The Militarization and Annexation of North America.

Stephen Lendman has written a comprehensive article on the coming summit meeting between the leaders of the US, Mexico and Canada, to ratify the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) between their countries. This will effectively create a North American state and eliminate the sovereignty of the separate countries. That may seem like an outrageous claim, but that's what they're working for. This is all being done with virtually any public input or even public knowledge. A long article, but very important stuff. Lendman has his own blog, but this links to the article at Information Clearing House, which I prefer since it has comments.


It goes without saying that liberals such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore and others have supported this every inch of the way, and continue to do so. It's "free trade," you see. Naturally, Hillary, Obama, Edwards or the other Democratic candidates won't ever mention it. It expands corporate power and reduces that of ordinary citizens, and that's all they care about.






Bush plans on requesting hundreds of billions more for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Reuters reports that Bush is planning to ask for $100 billion more to fund the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan for this year (on top of $70 billion already recently requested), and hundreds of billions more to take it through 2008.


These are just "emergency" additions, not included in the regular budget. They are not included in the "regular" military budget of $500 billion or so, plus lots of "special ops", "intelligence", and other "classified" operations they're not telling us about. While the focus is on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is also involved in wars in Columbia, Somalia and god knows where else. Endless war, endless war, endless money, endless money ...

Naturally the Democrats will go along with it all. They're owned lock, stock and barrel by the military-industrial-financial-legal-corporate complex, and in their 200 year history have never met a war they didn't like. See these articles "Democrats Sidestep Defunding Demands" and Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel" if you still have any doubts on that. All in all my estimate of America's total war budget is approaching a trillion dollars a year. And for wars that they are losing.

Remember Newton's laws of energy? "An object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an OUTSIDE FORCE. An object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an OUTSIDE FORCE."

And this doesn't include the costs of caring for the vets injured in these wars, of which there are at least 150,000 so far. At least 100,000 so far have been approved for disability claims. Those costs will continue for the life of the vets, decades at least. And it does not include the reparations that the US will be forced to pay sooner or later, since the entire thing is blatantly illegal. And if that isn't enough, it doesn't include the interest payments required to finance all of it, since all of this money is being borrowed, not paid through taxes. The total of these extra costs alone will be trillions over coming decades.






Interesting facts about the history of Hillary's corruption.

The always useful Undernews has a nice post, Things to know about Hillary before 2008, containing many interesting facts about Bill and Hillary's important role in helping establish BCCI, one of the banks involved in major scandals in the 1980s.


It goes on and on, with many details about their massive involvement in scandals and corruption during the later Clinton administration. This may seem lke old news, but that's the problem with Hillary running for president. It means that all of the juicy tales of her and Bill's massive corruption over the decades will once again be dug up and discussed. And they were, and are, almost unbelievably corrupt, easily as corrupt as any other American politicians have ever been, maybe even more so.

Don't forget that, while much attention has been focused on Bush's friendship with Ken Lay, that the Enron rip offs of California and their other crimes happened during the 1990s, and that Clinton and the equally corrupt Gore were responsible for enforcing the laws all through that period. They were also responsible for enforcing the laws when WorldCom and all of the other dot-com corruption happened. They stole trillions. We must not let these criminals back in power again.

One other interesting thing to contemplate about the Arkansas-based Clintons, is that it was during the Clinton-Gore administration that Arkansas-based Tyson became the world's biggest meat producer, and that Arkansas-based Wal-Mart became the world's biggest retailer. Coincidence?

I'm really trying to avoid getting involved in the 2008 election since I think it's way too early, and at this point it's meanaingless, but it's so important to make sure corporate gangsters such as Hillary or Gore do not get elected that I guess I'll have to point out crucial facts when I come across them.






Bush requires political commissars to oversee federal agencies.

NY Times link. In a move straight out of the Soviet Union, indeed straight out of Czarist Russia, so-called President Bush has ordered that every federal agency have a political commissar attached who will oversee the agency and make sure that the political needs of the administration take priority over its normal duties. The primary purpose is to prevent such agencies as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) from enforcing regulations against the corporations that have taken over the country. They can't stop Congress from passing laws, so they prevent the government from enforcing them. It's a giant leap towards strengthening the police state that has replaced the constitutional government, but it is unlikely that a supine, greedy, corrupt and selfish American public will do anything to fight it, since they prefer the profits they can gain from investing in these corporations to the rule of law, democracy and constitutional government.


Besides burdening the American taxpayer will major and unnecessary expenses, it will cause more pollution, make workplaces more dangerous, increase the likelihood of consumers receiving dangerous food and drugs and generally lower the quality of life in the country.

As the article succintly notes, "Business groups hailed the initiative." But of course. After all, it's their country.

In a way though, this could be good. Excessive regulation of this type was a major cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union, so this could be interpreted as another step hastening the inevitable and coming collapse of the American Union. I'm not just joking here either. In the event of another 9/11 or some other attack on the US, it is quite conceivable that those in charge of responding will not do so because they haven't received permission from the corporates in charge to do so, or they are afraid of being sued.






Comptroller General says US debt out of control.

The economic situation of the United States is rapidly passing through dire straits, and approaching collapse. In a frightening statement, the Comptroller General of the US has warned that US taxes may have to double in order in order pay off the current debt. Net obligations are rising rapidly, and now total $50 trillion. (That's a LOT of money. To put that in perspective, Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's entire fortunes combined wouldn't be enough to pay even a single year's interest.)

In another interesting comment, he notes that the money requested by Bush for the additional troops in Iraq is greater than what the extra troops would actually cost, and wonders what the money is really going for.








Indicting the Bush cabal for fraud.

Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega, who is very highly experienced, has prepared some very thorough and interesting indictments against the Bush cabal. Not accusing them of war crimes, but very interestingly accusing them of engaging in a conspiracy to commit fraud in their preparations to go to war. See these two articles in Common Dreams, A Fraud Worse Than Enron, which outlines the reasons behind her preparing the indictment, and The Indictment: United States v. George W. Bush et al., the indictment itself. She plans to do seven articles in all, the remaining five presenting the evidence and witness testimony. She knows what she's talking about too. This is very solid law. War crimes are very difficult to prosecute, but fraud's a different matter.


A lot of people are going to say that this is a waste of time, but it's not. These people (and it's not just the Republicans by any means) very definitely and consciously broke the law, and did so for purposes of personal profit. There's smoking gun evidence of it all, and a very solid case to make. The wheels of justice grind very slowly indeed, especially in a country as corrupt as the United States, but slowly or not they do grind away. Check out the other articles on Common Dreams.

On another aspect of the same business, Heather Wokusch makes the case for a War Crimes Tribunal. Rumsfeld is already being indicted in Germany, and there's a good chance he could be convicted.






Republicans are "Advertising Terrorism".

Keith Olberman over at MSNBC's "Countdown" has been doing some amazing editorials attacking the Bush administration lately. The latest is a vicious assault on the Republican use of terrorism and fear to gain control, occasioned by their latest election ads featuring Osama, Zawahari and the picture of a mushroom cloud. Go see the video or read the transcript, it's quite amazing.








Iraqi veterans lead march to New Orleans.

Empire Burlesque and the Guardian discuss the recent march to New Orleans led by a group of angry veterans of the war.


An historic march, and right through the heart of the old red states too.






Army seeks to extends enlistments for two more years.

The US Army is getting so short of manpower for its various wars, that it has asked Congress for permission to arbitrarily extend the maximum enlistment time for soldiers from six years to eight years. Article via channelnewsasia.com.


How would you feel if you'd signed up for a six year contract, and then at the end of the time, were told you had to do two more?

Add: Ann Scott Tyson reviews the personnel shortages facing the US military in Two Years Later, Iraq War Drains Military. Via Truthout and the Washington Post.


Maybe so, but that's getting harder for many people to do. Another aspect of this problem is covered in this article detailing the growing resistance to further service among veterans already in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the various ways they are trying to just get out.








More Americans than ever believe Saddam and Iraqis part of 9/11.

A new Harris poll indicates that the majority of Americans believe that Saddam supported Al Qaeda and that Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attacks, despite proof that this simply isn't so. What's even more amazing is that the numbers believing this lie seem to have increased since the election.


Why so many people believe something that has been proven false is very strange. I guess it's because Americans are starting to realize the damage that they've done to the Iraqis, and are desperate to believe that MUST have been some reason. Americans just wouldn't attack innocent people, now would they?

I won't say that these views are all inaccurate. I also believe that Saddam would have developed WMDs if he could, but it's very clear now (and was two years ago) that he simply couldn't. If we are going to start charging people with the crimes that they _may_ commit, or would _like_ to commit, there are a lot of people who'd be in trouble.

This is very sad. It's a telling indication of just how incompetent and dishonest the American media have been covering this issue. I'd also say that the vicious Bush-bashing and endless attacks on the Republicans by the so-called leftist blogosphere has also damaged the credibility of opponents to Bush's policies, and is leading many people to believe just the opposite of what they claim.

On the issue of remaining in Iraq, the poll reports that 59% of Americans now think that the troops should be brought home within the next year.






US military readies draft plans.

In The Return of the Draft, from Rolling Stone, Tim Dickinson gives a good overview of the various ways the US military plans to come up with the soldiers it needs.

Possibilities include a general draft, of both men and women, or, more likely, selective drafts of people with certain skills. The military continues to deny that it has any plans for the draft at all, but they are all ready when and if needed. If you're under 35, or know someone who is, it's something to be concerned about.


A good, thorough article on the subject. The possibility that they could draft you if you have certain skills, and keep you for up to 30 years, is bound to keep at least some people from acquiring those talents. And the idea that you have to regularly keep them updated on what you've learned, and on what you're doing, up till the age of 35, is even more bothersome.

I have to say though that I'm not entirely averse to the notion of drafting people with particular skills, say medical people, under certain conditions. I think for instance that it's disgusting that plastic surgeons and such are making vast fortunes while children go without basic care. I wouldn't mind drafting some of them at all. But for very clear and specified periods, and only under very clear and specified conditions.






Huh??? Bush explains his social security plan.

Via Sidney Blumenthal's latest column in the Guardian, Domestic Gibberish, and Sideshow is a hysterical quote by our President explaining how he plans to fix Social Security. This is an exact quote. Keep in mind that this was a canned question at a controlled appearance, and that his handlers had surely gone over the question and appropriate answer with him in advance.


Great. Even he doesn't understand it. Gotta love the "Does that make any sense to you?" part. Uh, no it doesn't George. But don't let that stop you. It hasn't before, so why start now?

Anyway, if you want to read some _accurate_ statements about Social Security, by someone who actually understands it all, see the series of columns in the NY Times by esteemed economic Paul Krugman. He even gets all of the figures correct. (Which very few of the many people commenting on this do, on all sides of the issue.)



Should Bush appoint people who have broken the law?

Longtime White House reporter Helen Thomas reports on three major Bush appointees who have well documented histories of violating the law. Via BostonChannel.com.


She is particularly incensed at the fact that the have repeatedly refused to answer questions from Congress about their activities. As are we all.






On the proposed 2006 federal budget.

The indefatigable Mariali at the superb Uncommon Thought has a lengthy post overviewing Bush's proposed budget, including a link to the official budget itself, which is over at the Office of Management and Budget site.

As to what I think about the federal budget? Two things. One, the need for the politicians in Congress to keep their pork barrels full in order to keep them in office, and the fact that they have to face re-election while Bush doesn't, will make it impossible for them to do any significant cutting. Two, the deficit is an enormous profit center for corporate America. The interest on the older debts already is like a trillion a year. They like deficits, they make money on them, money which in turn keeps them in office, and so they won't ever cut them. Period.

Both of which add up to the conclusion that they won't make any real dents in the budget deficit, which will probably be even greater next year than it is this year. I would imagine in the area of $600-800 billion when all is said and done. If you include the unbudgeted military expenses, which Bush doesn't think you should do, it could easily top a trillion.

And this is assuming that the dollar doesn't really collapse, the way so many people think it could. That could really change the picture, and would certainly greatly increase the deficit in the end. It also doesn't include the possibility of further serious attacks either on or by the American people, either inside or outside the US. If there are, and everyone hates America now, they could really hit the American economy.

Basically Bush and Congress are making the assumption that things will essentially continue on as they have, with the US in the dominant position in the world, the so-called "indispensable" nation. There will be no serious repercussions against the US for anything its done, no significant changes in the dollar, no boycotts or sanctions, no further expensive military misadventures, no major health care crisis or epidemic, no recessions, and that the Asians will continue to bail out the federal treasury even as their funds are being used to create arms destined to be used against them. In short: everything good will happen, and nothing really bad will.

We shall see.






House of Bush, House of Saud.

Via the Guardian is Martin Jacques' review and discussion of Craig Unger's new book, "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Hidden Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties", which analyzes the relationship between these two powerful families. It's an important story that every American should know about.


No, of course the House of Saud can't survive. It is one of the most undemocratic, repressive regimes in the world, without anything even vaguely resembling the rule of law or civil rights. The only thing that could possibly keep it going is the military and financial support of the Americans and the British, who are after all the main powers who helped establish it a hundred years ago. But that would take massive armies, which clearly are no longer politically acceptable.

If Americans haven't yet realized that the war in Iraq is now spreading into Iran and Saudi Arabia, and from there who knows where, they need to wake up. Americans won't have access to cheap Saudi oil for much longer. It's just a matter of time before it stops, and the major repercussions of that hit the international economy.






Army-Times editorial on Abu Ghraib.

Those that think all outrage at the abuses comes from "liberals", "lefties," and general malcontents, and in particular, from those who are opposed to the military on general principle, might want to read a recent editorial from the Army-Times, hardly a hotbed of pacifist thought. They condemn it in no uncertain times, and even go so far as to state categorically that it is a problem caused by incompetence at the highest levels, not by just a few low-ranking soldiers.


Fairly extraordinary, given that it comes straight from the soldiers who are actually fighting and dying in this war. Having said that, however, I still have to wonder how much the "code of silence" that permeates both American police and military forces contributed to the problem. And I have to wonder why the Army-Times themselves didn't report on the problem much earlier. If the reports that CD's of the photos were routinely shared in Army mess-halls are true, then knowledge of what was going on was definitely widespread within the troops themselves, and, presumably, by reporters for the Army-times. Why didn't they speak up?

I'd never browsed there before, but the Army Times site is rather interesting. Turns out there is also a NavyTimes, a Marine Corps Times, and a Air Force Times. And a Military City site that shows the best of all of these.






Powell says Bush was informed about problems with prisoners.

The Baltimore Sun reports that Colin Powell said that Bush was very definitely informed about complaints raised by the Red Cross and others as early as January. Which would directly contradict Bush's claim that he only recently became aware of the problems. (Via Talking Points Memo.)








America's increasingly poor middle class.

The NY Times Magazine has a very lengthy article this week by David K. Shipler entitled, A Poor Cousin of the Middle Class, about the declining incomes and lifestyle of American workers. Well worth a read. Very long, seven pages, so just one quick quote about one of the people discussed.


Yep, we're going backwards. I came upon via Rebecca's Pocket, an excellent and perceptive weblog by Rebecca Blood. Her comments on the article and poverty in general are also well worth a read. She refers to a photograph in the magazine.


Yep, that's it exactly. In America now, it's almost always those who work the hardest who make the least. Rebecca has a great weblog by the way. I've noticed more and more that it's only the female bloggers who seem to be really addressing what's going on in the world. The alpha males seem to be just focused on technology, and linking to each other. With exceptions of course. I guess a lot of it may have something to do with the fact that the fastest growing group of Americans in poverty are women, especially single mothers.

And the saddest thing, the stupidest thing really, is that American business can't seem to get it through their heads that their workers are their _customers_. And if they don't pay them enough, then they can't purchase their products. Henry Ford understood this perfectly well when he began the middle class consumer revolution by regularly lowering the prices of cars and increasing the wages of his workers. But they've entirely forgotten this. And that's why today Ford Motor Company, and its corporate brethren, are losing money, not making it. They're cutting their own throats, and the rest of ours along with them.






George Catlin's creed on the Indians.

George Catlin, you may have heard of him, was this extraordinary artist who went all over the Americas during the mid-19th century, painting pictures of the Indians. An amazing man, whose work is especially valuable and unique because he was able to visit the Indians in the American west mostly before their lifestyle was destroyed by the whites.

Anyway, he visited dozens if not hundreds of tribes, and apparently was warmly welcome by all of them, and claimed never to have been troubled or harassed at all. I was looking through this book that my roommate has about him, and came cross this "creed" he wrote, which I thought was worthy of posting. It says a lot about the Indians, and probably even more about him.


An incredible man and artist. One thing you might not know about him was that during his later life, after he painted those in the west, he took his pictures and a group of Indians as well, and went to England and France, where he had what was actually the first "wild west show", long before Buffalo Bill did. He was a big smash there too. Then he went to South America, up the Amazon and Orinoco Rivers and more, and painted those as well. And then went up to the American northwest and Alaska, and continued his work there.






Lane County, Oregon, no longer has any police investigating property crimes.

In a stunning example of how American efforts to promote national security are in fact endangering the security of Americans where they actually live, the Eugene Register-Guard reports that budget cuts have completely eliminated funds for investigating crimes against property in the parts of the county outside Eugene city limits. No fund to fight property crimes. The true story of "security" in Bush's America.


So if your house is broken into, they can't even investigate it. Well, I feel much safer knowing that. And I wonder what criminals reading this would think. And it was the lead article on the front page of the Sunday edition, so I'm sure they saw it. That's really great.

But I guess, since it's not New York City, which is as far from here as Moscow is from London, security doesn't matter. We're just a third world colony anyway, so what's the difference? I mean, it's not like we live in New Hampshire or Iowa or have any say in who's running the country.

And Bush wants to spend trillions to go to the moon and Mars, something that is directly aimed at his corporate aerospace constituencies in Texas and California. While Oregon's schools are (have already, actually) eliminating science programs. Forget about funds for telescopes and such. School kids don't vote or contribute to politicians.

And I love that part about the police officer going off to establish police forces in Bosnia. That's precious. And where is the money for that coming from? American tax dollars paid in part by the citizens of Oregon? I wonder.








Dollar has a very bad week.

The Financial Times reports on the dollar's very bad week. I noted the other day that it was going down at a rate of a penny a day. But it seems to be picking up. A penny an hour? Wow.


It's about to crack the $1.30/euro barrier too, which should have a major psychological effect. It also appears that it would be going down even faster if it were not for massive intervention by the Japanese. But that even that seems to be having only a temporary effect, also apparently lasting only minutes. It would seem that the Japanese are reaching the limits of what they can do, and that like the European Central Bank, will just let it go.


I said before that I think it will hit the $2/euro level by the end of the year. Now I think it might just do that by the end of summer, if not before. At the current rate it could cross $1.40 just by the end of January. It just seems unavoidable. The renewed attacks in Iraq, a jobs report that only 1,000 jobs were created in the US during December rather than the 150,000 that economists had predicted, which is really bad news given that it was during the holiday shopping season, the fact that the US government clearly thinks that rising stock markets are a reason to avoid making any major economic changes, accelerating American deficits, an election year which makes it impossible for either party to prescribe any harsh medicine, and many other developments all suggest that there is no reason to expect the trend to reverse. On the contrary, they indicate that it will accelerate.

The Guardian business section has an overview on the reactions of various media around the world to the dollar's change, Markets wonder where the buck will stop. It would seem that only fairly conservative publications in the US and the UK think it's not that serious. Everyone else predicts more of the same. One side is here.


And the other side is here.


Gotta love that "money is just paper" part. That's absolutely priceless. Does everybody else in DC know that? :) I'll have to keep that in mind when it comes time to pay my taxes. Will they accept toilet paper? And that it's all about "trust, outlook and confidence in the government which has issued the money." Actually, to a certainly degree that'sexactly it. It's not just the dollar that's falling, it's global confidence in the US government. But it's not just perception. The American deficits are very, very real, and growing. And sooner or later the bills come due. And to the folks at Newsday, is a penny a day "gentle?"

And where they say it's only against the yen, pound and euro. Only?. Aren't these the three most important ones in the world, the currencies that most other countries use as a yardstick? In any case, that's a blatant lie, or at least a very severe distortion of the facts. It's affecting the Australian and Canadian dollars as well, and it's beginning to hit many others as well. The only major nation that seems to be going the other way is, sadly, Mexico.






IMF projects potential $47 trillion US shortfall.

A new IMF study, reported in the NY Times, suggests that US deficits threaten the stability of the entire world economy. It's a story that's getting told more and more, especially as the deficits get worse and worse, but for the IMF to state it so bluntly is especially worrisome. And rather surprising given the influence Americans have in the organization. They also project a potential shortfall of a whopping $47 trillion over the next few decades.


But even this is not enough to get the attention of Bush and company. Somehow I don't think that they're the ones that are going to lack food and health care.


Especially note this statement about the size of the projected shortfalls. $47 trillion. (Yes, that's trillion, not billion.) Wow. And five times the entire American GDP. That's an almost inconceivable amount of money.


As someone who is 51, I have to assume at this point that all of the money I've deposited in Social Security is pretty much gone, or devalued to the point of irrelevance, and that I'm going to have to do some awfully fancy financial finagling in the next decade if I want to avoid ending up on the streets in my old age. Damn, damn, damn. Oh well, it's only money. It's only life. It's only ... catastrophic.

But from now on it's cash only, and I think it might be wise to avoid American banks as well. For the first time I see the possibility of large numbers of American banks going under, or at least having their funds confiscated by the government one way or another. The devaluing of the dollar to finance the deficit is actually a variation on that. I know that there's FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance), which is supposed to back the banks in the event of a collapse, but that's only on paper, and that isn't any good if there isn't any actual cash to cough up.






Michael Moore reprints letters from the troops.

If you want to know what at least some of the American troops in Iraq think of it all, Michael Moore has reprinted an extensive series of selections from letters that have been sent to him from those serving there. I suppose there's some selective editing going on here, but the tone of distrust in the American government is very clear and disturbing. Certainly something every American should read before they vote.

Selections from them, along with his comments, are here, while the complete letters themselves are here. There's a lot of them. A must-read I'd say. I especially liked this one and this one (great poem). Depressing as heck though.

Anyway, here's part of Mr. Moore's summation of it all.


Hard to top all that. He goes on to list a number of ways to help the troops, along with links to various organizations that are doing so. I couldn't agree more with his conclusion.


And, stupidest of all, unleashing this horror on us is exactly what Osama wanted to do. It's good that Saddam has been deposed and captured, but there were, and are, less violent and destructive ways of doing it. The fact of the matter is that Bush and company LIKE war. They LIKE bloodshed, they LIKE seeing the Iraqi people suffer, and they LIKE seeing poor Americans, especially those of color, die. They're sadists; it gets them off. And they're making big bucks off of it. Very big bucks indeed. More every hour than you'll likely make in your lifetime.



McCloskey on the Endangered Species Act.

In an editorial in the LA Times, former Representative Paul McCloskey, a co-founder of Earth Day, and a Republican himself, writes of his dismay at the recent efforts by the Republicans to dismantle the Endangered Species Act. Republicans Are at Risk of Becoming an Endangered Species he says. [Free registrated req'd.] Link via The Smirking Chimp.


What's so frightening about this is not just the threat to endangered species (and to humans as well), but the contempt for the law being shown by these people. It's one thing to fight to change a law they disagree with, but to simply refuse to enforce public laws is malfeasance of the worst kind, and threatens the very fabric of American democracy. If people don't believe that the laws they get passed will be enforced, then what's the use of participating at all? Those in power will do what they want, and the law be damned. They can't just pick and choose which laws they feel like enforcing at any particular time. It just doesn't work that way.

This also illustrates that it's not just "lefties" (whatever they are) and Democrats who are appalled at Bush's actions. It's people of all ages, all stripes, all classes, all parts of America. This is a Republican speaking, not some "environmentalist" (whatever they are). George Bush took an oath promising to enforce the laws of the country, and it's disgusting that he isn't doing it. Beyond disgusting.






Schools and states challenging education law.

NY Times article. There is increasing resistance to President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education reform bill by schools, districts and states, which is increasingly seen as unworkable and counter-productive. Mostly though there simply is no money available for mandated programs.


This sure is a good sign. It could turn into quite a struggle. But the bill really isn't about education at all, but about the federal government taking over the schools.

It also illustrates the increasing breakdown between federal and local balance. The idea that the federal government can simply require local communities and states to do things for which they don't have the money is patently ridiculous. It may look on paper but in the real world it simply doesn't work.

States passing legislation prohibiting authorities from complying with federal laws is quite a big step. This is also happening in regards to the Patriot Act, which is equally unconstitutional and unworkable.






A repressive embarrassment.

Via TomDispatch. The Toledo Blade reports on the abusive treatment the US metes out to foreign journalists who make the mistake of arriving here without a visa, which they call A repressive embarrassment.

This is getting to be a widespread problem. Security is one thing, but deliberately hassling and being rude to people simply because they are foreigners is obscene. It's not only embarrassing, it's counter-productive and serves only to increase the growing hostility to America around the world. Not to mention seriously damaging American economic interests. One journalist was just here to review and promote an American movie.


Probably worse than so-called Third World dictatorships, since they don't usually claim to be a beacon for human rights and the rule of law the way the US does. This situation is out of hand.



Reviewing Iraqi-American history.

Stumbled onto two different articles both recalling various aspects of the long American involvement in Iraqi affairs, especially the early support for Saddam. One by Robert Parry in In These Times, entitled Missing U.S.-Iraq History, and one by Robert Scheer in the LA Times, entitled The U.S. Winked at Hussein's Evil.

Parry details, among other things, how animosity towards Iran during the Carter and Reagan administrations led the US to encourage and support his regime, how Bush I continued their efforts, and how Clinton basically went along with it, and helped cover up what remained of the Iran-Contra affair. It's a very long and detailed article. Scheer is engaged in mostly Bush-Republican bashing, although he does seem to get his facts straight.

But I really liked Parry's analysis. It's important for people to know that there really hasn't been any difference between Democratic and Republican actions there, and one shouldn't expect much, if any, difference in the future. People really have no idea of the degree and extent of American involvement, or just how willing they were (and are) to sacrifice the long-term needs of the Iraqi people to short-term political goals.



Don�t Do What They Tell You, Tell What They Do.

Via In These Times is this article reviewing a new book on the war in Vietnam, an oral history which collects accounts of participants from all sides.


Sounds like an interesting book. But it's sad that even a fairly progressive site such as In These Times refers to those who resisted the draft as draft "dodgers," which is a derogatory term. Draft "resistors" would be more accurate. "Dodgers" sounds like they were avoiding serving their country, when they were actually trying to protect it.

---

End of entries.