Are CEOs Really A Better Class of People?

Do corporate CEO's get paid obscene levels of compensation because they are worth it, or because they can get it? Is it about performance or how hard the job is, or is it about getting it while the getting is good?

This report, a quick blip in the "mainstream" media when it came out last year, details just how greedy American corporate CEOs have become. Just one of their findings is worth chewing on for a while:

If the minimum wage had risen as fast as CEO pay since 1990, the lowest paid workers in the US would be earning $23.03 an hour today, not $5.15 an hour.

Another of their findings seems to say that CEOs are worth 431 times more than the average worker. Think about that. CEOs are such truly remarkable human beings with such superhuman skills that they are, by their very nature, worth 431 times what an average working stiff is worth.

The introduction to the report, below, is from the Institute for Policy Studies.

**********

2004 was a banner year for CEOs and a dismal year for workers, according to a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, Executive Excess 2005: Defense Contractors Get More Bucks for the Bang.

The ratio of average CEO pay (now $11.8 million) to worker pay (now $27,460) spiked up from 301-to-1 in 2003 to 431-to-1 in 2004.

If the minimum wage had risen as fast as CEO pay since 1990, the lowest paid workers in the US would be earning $23.03 an hour today, not $5.15 an hour.

The report found that CEOs are individually profiting from the Iraq War, with huge average raises at the biggest defense contractors.

At the 34 publicly traded US corporations among the 2004 top 100 defense contractors with 10% or more of their revenues from defense contracts – companies such as United Technologies, Textron, and General Dynamics – average CEO pay increased 200% from 2001 to 2004, versus 7% for all CEOs.

For example, David H. Brooks, CEO of bulletproof vest maker DHB Industries, earned $70 million in 2004, 13,349% more than his 2001 compensation of $525,000. Brooks also sold company stock worth about $186 million last year, spooking investors who drove DHB’s share price from more than $22 to as low as $6.50. In May 2005, the US Marines recalled more than 5,000 DHB armored vests after questions were raised about their effectiveness. By that time, Brooks had pocketed over $250 million in war windfalls.

Since September 11, the ratio between median pay for defense CEOs and pay for military generals has nearly doubled to 23-to-1, up from 12-to-1 just three years earlier. The pay ratio between defense CEOs and army privates soared to 160-to-1, up from just 89-to-1 in 2001.

The report reviewed trends in CEO pay and gave CEO Hall of Shame awards to executives who have exemplified five types of excessive pay:

Pension underfunders: The CEOs of those firms with the most underfunded pensions, on average, received 72% more than the average large company CEO. Inducted into the CEO Hall of Shame in this category is Exxon Mobil’s Lee Raymond.

Tax dodgers: 46 large companies paid no federal income tax in 2003, despite collectively earning $30 billion in profits. Some of the savings wound up in the pockets of their CEOs, who made $12.6 million in average pay in 2004. Inducted into the CEO Hall of Shame in this category is Pfizer’s Hank McKinnell.

Book cookers: In the last ten years, CEOs of firms with shady accounting appeared 18 times on the top ten lists of highest paid executives. This includes leaders whose companies were either later found to have committed fraud or were forced to make material restatements of earnings to correct previous overstatements of profits. Inducted into the CEO Hall of Shame in this category is Tyco’s Dennis Kozlowski, the highest paid book cooker – more than a half billion dollars.

Stock tankers: If you had invested in the stock of the company led by the year’s single highest paid CEO each year since 1990, you actually would have lost money. You would have done nearly six times better by investing in the S&P 500 index. A $10,000 investment in such a Greedy CEO portfolio in 1991 would have decreased in value to $8,079 by the end of 2004, while a similar investment in the S&P 500 would have increased to $48,350. Inducted into the CEO Hall of Shame in this category is Computer Associates’ Charles Wang.

Gross pay: Over the last 15 years, the cumulative pay of the ten highest paid CEOs in each year together totals more than $11.7 billion. Inducted into the CEO Hall of Shame in this category is Citigroup’s Sandy Weill, whose $1.1 billion in cumulative pay since 1990 topped all others.

Here's a link to the whole report.

Authored by Sarah Anderson, John Cavanagh, Scott Klinger, and Liz Stanton, Executive Excess 2005 is the twelfth annual CEO pay study by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and United for a Fair Economy (UFE). The IPS is an independent center for progressive research and education in Washington, DC. UFE is a national organization based in Boston that spotlights growing economic inequality.

With Friends Like Pat Robertson, Israel Doesn't Need The Al-Aqsa Brigade

Israel has finally pulled the plug on Pat Robertson. I guess after saying that Sharon's massive stroke was divine retribution for Sharon's giving up the Gaza Strip, it was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

I have always wondered when Israel would give a hearty heave-ho to its fundamentalist born-again evangelical Christian "supporters" who believe that Israel must be destroyed before they can gain salvation.

I know there are all kinds of Christian supporters of Israel out there -- not to mention opponents and critics as well -- but the Christians who believe that Israel's existence is only a stepping stone to armageddon and, thus, their salvation are no real friends of Israel. Witness Robertson's words. For all his apologies since, he meant those words. He believes them. Don't doubt that.

Christians and Progressives Revisited

I have had an excellent and very appreciated response to my entry entitled An Alliance of Christians and Progressives?

Here is one by email:

I clearly identify w/ the progressive or liberal end of the bell curve, and though raised Roman Catholic, do not identify myself as such or even as Christian. I would relish the opportunity for those in my so-called “camp” to reach out and embrace the “Christian conservatives,” but I haven’t heard of a plausible or clear strategy for “us” to reach out or communicate to “them.” I suspect it’s a “respect” issue that’s eroded, almost irretrievably. I imagine what “we” are viewed as elitist, over-educated pinko-commie fags, and “they” as ignorant gun-toting trailer trash. That’s a large divide to overcome, especially when Christian radio, and the message of the likes of Falwell and Robertson is so pervasive and well-received. And I’m not holding my breath for the time when “they” are going to reach out or communicate with “us.”

Another by email:

If you are waiting for the electorate to get up in arms about monitoring US citizens who are communicating with known Islamo-facist elements, either inside or outside our borders, then you are going to be waiting for a long time. The more the democrats wail about this, the more votes they will lose. If spying is occurring, on the other hand, on domestic targets who are nothing more than political threats to the current administration (a la Watergate) then John Dean will be proven correct, and there will be ample conservatives joining the call for impeachment based upon such an abuse of power. Further, if you are waiting for Christians/Social Conservatives to become "enlightened" as to the relative unimportance of an issue like abortion, you will be waiting for a very, very, long time. The sanctity of human life is inseperable from any reasonable interpretation of Christian theology, or the more secular documents upon [which] this nation was founded, for that matter. Regarding the supposed "loss of diversity" among media outlets, I find that completely laughable. We have witnessed an explosion in the availablity of information since Al Gore invented the Internet. This is much to the chagrin of the American Pravda (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN) who no longer have the luxury of putting out their editorials-disguised-as-news without being called on it.

Another leaves a comment on the Orwell's Grave:

Referring to my statement that: it may be hard to imagine, but I foresee an alliance, of sorts, between progressives and fundamentalist Christians on a number of important, politically revolutionizing fronts.

Kvatch says: This is not hard to imagine at all. The American populist movement had its roots in the predomonantly protestant, but still quite religious midwest, where faith was married with a notion of duty to improve the plight of workers and farmers.

And J.D. Ryan takes me to task for "not knowing how much ignorance I am up against here." He cannot see how all these uneducated "fundies" could possibly vote any other way than how they are programmed religiously and politically, and that when people have beliefs, albiet deeply held irrational ones, when confronted with things that challenge thier world view, they react accordingly.

**************

I had hoped to simulate some discussion and I have.

I agree with my first emailer that there is alot of water under the bridge between liberals/progressives and fundamentalist evangelical Christians, and I suspect that there is a loss of respect, as he points out, in so many ways we can't begin to count. But I believe there are some of these Christians who are accessible and open to some of the issues we are talking about. I think some of them resonate with them on a personal and family level that may or may not be conscious.

Thanks to the email about the history of alliances between Christians and progressives. The populist movements in the 19th and 20th century are stories of just such alliances. Many member of the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Democrats were Christian progressives. It is a history worth looking at. I do maintain, however, that modern-day, political Christian fundamentalists, in their current numbers, political organization, and recruitment -- by a dedicated cadre of men and women -- far surpasses anything we have seen in American political history.

To my other emailer (and to J.D. Ryan) I am not contending that huge numbers of fundamentalists Christians will become "enlightened," and will, therefore, see the error of their ways. What I am hoping for is that some of the more basic economic, enviromental and family survival issues will eclipse the heat of anti-abortion and anti-homosexual religious fervor.

I believe that the more some of these people are adversely affected by job loss, pension loss, health care crises, relative wage decreases, and the like, that they will begin to act -- and, more importantly vote -- to support their self-interests and the self-interests of their families. They can still yell and scream about abortion and gays, but their vote is secret, and I believe, with the right message, and in the face of compelling realities, they can become a part, even a silent part, of the alliance I am talking about. I believe there will be other fundamentalists Christians who will be more vocal about it. There are already some evangelical fundamentalists who are talking about the ruination of our natural world, the world that we were given to nurture and sheperd.

I contend that it is simply human nature for huge, ill-defined groups like "fundamentalist Christians" to have within them a range of people, some of them more moderate. And by the way, there are plenty of evangelical Christians who have college educations, and not at just "Christian" schools. We do ourselves, and them, a disservice if we simply dismiss them all as ignorant and uneducated.

Of course, I do not expect the fatally deluded to do anything but what is predictable -- namely, to continue to act in passionate support of people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly, Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Ralph Reed, Tony Perkins, and others like them. I do not expect Pat Robertson to wake up one day and start demanding that we must organize unions at Wal-Mart. I do not expect Phylllis Schlafly to start advocating for better enforcement of domestic violence laws. And I do not expect Jerry Falwell to wake up one morning and ask his followers to give to their local food bank, instead of to him. And I do not expect that millions of their followers will do the same.

But there will be some who will hear, who will listen, who will see what is happening to them. The more that progressives, liberals, social democrats, human and civil rights activists, trade unionists, and others can help to clarify and communicate some of the issues I listed, the better.

If what one emailer said is true, about the rise of the internet serving as the answer to the lack of media diversity, then we will need the internet to help communicate these ideas. But a word to the wise. Just because there are tens of thousands of progressive political blogs, don't get carried away believing they carry the same weight as what you call the "American Pravda." The vast majority of Americans, right and left, still read, listen to, and watch that "American Pravda" and never see the stories by watchdog groups and hot button bloggers who point out the lies and misinformation.

We cannot forget the numbers. We do so at our peril.

The very reason we have such healthy activity on the internet is because of the loss of diversity in the rest of American media. But that activity simply does not replace a healthy print and broadcast press, regardless of how much time you and I may spend on the internet.

Finally, in response to the assertion that If spying is occurring, on the other hand, on domestic targets who are nothing more than political threats to the current administration (a la Watergate) then John Dean will be proven correct, and there will be ample conservatives joining the call for impeachment based upon such an abuse of power, I will not hold my breath waiting for Republican conservatives to rally to impeach Bush. There are too many reasons mitigating against it.

There really is too much wiggle room in the FISA law and its interpretation.
The complexities of this issue are far greater than a burglary and coverup.
Nixon did what he did to win an election.
Bush did what he did to protect the country.
And finally, the administration would take this issue to the Supreme Court and Bush has stacked the deck with Roberts and Alito.

In lieu of direct evidence that Bush committed an clear crime, impeachment is not going to happen.

We need to spend our energies on changing the Congress in 2006, and the White House in 2008. Lending so much of our passion and energy to impeaching Bush isn't going to get us anything, except President Cheney.

The Cost of the Iraq War -- $1 Trillion

From Secrecy News of the Federation of American Scientists

Among the mistakes and misrepresentations that led to the U.S. war in Iraq, one of the most shocking is the failure to correctly assess the financial costs of the war. Never mind the low comedy of AID Administrator Andrew Natsios, who told Americans in 2003 that Iraqi reconstruction would cost taxpayers no more than $1.7 billion (Secrecy News, 12/08/05).

Now it appears that even estimates in the hundreds of billions ofdollars may "underestimate the War's true costs to America by a widemargin," according to a new study by economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate. The authors survey the direct and indirect costs of the Iraq war and its aftermath, acknowledging the methodological difficulties involved.

"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large [the costs] are. We can state, with some degree of confidence,that they exceed a trillion dollars," Bilmes and Stiglitz write.

"Would the American people have had a different attitude towards goingto war had they known the total cost? Would they have thought that there might be better ways of advancing the cause of democracy oreven protecting themselves against an attack, that would cost but afraction of these amounts?"

"In the end, we may have decided that a trillion dollars spent on theWar in Iraq was better than all of these alternatives. But at least it would have been a more informed decision than the one that was made. And recognizing the risks, we might have conducted the War in a manner different from the way we did," the authors conclude.

Their paper was reported in the Boston Globe on January 8.

See The Economic Costs of the Iraq War: An Appraisal Three Years After the Beginning of the Conflict" by Linda Bilmes and Joseph E.Stiglitz, January 2006

An Alliance of Christians and Progressives?

Although I am not a practicing Christian myself, I grew up knowing something of Christian beliefs, attending, as an Episcopalian, a Roman Catholic school in Tokyo, Japan, and studying in what we called the non-Catholic ethics and religion classes about the many variations of Christianity, as well as about Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, and other beliefs. We had students from 48 different countries and 20 different "religions." It was an amazing cross-cultural and cross-denominational experience that I learned from and which I put to use in my daily life, even to this day. We were taught by extraordinarily liberal Christian Brothers of Canada, from Trois Riveres, Quebec.

With that in mind, and accepting my apologies in advance for sounding moralistic, I am going to hazard a forecast that, eventually, significant numbers of fundamentalist Christians -- who, heretofore, have been considered solidly in the Bush camp -- are going to realize that homosexuality, abortion, and gay marriage are not imminent threats to their beliefs or their existence, and are not, in and of themselves, compelling enough reasons to support the right-wing corporatist agenda of the Republican Party. Likewise, they are going to realize that issues like school prayer, flag-burning, and women's rights are not as menacing to them as is the destruction of our democracy and our environment by corporate corruption and a plutocracy gone wild.

It may be hard to imagine, but I foresee an alliance, of sorts, between progressives and fundamentalist Christians on a number of important, politically revolutionizing fronts. Here are some of the issues on which progressives and fundamentalist Christians ought to be able to find common cause:

the loss of good jobs -- we all want and need personal fulfillment and satisfaction, not millions of new jobs that are dead-end, unskilled, mind-numbing and low-paying;
the lowering of our mutual standard of living -- wages that are more equitable, retirement plans that don't disappear overnight, and health care that protects our families;
the despoilment of our environment -- good stewardship of the natural world is a mutual interest;
the loss of privacy -- progressives and Christian Americans do not want a government or corporations that pry and peer into our private lives, our libraries, our communications, and our bank and credit card accounts;
the disappearance of a free and diverse press -- regardless of political, social or economic point of view, it is not in the interest of progressives or fundamentalist Christian Americans to have a media that is owned by fewer and fewer corporations and which bombards us with advertisements, over-the-top consumerism, and violence that invades and distorts our families and children and which diminishes our ability to participate in a democracy as real citizens, not merely as spectators and sheep;
the concentration of wealth in fewer hands--the distance between the haves and have-nots is widening and the number of have-nots is growing -- one in five kids is living in poverty in the U.S. and we can work together to remedy this;
the bankruptcy of our families -- the elephant in the room for us all is the greed of banks and credit card companies, and their usuristic rates;
the corruption of our political process -- there is deep discomfort on all sides by the obscene amounts of money that have become a huge corrupting influence in our elections, a discomfort that can evolve into corrective action;
the loss of our mobility -- higher fuel prices and lower gas mileage threaten our mobility as a nation, and demand that we unite to require more efficient vehicles, lower fuel prices, and a Marshall Plan for alternative energy sources;
taking back our time -- while the plutocracy demands that we work more, work two jobs, work overtime, we all really want more time for our family, child care, taking care of our elderly, recreation, and time off.

Many conservative Christians will come to realize that the Bush plutocrats, the Rovian manipulators, the grotesque distortions of our politics by corporate money, the PHARMA bullies, the bankers and the oil cartel, all have very little to do with inculcating and preserving Judeo-Christian values. How can these negative forces in our lives actually be reconciled with the seven virtues?

Faith is belief in the right things (including the virtues!).
Hope is taking a positive future view, that good will prevail.
Charity is concern for, and active helping of, others.
Fortitude is never giving up.
Justice is being fair and equitable with others.
Prudence is care of and moderation with money.
Temperance is moderation of needed things and abstinence from things which are not needed.

After watching their putative leadership long enough, significant numbers of fundamentalist Christians will come to the realization that it consists of self-centered people who are the anti-thesis of hope, charity, justice, prudence and temperance. It is worth considering the proverbial story of the well-to-do man who encounters a modestly dressed, unshaven man on the street who is going from one homeless man to another handing out food and asks him: "What is it that compels you to live this way, interacting with such people?" The unshaven man says: "The Sermon on the Mount?"

In the actions of men like Bush, Rove, Libby, Cheney, Delay, Abramoff, Robertson, Falwell, and others, how can Christians not see pride replacing Humility, envy working against kindness, gluttony overcoming abstinence, lust supplanting Chastity, anger shoving away Patience, and greed replacing Liberality? Who can look at these men and say they are generous (what liberality means), or humble (with their on-air preening and self-aggrandizement), or patient (while they are publicly overcome by their angers)?

Is there one of these who actually offers genuine hope, who does not pander constantly to our basest fears, whose sole purpose in life is not the exercise of power? Which one of them is truly fair and equitable in their dealings with anyone who disagrees with them? Which one exhibits a life of charity and temperance? These men are no more representative of true Christian practice and virtue than were Pope Gregory IX of the Roman Inquisition or Tomas de Torquemada of the Spanish Inquisition.

There is common cause for progressives and fundamentalist Christians. The challenge is finding a way to introduce those ideas to a common agenda, a grassroots movement of sorts that transcends partisan stricture. Progressives need to communicate these ideas to the bible belt, to the less strident, more reasonable fundamentalist Christian organizations around the country. Progressives and liberals need to reach out on these issues and find common ground on a few of them. We don't need to unite on every one of these issues -- just a few, just enough to have a positive effect on our national agenda.

We need to lower the language of condemnation and conflict and raise the language of cooperation and conciliation.

The Man With No Clothes

Here is bubble-boy describing the size of the cedar tree he cut down with his chainsaw to all of the former Secretaries of State and Defense at his 45-minute staged meeting where he pretended to listen to their combined hundreds of years of sage wisdom.

Notice how intently Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and Powell are listening to him. Not one even looks at him.

What are they really thinking as this puffed up, naked would-be emperor speaks? While many surmise that he listens to almost no one, how many people actually listen to him?

Bush Administration In Bed with Mining Corporations

In light of the Sago mine tragedy, here is a story of Bush cronyism and coverup of another awful mining story.

Thanks to Hume's Ghost, my friend over at The Daily Doubter, here is a story (from Salon) I missed.

I suspect that alot Americans missed this story, and that most Americans have no idea how the Bush administration is intimately in bed with the mining businesses and has covered their criminal and irreponsible behaviors.

It's a story about one of the nation's worst environmental disasters and how the Bush administration worked to minimize consequences for the mining corporation responsible. Specifically, Salon describes it this way:

...the nation's largest coal slurry spill at the Martin County Coal Company in Inez, Ky., on Oct. 11, 2000.... The EPA called the Inez spill the worst environmental catastrophe in the history of the Eastern United States. Far more extensive in damage than the widely known 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska, the Martin County Coal slurry spill dumped an estimated 306 million gallons of toxic sludge down 100 miles of waterways.

The story describes how the Bush administration took over the investigation in early 2001, threatened the original investigator, Jack Spadaro, with firing, and finally issued a report and fines that were an embarrassment and obvious coverup.

Jack Spadaro, now an independent investigator and mine safety activitist, has his own website and he says this about his experience with the Bush administration investigation of this catastrophe:

"I had never seen anything so corrupt and lawless in my entire career as what I saw regarding interference with a federal investigation of the most serious environmental disaster in the history of the Eastern United States," on CBS 60 Minutes, April 4, 2004

Spadaro's website is a goldmine (no pun intended) of information about the mining business and its cosy relationship with the Bush administration.

Early 2006 Musings

I have been away, in Las Vegas, visiting family. I am still on my trip to California visiting other family, but we took a sidetrip these last few days. It was my first visit to a place I have always said was the last place on earth I ever wanted to go. It still is. Other than family living there, and despite all their protestations about why they do, I still don't get why any humans would want to live there who are not directly involved in the business of the national gambling obsession -- the act of throwing away money for fun.

**************************

In any event, I have been away from Orwell's Grave longer than expected and have been trying to find a way to re-enter my blogging brain.

The first site I visited was Baghdad Burning, Riverbend's blog from the capital city of Iraq, the young woman who has kept us all in touch with the realities of Iraq citizens and what they confront in their lives on a daily basis. Her latest entry starts like this:

2006...
Here we are in the first days of 2006. What does the ‘6’ symbolize? How about- 6 hours of no electricity for every one hour of electricity? Or… 6 hours of waiting in line for gasoline that is three times as expensive as it was in 2005? Or an average of six explosions per day near our area alone?

She has a way of making the lives of Iraqis come home directly into our hearts.

***************************************

I see that our President has finally responded to the overwhelming truth of his intellectual and policy isolation by staging (much like he staged his interview with the troops last year) a meeting with former secretaries of state and other past administration officials to hear their unique views on the war and its aftermath. His phony little meeting was relatively short and was summarized by his statement:

"I've ... had a chance to listen to their concerns, their suggestions about the way forward. Not everybody around this table agree with my decision to go into Iraq, I fully understand that. But these are good solid Americans who understand that we've got to succeed now that we're there. And I'm most grateful for the suggestions that have been given. We take to heart the advice; we appreciate your experience and we appreciate you taking time out of your day."

I find it fascinating how he apologizes and explains to his base that these are really "good solid Americans" so it's really okay for him to meet with them, even though in his heart of hearts meeting with them makes him squirm with discomfort. Thanks for coming, here's your hat and what's your hurry.

*************************

While two more suicide attacks have killed more than 110 in Iraq, the US military has bombed and obliterated an Iraqi family of women and children in their home as they pursued men they suspected of planting a roadside bomb.

*********************

And finally, while we were in Las Vegas, the center of the universe of everything wrong with our consumer culture, we intermittently followed the story of the trapped miners. The story, of course, has become the mistaken information about how many survived and then the news that all the original information was wrong. What I fear will go missing in this story is why these men were killed and what violations were committed by the mining company.

The Skeptical Observer has two short pieces worth reading, the first about the company violations, and the Bush administration's Interior Department that is filled with mining company cronies; and the second, a story about the United Mine Workers and mine safety issues in general.

Here is the first statement from the United Mine Workers of America about the Sago tragedy. Note that the miners at Sago were not members of the UMWA.

My One Big Prediction for 2006

The United States will NOT attack Iran.

It will not do so for several reasons.

The backlash from Shiites in Iraq would be huge. If the US thinks it has a hard time holding together support for its continued presence in Iraq now, it would become impossible after an attack on Iran. The Shiite clerics in Iraq would send the people into violent resistance, that is if they would need any encouragement in the first place. The US might as well shoot itself in the head as far as creating any kind of lasting pro-US regime in Iraq.

Iran is actually an ally for the US in its struggle against Saudi fundamentalist Waahabist Islam. As predicted by Juan Cole, Saudi Arabia will use its huge oil profit windfall to further strenghten itself and its worldwide Wahaabist message, which is anti-USA at its very core. Iran's Shi'a leadership and the Persian people are natural and historic allies against Saudi Wahaabism.

Militarily, an attack on Iran would bring ruin to US relations with China and Russia, both of whom have been working closely with the Iranian regime, in many areas of military and economic cooperation. An American attack would further isolate the US and would give rise to more anti-US regimes along the lines of Chavez' Venezuela. Can you imagine dozens of Chavez-like leaders biting at George Bush's ankles and causing him to sweat profusely everywhere he goes?

Iran's potential nuclear weapons capability actually represents a counter-weight to other Sunni Islamic nuclear powers and potential nuclear powers. Iran is not so much a threat to the US as it is to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, and other hardline Sunni-dominated countries. An attack on Iran would destroy this balance and give hope to anti-US Sunni rejectionists in Iraq, not to mention anti-American Wahaabists in Saudi Arabia.

The alternative to a US attack on Iran's nuclear weapons potential would be an Israeli attack, both unthinkable for Israel and impermissible for the US. Despite Israeli saber-rattling, as well as US threats, the attack will not happen.

If I am wrong, and I grant my fallibility, it will only be because George Bush is even more foolish and reckless than I think he is.

Jailing Priests and Seizing Church Assets

No, I am not talking about jailing priests and seizing church assets for the actions of pedophile priests. I am talking about jailing them and seizing church assets when priests help the poor.

Huh, you say?

A provision, written by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) , has passed as part of the border security bill in the US House of Representatives that would make it a crime for priests, nurses and social workers , among others, to knowingly give aid and comfort to illegal immigrants.

"Those breaking the law will be held accountable," Mr. Sensenbrenner said, "whether they are smugglers cruelly trafficking in human beings, employers hiring illegal workers or alien gang members terrorizing communities." Or, priests helping illegal immigrants find food, he forgot to mention. And while priests or social workers could go to jail, employers would only face increased fines, which most of them will be willing to continue to risk, primarily because the number of INS inspectors is insufficient to the task of inspecting hundreds of thousands of employers.

The Language of Deceit

Agape Press (Reliable News from a Christian Source) has a story about a South Carolina education oversight panel that has "moved to modify four biology teaching guidelines in an effort to balance schools' teaching of evolution by introducing a broader range of scientific viewpoints."

The story is replete with the language of deceit about this issue of evolution, the proper Christian viewpoint evident in every subtle phrase and deceptive objection.

All we are asking for is a balanced viewpoint, all we seek is openness, all we want is people to be willing to discuss different perspectives -- it all sounds so fair and American and reasonable.

Listen to the words:

"broader range of scientific viewpoints;"

"criticism and analytical questioning ;"

"stimulate more discussion and debate;"

"to encourage the classroom teacher, through the curriculum, to be more rigorous and more relevant and to critically analyze information ;"

"full ranger of scientific views."

Sounds good, doesn't it? It sounds so, hmmm, balanced and fair.

I propose, yet again, that we make this offer to the agents of Christian totalitarian thought: we will open up scientific teaching in public schools about evolution to include the optional view on intelligent design if you, likewise, open all Christian schools and Biblical teachings to the scientific teaching of evolution.

Payola Journalism

The increasing revelations about payola journalism have brought a dark cloud over the entire world of reporters, writers, editors, columnists, and the newspapers and media outlets they work for. Now we have two more "columnists" admitting they have taken frequent payments from indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write columns favorable to his clients and financial bedmates.

As reported by Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post, "Copley News Service last week dropped Doug Bandow -- who also resigned as a Cato Institute scholar -- after he acknowledged taking as much as $2,000 a pop from Abramoff for up to two dozen columns favorable to the lobbyist's clients." Bandow was apologetic and remorseful.

According to Kurtz, "Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation has acknowledged taking payments years ago from a half-dozen lobbyists, including Abramoff. Two of his papers, the Washington Times and Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, have now dropped him." He is unapologetic, however, saying "There is nothing unethical about taking money from someone and writing an article."

The fact that Ferrara sees nothing unethical, wrong, misleading, or otherwise inappropriate for being a paid hack for a special interest party and then not revealing that fact as he continues to write a newspaper column that is not labeled "Advertisement" is one of the fundamental things gone wrong with present day journalism.

Take these two new instances of payola journalism, and combine them with the following:

government payoffs to radio personality Armstrong Willams (the probe is widening);

government sponsored stories supplied to the Iraqi media by the Lincoln Group, hired by the Pentagon;

Agricultural Department payments to freelance writer Dave Smith in return for favorable stories;

upwards of 50 journalists or writers paid by the Pentagon to write favorably about the Balkans War;

Department of Health and Human Services paid propaganda television "news" segments on CNN(unrevealed to the viewing public) about the new Medicare law;

at least 300 news shows used portions of seven prepackaged reports written by a former journalist, Mike Morris, hired by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and sent out to 770 affiliates, identified not as government PR but as news;

a veteran local news reporter in Florida, who covers the Jeb Bush government as part of his beat, was simultaneously taking tens of thousands of dollars through his own private company from various Jeb Bush government agencies for public relations work and film editing services;

What other instances of payola journalism don't we know about? How pervasive is this practice becoming? Is there any wonder that newspapers, journalists and news organizations poll so low among Americans?

One of the potential answers identified by Editor & Publisher is the fact that there seems to be less risk of payola journalism among real journalists, trained as journalists, practicing as journalists, or having studied journalism in college. Here's what E&P says:

The Washington Post Writers Group has a message for newspaper editors in this year of pundit payola: Maybe the syndicated columnists you buy should have journalistic backgrounds. In a note on PostWritersGroup.com, WPWG executives Alan Shearer and James Hill said their syndicate's columnists "are all journalists, and seven of them have won the Pulitzer Prize. Their journalistic integrity is your best protection of your journalistic integrity."Journalists "understand better where the boundaries are," added Shearer, when reached Thursday by E&P. "Editors should be very, very skeptical of columnists who didn't grow up in a journalistic culture. Take these columnists if you want, but read their stuff very carefully."

It is not a foolproof test, but I think it is a good start. Not all the miscreants are non-journalists, but most of them have, in fact, had no professional journalism experience. I would also guess that most of them are not members of the Newspaper Guild or the National Writers Union, another way we might be able to guage the integrity level of journalists and columnists.

Of course, in the end, anyone can call himself a journalist and anyone can call herself a newspaper columnist. With those labels comes an inherent supposition that the writer is not being paid by a private corporate entity or a governmental agency to write what they are told. The reading public has a right to know the difference. Newspapers and broadcast media have an obligation to distinguish between paid propaganda and bona fide reporting and commentary.
***********************

Postscript -- I did not feel the need to comment on the first part of Howard Kurtz's story at the beginning of this piece because the practice of President's strong-arming editors is not a new story. Democratic and Republican presidents have done it since the beginning of our democracy, some more flagrantly than others, and some more successfully than others. Bush is just another in a long line of those presidents who have done it clumsily, without finesse, and obviously panicked about self-image.

********************
(N.B. I am writing from Marin County in California, on a visit to our eldest daughter for the holidays, also celebrating the birth of our newest addition, Kendall Ann, now 13 days old. I will continue to write, but perhaps not daily. Thanks, as always, for stopping by Orwell's Grave.)

Nanotechnology -- Corporate Wet Dream II

My last blog entry resulted in a comment from Mr. Alan B. Shalleck taking me to task for not having done my "homework." He implores me to consider all of the concerned and responsible heads of companies who are in the nanotech business. He says that the industry recognizes the "risks that you over play." He advises: "Let's not blow off steam and scare the world about nanotechnology without understanding how responsible the industry itself is being."

The definition of nanotechnology, as provided by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN), is as follows:

Nanotechnology is the engineering of tiny machines—the projected ability to build things from the bottom up, using techniques and tools being developed today to make complete, highly advanced products. Shortly after this envisioned molecular machinery is created, it will result in a manufacturing revolution, probably causing severe disruption. It also has serious economic, social, environmental, and military implications.

Here is what CRN has to say about the dangers of nanotechnology:

Molecular nanotechnology (MNT) will be a significant breakthrough, comparable perhaps to the Industrial Revolution—but compressed into a few years. This has the potential to disrupt many aspects of society and politics. The power of the technology may cause two competing nations to enter a disruptive and unstable arms race. Weapons and surveillance devices could be made small, cheap, powerful, and very numerous. Cheap manufacturing and duplication of designs could lead to economic upheaval. Overuse of inexpensive products could cause widespread environmental damage. Attempts to control these and other risks may lead to abusive restrictions, or create demand for a black market that would be very risky and almost impossible to stop; small nanofactories will be very easy to smuggle, and fully dangerous. There are numerous severe risks—including several different kinds of risk—that cannot all be prevented with the same approach. Simple, one-track solutions cannot work. The right answer is unlikely to evolve without careful planning.

The very next sentence sums it up: The potential benefits of molecular manufacturing are immense, but so are the dangers.

Is the CRN overplaying the dangers? Let's take a look.

I am reassured, but only barely, by the fact that there is such an organization as the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, and that it has begun the process of indentifying and worrying about all the risks inherent in this technological wave of the future. Here is what the organization calls an "incomplete" list of the dangers:

Economic disruption from an abundance of cheap products
Economic oppression from artificially inflated prices
Personal risk from criminal or terrorist use
Personal or social risk from abusive restrictions
Social disruption from new products/lifestyles
Unstable arms race
Collective environmental damage from unregulated products
Free-range self-replicators (gray goo) — downgraded as a risk factor
Black market in nanotech (increases other risks)
Competing nanotech programs (increases other risks)
Attempted relinquishment (increases other risks)

And Mr. Shalleck contends that I have overplayed the risks?

You can read here full detailed discussions of the dangers of nanotechnology in the words of the "responsible" part of this industry, the CRN.

By way of disclosure, it should be noted that Mr. Shalleck operates a website, called Nanoclarity, dedicated to the science of nanotechnology, explaining it, providing what he calls "EXTRAORDINARY NANOCOMPANY OPPORTUNITIES," and directly recommending companies to invest in. Mr. Shalleck offers subscriptions to a newsletter this way: Stay ahead. Be savvy. Minimize your nanoinvestment risk...understand nanotech from an expert every month. Here is a press release announcing a milestone of 1000 subscribers for his newsletter. Nowhere in the release are any dangers or risks mentioned.

While I was perusing the Nanoclarity website today, I searched in vain for any mention of the "immense dangers" that the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology enumerates at great length. All I really found was language about the wonderful opportunities of investing in nanotechnology, why interested parties should subscribe to his newsletter, and his promises that he and his family would not invest in companies that he recommends to his subscribers until 90 days after he recommends them.

I also tried all the links he has on his front page, and I tried to go to the subscribe page (so I could find out how much a subscription costs), but the links all failed. Eventually, I was not even able to link to www.nanoclarity.com itself. Perhaps it was only a momentary failure.

Mr. Shalleck is teaching an MBA course about nanotechnology and investment in it at Rutgers University. In promoting his course at Rutgers on the website of Foresight Nanotech Institute (whose subtitle is Advancing Beneficial Nanotechnology) Shalleck says:

... look at my NanoClarity issue #4 in which I describe a series of business models for nanocompanies…and rate them as to their probability of reaching “sustainable profitability.” I will teach these in my “managing Technology” MBA course next fall at the Rutgers Business School.

Sustainable profitability, indeed.

As a lifelong scientist and teacher, I have no reason to doubt Mr. Shalleck's personal commitment to the beneficial exploitation of nanotechnology. I do worry, however, that his personal self-interest might cause him, unconsciously even, to pay only lip-service to the dangers, in favor of the benefits. The fact that he protests to me "how responsible the industry itself is being" while in all his public statements about nanotechnology does not once mention the "immense" dangers is reason for caution.

I find it revealing that Foresight Nanotech Institute feels the need to describe itself as "advancing beneficial nanotechnology." I assume it is because they want to distinguish themselves from all the others around the world who may not be advancing beneficial nanotechnology. I also find it interesting that, after perusing the Foresight website, I could not find any mention of risks or dangers. And I certainly was not reassured to find that among the speakers at the 2005 Foresight conference were representatives from Lockheed Martin (one of the nation's largest military contractors) and the Naval Surface Warfare Center.

In his comment on my blog, Mr. Shalleck seeks to reassure me that the "responsible" nanotech industry is having conversations with Congress, the FDA and other agencies. That Congress, the FDA, and other agencies, pretty much all bought and paid for by corporate money these days, are making decisions about nanotechnology is far from reassuring. I am, however, certain of one thing. For those who are investing in and developing nanotechnology, having the Congress, FDA and other federal agencies as a party (and thus, cover) to the process must certainly be reassuring to the nanotech industry.

Finally, I am interested in knowing what conversations the nanotechnology industry and nanotech scientists are having with the US Department of Defense and the American military-industrial establishment. I am interested in what the Pentagon is saying and doing about nanotech, and what worries they and our intelligence community might have about what the Russians, Indians, Chinese, and other countries with potential nanotech military interests are saying and doing.

I would like to know what percentage of multinational corporate enterprises, small and large, working on nanotechnology are not a part of Mr. Shalleck's "responsible" category. Who is not in the "beneficial" camp?

To be sure, the potential benefits of nanotechnology are revolutionary. You can read here all the purported potential benefits. If used exclusively for good, they may bring the rewards that Mr. Shalleck heralds. Nevertheless, this discussion about nanotechnology cannot be left to the Congress, the FDA, the White House, scientists, the military, industry and investors. There must be full disclosure and openness. Because this technology can either destroy us all, or benefit us all (at the very least, change our entire futures), the American people and the American media must be a major part of this discussion.

In an era of worldwide domination by corporate power, by the rule of oligopolies, and by authoritarian and dictatorial governments, I am not reassured, at all, by Mr. Shalleck's pats on the head.

Nanotechnology -- Corporations' Wet Dream

Ever heard of nanotechnology? It's the science of shrinking chemical components to sub-microscopic levels for use in potentially thousands of consumer products to make them more efficient, profitable, saleable, and inventive. Peter Montague writes about it this way:

For at least 10 years the U.S. has been banking on nanotechnology to fuel a new industrial revolution, pump up flagging rates of economic growth and make boatloads of money for already-wealthy investors, with perhaps some benefits trickling down to ordinary earthlings.

In a piece from Rachel's Democracy and Health News (the Rachel, in question, is Rachel Carson), Montague outlines the scope of this technology and how corporations around the globe, but especially in the United States, are vying for "command and control" of this revolutionary new technology.

Nanotechnology has already found its way into products such as sun screen, baby lotion, wrinkle-free trousers, tennis rackets, and computer hard-drives. According to Montague:

Nanotech has in fact been expanding at breakneck speed. The U.S. is investing more money, securing more patents (more than 1000 per year),and publishing more scientific papers on nanotechnology than competitors in any other country. The National Science Foundation estimates that by 2015 (a short 10 years from now) nanotech will be a $1 trillion business employing perhaps 2 million workers. And that's just the beginning, they hope. Presumably the nanotech industry, not the National Science Foundation.)

The federal government is investing $1 billion per year (4% of that into safety studies) into development of nanotech, while industry is funneling $8 billion per year, and even the states are funding $400 million per year in the hopes that their state can be home to the new silicon valley.

To get some sense of the almost-religious fervor of the corporate, pro-nanotech "evangelists," read what they say about this technology. In a report sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce, they use words like "essential to the future of humanity," holds the promise of "world peace, universal prosperity, and evolution to a higher level of compassion and accomplishment."

This is about as Orwellian as present-day corporate propaganda gets. Their interest in world peace and universal prosperity is lip-service in the cause of their bottom lines, and control of a new and potentially huge technological marketplace is what is in their cold hearts.

Of course, what has been lost in this not-so-benevolent or eleemosynary ambition to spark a new technology revolution for "world peace" and "universal prosperity" are the safety and health issues surrounding nanotech. Montague points out that even the President's own science advisor, Dr. John H. Marburger III warns that the toxicity studies now underway are "a drop in the bucket compared to what needs to be done." This Washington Post article covers the nanotechnology issue and Marburger's comment.

Montague outlines how we are repeating the errors of not sufficiently regulating the nuclear industry, the chemical industry and the petro-chemical industry. We still have no effective answers to the waste products created by these industries. As a result, our earth has become a garbage dump for their refuse and offal, and we have relinquished our power as citizens to curtail, regulate, and even shut down their continued depradation and vandalization of our land, water and air.

"When substances are broken into nano-sized particles, their properties change dramatically -- metals may become transparent, inert substances may suddenly become chemically reactive, and dielectrics may begin to conduct electricity." When all these new particles are discarded (a tennis racket does not last forever, hard-drives are already piling up by the millions), we know absolutely nothing about how these "waste" nano-particles will react with the environment, in landfills, and in our drinking water.

Montague tells the story of one such nano-particle, called bucky balls, named after Buckminster Fuller (because of their shape). Bucky balls are probably not something that would make him proud. Here's Montague:

Scientists have been hoping that bucky balls could be coated with medicines and injected into sick people to deliver specific remedies to specific parts of the body. Alternatively, EPA [U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency] has been hoping bucky balls could be released into the environment to detoxify some of the billions of tons of toxicwastes left over from the previous industrial revolution (which was based on nuclear and petrochemical evangelism). Last year, nano researchers showed that bucky balls in water could migrate into the brains of fish. In December, researchers at Vanderbilt University announced that bucky balls are soluble in water and will enter cells and probably bind with DNA -- the doubly-coiled molecule that transmits life from one generation to the next. Two engineers at Vanderbilt concluded that bucky balls "bind to the spirals in DNA molecules in an aqueous environment, causing the DNA to deform, potentially interfering with its biological functions and possibly causing long-term negative side effects in people and other living organisms."


In contrast, Montague looks at the utter failure of restraining the chemical industry. He points out that "the vast majority of chemicals in commercial use today have never been safety-tested and 1800 new compounds enter commercial channels each year almost entirely untested for effects on human health and the environment." Why? The corporations and their minions in Washington DC will not allow it. It's a simple proposition. Let me repeat it. They will not allow it. And they have the political and economic clout to prevent it from happening.

And Montague points out that the nuclear industry has avoided the same kind of control and regulation and has been able to dump enormous quantities of poison in our oceans, in the arctic, and in the deserts of America. He asks, rhetorically, "is there any reason to believe that the nanotech industry will be different?"

In a final negative assessment of the nanotech industry, Montague describes a pact between Environmental Defense (formerly known as The Environmental Defense Fund) and the American Chemistry Council (formerly the Chemical Manufacturers' Association) in which the enviros essentially give permission to the chemos to proceed apace, but agree that they will all look at the potentially hazardous side-effects as, or after, they occur. This agreement, in part, "calls for international efforts to standardize testing and risk assessment protocols for nanotechnology development,and the drafting of measures to protect human health and the environment while regulators, industry and the scientific community continue to research and develop the technology." So who wins round one? The industry gets, at least passive, approval from a major enviro group, they get the "cover" of regulation, and they can move ahead with all due speed toward their new nirvana.

The key part of this pact with the devil is the regulatory part. When things go wrong, and the public is angered by the hazards of nano-technology, the industry will say "The government approved this, so I'm not liable."

Corporations have done a splendid job, on all fronts, of stealing huge sums of taxpayer money, while, all along, attacking government for everything that goes wrong.

In the Bush corporate era, is there any chance of stemming the onslaught of nanotech?

I think not. It's full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, and let's make some money!

Unless people are knowledgeable (this is not a hot news topic), unless people vote (voting is not a common American practice), and unless we have candidates who are aware and who can educate the citizenry, the corporate world will win again.

Packaging Chemical Disrupts Young Brains

From FoodNavigator.com (Tip of the hat to Fern)

Low doses of Bisphenol A (BPA), a packaging chemical, can damage the development of young brains, according to new scientific study. The research from a University of Cincinnati scientific team on the packaging chemical adds to the growing body of scientific evidence indicating that it should not be used for food contact materials.

BPA works by disrupting the important effects of estrogen in the developing brain, the University of Cincinnati team, headed by Scott Belcher, reported. BPA shows negative effects in brain tissue "at surprisingly low doses". they say in two articles in the December 2005 edition of the journal Endocrinology.

"In the face of more than 100 studies published in peer-reviewed journals showing the detrimental effects of BPA, the chemical industry and federal regulatory agencies have resisted banning BPA from plastics used as food and beverage containers, despite the fact that plastics free of BPA and other toxic chemicals are available," Belcher stated.

BPA is used in the production of epoxy resins and polycarbonate plastics. The plastics are used in many food and drink packaging applications. Resins are commonly used as lacquers to coat metal products such as food cans, milk container linings, bottle tops, water supply pipes and dental sealants.

"While plastics are typically thought of as being stable, scientists have known for many years that the chemical linkage between BPA molecules was unstable, and that BPA leaches into food or beverages in contact with the plastics," he stated.

Scientific research has often implicated BPA in disease or developmental problems. The chemical has long been known to act as an artificial estrogen, the primary hormone involved in female sexual development.

BPA has already been shown to increase breast cancer cell growth. In the January 2005 edition of the journal Cancer Research, another University of Cincinnati research team reported that it increased the growth of some prostate cancer cells as well. Warnings about other possible long-term health risks associated with fetal exposures to BPA have also been discussed in recent scientific literature.

Belcher and his colleagues worked with rats at a period in their development equivalent to the third trimester of human fetal development through to the first few years of childhood.
Although best known for its function as a female sex hormone, Dr. Belcher explained, estrogen also has very important roles in the developing brain of both males and females.
In the absence of estrogen, Dr. Belcher said, BPA alone was found to mimic the actions of estrogen in developing neurons. Very low doses of BPA completely inhibited the activity of estrogen. Because estrogen normally increases the growth and regulates viability of developing neurons, he said, these results support the idea that BPA may harm developing brain cells.
While high doses cause little effect, analysis of cellular and molecular markers of estrogen signaling revealed that near-maximal effects of BPA on rat brain neurons not only occurred "at surprisingly low" doses of 0.23 parts per trillion, they also happened in a matter of minutes, Belcher stated.

"From other studies it's clear that these low concentrations are in line with human fetal exposures, and at levels one might even see in the water supply," he stated.
This "low-dose" effect of BPA is troubling, since its maximum effects occur at the level typical of human exposure. This means that the harmful effects of BPA could easily be missed using standard approaches for determining the risks of chemical exposure, he stated.
"These are important considerations in view of the widespread presence of low concentrations of BPA in the environment," he stated.

Earlier research, which showed estrogens could control the survival of maturing neurons in the brain region involved in movement and coordination. Belcher and his co-workers found the effects of estrogen were the same in both males and females.

"Estrogen's actions on these neurons appear to be a double-edged sword," he stated. "During certain periods of development estrogen can kill specific subsets of neurons, but at a later developmental stage it actually appears to increase their viability."
Disruption of either of these actions of estrogen could be considered potentially harmful, he added.

"We have now shown that environmental estrogens like BPA appear to alter, in a very complicated fashion, the normal way estrogen communicates with immature nerve cells," Belcher stated. "The developmental effects that we studied are known to be important for brain development and also for normal function of the adult brain."

What remains unclear is how the inappropriate hormone signaling, or blocking the normal signaling at a critical time during development, will influence humans in later life.
"These new studies are also the first to show that estrogen's rapid signaling mechanisms are active in the developing and maturing brain in regions not thought to be involved with sexual differences or reproductive functions," Belcher stated.

As reported earlier in FoodProductionDaily.com, US scientists from Tufts University School of Medicine in the US reported during the summer that low doses of BPAcould be a contributing factor to the development of breast cancer in women.

BPA was first shown to be oestrogenic in 1938, in a study using rats. In a 1993 study BPA was found to be oestrogenic in the human breast cancer cell, the scientists state. Another 1995 study found that the liquid in some cans of tinned vegetables have been found to contain both BPA and and the related chemical dimethyl bisphenol-A.

The highest levels of BPA were found in cans of peas. BPA was also found in the liquid from cans of artichokes, beans, mixed vegetables, corn and mushrooms. All liquids which contained BPA were found to be oestrogenic to a human breast cancer cell, the scientists reported.
In 1997 researchers Fred vom Saal and others at the University of Missouri-Columbia concluded that BPA was harmful to humans and that its use should be banned. They noted that BPA is also used in the manufacture bottles, from which it leaches at an increasing rate as the bottle ages.
BPA was first identified in the 1930s. In the 1950s, chemists linked BPA together to create polycarbonates and companies began using the chemical in plastics production. BPA is now one of the top 50 chemicals being produced in the US.

A study from a group of German researchers released in September provided the first direct evidence that human exposure to BPA in Europe is very low and is, at most, in a range similar to the levels reported in other parts of the world, according to a chemicial industry site.
The research was sponsored by UBA (Umweltbundesamt), which is the German Federal Environment Agency.

Bush Claims Contradicted

At least two leading Democrats have contradicted Bush's claims that leading Democrats were advised about the illegal NSA eavesdropping.

Think Progress has a piece about former Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) who was Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He has said this about his meetings with administration officials:

There was no reference made to the fact that we were going to…begin unwarranted, illegal — and I think unconstitutional — eavesdropping on American citizens.

And the Huffington Post refers us to a letter written by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) in which he clearly objects to the "direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology and survellance."

So with whom did the Administration consult on the Democratic side who did not object? Perhaps they had tea with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), both of whom they could count on looking the other way?

Give it some time. We will discover which Democrats were actually told and which ones did not object.

Venezuela Gives Oil Giant ExxonMobil Ultimatum

By Greg Morsbach BBC News, Caracas

Venezuela has become a key global oil producerVenezuela has given the world's biggest oil company, ExxonMobil, until the end of this year to enter a joint venture with the state.
Failure to do so will almost certainly result in Exxon losing its oil field concessions in the country.
Venezuela's socialist government has now signed new agreements with almost all foreign petroleum companies.

After months of pressure from left-wing leader Hugo Chavez most foreign oil firms working there have caved in. They have agreed to hand over a controlling stake of their oil interests to the Venezuelan state.

This means that Venezuela, which has the world's largest petroleum reserves, now calls the shots in what the foreign guests can and cannot do. In addition, the companies which have signed the new contracts - such as Chevron, BP, Shell and Total - will in future be presented with much higher tax bills by the government.

Foreign unease
But Venezuela says it is only fair that the foreigners are made to pay up as they have got away lightly in the past. Much of the oil revenue in Venezuela goes into social projects in shanty towns and poor rural areas. But the US oil giant, ExxonMobil, is digging in its heels and is so far refusing to agree to the terms of the new deal. Exxon risks losing Venezuelan operations if it fails to comply.

There is growing unease among foreign energy companies based Latin America that they may be forced to become junior partners by a string of left wing governments. In the case of Bolivia and the apparent shift to the left there following elections on Sunday, it is possible that the new government will decide to follow Venezuela's example and renegotiate oil and gas contracts with foreign investors.

****************************

And why not? It's way past time that countries around the world took more control of their own natural resources and used them for the good of their own people. The oil cartel needs an attitude adjustment of the severest kind. The black gold they have always felt is theirs by some divine right is not theirs, but rather the national resource of millions of people who deserve much more than they are receiving in return for the right of these companies to exploit it. And the industrialized world needs a prolonged shock of high oil prices to shake itself out of its lethargy regarding development of alternative energy sources. Perhaps more radical governments in oil rich countries kicking the oil cartel's butt might be what it takes for America and the rest of the developed world to come to its senses. As the reality of the world's oil peak approaches, watch for this to happen more and more. But, keep in mind, the one thing that can stop it is military action. And potential targets would include Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

Spying On Ourselves

From guest writer, Bob Warren, the Old Pessimist


It has not been a good two months for The Dubya’s Administration: the havoc wrecked by Katrina-Rita and the unresolved catastrophic failure of FEMA and the SBA to provide necessary assistance with at least some sense of dispatch; the imbroglio over how, or even if to rebuild the city of New Orleans; Scooter Libby’s indictment and Karl Rove’s continuing problems with Mr. Fitzgerald; increasing American casualties in Iraq and the seeming inability of the Coalition forces to effectively counter the insurgents’ continuing attacks; and further disquieting revelations about the government’s secret ‘rendition-for-torture’ escapades, involving the delivery of suspected terrorists (disenfranchised so-called ‘enemy combatants’) to black hole torment sites across the world.

Now comes the revelation, amidst the heated debate on Capitol Hill as to whether or not to extend various provisions of the so-called Patriot Act, that the super-secret National Security Agency has been tasked by the President to use the most sophisticated electronic intercept apparatus in the world to eavesdrop on domestic conversations without a warrant from the super-duper secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court which has direct, hands-on oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

This controversy, one which revolves within the orbit of the protections afforded to U.S. citizens by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, is itself shrouded and masked by notions of national security as it applies to the ever-dreaded, much ballyhooed, persistent War on Terrorism that followed the tragedy of NineEleven.

But the facts, if not their application, are relatively straight-forward and simple to understand. First, as Americans we are shielded by the Bill of Rights from unwarranted (forgive the pun) searches and seizures. Before any law enforcement (or intelligence) agents can barge into your house or office or boat or hideaway cabin in the woods or root through the trunk of your car or tap your phone or read your e-mail, they first must obtain a warrant from a designated member of the judiciary allowing them to do so, one based on notions of ‘probable cause.’ Over the years this has become a highly refined concept, subject to numerous U.S. Supreme Court opinions; there is no question but that its application is highly nuanced with carefully delineated exceptions. Nonetheless, no one knowledgeable in the law will argue that, on the whole, its practice is not both effective and respected by law enforcement authorities.

Secondly, since the shenanigans of the Nixon White House there has existed firm protection from government spying on its citizens for any reason, absent specific judicial sanction. (Remember the plumber’s ill-fated burglary of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office in retaliation for Ellsberg’s leak of the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and Washington Post?) For the past 25 years or more, the National Security Agency has thought to have been scrupulous in keeping hands off any domestic Signet activities.

The charge, first published by the New York Times on 12/15/05 in a lead article by James Risen and Eric Lichtbau, contends that, since early 2002, at any given moment NSA is eavesdropping without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States pursuant to what the Agency calls ‘a special collection program’ ordered and authorized by the President. The total number of Americans monitored without warrant and without their knowledge is unknown, since various ‘targets’ are placed on and removed from the list at different times. There may have been thousands of individual targets.

In pursuit of his War on Terrorism, Mr. Bush is pressing his presidential prerogatives to the limit, arguably beyond the boundaries set by statutory law and the Constitution. He appears to be taking a leaf from Tricky Dick’s book. As former President Nixon famously remarked in an interview with David Frost on May 19, 1977, “When the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.” There was an echo of those sentiments last week from none other than Senator Trent Lott who, remarking on the breaking news regarding NSA’s warrantless domestic surveillance procedures, observed: “I don’t agree with the libertarians. I want my security first. I’ll deal with the details after that.” [Source: Washington Post, 12/17/05, A01]

I know, I know, these are just a bunch of dangerous terrorists that we’re chasing here, people who want to bring down America, fanatics who have no truck with our notion of fair play, let alone with constitutional safeguards. Screw them. This is the right place to waive the rules.

Up to a point that’s true, of course, but so what? Where, when, and how do we draw the line, and most importantly, who makes that decision? The slow but persistent erosion of the rights and privileges that have shaped our society, that provide bedrock, fundamental protection for you and me, are under attack by an Administration that has become drunk on the influence of executive power and privilege. The operative theory? Link ‘terrorism’ with ‘national security’ and there is adequate justification for any measure, extralegal or not.

There is much presidential rhetoric Out There. As quoted by Christine Gauser in the New York Times on 12/16/05, President Bush made the following statement on ‘The News Hour with Jim Lehrer’ that evening: “We don’t talk about sources and methods. Don’t talk about ongoing intelligence operations. I know there is speculation. But it’s important for the American people to understand that we will do - or I use my powers to protect us, and I will do so under the law, and that’s important for our citizens to understand.” Given the source and given his history to date in the White House, I take scant comfort from such assurances, even if I can follow the tortured syntax.

The American public deserves to know what actions are being taken in furtherance of the War on Terrorism, since these measures are arguably as much a potential threat to our rights as to those of our sworn enemies. To think otherwise, to be unresponsive to this and similar issues, is to threaten ourselves. As repeatedly said here, to resort to such tactics inevitably leads Us to become Them. It’s not the intelligence that we seek to gain that I question — after all, it was a lack of credible intelligence that led us into this mess in the first place. Nor do I argue that the government must bare its intelligence secrets to public scrutiny. But its methodology in obtaining that intelligence, whether it’s torturing prisoners in Black Holes abroad or impermissibly eavesdropping on its own citizens at home, is a public issue, one that demands a thorough explanation from the Administration, preferably from a spokesperson who can communicate clearly, using intelligible English.

I close with three quotes from three leaders of the Third Reich. The first is from former Reichsmarshall Herman Göring; the second is from Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany’s Minister of Propaganda; the third is from der Führer himself:

“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is to tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works in any country.” - Herman Göring, Reichsmarshall

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important fro the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

“What luck for the rulers that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

[Source for each of the above: QuotationReference.com]

Am I comparing the Bush Administration to the Third Reich? Certainly not as an absolute. But if the comparison is limited to governmental secrecy, high-level manipulation of public opinion, questioning the right to dissent and to inquire, then the answer is a qualified “Yes.” National security, the War on Terrorism, extralegal methods of investigation (perhaps including sanctioned torture), repression of the Enemy Within, dissent as unpatriotic provocation — these echoes of another era are too compelling to dismiss. Individual rights sacrificed for the greater national good? Think back to Hitler’s Germany in, say, 1937, or Mussolini’s Italy in 1929-1931.

We can blame the Terrorists for many things, but we can’t blame them for ourselves — or can we?

Wolf Blitzer and THE SITUATION ROOM

Last night, after Bush's speech, Wolf Blitzer on his CNN show, The Situation Room (the set looks like something out of the bad sci-fi flick Aeon Flux), posed the question about getting out of Iraq, not as it has been posed by people like John Murtha, but as a question of whether "immediate withdrawal" is a good thing or not. As introduction to an interview with Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, Blitzer says this: "Coming up, Colin Powell's speaking out. We'll find out why he believes a call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq -- those calls would result in a tragic mistake. Stay with us."

In this one sentence, Blitzer essentially endorses Bush's strategy of "stay the course." Let's not even discuss the merits of setting a timeline for withdrawal. First, let's set up this straw man issue of immediate withdrawal and bring in Colin Powell to knock that down.

It is a phony issue. There are very few people advocating immediate withdrawal. Most responsible critics of Bush's Iraq war are proposing a phased withdrawal with a set timeline to do so. There is a very cogent argument being made by liberals and even some conservatives that by setting a timeline for withdrawal, the Iraqi government, police, military and people will realize the fact that they must take over sole responsibility for their governance and security, and given them the urgency to do so.

But Blitzer poses this question as if immediate withdrawal is what is being suggested. It is not.

What I believe may really be at issue here is whether the American military actually believes that the Iraqis can ever take over those responsibilities. Whether we do it now, or one year from now, or ten years from now, can it ever happen? Will instability rule Iraq for decades to come? Perhaps that is what they fear, and if we get out at any time, failure of our mission will result. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld legacy in Iraq will go down the tubes. And this is what worries them most.

And despite the Bush administration's own plan to reduce troop strength (which the Republicans never talk about because it essentially looks like what John Murtha has suggested), generals in the Pentagon wonder how it can be done. This exchange from last night between Blitzer and Barbara Starr, CNN's Pentagon correspondent, is revealing:

BLITZER: Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, when are we going to get the formal announcements of this 20,000 troop reduction from about 158,000 down to 138,000 now that the elections have come and gone?

STARR: Well, Wolf, General George Casey said last week that he is working on an assessment now, and expects to make the recommendation to the president about the 20,000 troops within the next several days.

All indications are by the end of the year, by the new year. The military will have made the recommendation to the president. Whether he announces it at that time still remains to be seen because of this very critical calculation. What will the insurgency look like? What will the Sunni Ba'athists do in the days after the election now? Will violence take an upturn?

How do you announce a reduction in U.S. troops if there are still more and more attacks coming? [emphasis added]

BLITZER: All right, Barbara, stand by for a moment.

Great questions brought up by Starr, but never answered. They just hang out there, unrecognized and unacknowledged by Blitzer or any of his other guests.

And then we have this incisive report from CNN's Jacki Schechner:

Blitzer: The president's speech is already generating lots of buzz online. Let's go to our Internet reporter Jacki Schechner. She's watching the situation there. What are you picking up already, Jackie?

JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN INTERNET REPORTER: Wolf, this is what's so cool about the blogs. You want to know how a speech like this resonates with the general public? All you got to do is go online to look for comments.And I'll tell you what I'm seeing early from the right is this was an excellent, excellent speech.

From The National Reviews blog, the Corner, K.J. Lopez pointing out that it was a strong solid address. Captain's Quarters blog, another big conservative blog, smart, presidential. Over at Redstate.org, they opened up their comments sections and let people weigh in. People were saying this is the speech we should have been hearing all along. It would have put President Bush in a better light.

Now on the left, a lot of them read the speech, why bother to watch it. I tell you, Think Progress got an early copy, posted it. Other big liberal blogs were linking to it. I don't even know that a lot of them even watched the speech. They were not impressed. Think Progress pointing out there was no mention of a timeline. That's what they're looking for.

As for reaction from politicians, a lot of them posting online as well. Senator Frist saying this was a strong presidential speech. And Senator Feingold again pointing out no timeline.

So Bush - Wolf, I'm sorry, immediate reaction online to President Bush's speech.

There is also a silly conversation between Democratic New York Representative "Charlie" Rangle and Republican New York Representative"Pete" King about the Presidential wiretapping, as predictable as you can imagine.

Surprisingly, the only good question Blitzer asked during the course of the evening, was sucked up into the ether and never addressed by anyone:

BLITZER: ....the argument is that the president could have done this by simply going to that -- what's called that "Phizer Court," the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act court. There's a judge there who sits in super-secret session over at the Justice Department. And also on a routine basis, rubber stamps these requests for wire taps, for surveillance. So what was the problem with simply doing that and then you have the cover of a court order?

It is an obvious question that no one, to my knowledge, has answered. If what the president wanted to do was within the legal limits of the Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act, he would have received a judge's approval. In fact, I believe Bush and his lawyers were afraid that they would not have received them in many of these instances. And despite what Rep. King says is a long list of people who have stated that the President has an "inherent constitutional right" to engage in domestic spying, this is only one small step away from the claim of the divine right of kings.

Perhaps the most astounding comment made during the course of this hour-long drama news series, was when Pete King said, in responding to a question about domestic spying:

Well, first of all, Wolf, if he had done this back in 1998, 1999 and 2000, we probably wouldn't have had the attacks of September 11.

The implication, of course, is that had Bill Clinton aurthorized illegal domestic spying during his administration, we would not have been attacked. Not a peep from Blitzer or Rangel in response to this outrageously indefensible claim.

Democracy in Iraq

On the day after Iraqis went to the polls this year, for the third time, it is difficult to find news or comment about it this morning on the progressive or liberal weblogs. I observed the same thing previously.

AmericaBlog's top story is about pre-war intelligence.

Buzzflash has alot of stories, none of them about the Iraqi election.

Common Dreams has nothing.

Juan Cole writes about how the large Sunni turnout is actually bad for the Bush administration because it confirms the Sunni opposition to the continued American occupation. No kidding? That's somewhat akin to saying that it's bad for Democrats when all the Republicans show up and vote in Mississippi.

AlterNet has one piece by Larry Johnson entitled Democracy and Delusion in Iraq which was written before the actual vote and discredits it a priori. One of the stunning things that Johnson claims is that the result is a foregone conclusion because the Shiites represent 80% of the country. Well, duhhh.

Here's the lead in The New York Times:

In a day remarkable for its calm, millions of Iraqis from across the country cast ballots today to elect a parliament to a four-year term, with Sunni Arabs turning out in what appeared to be very heavy numbers and guerrillas mounting relatively few armed attacks.
Iraqi officials said initial indications were that as many as 11 million people cast ballots, which, if the estimate holds true, would put the overall turnout at more than 70 percent. With Iraqis still lining up to vote in front of ballot centers as the sun went down, Iraqi officials ordered the polls to stay open an extra hour.

Each time the Iraqis go to the polls to vote, I notice a disturbing quiet among progressive and liberal bloggers and commentators about the actual act of millions of Iraqis voting. Many of us (myself included) spend an enormous amount of time condemning the war, pointing out all its faults, listing the lies on which it is based, and indicting numerous government officials for waging the war.

Nevertheless, each time greater numbers of Iraqis go to the polls and vote, each time we witness "democracy in action" in Iraq, might we not rejoice a little in this positive development? It may be that it is fleeting, it may be that the country will ultimately be torn apart by civil war, it may be that the country peacefully splits into three parts (Sunni, Shi'a and Kurd), but whatever the outcome, these exercises in electoral politics are something we should embrace.

In each human being, anywhere on the face of this earth, and in spite of historical or cultural disconnect, in spite of religious or political dogma, there is a longing to be free, to enjoy deciding one's own fate. Casting a ballot is one of the most elemental ways humans can decide their own fates. In Iraq, this practice has, up until now, only been imaginary. Isn't there something about what millions of Iraqis are doing that critics of Bush might examine and appreciate more closely?

We can't undo what George Bush did. But we can work with what we have now. And while I agree with Nir Rosen's piece, which I published yesterday, that the US military CAN get out of Iraq, and needs to, I also want to support the idea that we, as radicals, as progressives, as liberals, as democrats, ought to support the notion of electoral politics in Iraq, as crazy and as corrupt as it might be at the top. The fact that 11 million Iraqis--stonemasons, housewives and mothers, truck drivers, police trainees, shop owners, teachers--70 % of eligible voters, turned out and voted needs to be celebrated.

Just look at the number of political parties that were on various slates in the Iraqi election yesterday. Even though our democracy has experienced little in the way of multi-party competition, just the fact that such an array of competing parties and interests exists in Iraq ought to be appreciated.

What I am saying is that, despite the wrong or illegal or immoral nature of Bush's unilateral invasion of sovereign Iraq, there are millions of Iraqi men and women who have hopes and dreams of democracy and peace. Here's the best example of it: when they dip their fingers in that purple ink, millions of Iraqi women are sending a message that they want a free, democratic Iraq not ruled by religious bigotry and patriarchy. We need to support those aspirations.