can find the court records on the comedian’s website: www.georgecarlin.com.

There will, of course, be those who dismiss Carlin as a remnant of the sixties who introduced obscenity to the public discourse–just as there will be those who misread his critique of the American political and economic systems as little more than verbal nihilism. In fact, George Carlin was, like the radicals of an earlier age, an idealist–and a patriot–of a deeper sort than is encountered very often these days.

Carlin explained himself best in one of his last interviews. “There is a certain amount of righteous indignation I hold for this culture, because to get back to the real root of it, to get broader about it, my opinion that is my species–and my culture in America specifically–have let me down and betrayed me. I think this species had great, great promise, with this great upper brain that we have, and I think we squandered it on God and Mammon. And I think this culture of ours has such promise, with the promise of real, true freedom, and then everyone has been shackled by ownership and possessions and acquisition and status and power,” he said. “And perhaps it’s just a human weakness and an inevitable human story that these things happen. But there’s disillusionment and some discontent in me about it. I don’t consider myself a cynic. I think of myself as a skeptic and a realist. But I understand the word ‘cynic’ has more than one meaning, and I see how I could be seen as cynical. ‘George, you’re cynical.’ Well, you know, they say if you scratch a cynic you find a disappointed idealist. And perhaps the flame still flickers a little, you know.

Source. / The Nation

Also see A Littany for George Carlin in Seven Words / The Rag Blog / June 23, 2008

The Rag Blog

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

A Litany for George Carlin in Seven Words

George Carlin, who died of heart failure Sunday at 71, leaves behind not only a series of memorable routines, but a legal legacy: His most celebrated monologue, a frantic, informed riff on those infamous seven words, led to a Supreme Court decision on broadcasting offensive language.Associated Press / June 24, 2008

The Seven Words You Can Never Say On TV
by George Carlin

I love words. I thank you for hearing my words.

I want to tell you something about words that I think is important.

They’re my work, they’re my play, they’re my passion.

Words are all we have, really. We have thoughts but thoughts are fluid.

Then we assign a word to a thought and we’re stuck with that word for that thought, so be careful with words. I like to think that the same words that hurt can heal, it is a matter of how you pick them.

There are some people that are not into all the words.

There are some that would have you not use certain words.

There are 400,000 words in the English language and there are seven of them you can’t say on television. What a ratio that is.

399,993 to seven. They must really be bad. They’d have to be outrageous to be seperated from a group that large. All of you over here, you seven, Bad Words. That’s what they told us they were, remember?

“That’s a bad word!” No bad words. Bad thoughts, bad intentions… and words. You know the seven, don’t you, that you can’t say on television?

“Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, CockSucker, MotherFucker, and Tits”

Those are the heavy seven. Those are the ones that’ll infect your soul, curve your spine, and keep the country from winning the war.

“Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, CockSucker, MotherFucker, and Tits” Wow! …and Tits doesn’t even belong on the list. That is such a friendly sounding word. It sounds like a nickname, right? “Hey, Tits, come here, man. Hey Tits, meet Toots. Toots, Tits. Tits, Toots.” It sounds like a snack, doesn’t it? Yes, I know, it is a snack. I don’t mean your sexist snack. I mean new Nabisco Tits!, and new Cheese Tits, Corn Tits, Pizza Tits, Sesame Tits, Onion Tits, Tater Tits. “Betcha Can’t Eat Just One.”

That’s true. I usually switch off. But I mean, that word does not belong on the list. Actually none of the words belong on the list, but you can understand why some of them are there. I’m not completely insensetive to people’s feelings. I can understand why some of those words got on the list, like CockSucker and MotherFucker. Those are heavyweight words. There is a lot going on there. Besides the literal translation and the emotional feeling.

I mean, they’re just busy words. There’s a lot of syllables to contend with. And those Ks, those are agressive sounds. They just jump out at you like “coCKsuCKer, motherfuCKer. coCKsuCKer, motherfuCKer.”

It’s like an assualt on you. We mentioned Shit earlier, and two of the other 4-letter Anglo-Saxon words are Piss and Cunt, which go together of course. A little accidental humor there. The reason that Piss and Cunt are on the list is because a long time ago, there were certain ladies that said “Those are the two I am not going to say. I don’t mind Fuck and Shit but ‘P’ and ‘C’ are out.”, which led to such
stupid sentences as “Okay you fuckers, I’m going to tinkle now.”

And, of course, the word Fuck. I don’t really, well that’s more accidental humor, I don’t wanna get into that now because I think it takes to long. But I do mean that. I think the word Fuck is a very imprortant word. It is the beginning of life, yet it is a word we use to hurt one another quite often. People much wiser than I am said,
“I’d rather have my son watch a film with two people making love than two people trying to kill one another. I, of course, can agree. It is a great sentence. I wish I knew who said it first. I agree with that but I like to take it a step further.

I’d like to substitute the word Fuck for the word Kill in all of those movie cliches we grew up with. “Okay, Sherrif, we’re gonna Fuck you now, but we’re gonna Fuck you slow.”

So maybe next year I’ll have a whole fuckin’ ramp on the N word. I hope so. Those are the seven you can never say on television, under any circumstanses. You just cannot say them ever ever ever. Not even clinically. You cannot weave them in on the panel with Doc, and Ed, and Johnny. I mean, it is just impossible. Forget tHose seven. They’re out.

But there are some two-way words, those double-meaning words.

Remember the ones you giggled at in sixth grade? “…And the cock CROWED three times” “Hey, tha cock CROWED three times. Ha ha ha ha. Hey, it’s in the bible. Ha ha ha ha. There are some two-way words, like it is okay for Curt Gowdy to say “Roberto Clemente has two balls on him.”, but he can’t say “I think he hurt his balls on that play, Tony. Don’t you? He’s holding them. He must’ve hurt them, by God.” and the other two-way word that goes with that one is Prick. It’s okay if it happens to your finger. You can prick your finger but don’t finger your prick. No,no.

Source. / LyricsBox

Quite a wordsmith, he was. A scholar of the language. I note that he and I are the same age…I had the pleasure of his company one evening in about 1973. He was playing at the Marin Civic Center, around the corner from where I lived.

The Sons of Champlin opened the show. They rented a space across the court from my space and rehearsed, hung out there. We were all good friends. When George approached one of them about perhaps scoring some cocaine, they called me. I happened to have some and proceeded quickly over to the Center not knowing who my customer was. I was ushered in to his dressing room which was cleared of all company as we went through the score procedure. He immediately went to work on the new purchase and the two of us had a short time together, flying in the zone of the leaf.

He got so ready that he went out on stage before the roadies were finished, found a live mike and started his show. No introduction, just started rapping. Needless to say he was hilarious and did a great show. I really enjoyed being around him and became a lifelong fan. He was a genuine wizard.

Gerry / The Rag Blog / June 23, 2008

George Carlin, 71, Irreverent Standup Comedian, Is Dead / by Mel Watkins / New York Times / March 24, 2008

George Carlin Reads More Blogs Than You Do / Interview by Rachel Sklar / March 1, 2008 / The Huffington Post

Religion is Bullshit Video / The Rag Blog

Video highlights from George Carlin’s Career / The Huffington Post

The Rag Blog

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

Amsterdam : To Have Such Problems!

Coffee shop for cannibis smokers in Amsterdam

You can’t get busted for smoking weed, but tobacco is another matter.

Roger Baker / The Rag Blog

Marijuana Is In, Tobacco Is Out
Under Netherlands’ Smoking Ban

By Martijn van der Starre / June 20, 2008

AMSTERDAM — Starting July 1, marijuana will be the only leaf that can be smoked in public places in the Netherlands. Cannabis devotees aren’t celebrating.

Local pot smokers, who usually cut joints with tobacco, and owners of the “coffee shops” where they are allowed to light up will have to change their habits when the nation implements the indoor tobacco ban. Puffing a pure marijuana cigarette in public will still be permitted; smoking one with tobacco will merit coffee shop owners a 300-euro ($466) fine for the first offense and 2,400 euros for a fourth.

“Every customer will have to learn how to smoke pure,” said Robert Kempen, co-owner of The NooN and Mellow Yellow in Amsterdam, which sell marijuana and hashish. The rule makes him “sick to death,” he said, rolling himself a joint.

Coffee-shop proprietors say the ban will put some of them out of business as smokers stay away. The nation’s 720 outlets that serve marijuana smokers generate a large portion of their revenue from selling drinks, food and rolling papers to their patrons. Dutch sales of cannabis alone totaled 1.2 billion euros ($1.86 billion) in 2001, according to the most recent figures available from the nation’s statistics bureau.

To permit tobacco smoking, shops will have to build separate, unstaffed rooms, and many say they don’t have the space or money to do so. Others are investing in water pipes and $400 vaporizers, initially intended to aid people with lung problems inhale medicine, to help smokers light up without tobacco.

Times Have Changed

“It’s a bad year for marijuana smokers,” said Gwydion Hydref while smoking in Coffee Shop Johnny. The Welshman works for Wickedtrips, a company that offers vacation packages, including a “no holds barred’ weekender” to Amsterdam ahead of the smoking ban. “Times have changed.”

The Netherlands follows other European countries in banning tobacco. Ireland was the first country in the region to forbid smoking in public places in 2004. Sweden, Italy, Malta, France, Belgium, Finland, Lithuania, Portugal and England and others have followed, with full or partial restrictions.

The Dutch ban, which prohibits tobacco smoking in all public places of employment to protect workers’ health, is only for tobacco and makes no change to marijuana policy, said Saskia Hommes, a spokeswoman for Dutch Health MinisterAb Klink. The government will have to see if the law is enforceable, she said.

The Netherlands decriminalized the use of marijuana in 1976, though it stopped short of fully legalizing the drug because international treaties prohibited it from doing so. The country’s first coffee shop, named after Donovan’s song “Mellow Yellow,” had opened its doors four years earlier.

Bloody Awful

Government policy toward the shops has become less lenient in recent years, with the number dropping by 39 percent in a decade as authorities cracked down on sale to young people and revoked the licenses of owners who commit crimes.

Still, the shops have devoted patrons who are upset about the latest development.

The ban is “bloody awful,” said Nima Gani, a musician smoking at The NooN. Gani plans to stop visiting The NooN and smoke his “Blueberry” marijuana and tobacco joints on the street. “I feel like my freedom is getting smaller and smaller,” he said.

To enforce the new policy, the government has more than doubled its number of food and consumer product inspectors to 200, said Bob Kiel, a spokesman for the Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority. The agents will make unannounced visits to bars, restaurants and cafes, as well as coffee shops. There are no guidelines to help inspectors distinguish between a mixed joint and a pure one, he said.

Hashish and Joints

Coffee shops sell everything from pre-rolled joints for 3.50 euros each to hashish for as much as 18 euros a gram, said Mark Jacobsen, chairman of the Amsterdam Association of Cannabis Retailers. The ban will make it even harder for the shops to stay in business as visitors and revenue will drop, said Jacobsen, who is building a wall to divide The Rookies, a shop he co-owns.

“Sales will definitely fall,” said Rida Oulad, who works behind the counter at Ibiza in Amsterdam. “Why would you go to a coffee shop where you can’t smoke and the only remaining activities are sitting and watching television?”

Gani, for one, isn’t happy about the changes. He says he can’t smoke at his real home because his mother would hit him “over the head with a pan.”

Still, he has no plans to stop rolling joints mixed with tobacco: “Smoking pure grates my throat.”

Source.UZs&refer=exclusive / Bloomberg News

Thanks to Roger Baker / The Rag Blog

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

Mariann Wizard’s Political Wisdom


Obama will open new
opportunities for progressives
By Mariann Wizard / The Rag Blog / June 22, 2008

I had a long conversation recently with a close friend who is usually a few steps ahead of me in political facts and analysis, and thought I would share a few thoughts with the Raglist that I took away from this discussion:

1. Be serious for a minute: Barack Obama is a progressive and even left candidate whose election should, at a bare minimum, open new opportunities for progressive ideas to prosper, but he is not a revolutionary or a radical politician. We here in the US are not in a revolutionary time quite yet, and nobody becomes President (or US Senator!!) without significant, substantial establishment support and ties. By “establishment”, and looking closely at the US economy, that is going to include some elements of the defense industry and of the oil industry. In order for progressives to work successfully during an Obama administration, it should be our prime order of business to determine exactly what elements of the establishment back him, and on what hopes and expectations that support is based. (We used to call it “power structure research”).

2. Karl Marx theorized, and history amply demonstrates, that advanced capitalist societies produce a surplus labor force (too many unemployed young people) which must be siphoned off periodically in order to avert revolution, and that war is the most efficient way to do so, since it simultaneously creates markets for products that must be replaced quite frequently, e.g., bombs, mortars, helmets, posthumous medals. I see nothing to indicate that we are anywhere close to overthrowing capitalism, and therefore will expect not only an end to the Iraq debacle in an Obama administration, but an expanded US presence in other parts of the world, say, in East Africa, where US advisors are already on the ground*. Had Hillary won the Democratic nomination, as she made abundantly clear in speeches beginning (to public knowledge) last January, a resumption of the Cold War would be in order; she doesn’t trust the Russians to “safeguard the resources of Siberia”. The real opponent in both scenarios is China, with skirmishes (hopefully) fought mostly by surrogates, without disrupting the flow of trade.

3. I firmly believe there is more opportunity to achieve important goals in any Democratic administration than in any Republican one. I’ve said since Dubya’s election in 2000 that I would vote for the Democratic donkey over him; that is, I would vote for whoever the Dems nominated. The last 8 years have been an unmitigated disaster for US citizens and for many other human beings, as well as other species. John McCain’s election would give us more of the same, and I will work to prevent it. However, I’m not a Democratic Party activist. I’m a peace and justice activist. Let us please not be surprised if an Obama administration, hopefully bringing about a welcome and speedy end to the Iraq conflict, finds its own bones to pick abroad, and is willing to leave the bones of US servicemen and women there, sacrifices to economic advantage for corporations whose interests trump yours and mine.

* From the standpoint of US propaganda, having a Black, half-African President while adventuring in Africa could be really great! “Racism? What racism?”

“It’s not just about Vietnam — we’ve got to set in motion a process that will also stop the seventh war from now.” — Robert M. Pardun, Oleo Strut Coffeehouse, Killeen, TX, 1969

http://www.awizardslife.com/

The Rag Blog

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

Juan Cole’s Requiem for Iraq

And he shreds the MSM while he enumerates the litany of horrors and grief in Iraq. It is disgusting how the American press chooses the things we are allowed to know. And their complicity in the lead up to this war of lies is criminal in every respect. No one should dare have any sympathy.

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog

The Real State of Iraq
By Juan Cole / June 22, 2008

By now, summer of 2008, excess deaths from violence in Iraq since March of 2003 must be at least a million. This conclusion can be reached more than one way. There is not much controversy about it in the scientific community. Some 310,000 of those were probably killed by US troops or by the US Air Force, with the bulk dying in bombing raids by US fighter jets and helicopter gunships on densely populated city and town quarters.

In absolute numbers, that would be like bombing to death everyone in Pittsburgh, Pa. Or Cincinnati, Oh.

Only, the US is 11 times more populous than Iraq, so 310,000 Iraqi corpses would equal 3.4 million dead Americans. So proportionally it would be like firebombing to death everyone in Chicago.

The one million number includes not just war-related deaths but all killings beyond what you would have expected from the 2000-2002 baseline. That is, if tribal feuds got out of hand and killed a lot of people because the Baath police were demobilized or disarmed and so no longer intervened, those deaths go into the mix. All the Sunnis killed in the north of Hilla Province (the ‘triangle of death’) when Shiite clans displaced from the area by Saddam came back up to reclaim their farms would be included. The kidnap victims killed when the ransom did not arrive in time would be included. And, of course, the sectarian, ethnic and militia violence, even if Iraqi on Iraqi, would count. And it hasn’t been just hot spots like Baghdad, Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk. The rate of excess violent death has been pretty standard across Arab Iraq.

As for the Iraqis killed by Americans, like the 24 civilians in Haditha, the survivors are not going to be pro-American any time soon. The US can always find politicians to come out and say nice things on a visit to the Rose Garden. But the people. I don’t think the people are saying nice things in Arabic behind our backs.

The wars of Iraq– the Iran-Iraq War, the repressions of the Kurds and the Shiites, the Gulf War, and the American Calamity, may have left behind as many as 3 million widows. Having lost their family’s breadwinner, many are destitute.

Although it is very good news that the number of Iraqis killed in political violence fell in May to 532 according to official sources, the number was twice that in March and April. And,it should be remembered that independent observers have busted the Pentagon for grossly under-reporting attacks and casualties. If someone shows up dead and they aren’t sure exactly why, it isn’t counted as political violence, just as an ordinary murder. Attacks per day are measured by whether the mortar shell scratches any US equipment when it explodes. If not, it didn’t happen. McClatchy estimated a year and a half ago that attacks were being underestimated by a factor of 10.

By the way, isn’t is a little odd that the death rate fell in the month of the Great Mosul Campaign? I conclude that either it can’t have been much of a campaign or someone is cooking the death statistics.

Read all of it here. / Informed Comment

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Blessed are the Peacemakers

Members of the Austin peace movement demonstrate outside the Texas state capitol Friday afternoon, June 20, 2008. The vigil, organized by CodePink and MDS/Austin, was part of the monthly Iraq Moratorium demonstrations held around the country. Photo by Heidi Turpin / The Rag Blog.

The Rag Blog / Posted June 22, 2008

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

Inside the Solar-Hydrogen House : No More Power Bills–Ever

Power Plant: Computers, inverters and other controls help Strizki harvest as much as 90 kilowatt-hours of electricity on a sunny June day. Photo by David Biello / Scientific American.

A New Jersey resident generates and stores all
the power he needs with solar panels and hydrogen

By David Biello / June 19, 2008

EAST AMWELL, N.J.—Mike Strizki has not paid an electric, oil or gas bill—nor has he spent a nickel to fill up his Mercury Sable—in nearly two years. Instead, the 51-year-old civil engineer makes all the fuel he needs using a system he built in the capacious garage of his home, which employs photovoltaic (PV) panels to turn sunlight into electricity that is harnessed in turn to extract hydrogen from tap water.

Although the device cost $500,000 to construct, and it is unlikely it will ever pay off financially (even with today’s skyrocketing oil and gas prices), the civil engineer says it is priceless in terms of what it does buy: freedom from ever paying another heating or electric bill, not to mention keeping a lid on pollution, because water is its only by-product.

“The ability to make your own fuel is priceless,” says the man known as “Mr. Gadget” to his friends. He boasts a collection of hydrogen-powered and electric vehicles, including a hydrogen-run lawn mower and car (the Sable, which he redesigned and named the “Genesis”) as well as an electric racing boat, and even an electric motorcycle. “All the technology is off-the-shelf. All I’m doing is putting them together.”

“I’m a self-sufficiency guy,” he adds. Strizki, a civil engineer, has been interested in alternative energy sources since 1997 when he began working on vehicles fueled by alternative means during his tenure with the New Jersey Department of Transportation.

Strizki’s two-story colonial on an 11-acre (4.5 hectare) plot 12 miles (19 kilometers) north of Trenton is the nation’s first private hydrogen-powered house, which he now shares with his wife, two dogs and a cat. (His two daughters and son, all in their 20s, have left the nest.) It has been running entirely on electricity generated from the sun and stored hydrogen since October 2006, when Strizki—in a project that his wife Ann fully supports—built an off-grid energy system with $100,000 of his own cash and $400,000 in grants from the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, along with technology from companies such as Sharp, Swagelok and Proton Energy Systems.

The Strizki’s personalized home-energy system consists of 56 solar panels on his garage roof, and housed inside is a small electrolyzer (a device, about the size of a washing machine, that uses electricity to break down water into its component hydrogen and oxygen). There are 100 batteries for nighttime power needs along the garage’s inside wall; just outside are ten propane tanks (leftovers from the 1970s that are capable of storing 19,000 cubic feet, or 538 cubic meters, of hydrogen) as well as a Plug Power fuel cell stack (an electrochemical device that mixes hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity and water) and a hydrogen refueling kit for the car.

On a typical summer day, the solar panels drink in and convert sunlight to about 90 kilowatt-hours of electricity, according to Strizki. He consumes about 10 kilowatt-hours daily to run the family’s appliances, including a 50-inch plasma television, along with his three computers and stereo equipment, among other modern conveniences.

The remaining 80 kilowatt-hours recharge the batteries—which provide electricity for the house at night—and power the electrolyzer, which splits the molecules of purified tap water into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is vented and the hydrogen goes into the tanks where it is stored for use in the cold, dark winter months. From November to March or so Strizki runs the stored hydrogen through the fuel cell stacks outside his garage or in his car to power his entire house—and the only waste product is water, which can be pumped right back into the system.

“I can make fuel out of sunlight and water—and I don’t even use the water,” he notes. “If it’s raining, it’s fuel. If it’s sunny, it’s fuel. It’s all fuel.”

The modular home—built in 1991—looks like a typical suburban house; its top-of-the-line insulation and energy-efficient windows look no different, and the facade hides the hydrogen-powered clothes dryer and geothermal system for heating and cooling, which pumps Freon gas underground to harvest heat in winter and cool in summer.

“Geothermal is another piece of free energy,” Strizki says, noting that he dug eight feet (2.4 meters) down into the granite under his home to take advantage of the constant 56-degree Fahrenheit (13-degree Celsius) temperature underground. In summer he can use the lower temperatures underground to cool his entire house, and in winter he can capture those warmer temperatures, supplementing them with a heat pump powered by electricity from hydrogen. “Nothing goes to waste.”

This year, Strizki is hardly running his $78,000 Hogen electrolyzer (manufactured by Proton Energy Systems in Connecticut, a company that makes hydrogen-generation equipment) because last year’s mild winter left him with full tanks. When he does turn it on, the excess hydrogen vents from a small pipe on the roof with the sound of an impolite burp.

That vented hydrogen speeds at 45 miles (72 kilometers) per hour through the atmosphere on its way off the planet—one of only two gases, the other being helium, that escapes into space entirely because it is lighter than air. In fact, Strizki’s quarter-inch thick propane tanks weigh less when filled with hydrogen than when depleted.

Of course, hydrogen is a highly flammable gas, but its quick escape eases Strizki’s fears that it might ignite or explode. It “disperses faster than any other gas,” he notes. “Hydrogen won’t sit around waiting for a flame.”

The final piece of Strizki’s energy solution is dubbed “Genesis,” his $3-million aluminum Mercury Sable, one of 10 that carmaker Ford produced in the 1990s to test how well the lighter metal would fare in crash tests. Ford gave Strizki the special model to drive in the Tour de Sol solar car race in New Jersey in 2000. Strizki installed a 104-horsepower electric engine (compared with a Toyota Prius’s 44-horsepower motor) that can reach speeds of 140 miles (225 kilometers) per hour. Pop the hood and next to the electric engine sit two fuel cell stacks that convert hydrogen and oxygen into water and electricity, propelling the electric engine forward smoothly and quickly.

The car never competed because it was not ready in time, but the unique vehicle does hold the world record for farthest travel on a single charge: 401.5 miles (646.2 kilometers), a distance which Strizki drove in December 2001. Today, Genesis shares the road with a variety of less costly fuel cell cars: Honda’s new hydrogen-powered FCX Clarity, which hit the market this week leasing for $600 a month, as well as the hydrogen-powered Chevrolet Equinox test-vehicle fleet from General Motors—part of a pilot program that aims to determine how hydrogen cars might function in everyday life. Both the Japanese and U.S. automakers are betting that these nonpolluting cars will one day replace the internal combustion engine.

Hydrogen car: This AIV (aluminum-intensive vehicle) from Ford, dubbed “Genesis,” was personally retrofitted to run on hydrogen by Strizki in 2000, when it set a range record of 401.5 miles (646.2 kilometers)Photo by David Biello / Scientific American.

GM is committed to building a “mass volume” of its hydrogen fuel cell powered Equinoxes in coming years, according to Larry Burns, GM’s vice president of research and development, but only if a way to refuel them exists. As it stands, the entire nation has just 122 hydrogen stations—compared with 170,000 gasoline and diesel stations.

This is part of the reason that not everyone is a fan of hydrogen. Former U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Romm, a physicist, notes that it’s a waste of time and electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen instead of just using the electricity directly in an all-electric, plug-in hybrid car. The debate boils down to whether batteries or hydrogen are a better way to store and deliver electrical energy.

But Strizki argues that hydrogen offers benefits that batteries do not. For example, GE Global Research found that hydrogen might prove a better way to store electricity generated by renewable resources in remote areas—such as wind farms in North Dakota or solar arrays in New Mexico—than building expensive and costly electric transmission lines. Instead, the hydrogen generated in such locations could be pumped nationwide through existing natural gas pipelines, providing fuel for a fleet of hydrogen-powered vehicles.

Regardless of whether those future vehicles are powered by hydrogen or rechargeable batteries, both would move using an electric motor that does not require polluting (and newly expensive) fossil fuels. And they would come with another important extra benefit: the batteries or hydrogen fuel cells that run the car could also serve as a backup energy source for the home. “I can plug this car into my home and run it,” Strizki notes.

Strizki is now working to bring the price down enough to make homes powered by the sun and hydrogen affordable for average consumers. He says that he can build a solar-hydrogen system for as little as $90,000, thanks to dipping costs for solar panels and lessons learned in building his home. Even at that price, however, the off-grid system would be expensive compared with annual electric bills in New Jersey that average $1,500, although that number has been increasing every year, including a jump of as much as 17 percent this year.

But add gasoline costs to that—which average more than $3,000 annually, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration—and the price becomes more reasonable, particularly because the EIA figures were calculated back when gasoline was $2 per gallon rather than the present $4. “It didn’t make sense when gas was $1 but now at $4? A lot of things that didn’t make sense, now make a lot of sense,” Strizki says.

He is already overseeing construction of the second such home-energy system—estimated to cost $150,000—for a wealthy client in the Caribbean.

The backyard tinkerer is also working with several potential clients to construct off-grid homes in New Jersey, New York State and even Colorado, and has quit his most recent job as an installer of solar energy systems to concentrate full-time on the company he co-founded to promote the homes: Renewable Energy International. The key to bringing the price down will be newer, better generations of the component technology, particularly the electrolyzer. Fuel cell manufacturers such as ReliOn in Spokane, Wash., are already taking a page from the computer industry—employing removable individual fuel cells, known as “blades,” similar to the computer blades in data centers, that can be changed individually if problems occur.

Ultimately, this suburban home may become the first of a coming hydrogen-electric economy—one that eliminates or sharply reduces the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change—or merely another technological dead end, like Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic dome or dymaxion car.

“The only way to get a zero-carbon footprint is to grab the big power plant in the sky,” Strizki says. “Maybe [the solar-hydrogen house] is too expensive, maybe not as efficient as they like, but no one is saying it doesn’t work.”

Source. / Scientific American

Thanks to Kathy / The Rag Blog

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