The Rag Blog

11/30/07 “ICH” — — What has changed in the way we see the world? For as long as I can remember, the relationship of journalists with power has been hidden behind a bogus objectivity and notions of an “apathetic public” that justify a mantra of “giving the public what they want.” What has changed is the public’s perception and knowledge. No longer trusting what they read and see and hear, people in western democracies are questioning as never before, particularly via the internet. Why, they ask, is the great majority of news sourced to authority and its vested interests? Why are many journalists the agents of power, not people?

Much of this bracing new thinking can be traced to a remarkable UK website, MediaLens. The creators of Media Lens, David Edwards and David Cromwell, assisted by their webmaster, Olly Maw, have had such an extraordinary influence since they set up the site in 2001 that, without their meticulous and humane analysis, the full gravity of the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan might have been consigned to bad journalism’s first draft of bad history. Peter Wilby put it well in his review of Guardians of Power: the Myth of the Liberal Media, a drawing-together of Media Lens essays published by Pluto Press, which he described as “mercifully free of academic or political jargon and awesomely well researched. All journalists should read it, because the Davids make a case that demands to be answered.”

That appeared in the New Statesman. Not a single major newspaper reviewed the most important book about journalism I can remember. Take the latest Media Lens essay, “Invasion – a Comparison of Soviet and Western Media Performance.” Written with Nikolai Lanine, who served in the Soviet army during its 1979-89 occupation of Afghanistan, it draws on Soviet-era newspaper archives, comparing the propaganda of that time with current western media performance. They are revealed as almost identical.

Like the reported “success” of the US “surge” in Iraq, the Soviet equivalent allowed “poor peasants [to work] the land peacefully.” Like the Americans and British in Iraq and Afghanistan, Soviet troops were liberators who became peacekeepers and always acted in “self-defense.” The BBC’s Mark Urban’s revelation of the “first real evidence that President Bush’s grand design of toppling a dictator and forcing a democracy into the heart of the Middle East could work” (Newsnight, 12 April 2005) is almost word for word that of Soviet commentators claiming benign and noble intent behind Moscow’s actions in Afghanistan. The BBC’s Paul Wood, in thrall to the 101st Airborne, reported that the Americans “must win here if they are to leave Iraq . . . There is much still to do.” That precisely was the Soviet line.

The tone of Media Lens’s questions to journalists is so respectful that personal honesty is never questioned. Perhaps that explains a reaction that can be both outraged and comic. The BBC presenter Gavin Esler, champion of Princess Diana and Ronald Reagan, ranted at Media Lens emailers as “fascistic” and “beyond redemption.” Roger Alton, editor of the London Observer and champion of the invasion of Iraq, replied to one ultra-polite member of the public: “Have you been told to write in by those c*nts at Media Lens?” When questioned about her environmental reporting, Fiona Harvey, of the Financial Times, replied: “You’re pathetic . . . Who are you?”

The message is: how dare you challenge us in such a way that might expose us? How dare you do the job of true journalism and keep the record straight? Peter Barron, the editor of the BBC’s Newsnight, took a different approach. “I rather like them. David Edwards and David Cromwell are unfailingly polite, their points are well argued and sometimes they’re plain right.”

Over the last week or so Western Bloc corporate media wrapped their clammy, information-choking tendrils mostly around the latest fake Middle East peace talks, continuing grief for the corporate financial sector and assorted disorders for Nicolas Sarkozy in France and Gordon Brown over there at No. 10 Gin Lane. Next week, one of the big corporate news efforts will be to suffocate the electoral victory supporters of President Chavez are likely to win on December 2nd for the Venezuelan government’s proposed constitutional reforms. To realise what is at stake one needs to check out a few headlines the Western Bloc corporate Thing will never release from its media maw.

The following have appeared in Latin American and other news sites over the last several weeks. They give a very different perspective on the Venezuelan government from the one generally marketed in the hopelessly biased mainstream corporate media.

“Mission Miracle cares for more than 1000 from Peru” (Prensa MinCI, Aporrea.org, 25/11/07 ) “The solidarity programme the Bolvarian Republic of Venezuela is carrying out in different parts of the Americas, known as Mission Miracle has also been happening in Peru where more than 1000 people have benefited since assistance to the Peruvian people began in 2006.”

“Venezuelan shipment of 16,000 barrels of gas/diesel averts Guyana fuel crisis”, (Stabroek News of Guyana, VHeadline.com, 21/11/2007) The Venezuelan embassy in Guyana noted, “With this delivery of fuel, Venezuela ratifies its politics of cooperation and solidarity to guarantee direct benefits for the people of Guyana and the other Caribbean countries. Likewise, it shows its disposition to work for the economic and social integration of the people of Latin America and the Caribbean.”

“Honduras will import Venezuelan fuel on preferential terms”, (Prensa Latina, Rebelion.org, 26-11-2007 ) “Honduras will import Venezuelan fuels on preferential terms allowing a better use of financial resources for social policies, Presidency Minister Yani Rosenthal reported today. She announced that the authorities of the PETROCARIBE company will be contacted tomorrow to speed up talks. The purchase of these fuels, she said, will be for two years in the amount of US$750 million with half of that amount paid via a credit line extended by the government of Hugo Chavez. Rosenthal stressed the benefits of PETROCARIBE as a development initiative aimed at helping countries like Honduras in a vulnerable financial situation get access to fuels on preferential terms. The official emphasised this will contribute to a more efficient use of cash resources for mainly socially-oriented activities and will help relieve the impact of the high price of crude oil in the world market.”

“Venezuela donates US$16 million for massive purchase of rice and beans”, (La Gente, RadioPrimerisima.com, 23/11/2007) “Venezuela donated the funds to alleviate the effects of Hurricane Felix and heavy rains lasting two weeks which affected farming. Roger Romero, Director of the National Food Supply company told AFP, “Part of these funds are being used to cope with the rising price spiral in basic foods…..We are working on a campaign to supply direct to the population via the creation of solidarity-based fair trade networks that will work temporarily until the market stabilizes” Romero added.”

In his “Brief comments on Venezuela’s 2007 Q3 macro-economic results” (Rebelion.org, 24/11/2007) economics professor Alexis Mujica Martínez reviews Venezuela’s economic performance. The facts he cites are notably absent from almost all mainstream corporate reporting on Venezuela outside the specialist press – for good reason. Mujica Martinez points out that Venezuela has had unprecedented growth averaging over 12% for 16 consecutive quarters, among the highest in the world.

Mujica Martinez reckons some current shortages can be explained by the 3% gap between aggregate demand (growing over 18% so far in 2007) and aggregate supply (growing at 15%). Corporate media reports stress shortages in supermarkets without noting deliberate attempts by opposition business federation FEDECAMERAS members to deliberately cause those shortages, just as price-gouging anti-government business people have done in Nicaragua (hence the need for Venezuelan support). Nor do critics note the incovenient fact that some shortages seem to be caused by rising living standards with greater numbers of Venezuelans consuming more.

Mujica Martinez points out how anti-government commentators fail to report that capital investment in Venezuela has increased over 17% this year. Private sector industrial manufactuing increased 8% with the private sector in general contributing over 60% of gross domestic product. As Mujica Martinez notes, this is the country anti-Chavez media around the world accuse of strangling private enterprise.

“Venezuela will provide a third of the oil Portugal needs” (TeleSUR, Aporrea.org 20/11/07 ) “”Venezuela and Portugal will become strategic partners with the signing of an energy policy agreement which will allow the South American country to supply a third of the Portugal’s oil needs, during a visit this Tuesday by the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.”” Venezuela’s ambassador in Lisbon made the announcement concerning the upcoming signing of the agreement in question and also indicated that a Memorandum of Understanding exists between Portugal’s GALP oil company and Venezuela’s PdVSA oil company. The agreement will make possible “the supply of a third of Portugal’s oil needs while Galp will carry out exploration and subsequent exploitation in the Orinoco Oil Belt.”

With oil prices now almost touching US$100 the barrel, commentator Hedelberto López Blanch notes in “The Caribbean and the ALBA lifeline” (Rebelion.org, 20-11-2007) , ” On April 29th in 2007 the 5th ALBA Summit took place in Barquisimeto on the first anniversary of the Peoples’ Trade Treaty. Member countries Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and Nicaragua participated along with invited observers like Haiti, Ecuador, Dominica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Uruguay to assess ALBA’s first strategic plan and work on cooperation and integration evolved during 2006.

The meeting also agreed to reinforce the creation of businesses, strategies and Supra-National programmes with all countries in education, healthcare, energy, communications, transport, housing, highways, food supply, mining and others to help diminish aggressive action by multinational companies and international financial organizations to the detriment of the majority of the population.

Thus, 18 programmes are in progress covering food supply, medicine production, metal-mechanical production, telecommunications, tourism, various manufactures and iron mining in Bolivia, as well as setting up gasification plants in Bolivia and Cuba. For its part PETROCARIBE, set up in 2005, permits the supply of crude oil and its derivatives from Venezuela to Caribbean countries via mixed (State-private) distribution companies.”

“ECLAC report states poverty in Venezuela fell to 18.4%” (Vive TV, Aporrea.org, 19/11/07) “The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean released in Santiago, Chile the report “Latin America Social Panorama 2007″ in which it confirms the progress of social and economic policies of the Bolivarian government of President Hugo Chavez Frias. According to the report levels of poverty in Venezuela fell to 18.4% while the number of people living in extreme poverty fell 12.3%.”

In “The Chavez Bank” (Sin permiso, Rebelion.org, 16-11-2007) Javier Diez Canseco notes, “That’s the name the US government and press and various Peruvian communications media defending neoliberal policies have given the Bank of the South which should formally be set up on December 5th…..The Bank of the South is a Development Bank, giving credit for regional development and integration projects for countries in South America. It is an initiative proposed by Hugo Chavez almost a year ago which has become a reality with the participation of Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela ….even the Colombian government of the same Uribe who is a trusted partner of the US made known its interest a couple of weeks ago.”

“Guatemalan President elect will visit Venezuela to sign oil agreements” (Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, Aporrea.org, 11/11/07) “Recently elected President of Guatemala, Alvaro Colom, will visit Caracas on December 11th and 12th to sign a series of agreements between that country and Venezuela, reported President Hugo Chavez Frias. The Venezuelan President added that Guatemala’s possible incorporation into the PETROCARIBE oil cooperation initiative may also be expected.”

“Venezuela, Syria and Iran to sign agreement to construct 140,000 bpd refinery” (Xinhuanet, VHeadline.com, 29/10/ 2007) “China’s Xinhua: Syria, Iran and Venezuela are to sign a partnership agreement tomorrow, Tuesday, to construct a crude oil refinery near the midland city of Homs, with a capacity of 140,000 barrels per day the official SANA news agency reported.

The signing of the agreement would be followed by establishing a joint company for carrying out studies and implementing the project, said the report. In addition to the three countries, the Malaysian al-Bukhari Group will participate in the construction of the refinery, it added.”

As Alberto Cruz has reported in “Venezuela’s bad example” (Ceprid, ZNet, 27/11/2007) “Venezuela launched an internal campaign within OPEC to democratize the Development and Cooperation Fund (worth US$40bn) and to see that the fund did not depend exclusively on Saudi Arabia, which consistently put the management of that fund in the hands of US and European businesses. Venezuela won that battle, so now not only US and European firms manage the fund, but the OPEC countries themselves and other non-Western bloc companies from outside the oil cartel.”

And “….without Petrocaribe, the 16 member countries – impoverished, lacking infrastructure and dependent on international aid – would today, with the exception of Cuba and Venezuela, face a tragic, dead-end outlook with astronomical prices for oil and its derivatives, along with increased world food prices as a result of production geared to bio-fuels. The extent of the savings on these countries’ oil bills is already around US$450 million since they freed themselves from oil market intermediaries and speculators.”

And “With barter (oil for Cuban doctors, for Argentine meat and ships, for Uruguayan milk and cheese etc.), Venezuela has started a direct exchange of goods that breaks World Trade Organization norms and hands weaker countries a bigger role when it comes to selling their produce and raw materials.”

In his article “The murder of a Chavez supporter in Venezuela : what happened and what El Mundo reported” (Rebelion.org, 28-11-2007) Pascual Serrano nailed the corporate zombie-media modus operandi in his analysis of reporting on recent violent opposition demonstrations in Caracas. While his detailed breakdown of the incident in which anti-Chavez rioters murdered Jose Oliveros Yepez catches out El Mundo’s editors specifically, the same unethical behaviour can be found consistently in Western corporate media reporting of events in Venezuela. The opposition are constantly given the benefit of the doubt. The Chavez government and their supporters are consistently vilified.

“In 31 countries: Cuba reaches the million mark of impoverished people given free eye operations” (AP, Rebelion.org, 29-11-2007) Almost a million people from 31 impoverished countries recovered their sight after being surgically operatted on by Cuban doctors under the auspices of Operation Miracle, a cooperation programme led by Cuba and Venezuela.” (Worth noting the absence of this clear and factual AP wire service report from output of the major corporate news outlets.)

Conclusion

The reason people in Western Bloc countries are seldom if ever able to read this kind of information in their corporate mainstream media is because those media clearly and deliberately serve the interests of corporate capitalism and support the here-today-gone-tomorrow political factotums in the promotion and defence of that destructive, unsustainable anti-humanitarian system against those who resist it. The continuing corporate media onslaught on the government of President Chavez will most likely intensify over the weekend and for most of next week.

They will do their usual thing-from-the-crypt-as-reporter, shlock-horror charade. That Venezuela is in economic crisis when its economy is in better shape than almost any of its South American neighbours. That Venezuela threatens regional stability when Venezuela’s foreign policy ensures weaker more vulnerable economies are better able than ever to resist the chaos resulting from insatiably greedy “free market” corporate monopoly capitalism. That Chavez is aiming for dictatorship in proposing indefinite re-election as enjoyed by Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, John Howard, and other neoliberal mascots of the global corporate Thing. It slithers unendingly down and around the world’s phone and dinner networks via company boardrooms, government offices and editorial conference tables.

The reporting it regurgitates is an integral part of the relentless campaign of intervention throughout Latin America by Western Bloc powers desperate to maintain their centuries-old stranglehold on the continent’s natural resources. Around the world, peoples suffering under corporate capitalism’s inhumanity hope the Chavez government will win the December 2nd vote. In the aftermath, the Venezuelan authorities will need to be more alert than ever to defeat aggressive efforts by Western Bloc governments to deny the Venezuelan people their fundamental right to self-determination.

When will the US and the UK tell the truth about Israel’s nuclear weapons?

George Bush and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown are right: there should be no nuclear weapons in the Middle East. The risk of a nuclear conflagration could be greater there than anywhere else. Any nation developing them should expect a firm diplomatic response. So when will they impose sanctions on Israel?

Like them, I believe that Iran is trying to acquire the bomb. I also believe it should be discouraged, by a combination of economic pressure and bribery, from doing so (a military response would, of course, be disastrous). I believe that Bush and Brown – who maintain their nuclear arsenals in defiance of the non-proliferation treaty – are in no position to lecture anyone else. But if, as Bush claims, the proliferation of such weapons “would be a dangerous threat to world peace”, why does neither man mention the fact that Israel, according to a secret briefing by the US Defence Intelligence Agency, possesses between 60 and 80 of them?

Officially, the Israeli government maintains a position of “nuclear ambiguity”: neither confirming nor denying its possession of nuclear weapons. But everyone who has studied the issue knows that this is a formula with a simple purpose: to give the United States an excuse to keep breaking its own laws, which forbid it to grant aid to a country with unauthorised weapons of mass destruction. The fiction of ambiguity is fiercely guarded. In 1986, when the nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu handed photographs of Israel’s bomb factory to the Sunday Times, he was lured from Britain to Rome, drugged and kidnapped by Mossad agents, tried in secret, and sentenced to 18 years in prison. He served 12 of them in solitary confinement and was banged up again – for six months – soon after he was released.

However, in December last year, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, accidentally let slip that Israel, like “America, France and Russia”, had nuclear weapons. Opposition politicians were furious. They attacked Olmert for “a lack of caution bordering on irresponsibility”. But US aid continues to flow without impediment.

As the fascinating papers released last year by the National Security Archive show, the US government was aware in 1968 that Israel was developing a nuclear device (what it didn’t know is that the first one had already been built by then). The contrast to the efforts now being made to prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb could scarcely be starker.

At first, US diplomats urged Washington to make its sale of 50 F4 Phantom jets conditional on Israel’s abandonment of its nuclear programme. As a note sent from the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to the secretary of state in October 1968 reveals, the order would make the US “the principal supplier of Israel’s military needs” for the first time. In return, it should require “commitments that would make it more difficult for Israel to take the critical decision to go nuclear”. Such pressure, the memo suggested, was urgently required: France had just delivered the first of a consignment of medium range missiles, and Israel intended to equip them with nuclear warheads.

Twenty days later, on November 4 1968, when the assistant defence secretary met Yitzhak Rabin (then the Israeli ambassador to Washington), Rabin “did not dispute in any way our information on Israel’s nuclear or missile capability”. He simply refused to discuss it. Four days after that, Rabin announced that the proposal was “completely unacceptable to us”. On November 27, Lyndon Johnson’s administration accepted Israel’s assurance that “it will not be the first power in the Middle East to introduce nuclear weapons”.

Actually, I did have a little bit more to do with the case. John J. McAvoy — a conservative, Wall Street Republican, according to Maury — was also an ACLU attorney on the case. After reading some of the changes made in the brief, I insisted on filing a supplemental statement of my own with the Court. Maury said the ACLU was afraid the case might be thrown out if I insisted on filing a separate statement. I was very careful with what I said, and the case was not thrown out.

I appreciate what Laura Codina and the Coordinadoras of Fuerza Unida, Petra Mata and Viola Cásares, said about me. But in all honesty I have to say that whatever I’ve been able to accomplish has been built on the legacy of Communists here in San Antonio before me.

In October of last year there was a symposium held at the Tamiment Library of New York University on “James and Esther Jackson, the American Left and the Origins of the Modern Civil Rights Movement.” James Jackson was a big influence in my life. At that symposium Percy Sutton, former Manhattan borough president, took the floor and spoke of his long association with and appreciation of the Jacksons. This began in San Antonio where Sutton grew up in a family of twelve, half of whom became Communists.

The six Suttons; Emma Tenayuca and John Inman, both of whom were chairs of the Communist Party of Texas; Hattie Mae Inman, who raised a family and was an inspiration to others while bedridden with five types of cancer; Manuela Soliz Sager and her husband James Sager; Luisa Moreno, and many more — these are people to whom I’m indebted. I think this honor belongs to them also. And to my wife, Jo, whose support enabled me to be involved in struggles for peace and justice.

I consider the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center one of the most important promoters of art, culture, peace and social justice in our country.

The vision statement of the Esperanza starts off with the words: “The people of Esperanza dream of a world where everyone has civil rights and economic justice, where the environment is cared for, where cultures are honored and communities are safe.” Many of you may not agree with me, but if you take the words literally, I think the world these people of Hope — we people of Hope — are dreaming of is Communism. It is not a world that can be achieved under today’s capitalism.

When Dr. William Edward Burghardt Du Bois joined the Communist Party in October, 1961, he stated: “Capitalism cannot reform itself; it is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social good for all.”

The people’s forces are gaining strength, and reasons for hope abound. Yet here in the USA we have Jena in Louisiana; racial profiling, an increase in police brutality and even killings by police here in San Antonio; continued attacks on Roe v. Wade; continued neglect of the needs of the victims of Katrina; attacks on the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgendered people; increasing raids on immigrants and the breakup of families; degradation of the environment; children behind bars at the Hutto Prison (renamed the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility) in Taylor, Texas; attacks on Palestinians, Arabs, and others. And on a world scale continued waste of billions of dollars monthly on wars; increased inequality between rich and poor nations; dangers of nuclear warfare; inaction in the face of global warming.

What stands in the way of building the unity of working people and of the many groups oppressed by modern capitalism, imperialism — the unity that’s needed to put an end to this madness?

Racism

Xenophobia (including anti-Mexican, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian movements and sentiments)

Homophobia

Dogmatic religion (Here I’m speaking of the religion of the far Right, not the religion that calls on people to unite in the struggle for peace and social justice.)

Failure to see the role of the individual in history, which results in a lack of involvement.

How do we fight these roadblocks to progress?

We need to use every means at our disposal. I hand out the People’s Weekly World, with its weekly appeals for solidarity in the building of a better world, a world of peace and brotherhood. If you don’t have the most recent issue, you can pick up a copy on the table downstairs on your way out. Others use calaveras (like those in the new Voz de Esperanza) , song, music, dance, art, poetry, telling stories, writing novels, making movies. All forms of sembrando conciencia, spreading awareness and understanding — concientización, to use an old term — are important.

Hugo Chávez said: “Hagamos el socialismo, con amor y con pasión, y estaremos salvando a la humanidad del imperialismo, del capitalismo, de la destrucción de la especie humana.

“Let’s build socialism, with love and passion, and by doing so we will be saving humanity from imperialism, capitalism, and the destruction of the human species.”

When he applied for admission to membership in the Communist Party, Dr. Du Bois said: “I have been long and slow in coming to this conclusion, but at last my mind in settled.”

If you are not yet ready to join the Communist Party, take your time. Study The Communist Manifesto. It’s old but still good.

The world wide credit crisis started in the heart of America suburbia itself, and primarily through the politics of suburban development that radiated from South Florida. The story of subprime mortgage mess has not yet meshed with the campaign finance supply chain that wrapped up Florida production home builders, lawyers and lobbyists. But from the perspective of Miami and South Florida, it is clear that supply chain was managed by Jeb Bush, the former two-term governor.

Yesterday Bloomberg reported that $700 million in defaulted debt, representing sprawl (asset-backed commercial paper– the exact details have not been disclosed) has vanished from the trust funds invested by the Jeb Bush team, adding to losses that will change American politics in 2008 and beyond.

The world-wide credit crisis is too big to contain in one frame. It still has not come home to roost, how the hundreds of billions of losses reported by the world’s largest financial institutions from Hong Kong to Frankfurt to London to Beijing and Tokyo, have anything to do with politics.

But the most accurate frame to tell this story is the money trail from Jeb’s loss in 1994 governor’s race, to his victory in 1998, and subsequently, the presidential election stolen in Florida by George W. Bush in 2000. Both Jeb and W. were fully engaged in the policies of growth that spurred the hyperventilated housing boom that is now in flames. (for further detail, see eyeonmiami.blogspot.com under the archive feature, “housing crash”)

Their programs and policies were grounded by a strategy to win Republican victories in the fastest growing suburbs in the nation. Today the massive leverage that supported suburbia has deflated, bringing hard currency consequences to taxpayers and voters whether they are Republican or not.

Although the news is now filled with the housing market crash (in Miami, it’s the worst in a century), it is not being told in terms of politics. There are news segments on liar loans, reports on mortgage fraud and stories about hastily convened task forces, there are editorials on poor judgment by consumers and investors and efforts to bail them out, or millions of homeowners at risk of foreclosure, or who have been foreclosed.

These are the bits and pieces, and still, even if you laid them side-by-side, they would fail to capture the connections between the so-called fiscal conservatives and ordinary people now paying for the failure of the suburban dream.

How are Americans really hurt by suburbia?

Here is how.

Bloomberg reports today, “School districts and local governments in Florida have pulled $8 billion out of a state-run investment pool, or 30 percent of its assets, after learning that the money market fund contained more than $700 million of defaulted debt.”

The State Board of Administration, that manages about $42 billion of short-term investments, including the pool, as well as Florida’s $137 billion pension fund, is run by Coleman Stipanovich, brother of “Mac” Stipanovich, a Republican consultant and Bush family loyalist. In 2002, the fund lost $334 million on Enron, investing in the stock as the company was swirling down the drain – three times the loss of any other pension fund. A few years later, the same fund invested in Edison Schools whose stock value had collapsed from $37 to as little as 14 cents.

“Pardon the sarcasm,” the St. Petersburg Times editorialized after the Edison deal, “but was there no Enron stock left to buy?”

Enron – through its water subsidiary, Azurix – and Edison represented two areas of policy related to manias of the Jeb Bush years: socializing risk and privatizing profits. Jeb had been quietly encouraging the privatization of Florida’s water supply, administered by a network of state water management districts.

Enron’s collapse put a quick end to that, although stalking horses have not given up on the dream of privatizing water resources in Florida. And of course, Jeb’s acolytes, seeded through the Florida legislature, are still promoting charter schools as an answer to the teacher’s and other unions.

Now, to the $500 million plus that Governor Jeb Bush lost in the empowerment of private corporations, it is necessary to add an additional $700 million of defaulted debt tied to the housing market crash.

This is not some abstract penalty imposed by bad leadership on taxpayers.

The suburbs are restless and with good reason: suburbia and its costs are a Ponzi scheme for which no political leader will go to jail.

The scheme starts with local elected officials in control of zoning, up the ladder through lobbyists, land speculators developers and local bankers, all the way to Wall Street where lawyers and financial engineers, from investment bankers to hedge funds, who already spent billions in bonuses and fees for originating debt that has no value on the secondary market.

One reason the mainstream media has a hard time focusing on the heart of the problem, is that so many Americans call suburbia, home.

The mainstream media, in large part supported by the suburban supply chain, has either ignored or lambasted critics as elitists insensitive to the millions of Americans for whom glue gun, pod housing in bland and anonymous housing tracts (in order to conform to the requirements of mortgage backed securities) is an unassailable dream.

No longer. Not when people’s pensions are affected. And not even in Florida, where a Republican legislature still holds firm. For now.

Every Saturday, the president of the United States gives a radio address to the nation. It is followed by the Democratic response, usually given by a senator or representative. This past Saturday the Democrats chose retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez to give their response, the same general accused in at least three lawsuits in the U.S. and Europe of authorizing torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners in Iraq. This, combined with the Democrats’ endorsement of Attorney General Michael Mukasey despite his unwillingness to label waterboarding as torture, indicates that the Democrats are increasingly aligned with President Bush’s torture policies.

Sanchez headed the Army’s operations in Iraq from June 2003 to June 2004. In September 2003, Sanchez issued a memo authorizing numerous techniques, including “stress positions” and the use of “military working dogs” to exploit “Arab fear of dogs” during interrogations. He was in charge when the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison occurred.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who headed Abu Ghraib at the time, worked under Gen. Sanchez. She was demoted to colonel, the only military officer to be punished. She told me about another illegal practice, holding prisoners as so-called ghost detainees: “We were directed on several occasions through Gen. [Barbara] Fast or Gen. Sanchez. The instructions were originating at the Pentagon from Secretary Rumsfeld, and we were instructed to hold prisoners without assigning a prisoner number or putting them on the database, and that is contrary to the Geneva Conventions. We all knew it was contrary to the Geneva Conventions.” In addition to keeping prisoners off the database there were other abuses, she said, like prison temperatures reaching 120 to 140 degrees, dehydration and the order from Gen. Geoffrey Miller to treat prisoners “like dogs.”

And it’s not just about treatment of prisoners. In 2006, Karpinski testified at a mock trial, called the Bush Crimes Commission. She revealed that several female U.S. soldiers had died of dehydration by denying themselves water. They were afraid to go to the latrine at night to urinate, for fear of being raped by fellow soldiers: “Because the women, in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the portolets or the latrines, were not drinking liquids after 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon. And in 120-degree heat or warmer, because there was no air conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep. What [Sanchez’s deputy commanding general, Walter Wojdakowski] told the surgeon to do was, ‘Don’t brief those details anymore. And don’t say specifically that they’re women. You can provide that in a written report, but don’t brief it in the open anymore.’” Karpinski said Sanchez was at that briefing.

Former military interrogator Tony Lagouranis, author of “Fear Up Harsh,” described the use of dogs: “We were using dogs in the Mosul detention facility, which was at the Mosul airport. We would put the prisoner in a shipping container. We would keep him up all night with music and strobe lights, stress positions, and then we would bring in dogs. The prisoner was blindfolded, so he didn’t really understand what was going on, but we had the dog controlled. The dog would be barking and jumping on the prisoner, and the prisoner wouldn’t really understand what was going on.”

Reed Brody of Human Rights Watch elaborated on Sanchez: “For those three months of mayhem that were occurring right under his nose, he never stepped in. And, also, he misled Congress about it. He was asked twice at a congressional hearing whether he ever approved the use of guard dogs. This was before the memo came out. And both times he said he never approved it. [W]e finally got the actual memo, in which he approves ‘exploiting Arab fear of dogs.’ ” Brody dismissed the military report clearing Sanchez of any wrongdoing: “It’s just not credible for the Army to keep investigating itself and keep finding itself innocent.”

This is not about politics. This is about the moral compass of the nation. The Democrats may be celebrating a retired general who has turned on his commander in chief. But the public should take pause.

The Democrats had a chance to draw a line in the sand, to absolutely require Mukasey to denounce waterboarding before his elevation to attorney general. Now they have chosen as their spokesman a discredited general, linked to the most egregious abuses in Iraq. The Bush administration passed Sanchez over for a promotion, worried about reliving the Abu Ghraib scandal during the 2006 election year. Now it’s the Democrats who have resuscitated him. Have they no shame?

One month ago a bill passed almost unanimously in the House. This bill has received no mainstream news coverage. So it must not be that big of a deal, right? It’s just a bill that will soon to go to Capitol Hill and since the Democrats are in control we are all safe from further infringements up on our civil rights, right? Well, maybe that is not totally correct since this bill is a lot more than meets the eye. But indicator number one should be the title, and indicator number two should be how fast it is moving through Congress.

On October 23rd of this year, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 passed 404 to 6 in the House. This bill is proposing an expansion of Homeland Security with the objective of spying on citizens whose political or religious beliefs might lead them to commit violent acts. And we are not referring to the attack of Megan Williams or the numerous police murders of non threatening civilians. No this is solely about spying on political dissidents whose politics were shaped through a critical analysis of US Foreign or Domestic policies.

The stated purpose of this bill is to first assemble a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence. Secondly, they will create a university-based Center of Excellence to study radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

Their definition of what defines radical and terrorism are very vague, and can be manipulated to serve several purposes. In the bill itself, it says homegrown terrorism means “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence” by a native citizen of the United States. It is this definition that is leaves so much of this bills purpose, open to interpretation. Unfortunately, the interpretation by the same ole “powers that be” is the only one that really matters because it is them who will have the use of this bill at their disposal.

It is far too easy to point the finger at an individual or a group of individuals, and claim that they are “planning” or “threatening” the use of violence to achieve their objectives. For instance, if a group of PETA or the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, decide protest a rodeo, could it be claimed that they are “threatening” the use of violence? Or if activists and concerned citizens congregate at a building to protest or demonstrate, could it be claimed that they are “planning” the use of violence or getting ready to riot?

Let’s take it one step further. If there is an act of civil disobedience, in the form of blocking the entrance to that building (a non-federal building) during the political protest, and that blocking is done with the use of a minimal amount of force (people physically locking arms), will this new bill turn a simple misdemeanor trespassing into a felony punishable through the federal court system? And who has the discretion to make that determination?

“Planned” or “threatened” use of violence is a vague term, and we have seen it used before. How many times have you heard of a cop beating, shooting, or killing an individual because in the officers opinion they “posed a threat” or were “planning” harm towards the officer? This situation is no different, yet now it decriminalizes police actions at a time when we are experiencing more police killings of unarmed civilians.

What is feared by the activist community is a general crack down on social justice activism and civil disobedience, or any dissent for that matter, because it now takes on a new and legal form. Being that it is so easy to point the finger, anybody willing to speak out will be in the scope of this proposed commission. Including many Hip Hop artists who have been the most critical of the government and its agencies. In J. Edgar Hoover’s time, this type of spying and repression was illegal and later became known as the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO). Currently these and similar practices are legal in regards to non-citizens under the heading of the “Patriot Act.” Did you really think that the government was only after those who sneak into the country to commit acts of violence?

To it’s defense it is claimed that this bill will not “violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.” It is also claimed that this bill will be racial, ethnically, and religiously neutral when carrying out its’ study. With such claims, it is interesting that the criteria for members of this commission are individuals with expertise in “juvenile justice”, “local law enforcement”, and “Islam and other world religions.” As if that knowledge and expertise will have any relevance to what makes “citizens” look toward other means of confronting social injustices. I would think that sociologists, social workers, academics and social justice advocates have a better grasp on why individuals or organizations gave up on working “within” the system to seek other alternatives to achieve justice and equality? Why is it that social critics are not the primary targets for this commission membership? Is it because these social critics are the primary targets of this commission?

This bill, and its ‘provisions, looks like ideological profiling of potential “trouble makers” national, and especially on the university campuses. This commission and its’ “studies” will be used to begin surveillance on suspected dissidents and those who might associate with them, but it will not end there. The commission’s purpose is to not analyzes the critics of the government policy and suggest reforming the policies to avoid the development of “homegrown terrorists” but rather to identify and neutralize those critics.

For those that know their history, this bill should sound familiar. Back in the 50’s J. Edgar Hoover, Head of the F.B.I., started the Counter Intelligence Program (known as COINTELPRO). This program was meant to, in Hoover’s words, “neutralize political dissidents”, and used thousands of illegal and covert operations to achieve its’ means.

Though COINTELPRO claimed to watch the actions of all potentials threats, it seemed to focus all of its efforts on leftist and liberal political activists. They focused on everybody from John Lennon to Jane Fonda to keep tabs on dissidents. The other stated purpose was to “prevent the rise of the black messiah”. They kept their eyes on the likes of Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Fred Hampton and many others in order to quell the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements.

This new bill that is being fast tracked through Congress is nothing but a legalized COINTELPRO. And anybody that cherishes the right to speak out for their rights should keep an eye on this. If violence is already against every law of every state in the union, why exactly does there need to be a group that will spy on citizens and then possibly take actions against those whose “threat of violence” have a political undertone? And who is to be the targets? Well if history is any indicator, we know that the FBI did not use its resources to eliminate the KKK and other White Supremacy organizations, but they did do everything they could to eliminate, kill or jail the leadership of Black, Brown, Red, Yellow and White left organizations.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this bill is how fast it is moving through Congress. You would think such a monumental bill would be debated and discussed to no end. At least by the few progressives left in the House of Representatives. But the actions of the House show anything but concern. (Where are you at Barbara Lee?) We saw this happen right after the attack on the World Trade Center when the congress passed the “Patriot Act” but then later complained that if they had read the text of the bill they would had more reservations because of the power it gives to the government and the rights it strips from the citizens. So I guess we can say that the House of Representatives have not learned from that past and are thus doomed to repeat it, and are repeating it.

When this bill came to House it was given certain provisions specifically to reduce debate time. Such an important bill as this was given little serious debate time, and was rushed to be passed. And it did pass. It was passed with a 404 to 6 vote. Of the notable votes, Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich did vote against the bill, whereas Presidential Candidate Ron Paul was not present to vote on the issue. This bill was hardly debated, it was passed almost unanimously, and now it is on its way to the Senate, and then the President.

There is no doubt that this bill will have the same results in the Senate, and will be signed by the President. At the speed it is moving, this bill may be a law by February, just in time for the primaries. And all of this is happening with almost nobody noticing. The news outlets are not mentioning it. It is slipping right in under our noses, like most laws of this nature do. And chances are, if you were not reading this you would still think that you had the right to defend yourself against government oppression (as stated in the Declaration of Independence) or at least the right to demonstrate at the next Democratic and Republican national conventions.

As for those of us who are concerned about our individual civil liberties, what more can we do besides sit back and shake my head in disgust. Looks like protesting will lead to federal charges. 2008 is an election year, and every candidate promises change for the future and to correct the abuses of the current administration. Yet read their congressional voting records and you will see where some of these candidates actually stand. Most are for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and keep funding it with billions of our tax dollars. And as evident in this new bill almost all of the House or Representatives are for the war against your civil and political rights. It kind of makes you wonder, why these fear mongers and ideologues run around saying, “they hate of for our freedoms” what exactly are those freedoms that we are hated for?

11/29/07 “The Nation” — – — I will not pay my income tax if we go to war with Iran. I realize this is a desperate and perhaps futile gesture. But an attack on Iran — which appears increasingly likely before the coming presidential election — will unleash a regional conflict of catastrophic proportions. This war, and especially Iranian retaliatory strikes on American targets, will be used to silence domestic dissent and abolish what is left of our civil liberties. It will solidify the slow-motion coup d’état that has been under way since the 9/11 attacks. It could mean the death of the Republic.

Let us hope sanity prevails. But sanity is a rare commodity in a White House that has twisted Trotsky’s concept of permanent revolution into a policy of permanent war with nefarious aims — to intimidate and destroy all those classified as foreign opponents, to create permanent instability and fear and to strip citizens of their constitutional rights.

A war with Iran is doomed. It will be no more successful than the Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon in 2006, which failed to break Hezbollah and united most Lebanese behind that militant group. The Israeli bombing did not pacify 4 million Lebanese. What will happen when we begin to pound a country of 65 million people whose land mass is three times the size of France?

Once you begin an air campaign it is only a matter of time before you have to put troops on the ground or accept defeat, as the Israelis had to do in Lebanon. And if we begin dropping bunker busters and cruise missiles on Iran, this is the choice that must be faced: either send US forces into Iran to fight a protracted and futile guerrilla war, or walk away in humiliation.

But more ominous, an attack on Iran will ignite the Middle East. The loss of Iranian oil, coupled with possible Silkworm missile attacks by Iran against oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, could send the price of oil soaring to somewhere around $200 a barrel. The effect on the domestic and world economy will be devastating, very possibly triggering a global depression. The Middle East has two-thirds of the world’s proven petroleum reserves and nearly half its natural gas. A disruption in the supply will be felt immediately.

This attack will be interpreted by many Shiites in the Middle East as a religious war. The two million Shiites in Saudi Arabia (heavily concentrated in the oil-rich Eastern Province), the Shiite majority in Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey could turn in rage on us and our dwindling allies. We could see a combination of increased terrorist attacks, including on American soil, and widespread sabotage of oil production in the Persian Gulf. Iraq, as bad as it looks now, will become a death pit for US troops.

The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, which has so far not joined the insurgency, has strong ties to Iran. It could begin full-scale guerrilla resistance, possibly uniting for the first time with Sunnis against the occupation. Iran, in retaliation, will fire its missiles, some with a range of 1,100 miles, at US installations, including Baghdad’s Green Zone. Expect substantial casualties, especially with Iranian agents and their Iraqi allies calling in precise coordinates. Iranian missiles could be launched at Israel. The Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, will become treacherous, perhaps unnavigable. Chinese-supplied antiship missiles, mines and coastal artillery, along with speedboats packed with explosives and suicide bombers, will target US shipping, along with Saudi oil production and oil export centers.

Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon, closely allied with Iran, may in solidarity fire rockets into northern Israel. Israel, already struck by missiles from Tehran, could then carry out retaliatory raids against both Lebanon and Iran. Pakistan, with its huge Shiite minority, will become even more unstable. Unrest could result in the overthrow of the already weakened Pervez Musharraf and usher Islamic radicals into power. Pakistan, rather than Iran, would then become the first radical Islamic state to possess a nuclear weapon. The neat little war with Iran, which many Democrats do not oppose, has the potential to ignite an inferno.

George W. Bush has shredded, violated or absented America from its obligations under international law. He has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, backed out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, tried to kill the International Criminal Court, walked out on negotiations on chemical and biological weapons and defied the Geneva Conventions and human rights law in the treatment of detainees. Most egregious, he launched an illegal war in Iraq based on fabricated evidence we now know had been discredited even before it was made public. He seeks to do the same in Iran.

This President is guilty, in short, of what in legal circles is known as the “crime of aggression.” And if we as citizens do not hold him accountable for this crime, if we do not actively defy this government, we will be complicit in the codification of a new world order, one that will have terrifying consequences. For a world without treaties, statutes and laws is a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state to a great imperial power, will be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others. This new order will undo five decades of international cooperation — largely put in place by the United States — and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. We must as citizens make sacrifices to defend a world where diplomacy, broad cooperation and the law are respected. If we allow these international legal systems to unravel, we will destroy the possibility of cooperation between nation-states, including our closest allies.

The strongest institutional barrier standing between us and a war with Iran is being mounted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Adm. William Fallon, head of the Central Command; and Gen. George Casey, the Army’s new chief of staff. These three men have informed Bush and Congress that the military is too depleted to take on another conflict and may not be able to contain or cope effectively with a regional conflagration resulting from strikes on Iran. This line of defense, however, is tenuous. Not only can Gates, Fallon and Casey easily be replaced but a provocation by Iran could be used by war propagandists here to stoke a public clamor for revenge.

A country that exists in a state of permanent war cannot exist as a democracy. Our long row of candles is being snuffed out. We may soon be in darkness. Any resistance, however symbolic, is essential. There are ways to resist without being jailed. If you owe money on your federal tax return, refuse to pay some or all of it, should Bush attack Iran. If you have a telephone, do not pay the 3 percent excise tax. If you do not owe federal taxes, reduce what is withheld by claiming at least one additional allowance on your W-4 form — and write to the IRS to explain the reasons for your protest. Many of the details and their legal ramifications are available on the War Resisters League’s website.

I will put the taxes I owe in an escrow account. I will go to court to challenge the legality of the war. Maybe a courageous judge will rule that the Constitution has been usurped and the government is guilty of what the postwar Nuremberg tribunal defined as a criminal war of aggression. Maybe not. I do not know. But I do know this: I have friends in Tehran, Gaza, Beirut, Baghdad, Jerusalem and Cairo. They will endure far greater suffering and deprivation. I want to be able, once the slaughter is over, to at least earn the right to ask for their forgiveness.

11/29/07 “Counterpunch” — – Making occupation and calling it peace. Killing fewer and calling it progress. Rotating troops and calling it a withdrawal. Setting up new death squads and calling them allies. Lowering standards and calling it opening new opportunities.

All of the above phenomena seem to be part of the current campaign by Washington in Iraq. There are fewer GI deaths in the country now because they don’t leave the bases. Why? Because their latest allies-tribesmen paid in cold cash to kill for DC-are doing the killing and taking the hits. Indeed, some of the most fatal of those hits come from US air strikes that “mistakenly” bomb the men involved in killing the US bogeyman Al Queda in Mesopotamia, which may or may not be a phantom reality. Meanwhile, these tribesmen learn US military methods and locations while stockpiling US-supplied weaponry for some future war on their Shi’a opposites or perhaps even the same US forces they currently align themselves with.

The politicians here in the US, meanwhile, continue their cynical dealing in human life by refusing to insist on a genuine withdrawal timetable even as they steal billions from their country men and women to fight their wars and try to maintain the empire. False arguments erupt over withdrawal bills that aren’t withdrawal bills because the White House insists that it has complete control over the war and its conduct while the opposition in Congress writes legislation that has more holes than a hooker’s torn fishnets. Despite the impotence of the legislation, they fail to pass even that and end up giving the White house every penny it originally asked for. Wait until the election, says the opposition. Things will change then. If previous elections are any indication, the only thing that will change are the faces in the White House. Troops will remain in Iraq and the occupation/war will continue its haphazard road to control of the oilfields. Or, it will result in the defeat of Washington’s plans for the region, no matter which politician sits in the Oval Office.

“We’re going to fund the troops,” Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said today (11/25/07) on the “Fox News Sunday” program. “No one’s trying to undercut the military.” The subtext of this quote is simply this. No one is going to undercut the wars. After all, it is the military that fights the wars, is it not? It’s hard for students of history to believe, but there was a time in the history of this nation when the military was not the untouchable institution it has become. Indeed, there was a brief shining moment when it was purely a defensive force. Unfortunately, that time was not only brief, it was also quite long ago. There has been no time in US history, however, when the military has dominated the American polity like it has since the United States entered World War Two. This domination of the political sphere is why no politician who wants to stay in power will ever defund the Pentagon and the complex it has spawned. This situation exists not necessarily because the US public wants most of their tax monies going to corporations that build weapons or to maintain an imperial army. It exists because the propaganda wing of the aforementioned complex can and will destroy the career of any politician that attacks that complex. Consequently, the number of national politicians in the two major parties fundamentally opposed to the Pentagon’s sacrosanct position in US politics can be counted on one hand. Not only does fear guide these spineless men and women, but so do the dollars tossed their way by the very corporations that profit as members of the previously mentioned complex. Our silence, fed by fears that are by definition unreal allows them to get away with what can only be truthfully called murder.

Back to Iraq and Afghanistan. Violence in those countries ebbs and flows, reflecting a rhythm of death and destruction known only to the beast of war. Some children lose their parents while other parents lose their children to that beast. The dollars we pay in taxes every day feed the beast’s greed despite the outspoken desire of what seems to be the majority that they be used for peaceful purposes. Perhaps the structures we allow to rule can no longer spend that money for peace. Perhaps they are too corrupted by war and its profits. Perhaps their long service to the beast of war has rendered them not incapable of conceiving a world where peace does not mean domination and does not require war in a fruitless effort to secure said peace.

It is only natural that those who are subject to this domination would resist. That resistance takes up arms only because to do otherwise is suicide. Why should one commit suicide when they are being murdered? When this is the scenario, then armed resistance become self-defense and doing nothing is defeat. If this is so, the question is raised once again: are those tribesmen currently working with the occupier in Iraq and Afghanistan merely pretending to collaborate so as to strike the final blow to the occupier when the guard is down? Wasn’t this the strategy of anti-occupation forces of Muqtada al-Sadr (labeled Shi’a by the western press)? And aren’t those forces now in the gunsights of the US military?

Meanwhile, the government in Baghdad’s Green Zone is asking the US military to commit to a longterm agreement to stay in Iraq in substantial numbers. Besides the obvious fact that the Green Zone government really has no say in how long the US military occupies Iraq, the fact that those in power are asking the military to remain is an acknowledgement that their power does not come from the Iraqi people but from the military power of Washington. In fact, according to the November 26, 2007 Associated Press story discussing this “request” by the Green Zone government, the request was made because “Iraq’s government, (is) seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups.” One can be certain that those internal coups most likely refer to Washington’s fear of a victorious insurgency. Tellingly, opposition to the “request” was voiced by the supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr, who opposes the US occupation in all its manifestations. The more things appear to change, the more they don’t. The casualties continue to mount, even when they are not part of the equation.

11/28/07 “ICH” — – -The doors have opened on another holiday season. Utility workers have spent hours hoisting holiday decorations to the tops of buildings and attaching lights to all the telephone poles in town. It won’t be long before the entrance displays of massive armored fighting vehicles that represent the muscle of the Rock of the Marne at Fort Stewart, Georgia are covered with lights.

A few hundred yards down the road from the main gate of Fort Stewart, the newly built Chapel Complex was recently christened. Red brick, with angled lines and a pristine white steeple; looking more like a courthouse than a place of worship, the building stands ready for the soldiers who will be returning from their year long deployment to Iraq next spring.

Across the street, on the grounds of the PX shopping mall stands another display of shiny pinwheels planted in the ground. The sign behind the display reads, “These pinwheels represent the 138 cases of spousal abuse confirmed at Fort Stewart in fiscal year 2007.” In 2006 the sign read “131 cases of spousal abuse” and another read “191 cases of child abuse.” What will 2008 bring?

My husband filed a conscientious objector application in 2005. He did so because of his firsthand experiences with this war, and with the abusive treatment the soldiers and veterans faced as they struggled to fulfill the oath they took to serve their country. He did so to call attention to the threats and intimidation military personnel faced, and the lack of respect they received for their service.

The military command refused to accept the application, choosing to find a way to put my husband in prison as punishment for his choice instead. As we worked to see that due process was given to my husband’s choice, I had the opportunity, one evening, to be in the same room with the command sergeant major of my husband’s battalion. I took the opportunity to ask this senior NCO if he would mind my asking him some questions, civilian to civilian. He said “No” so I asked.

“Have you ever had to kill anyone?”

The man put his hands behind his head, stared up at the ceiling and responded: “Yes I have had to shoot to kill many times.”

“Didn’t it bother you at all to know that you had killed another man?”

With his hands still behind his head and one leg crossed over another, he leaned back in his chair and said “You know I’ve got 22 years in the Army. You learn that you don’t think about what you do, you just do it. I’ve never seen the results of my shooting. That’s the problem with the ‘boys’ they’re bringing in today. I tell them and tell them in training, don’t look back – just shoot ‘rat-a-tat-a-tat’ (holding his hand out as a weapon) and don’t look back. When we was first starting out, the soldiers I came in with and me, we all learned in training, shoot and look away – walk away but don’t look at what you’ve done. If I could get anything across to these new ‘boys’ it’s that they can’t look. I see them; they shoot and then look to see if they hit their target, if they did good, if they followed orders. I see their eyes and there’s fear, and I know right away if there’s going to be trouble with that one or the other by their face after they see the result of the explosion. We’ve got to teach these boys to shoot and look away, and they wouldn’t be so bothered by what they did.”

“What do you think of the war?”

The man didn’t move much. He hunched his shoulders a little, looked across the desk and said “That’s political stuff and I don’t get involved in none of that political stuff. I do my job. If I have to go back to Iraq I go, and I take care of my soldiers. I care about my soldiers, but I don’t have no business paying attention to whether the war is good or bad, or if the president did right. I have 22 years in, and I have to do what I’m ordered to do so I don’t ask no questions.”

“What do you think about conscientious objection?”

This time he leaned forward a little, stretched and took a breath before he re-crossed his legs and folded his hands back behind his head. “There ain’t no true conscientious objectors. I’ve been in a long time, and I’ve seen only one or two that might have been real religious. It’s been my experience that when a soldier brings in an application, I always sit and talk with them and ninety-nine percent of the time he’s not a conscientious objector he’s just got major problems with his command. Whenever anyone brings in one of those applications it’s because there’s a bad command and we got to do something about fixing that. If we do the soldier ain’t got no more problems and he can go on doing his duty, but we got to get him to talk and tell us what the command is doing wrong, ‘cause it’s not religion, it’s a bad command.”

Throughout the conversation my husband was standing beside me at parade rest, having invoked his right to not respond to any questions the sergeant major wanted to ask him. At the time he was under investigation by the command which claimed his conscientious objector application was simply a protestation of the war, not worthy of their time. The command sought to charge him with “making disloyal statements” and “disrespecting a superior officer’ for having spoken out in an effort to find help for the soldiers in his unit being threatened and abused by his command.

My husband went to prison. The sergeant major went back to Iraq.

Now, suicide rates are increasing among military personnel. Spousal abuse is becoming more of a problem and no doubt more children are afraid of the empty look they see in their returning parents’ eyes.

We tell the soldiers to do what they can to get out of the military – to avoid returning to Iraq. It will not solve the problem.

Building a multi-million dollar chapel complex on one military installation is not going to fix what has been broken inside a man or a woman who has been to war.

The anger and rage of those who have been in combat will not go away simply because we tell them to get out while they can, to “walk a different road” without showing them where that road will lead.

Going to prison to speak out about what is happening to our military personnel is not going to make things right, not unless we, those of us who claim to care about our “troops” find a way to work together to do our part.

We can’t think that simply taking someone out of the war also takes them out of combat. In war, the rage makes sense and the killing of an enemy can be easily justified. War doesn’t end when the soldier comes home, and the nightmare of combat only grows darker when the battle waged is waged inside; intended to protect a place and loved ones that once meant peace from the anger of an experience that cannot be left behind.

When these men and women return home and face those they love, that anger can become a seed inside which feeds and grows off of memories of the horrors, the nightmares and the need for release – but at home there’s no battlefield on which to let go, there are only children, a spouse, or themselves when they come to fear the damage they could do if left uncontrolled, and when “help” is only a word, too many will lose the battle.

People say they understand – trust me – you don’t; not if you haven’t felt it inside, or stood helpless wondering what more can be done to simply bring peace to the heart of the person you want so much to heal.

Holiday lights are far from bright enough to light the path of those who need the peace this holiday is meant to honor.

The pristine steeple on Fort Stewart’s new chapel complex may see the day when every seat in the building is occupied. Experience tells me that those in attendance may find sanctuary but they will not find peace, even if the room is full.

Men and women volunteered to put their lives on the line to defend the peace our laws were meant to give. Their service has been abused by everyone who has stood and watched this travesty of war unfold; offering words of help only to turn and look in another direction when more than words were needed.

People will write and say, “They volunteered. They got what they deserved.”

The war is coming home and if Americans are not willing to stand together to fix what we are all responsible for breaking, they will know firsthand what it means to “get what is deserved.”

It’s time to stare into the eyes of what we have allowed to happen.

Peace is not simply a word, and war does not go away when you look in a different direction.

What do you know of war?

Monica is the wife of Sgt. Kevin Benderman, a ten-year Army veteran who served a combat tour in Iraq and a year in prison for his public protest of war and the destruction it causes to civilians and to American military personnel. Please visit their website, www.BendermanDefense.org to learn more.

11/28/07 “ICH” — – On November 26, 2007 the Venezuelan government broadcast and circulated a confidential memo from the US embassy to the CIA which is devastatingly revealing of US clandestine operations and which will influence the referendum this Sunday (December 2, 2007).

The memo sent by an embassy official, Michael Middleton Steere, was addressed to the head of the CIA, Michael Hayden. The memo was entitled ‘Advancing to the Last Phase of Operation Pincer’ and updates the activity by a CIA unit with the acronym ‘HUMINT’ (Human Intelligence) which is engaged in clandestine action to destabilize the forth-coming referendum and coordinate the civil military overthrow of the elected Chavez government. The Embassy-CIA’s polls concede that 57% of the voters approved of the constitutional amendments proposed by Chavez but also predicted a 60% abstention.

The US operatives emphasized their capacity to recruit former Chavez supporters among the social democrats (PODEMOS) and the former Minister of Defense Baduel, claiming to have reduced the ‘yes’ vote by 6% from its original margin. Nevertheless the Embassy operatives concede that they have reached their ceiling, recognizing they cannot defeat the amendments via the electoral route.

The memo then recommends that Operation Pincer (OP) [Operación Tenaza] be operationalized. OP involves a two-pronged strategy of impeding the referendum, rejecting the outcome at the same time as calling for a ‘no’ vote. The run up to the referendum includes running phony polls, attacking electoral officials and running propaganda through the private media accusing the government of fraud and calling for a ‘no’ vote. Contradictions, the report cynically emphasizes, are of no matter.

The CIA-Embassy reports internal division and recriminations among the opponents of the amendments including several defections from their ‘umbrella group’. The key and most dangerous threats to democracy raised by the Embassy memo point to their success in mobilizing the private university students (backed by top administrators) to attack key government buildings including the Presidential Palace, Supreme Court and the National Electoral Council. The Embassy is especially praiseworthy of the ex-Maoist ‘Red Flag’ group for its violent street fighting activity. Ironically, small Trotskyist sects and their trade unionists join the ex-Maoists in opposing the constitutional amendments. The Embassy, while discarding their ‘Marxist rhetoric’, perceives their opposition as fitting in with their overall strategy.

The ultimate objective of ‘Operation Pincer’ is to seize a territorial or institutional base with the ‘massive support’ of the defeated electoral minority within three or four days (before or after the elections – is not clear. JP) backed by an uprising by oppositionist military officers principally in the National Guard. The Embassy operative concede that the military plotters have run into serous problems as key intelligence operatives were detected, stores of arms were decommissioned and several plotters are under tight surveillance.

Apart from the deep involvement of the US, the primary organization of the Venezuelan business elite (FEDECAMARAS), as well as all the major private television, radio and newspaper outlets have been engaged in a vicious fear and intimidation campaign. Food producers, wholesale and retail distributors have created artificial shortages of basic food items and have provoked large scale capital flight to sow chaos in the hopes of reaping a ‘no’ vote.

President Chavez Counter-Attacks

In a speech to pro-Chavez, pro-amendment nationalist business-people (Entrepreneurs for Venezuela – EMPREVEN) Chavez warned the President of FEDECAMARAS that if he continues to threaten the government with a coup, he would nationalize all their business affiliates. With the exception of the Trotskyist and other sects, the vast majority of organized workers, peasants, small farmers, poor neighborhood councils, informal self-employed and public school students have mobilized and demonstrated in favor of the constitutional amendments.

The reason for the popular majority is found in a few of the key amendments: One article expedites land expropriation facilitating re-distribution to the landless and small producers. Chavez has already settled over 150,000 landless workers on 2 million acres of land. Another amendment provides universal social security coverage for the entire informal sector (street sellers, domestic workers, self-employed) amounting to 40% of the labor force. Organized and unorganized workers’ workweek will be reduced from 40 to 36 hours a week (Monday to Friday noon) with no reduction in pay. Open admission and universal free higher education will open greater educational opportunities for lower class students. Amendments will allow the government to by-pass current bureaucratic blockage of the socialization of strategic industries, thus creating greater employment and lower utility costs. Most important, an amendment will increase the power and budget of neighborhood councils to legislate and invest in their communities.

The electorate supporting the constitutional amendments is voting in favor of their socio-economic and class interests; the issue of extended re-election of the President is not high on their priorities: And that is the issue that the Right has focused on in calling Chavez a ‘dictator’ and the referendum a ‘coup’.

The Opposition

With strong financial backing from the US Embassy ($8 million dollars in propaganda alone according to the Embassy memo) and the business elite and ‘free time’ by the right-wing media, the Right has organized a majority of the upper middle class students from the private universities, backed by the Catholic Church hierarchy, large swaths of the affluent middle class neighborhoods, entire sectors of the commercial, real estate and financial middle classes and apparently sectors of the military, especially officials in the National Guard. While the Right has control over the major private media, public television and radio back the constitutional reforms. While the Right has its followers among some generals and the National Guard, Chavez has the backing of the paratroops and legions of middle rank officers and most other generals.

The outcome of the Referendum of December 2 is a decisive historical event first and foremost for Venezuela but also for the rest of the Americas. A positive vote (Vota ‘Sí’) will provide the legal framework for the democratization of the political system, the socialization of strategic economic sectors, empower the poor and provide the basis for a self-managed factory system. A negative vote (or a successful US-backed civil-military uprising) will reverse the most promising living experience of popular self-rule, of advanced social welfare and democratically based socialism. A reversal, especially a military dictated outcome, will lead to a massive blood bath, such as we have not seen since the days of the Indonesian Generals’ Coup of 1966, which killed over a million workers and peasants or the Argentine Coup of 1976 in which over 30,000 Argentines were murdered by the US backed Generals.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A quarter of Blackwater security guards in Iraq use steroids and other “judgment-altering substances,” according to a lawsuit filed by the families of several Iraqis killed or wounded in a Baghdad shooting in September.

The suit, filed Monday in Washington, accuses the company of fostering “a culture of lawlessness” among its guards and says the use of excessive force helps the company preserve a key selling point — the fact that none of its protectees have been killed during the four-year-old war.

“I think there is a whole corporate culture there that essentially rewards the use of excessive force — shooting first, asking questions later,” said Susan Burke, the lead attorney in the case.

The lawsuit accuses Blackwater of war crimes, wrongful death, assault, negligent hiring and emotional distress. The plaintiffs include two wounded survivors of the September 16 shootings around Nusoor Square, in western Baghdad, and the families of five people killed in the incident. Iraqi authorities say the guards killed 17 people in an act of “premeditated murder.”

Blackwater has denied any wrongdoing, arguing its contractors used necessary force to protect a State Department convoy that came under fire from insurgents.

The lawsuit accuses Blackwater of failing to control the use of steroids among its guards — an allegation Burke said came from “people in that community,” and one she said would be backed up as the case progresses.