CIPHI Discussion Forum

Health Protection: Cornerstone of Public Health
It is currently Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:20 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
Amazon, Kindle and an Orwellian misstep

Jul 27, 2009 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (11)
Michael Geist

For months, many consumers have lamented the absence of the Kindle, Amazon's popular electronic book reader, from the Canadian market. Now in its second version, the Kindle has proven to be a major success story in the United States with a loyal user base that relishes the chance to wirelessly access books, periodicals and web content on a single, sleek device.

Yet two recent controversies cast doubt on the Kindle, and in the process highlight how consumers may find themselves vulnerable as they embrace electronic books.

The first issue arose soon after the second edition of Kindle debuted. The new device featured impressive text-to-voice technology that enabled users to play the content aloud. Just as groups representing the blind celebrated a mainstream device that would provide new access to millions of written works, Amazon backtracked, allowing book publishers to disable the feature.

Within weeks many larger publishers had shut off the read-aloud functionality, concerned that it could hamper audio book sales. That decision led to a recent lawsuit at Arizona State University, where the National Federation of the Blind challenged plans to use the device to distribute electronic textbooks to students.

Earlier this month, another Kindle "feature" garnered negative attention. Without any warning or consent, Amazon remotely deleted copies of two books from thousands of Kindle devices. Few customers were aware that Amazon retained the technical capability to erase ebooks from their devices. Yet, when the company learned that two books had been distributed without proper authorization, it simply deleted the books and promised a refund.

The case proved that fact is often stranger than fiction since the books were George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm, conjuring up new images of the Orwellian vision of information control.

The deletion sparked immediate outrage. Experts noted that Amazon had no legal obligation to delete the books. Furthermore, a bookseller could never enter someone's home to reclaim a book, yet Amazon surprisingly had the power to do so with its electronic books. In fact, the deletion process even erased users' annotations and notes, with one summer student claiming that weeks of work was lost in the process.

While Amazon has since apologized and promised that it won't repeat the Orwell misstep, the reality is that this incident is only the latest in a long line in which companies prove to be their own worst enemy by undermining consumer confidence in the digital economy.

Whether the infamous Sony rootkit case, in which the record company surreptitiously installed computer programs on users' computers that created security vulnerabilities, or the online music and video services that utilize digital locks that later leave consumers shut out of their content when business circumstances or technological needs change, the use of digital rights management technologies to control devices or content regularly backfires.

Last week the Canadian government launched a copyright consultation that links these technologies with government policy. One of the questions asks: "What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?" Part of the answer may involve avoiding laws that promote business models that may later leave consumers at a loss should a company unilaterally decide to hit the delete button.

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca, or online at michaelgeist.ca

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
From the barrel of a gun
After completing a painting, Viktor Mitic takes it to a shooting range where he puts on the finishing touches, sometimes spraying as many as 3,000 bullets at a canvas. Fernando Morales The Globe and Mail

After completing a painting, Viktor Mitic takes it to a shooting range where he puts on the finishing touches, sometimes spraying as many as 3,000 bullets at a canvas.

Viktor Mitic is creating portraits of iconic figures that are gaining attention from audiences and museums for the artist's shoot ‘em up style

Jennifer Yang

From Monday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Monday, Jul. 27, 2009 08:39AM EDT

In a silent 42-minute video, Toronto painter Viktor Mitic demonstrates his strange artistic process.

In one scene, we see his portrait of Jesus Christ, a minimalist work done in vivid acrylics. A halo of gold leaf crests over Jesus's head and his gaze is serene, seemingly fixed upon something in the far-off distance.

Or perhaps he's looking toward the assault rifle that suddenly moves into the frame. The gun pauses briefly over Jesus's left temple, then rapidly blasts a constellation of bullet holes around his head.

Mitic is no agnostic – the 40-year-old Serbian-born artist is Orthodox Christian. Nor is he a gun enthusiast, he insists. He just likes to create art, using the occasional AK-47 or semi-automatic pistol.

“It is a bit strange,” Mitic admits. “Before I was like, ‘Oh my God, I'm going to shoot the picture of Jesus.' But then I realized I'm not shooting at the picture of Jesus, I'm creating a picture of Jesus with this medium.”

Mitic was so pleased with the results that he's since taken up arms against all of his artworks – which has spurred both outrage from some audiences and interest from galleries.

It's the kind of attention-getting strategy that has worked before. From Andreas Serrano's Piss Christ (a photo of a crucifix in urine) to Chris Ofili's Virgin Mary portrait using elephant dung, disrespect for iconic imagery can be good for sales.

Jesus continues to be one of Mitic's targets. The painter also recently completed a triptych of portraits that will be exhibited at Toronto's AWOL gallery next month. And he's finishing a portrait series of well-known art dealers such as Larry Gagosian, Nicholas Metivier and Alan Loch – a scheme likely to capture even more attention from movers and shakers in the art world.

In fact, it was an art dealer who first inspired Mitic's interest in the artistic potential of guns, after a rather unpleasant encounter last June.

The dealer dropped by Mitic's studio to appraise some paintings but spent the entire visit on his cellphone, shushing the artist while trying to sell a Michelangelo Pistoletto painting to a New York client. The dealer left, but not without first glancing over Mitic's Jesus Christ portrait and declaring it “not penetrating enough.”

A somewhat impish man with a predilection for puns, Mitic immediately had an idea: He called his friend, fellow artist Kiat Lim Chew, and three hours later they were in a 24-hour shooting range in Buffalo, unleashing a salvo of bullets onto the work. Mitic has since named the painting, appropriately, Hole Jesus . Its price is $8,050.

“I was thinking, ‘Am I going to be punished by God later on in life?'” he recalls. “But then you just go into a different zone and it became work, it became painting.”

To date, Mitic has punched about 100,000 gunpowder-scorched holes through more than 50 of his paintings. He still crosses the border to create his “penetrating art” because Ontario shooting ranges won't let him use pictures of people as targets, something they fear can be construed as practising for an execution or assassination.

So far, he's pointed his gun at images of Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Benazir Bhutto, John F. Kennedy and the Virgin Mary, to name a few. He's shot a painting of John Lennon using the same model of gun that killed the singer, a Charter Arms .38-calibre pistol. He's also doused a painting of Mao Zedong in pig's blood, blasting it full of holes and naming it Mao Tze Bang .

And then there's his painting of the Last Supper, which Mitic spent seven hours spraying with about 3,000 rifle bullets. This one he dubbed The Blast Supper .

As violent as it all sounds, Mitic insists his work is about subverting guns and their negative connotations. “It's about disturbing the norm,” he says. “Weapons have been used against people. I'm trying to use it as a pencil, as a paintbrush.”

Before discovering the way of the gun, Mitic created mostly large abstract works. In 1995, he was also commissioned to paint a portrait of Jean Chrétien.

Originally from Belgrade, Mitic studied fine arts in northern Serbia at the University of Novi Sad and served a mandatory stint in the Serbian army before moving to Toronto in 1990. He now lives here with his wife, Azusa, and their two children. The oldest, his son Ansel, is 4 and has already had a joint exhibition with his father.

Some of his work has triggered a backlash from art audiences. After exhibiting at Toronto's Trias Gallery last fall and doing a few media interviews, he says he started receiving angry responses.

“I got some phone calls, ‘You asshole, how dare you,'” he says. “I just tell them it's just a painting.”

But fellow artists have expressed appreciation for his work, including Charles Pachter, the Canadian contemporary artist often referred to as a “northern Warhol.”

Pachter says he particularly enjoys one of Mitic's arms-free works, entitled Screw Stephen Harper in which the artist used 1,500 screws to create a likeness of our prime minister.

“Some of it is smartass, some of it is mischievous, but that's art too,” Pachter says. “He definitely knows how to push paint around.”

But whether or not Mitic's bullet art is good art, Pachter adds, remains to be seen. He warns that there's a distinction between innovation and shock art, and work like Mitic's often risks becoming the latter.

“Sometimes he's right on and sometimes he's not. But he's playing around with pop images,” Pachter says. “Every once in a while he comes up with something I think is pointed. But is he brilliantly talented? I can't say yet.”

But Pachter did recommend Mitic to the Beaverbrook Art Gallery in New Brunswick this year, which was seeking contemporary portraits of the gallery's founder for its 50th anniversary celebration.

Mitic proposed a portrait of Lord Beaverbrook called Blasted Beaverbrook and curator Terry Graff chose it for the gallery's permanent collection. It will hang this fall alongside two other Beaverbrook portraits by Pachter and John Boyle.

As for Mitic, he recognizes his work might be too outré for everyone's liking. But he stands by his method as a legitimate way of creating art with some punch.

“It sounds like something that somebody who needs attention would do but it is a very interesting process,” he says. “I don't want people to be angry; I want them to react.”

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
West Vancouver police officer avoids jail time
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 | 11:09 AM PT Comments11Recommend10
CBC News

A West Vancouver police officer has been given a conditional jail sentence without jail time after pleading guilty to the drunken assault of a 47-year-old newspaper delivery man in downtown Vancouver last January.

The conditional sentence means the Const. Griffin Gillan, 25, will not spend any time behind bars for the assault.

The victim, Phil Khan, told police he had been beaten and robbed by three off-duty police officers outside the Hyatt Hotel.
More to come


Rickrazor wrote:Posted 2009/07/29
at 2:34 PM ETA West Vancouver police officer has been given a conditional jail sentence without jail time

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

Did anyone expect anything different? He still has his badge and gun and can now go out and abuse other non-white civilians knowing he will never be punished for it.

The justice system has created another corrupt cop. Congratulations.

* 5
* 1

5Agree 1DisagreePolicy Report abuse
Madronian wrote:Posted 2009/07/29
at 2:33 PM ETDoes he get to keep his job so that he can "protect and serve" others innocent people?

Had this story been one of someone spitting on an officer or an official, there would be jail time for sure.

We have such perverted "justice" in this country. It makes me wonder.....

* 4
* 0

4Agree 0DisagreePolicy Report abuse
NeilWilliams wrote:Posted 2009/07/29
at 2:27 PM ETGood news for the rest of us.

If for some reason I evern have 20 drinks in one night.
I can now drive around, find someone to beat up, beat them up, rob them, then spit at police officers while being arrested.

And I won't go to jail.

* 18
* 0

18Agree 0DisagreePolicy Report abuse
M----- wrote:Posted 2009/07/29
at 2:27 PM ETI am disgusted. Once again it shows that the police are above the law. Lots of witnesses, video evidence, and the victim's own testimony, and all the guilty cop gets is a conditional sentence.

* 27
* 1

27Agree 1DisagreePolicy Report abuse
Neil Gregory wrote:Posted 2009/07/29
at 2:26 PM ETOne law for the cops and a different law for the rest of us. It is time for a change!

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
The Danger of Keeping Robert Gates

by Robert Parry

.
Global Research, January 4, 2009
consortiumnews.com - 2008-11-13


Press reports say Barack Obama may retain George W. Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates as a gesture to war-time continuity, bipartisanship and respect for the Washington insider community, which has embraced Gates as something of a new Wise Man.

However, if Obama does keep Gates on, the new President will be employing someone who embodies many of the worst elements of U.S. national security policy over the past three decades, including responsibility for what Obama himself has fingered as a chief concern, “politicized intelligence.”

During a campaign interview with the Washington Post, Obama said, “I have been troubled by … the politicization of intelligence in this administration.” But it was Gates – as a senior CIA official in the 1980s – who broke the back of the CIA analytical division’s commitment to objective intelligence.

In a recent book, Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA, former CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman identifies Gates as the chief action officer for the Reagan administration’s drive to tailor intelligence reporting to White House political desires. A top “Kremlinologist,” Goodman describes how Gates reversed a CIA tradition of delivering tough-minded intelligence reports with “the bark on.”

That ethos began to erode in 1973 – with President Richard Nixon’s appointment of James Schlesinger as CIA director and Gerald Ford’s choice of George H.W. Bush in 1976 – but the principle of objectivity wasn’t swept away until 1981 when Ronald Reagan put in his campaign chief, William Casey, as CIA director.

Casey then chose the young and ambitious Robert Gates to run the analytical division. Rather than respect the old mandate for “bark on” intelligence, “Bob Gates turned that approach on its head in the 1980s and tried hard to anticipate the views of policymakers in order to pander to their needs,” Goodman wrote.

“Gates consistently told his analysts to make sure never to ‘stick your finger in the eye of the policymaker.’”

It didn’t take long for the winds of politicization to blow through the halls of CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia.

“Bill Casey and Bob Gates guided the first institutionalized ‘cooking of the books’ at the CIA in the 1980s, with a particular emphasis on tailoring intelligence dealing with the Soviet Union, Central America, and Southwest Asia,” Goodman wrote.

“Casey’s first NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] as CIA director, dealing with the Soviet Union and international terrorism, became an exercise in politicization. Casey and Gates pushed this line in order to justify more U.S. covert action in the Third World.

“In 1985, they ordered an intelligence assessment of a supposed Soviet plot against the Pope, hoping to produce a document that would undermine Secretary of State [George] Shultz’s efforts to improve relations with Moscow. The CIA also produced an NIE in 1985 that was designed to produce an intelligence rationale for arms sales to Iran.”

Hyping Soviet Power

One of the key distortions pushed by Casey and Gates was the notion that the Soviet Union was a military behemoth with a robust economy – rather than a decaying power with a shriveling GNP. The logic of the Casey-Gates position was that exaggerating the Soviet menace justified higher U.S. military spending and U.S. support for bloody brush-fire wars – central elements of Reagan’s foreign policy.

Since the mid-1970s, the CIA’s analytical division had been noting cracks in the Soviet empire as well as signs of its economic-technological decline. But that analysis was unwelcome among Reagan’s true-believers.

So, in 1983 when CIA analysts sought to correct over-estimations of Soviet military spending – to 1 percent a year, down from 4 to 5 percent – Gates blocked the revision, according to Goodman.

From his front-row seat at CIA headquarters, Goodman watched in dismay as Gates used his bureaucratic skills to consolidate the agency’s new role underpinning favored White House policies.

“While serving as deputy director for intelligence from 1982 to 1986, Gates wrote the manual for manipulating and centralizing the intelligence process to get the desired intelligence product,” Goodman stated.

Gates promoted pliable CIA careerists to top positions, while analysts with an independent streak were sidelined or pushed out of the agency.

“In the mid-1980s, the three senior [Soviet division] office managers who actually anticipated the decline of the Soviet Union and Moscow’s interest in closer relations with the United States were demoted,” Goodman wrote, noting that he was one of them.

“The Reagan administration would not accept any sign of Soviet weakness or constraint, and CIA director Casey and deputy director Gates made sure intelligence analysis presented the Russian Bear as threatening and warlike,” Goodman wrote.

These institutional blinders remained in place for the rest of the 1980s.

“As a result, the CIA missed the radical change that Mikhail Gorbachev represented to Soviet politics and Soviet-American relations, and missed the challenges to his rule and his ultimate demise in 1991,” Goodman wrote.

When the Soviet Union – the CIA’s principal intelligence target – collapsed without any timely warning to the U.S. government, the CIA analytical division was derided for “missing” this historic moment. But the CIA didn’t as much “miss” the Soviet collapse as it was blinded by Gates and other ideological taskmasters to the reality playing out in plain sight.

Goodman was not alone in identifying Gates as the chief culprit in the politicization of the CIA’s intelligence product. Indeed, Gates’s 1991 confirmation hearing to be George H.W. Bush’s CIA director marked an extraordinary outpouring of career CIA officers going public with inside stories about how Gates had corrupted the intelligence product.

There also were concerns about Gates’s role in misleading Congress regarding the secret Iran-Contra operations in the mid-1980s, an obstacle that had prevented Gates from getting the top CIA job when Casey died in 1987.

Plus, in 1991, Gates faced accusations that he had greased his rapid bureaucratic rise by participating in illicit or dubious clandestine operations, including helping Republicans sabotage President Jimmy Carter’s Iran hostage negotiations in 1980 (the so-called October Surprise case) and collaborating on a secret plan to aid Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein (the Iraqgate scandal).

Despite significant evidence implicating Gates in these scandals, he always managed to slip past relying on his personal charm and Boy Scout looks. For his 1991 confirmation, influential friends like Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman David Boren, D-Oklahoma, and Boren’s chief of staff George Tenet made sure Gates got the votes he needed.

In his memoir, From the Shadows, Gates credited his friend, Boren, with clearing away the obstacles. “David took it as a personal challenge to get me confirmed,” Gates wrote. (Tenet’s help on Gates also earned him some chits with the Bush Family, which paid off in 2001 when Tenet was Bill Clinton’s last CIA director and was kept on by George W. Bush, whom he served loyally, if incompetently.)

After getting confirmed in 1991, Gates remained CIA director until the end of George H.W. Bush’s presidency. However, even after Bill Clinton removed him in 1993, Gates never wandered far from the Bush Family orbit, getting help from George H.W. Bush in landing a job as president of Texas A&M.

Damaging Documents

During the Clinton years, documents surfaced implicating Gates in questionable actions from the 1980s, but the new evidence got little notice.

For instance, the Russian government sent an extraordinary intelligence report to a House investigative task force in early 1993 stating that Gates had participated in secret contacts with Iranian officials in 1980 to delay release of 52 U.S. hostages then held in Iran, a move that undercut President Carter.

“R[obert] Gates, at that time a staffer of the National Security Council in the administration of Jimmy Carter, and former CIA Director George Bush also took part” in a meeting in Paris in October 1980, the classified Russian report said.

In the 1980s, Moscow was very interested in the U.S. dealings with the new Islamic government of Iran, a neighboring country to the Soviet Union.

In July 1981, the Soviets even shot down an Argentine-registered plane that strayed into Soviet airspace while delivering a supply of weapons from Israel to Iran, a secret shipment that had the Reagan administration’s blessing.

The Russian allegation about Gates and the Paris meeting in October 1980 also didn’t stand alone. The House task force had other evidence from French and Israeli intelligence officials, as well as witnesses from the arms-trafficking field, corroborating reports of Reagan-Bush contacts with Iranian officials in Europe during Campaign 1980.

However, the House task force never followed up on the Russian report because when it arrived – on Jan. 11, 1993 – the chairman, Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Indiana, had already decided to get rid of the October Surprise case as part of a sweeping clean of investigations into alleged Reagan-Bush wrongdoing.

Years later, Lawrence Barcella, the task force’s chief counsel, told me that in late 1992 evidence implicating the Republicans in the October Surprise caper had begun pouring in, so much so that he urged Hamilton to extend the investigation several months.

Instead, Hamilton ordered the inquiry wrapped up – and the October Surprise allegations rejected – all the better to start the new Clinton administration with a bipartisan gesture to the Republicans.

Like much of the other incriminating evidence, the Russian report was shoved into a box and stuck in a remote Capitol Hill storage room. I discovered it in late 1994 after gaining access to the task force's documents.

By then, however, there was almost no media interest in the “old” scandals of the Reagan-Bush years. Not only were those stories dated, but many of the central players were either dead or – like Gates – out of government.

[For details on the October Surprise case, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege. For the text of the Russian report, click here. To view the actual U.S. embassy cable that includes the Russian report, click here.]

Iraqgate Scandal

Gates also was implicated in a secret operation to funnel military assistance to Iraq in the 1980s, as the Reagan administration played off Iran and Iraq battling each other in the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq War.

Middle Eastern witnesses alleged that Gates worked on the secret Iraqi initiative, which included Saddam Hussein’s procurement of cluster bombs and chemicals used to produce chemical weapons for the war against Iran.

Gates denied all the Iran-Iraq accusations in 1991, and Boren’s Senate Intelligence Committee never pressed too hard to check them out.

However, four years later – in early January 1995 – Howard Teicher, one of Reagan’s National Security Council officials, added more details about Gates’s alleged role in the Iraq shipments.

In a sworn affidavit submitted in a Florida criminal case, Teicher stated that the covert arming of Iraq dated back to spring 1982 when Iran had gained the upper hand in the war, leading President Reagan to authorize a U.S. tilt toward Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

The effort to arm the Iraqis was “spearheaded” by CIA Director William Casey and involved his deputy, Robert Gates, according to Teicher’s affidavit.

“The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq,” Teicher wrote.

Ironically, this same pro-Iraq initiative involved Donald Rumsfeld, then Reagan’s special emissary to the Middle East. An infamous photograph from 1983 shows a smiling Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.

Teicher described Gates’s role as far more substantive than Rumsfeld’s. "Under CIA Director [William] Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA authorized, approved and assisted [Chilean arms dealer Carlos] Cardoen in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq,” Teicher wrote.

However, like the Russian report, the Teicher affidavit was never seriously examined or explained.

After Teicher submitted it to a federal court in Miami, the affidavit was classified and then attacked by Clinton administration prosecutors. They saw Teicher’s account as disruptive to their prosecution of a private company, Teledyne Industries, and one of its salesmen, Ed Johnson.

Gates benefited, too, from Official Washington’s boredom with – and even hostility toward – Reagan-Bush-I-era scandals.

Instead, the polite and personable Gates continued to enjoy influential protectors on both sides of the aisle, from Republicans around George H.W. Bush to Democrats like David Boren and Lee Hamilton.

Plus, some of Gates's CIA protégés, such as former Deputy Director John McLaughlin, were liked by Democrats as well as Republicans. (McLaughlin was a member of Obama’s intelligence advisory group during Campaign 2008.)

Great Timing

Gates’s connections – and his timing – served him well when he was placed on the Iraq Study Group in 2006 along with its co-chairs, Lee Hamilton and Bush Family lawyer James Baker. By fall 2006, the ISG was moving toward recommending a drawdown of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Meanwhile, President George W. Bush found himself in need of a new Defense Secretary to replace Donald Rumsfeld, who had grown disillusioned with the Iraq War.

Though Rumsfeld was viewed publicly as a hardliner, privately he sided with his field commanders, Generals George Casey and John Abizaid, in favoring a smaller U.S. “footprint” in Iraq and a phased withdrawal. Rumsfeld put his views in writing on Nov. 6, 2006, the day before congressional elections.

With Rumsfeld going wobbly, Bush turned to Gates and – after getting Gates’s assurance that he would support Bush’s intent to escalate the war, not wind it down – Bush offered him the job.

Rumsfeld’s firing and Gates’s hiring were announced the day after the Nov. 7 elections and were widely misinterpreted as signs that Bush was throwing in the towel on Iraq.

Rumsfeld’s memo was disclosed by the New York Times on Dec. 3, 2006, two days before Gates was scheduled for his confirmation hearing. [See Consortiumnews.com’s "Gates Hearing Has New Urgency."]

But Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee were so enthralled by the false narrative of Bush tossing over the ideologue (Rumsfeld) in favor of the realist (Gates) that they took no note of what the real sequence of events suggested, that Bush was determined to send more troops.

Gates was whisked through to confirmation with no questions about the Rumsfeld memo and with unanimous Democratic support. Sen. Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats praised Gates for his “candor.”

Within a few weeks, however, it became clear that Bush – with Gates’s help – had bamboozled the Democrats.

Not only did Bush dash the Democrats’ hopes for a bipartisan strategy on Iraq by junking the ISG recommendations, but he chose to escalate by adding 30,000 new troops. Instead of negotiating with Iran and Syria as the ISG wanted, Bush sent aircraft carrier strike groups to the region.

For his part, Gates joined in pummeling the Democrats by suggesting that their legislation opposing the "surge" was aiding and abetting the enemy.

“Any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks,” Gates told reporters at the Pentagon on Jan. 26, 2007. “I’m sure that that’s not the intent behind the resolutions, but I think it may be the effect.”

During Campaign 2008, Gates also opposed Obama’s plan to set a 16-month timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

Nevertheless, Gates remains a favorite of the Washington insiders, many of whom – like Lee Hamilton – have expressed warm support for the idea of keeping him on at least for the early part of the Obama presidency.

If the President-elect is serious about taking that advice, he first might want to review the extensive evidence of Gates’s devious behavior and consider whether Gates deserves the trust of the American people – and their newly elected government.

This is the third part of a series on the political realities that will face President Obama. For part one, click on “Can the Republicans Change?" For part two, click on "Obama: Beware the Lessons of '93.”

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

Robert Parry is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Robert Parry

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
Naomi Klein: Let's Put an End to Sarah Palin-Style Capitalism

By Naomi Klein, The Progressive. Posted July 30, 2009.

Capitalism can survive this crisis. But the world can't survive another capitalist comeback.


Wingnutterific! Dick Armey (R TX) on the hill has a message for all of the "enviromental hypochondriacs" and the "eco evangelical hysteria" that's been created. Quick read & video...

Powered by Digg's Users

The following was adapted from a speech on May 2, 2009 at The Progressive’s 100th anniversary conference and originally printed in The Progressive magazine, August 2009 issue:

We are in a progressive moment, a moment when the ground is shifting beneath our feet, and anything is possible. What we considered unimaginable about what could be said and hoped for a year ago is now possible. At a time like this, it is absolutely critical that we be as clear as we possibly can be about what it is that we want because we might just get it.

So the stakes are high.

I usually talk about the bailout in speeches these days. We all need to understand it because it is a robbery in progress, the greatest heist in monetary history. But today I'd like to take a different approach: What if the bailout actually works, what if the financial sector is saved and the economy returns to the course it was on before the crisis struck? Is that what we want? And what would that world look like?

The answer is that it would look like Sarah Palin. Hear me out, this is not a joke. I don't think we have given sufficient consideration to the meaning of the Palin moment. Think about it: Sarah Palin stepped onto the world stage as Vice Presidential candidate on August 29 at a McCain campaign rally, to much fanfare. Exactly two weeks later, on September 14, Lehman Brothers collapsed, triggering the global financial meltdown.

So in a way, Palin was the last clear expression of capitalism-as-usual before everything went south. That's quite helpful because she showed us-in that plainspoken, down-homey way of hers-the trajectory the U.S. economy was on before its current meltdown. By offering us this glimpse of a future, one narrowly avoided, Palin provides us with an opportunity to ask a core question: Do we want to go there? Do we want to save that pre-crisis system, get it back to where it was last September? Or do we want to use this crisis, and the electoral mandate for serious change delivered by the last election, to radically transform that system? We need to get clear on our answer now because we haven't had the potent combination of a serious crisis and a clear progressive democratic mandate for change since the 1930s. We use this opportunity, or we lose it.

So what was Sarah Palin telling us about capitalism-as-usual before she was so rudely interrupted by the meltdown? Let's first recall that before she came along, the U.S. public, at long last, was starting to come to grips with the urgency of the climate crisis, with the fact that our economic activity is at war with the planet, that radical change is needed immediately. We were actually having that conversation: Polar bears were on the cover of Newsweek magazine. And then in walked Sarah Palin. The core of her message was this: Those environmentalists, those liberals, those do-gooders are all wrong. You don't have to change anything. You don't have to rethink anything. Keep driving your gas-guzzling car, keep going to Wal-Mart and shop all you want. The reason for that is a magical place called Alaska. Just come up here and take all you want. "Americans," she said at the Republican National Convention, "we need to produce more of our own oil and gas. Take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska, we've got lots of both."

And the crowd at the convention responded by chanting and chanting: "Drill, baby, drill."

Watching that scene on television, with that weird creepy mixture of sex and oil and jingoism, I remember thinking: "Wow, the RNC has turned into a rally in favor of screwing Planet Earth." Literally.

But what Palin was saying is what is built into the very DNA of capitalism: the idea that the world has no limits. She was saying that there is no such thing as consequences, or real-world deficits. Because there will always be another frontier, another Alaska, another bubble. Just move on and discover it. Tomorrow will never come.

This is the most comforting and dangerous lie that there is: the lie that perpetual, unending growth is possible on our finite planet. And we have to remember that this message was incredibly popular in those first two weeks, before Lehman collapsed. Despite Bush's record, Palin and McCain were pulling ahead. And if it weren't for the financial crisis, and for the fact that Obama started connecting with working class voters by putting deregulation and trickle-down economics on trial, they might have actually won.

The President tells us he wants to look forward, not backwards. But in order to confront the lie of perpetual growth and limitless abundance that is at the center of both the ecological and financial crises, we have to look backwards. And we have to look way backwards, not just to the past eight years of Bush and Cheney, but to the very founding of this country, to the whole idea of the settler state.

Modern capitalism was born with the so-called discovery of the Americas. It was the pillage of the incredible natural resources of the Americas that generated the excess capital that made the Industrial Revolution possible. Early explorers spoke of this land as a New Jerusalem, a land of such bottomless abundance, there for the taking, so vast that the pillage would never have to end. This mythology is in our biblical stories-of floods and fresh starts, of raptures and rescues-and it is at the center of the American Dream of constant reinvention. What this myth tells us is that we don't have to live with our pasts, with the consequences of our actions. We can always escape, start over.

These stories were always dangerous, of course, to the people who were already living on the "discovered" lands, to the people who worked them through forced labor. But now the planet itself is telling us that we cannot afford these stories of endless new beginnings anymore. That is why it is so significant that at the very moment when some kind of human survival instinct kicked in, and we seemed finally to be coming to grips with the Earth's natural limits, along came Palin, the new and shiny incarnation of the colonial frontierswoman, saying: Come on up to Alaska. There is always more. Don't think, just take.

This is not about Sarah Palin. It's about the meaning of that myth of constant "discovery," and what it tells us about the economic system that they're spending trillions of dollars to save. What it tells us is that capitalism, left to its own devices, will push us past the point from which the climate can recover. And capitalism will avoid a serious accounting-whether of its financial debts or its ecological debts-at all costs. Because there's always more. A new quick fix. A new frontier.

That message was selling, as it always does. It was only when the stock market crashed that people said, "Maybe Sarah Palin isn't a great idea this time around. Let's go with the smart guy to ride out the crisis."

I almost feel like we've been given a last chance, some kind of a reprieve. I try not to be apocalyptic, but the global warming science I read is scary. This economic crisis, as awful as it is, pulled us back from that ecological precipice that we were about to drive over with Sarah Palin and gave us a tiny bit of time and space to change course. And I think it's significant that when the crisis hit, there was almost a sense of relief, as if people knew they were living beyond their means and had gotten caught. We suddenly had permission to do things together other than shop, and that spoke to something deep.

But we are not free from the myth. The willful blindness to consequences that Sarah Palin represents so well is embedded in the way Washington is responding to the financial crisis. There is just an absolute refusal to look at how bad it is. Washington would prefer to throw trillions of dollars into a black hole rather than find out how deep the hole actually is. That's how willful the desire is not to know.

And we see lots of other signs of the old logic returning. Wall Street salaries are almost back to 2007 levels. There's a certain kind of electricity in the claims that the stock market is rebounding. "Can we stop feeling guilty yet?" you can practically hear the cable commentators asking. "Is the bubble back yet?"

And they may well be right. This crisis isn't going to kill capitalism or even change it substantively. Without huge popular pressure for structural reform, the crisis will prove to have been nothing more than a very wrenching adjustment. The result will be even greater inequality than before the crisis. Because the millions of people losing their jobs and their homes aren't all going to be getting them back, not by a long shot. And manufacturing capacity is very difficult to rebuild once it's auctioned off.

It's appropriate that we call this a "bailout." Financial markets are being bailed out to keep the ship of finance capitalism from sinking, but what is being scooped out is not water. It's people. It's people who are being thrown overboard in the name of "stabilization." The result will be a vessel that is leaner and meaner. Much meaner. Because great inequality-the super rich living side by side with the economically desperate-requires a hardening of the hearts. We need to believe ourselves superior to those who are excluded in order to get through the day. So this is the system that is being saved: the same old one, only meaner.

And the question that we face is: Should our job be to bail out this ship, the biggest pirate ship that ever was, or to sink it and replace it with a sturdier vessel, one with space for everyone? One that doesn't require these ritual purges, during which we throw our friends and our neighbors overboard to save the people in first class. One that understands that the Earth doesn't have the capacity for all of us to live better and better.

But it does have the capacity, as Bolivian President Evo Morales said recently at the U.N., "for all of us to live well."

Because make no mistake: Capitalism will be back. And the same message will return, though there may be someone new selling that message: You don't need to change. Keep consuming all you want. There's plenty more. Drill, baby, drill. Maybe there will be some technological fix that will make all our problems disappear.

And that is why we need to be absolutely clear right now.

Capitalism can survive this crisis. But the world can't survive another capitalist comeback.

Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and syndicated columnist and the author of the international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, now out in paperback. Her earlier books include the international best-seller, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies; and the collection Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate (2002). To read all her latest writing visit www.naomiklein.org

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
Hell hath no fury . . .
Wed, August 5, 2009
INFIDELITY

By ROBERT IMRIE, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WAUSAU, WIS. -- A married man who planned to rendezvous with one of his handful of lovers at an eastern Wisconsin motel instead found himself bound, blindfolded and assaulted by a group of women out for revenge, according to court documents.

Four women, including his wife, eventually showed up to humiliate the man, who ended up with his penis glued to his stomach in a bizarre plot to punish him for a lovers' quadrangle gone bad, according to documents filed in Calumet County.

Now it's the women who face punishment, perhaps six years in prison, and at least one said Monday the story has gotten twisted and she's embarrassed.

"I am disturbed. I am upset. I am having a hard time handling life; an emotional wreck," Wendy Sewell, 43, of Kaukauna, said in a telephone interview from her home. "I am ashamed."

Sewell, Therese Ziemann, 48, of Menasha, Michelle Belliveau, 43, of Neenah, and the man's wife are charged with being party to false imprisonment, a felony. Ziemann also is charged with fourth-degree sexual assault.


The women are free on $200 cash bails. Investigators say all the women but Belliveau were romantically involved with the man. Online court records didn't list defence lawyers for any of the women.

AP is not naming the man's wife to protect his identity as an alleged victim of sexual assault.

Criminal complaints filed Friday allege the man agreed to be bound with "sheer sheets" and blindfolded with a pillowcase for a "rub down" by Ziemann. She instead cut off his underwear with scissors and summoned the others to the room with a text message.

Ziemann struck the man in the face and used Krazy Glue to attach his penis to his stomach when the other women arrived, according to the complaints. The man told investigators he also was threatened with a gun.

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
Consciousness Capitalism: Corporations Are Now After Our Very Beings

By Joe Bageant, AlterNet. Posted August 1, 2009.

Capitalism has raped the resources of the world. Now corporations are left to strip human experience from life, then rent it back to us.


A few years ago, compliments of the George W. Bush administration, I got an education in political reality. The kind of education that makes you get drunk at night and scream and bitch at every shred of national news:

"Do you see how these capitalist bastards have made so much money killing babies in Iraq? And how they are have brainwashed us and gouged us for every human need, from health care to drinking water?" I'd rage to my wife.

"It's just the way things are," she said. "It's only a system."

My good wife often thinks I have slipped my moorings. But she never says right out loud that I'm crazy because, let's face it, honesty in marriage only goes so far. Furthermore, I'd be the first to proclaim that she's right.

I have slipped my moorings, and am downright ecstatic about it, given what the collective American consciousness is moored to these days. Anyway, I am, as I said, ecstatic. When I am not utterly depressed. Which is often. And always, always, always, it is because of the latest outrage pulled off by government/corporations -- the terms have been interchangeable for at least 50 years in this country, maybe longer.

For all its pretense and manufactured consent, our government is just a corporate racket now, and probably will remain so from here on out. This is a white people's thing, an Anglo-European tradition. Moreover, we no longer get real dictators such as a Hitler, or a good old bone-gnawing despot like Idi Amin. We get money syndicates in powdered wigs or Seville Row suits, cartels of robber barons and banking racketeers.

The corporate rackets of European white people, especially banking, have a venerable history of sanction, dating back at least to when William the Conqueror granted the corporation of London the rights to handle his English loot.

For all his cruelty (he skinned the people and hung their tanned hides from their own windows, and if that ain't the purest kind of meanness, I don't know what is!) William, just like Allen Greenspan and Bernie Madoff, understood that the real muscle hangs out in the temples of banking and money changing.

Even a thousand years before that however, nobody in their right mind dared mess with the money cartels.

DATELINE JUDEA, A.D. 26 -- Pontius Pilate to Jesus: "Look you seem to be a nice Jewish kid from ... where izzit? ... Nazareth? But you gotta quit fuckin wid da moneychangers, cause I get a piece of dat action, see? So stop dickin' with 'em. And especially you gotta swear off this Son of God, King of the Jews shtick. Ain't but one king aroun jeer, and you're lookin' at him. So lay off that stuff, and we can put this whole thing behind us, you and me. On the other hand, I got a couple of thieves I'm gonna do in tomorrow; and you can join 'em if you want. Your call kid. Now whose yer daddy?"

"I am the Son of God."

"Grab a cross on the way out."

On and on it goes. As the bailouts of the bankers recently proved, even Barack Obama, who descended to earth from Chicago with 10 gilded seraphim holding up his balls, doesn't screw with the corporate money changers. Or the banking corporations, or the insurance corporations, or the medical corporations, or the defense corporations ...

Corporations are now, for all practical purposes, the only way anything can get done, made or distributed, or even imagined as a way of anything coming into being (except babies). Look around you. Is there anything, from the food in the fridge to the fridge itself, from the furniture to the very varnish on the floors or the clothes we wear that was not delivered unto us by corporations?

Our dependency on corporations at every level of the needs hierarchy is total. We cannot see beyond the corporate manufactured reality because, to us, it is the only possible reality. We cannot see around it or out of it from the inside. Corporate reality is all permeating. Air tight, too. Each part so perfectly reinforces all of its other parts as to be seamless. Inescapable. In that sense, we are prisoners for life.

The corporate-government-media complex that manufactures our mass consciousness (hereinafter referred to as "the bastards" for clarity purposes) is simultaneously unknowable, yet easy to believe in.

With its millions of moving parts, seen and unseen -- financial, media, manufacturing, technological, material -- no one, not even its most elevated masters, can conceive of the system's entirety, or even in the same way. This great loom of ideation, with its many spindles, flycocks and shuttles, can weave any fantasy one desires and certainly sustain any individual's commodity or identity fetish.

At the same time, the sheer magnitude of corporatism's crushing drain upon humanity -- for the benefit of an elite global few -- is all but invisible to most Western peoples participating in its sustaining rituals.

Corporatism's rituals are as reverentially and unquestionably observed in daily behavior as those of ancient Egypt's theocracy or the blood sacrifice of the Aztecs. The Aztecs thoroughly believed their world would end if the gods were not fed enough still-beating human hearts. We believe that the world turns on employment figures, stock prices, our jobs, productivity and consumption. Hourly, we receive reports from the media priesthood on the health of an aggregate god known as the economy. The masses pause to listen, then ask inside their heads, "Will my job, my only source of family sustenance, disappear? I must try harder."

And so, fearfully, we render tribute to Moloch in the form of increased toil, more sheaves of what they alone produced (for it is labor that produces all authentic wealth) in the form of bailouts and sons sacrificed on the altar of war.

High and low, we have been transfigured into a society of performers behaving the way we are expected to behave as productive citizens. Production as measured by the bastards. And we cannot expect to find any Gandhis or Simón Bolivars among that high caste. One does not get there by leading salt strikes, nor does one appear in their boardrooms on behalf of the masses wearing beggar's cloth.

"The masses, the masses, the masses. Whatever are we to do with them?" laughed a political adviser friend, only half-jokingly. True, we've always been such a herd, always been given to self-imposed blindness of the whole. But now we are blindfolded. There is a difference.

During earlier times in this fabled republic -- and much of it has always been just that, a fable -- there were somewhat better odds of escaping such blindness. Now it is considered the normal condition; we see it as in our best interests to embrace such national blindness. In doing so, we all but ensure a new Dark Age.

Oh, quit bitching you fart-stained old gasbag. The next Dark Age is sure to have a wireless connection and an RFID sex hot line locator chip in your neck. The boys in Tyson's corporate are already doing it to chickens in the poultry market for a couple cents per bird. Just be glad you were born in America!

For sure it will be wired. Because the next phase of history's greatest ongoing screwjob, capitalism, depends on it being wired. With the demise of first mercantile capitalism, and now with industrial capitalism on the ropes everywhere, and after having wasted most of the world's vital resources, you'd think the whole stinking drama of greed and mass exploitation would necessarily draw to a close.

You'd think there would be nothing left to huckster after having pissed in most of the world's clean drinking water, gutted its forests and jungles, leveled its mountains for coal and minerals, and turned the atmosphere into a blanket of simmering toxins, well, you'd think it was time for the bastards to fold the game and go home with their winnings. No such luck.

Enter yet a third phase: Consciousness Capitalism! The private appropriation of human consciousness as a "nonmaterial asset." Or cognitive capitalism, in nerd and pinhead speak.

Which goes to show you can never underestimate the dark bastards at the helm. Yes, these guys are good.

Essentially, we're talking about stripping the human experience from life, then renting it back to humans. So how does one do that? Through the same Western European historical process used to f*** over the world in the first two rounds of capitalism -- propertization. Denying access to something because it's MINE-MINE-MINE-MINE!

Charge rents for your monopoly on the access. Manufacture artificial scarcity, even of human consciousness and experience by redefining and reshaping it. The tools here are legal means such as intellectual property rights, patents softwares ...

Cognitive capitalism by definition requires that mass consciousness be networked at all individual nodes. Each node is its own experiential realm of service relationships, entertainment, travel and the multitude of experience industries that are rapidly coming to dominate the global economy. Life as a paid-for experience, with none of the hassles of ownership.

Rent a Life, Inc.

(Actually, we've always rented our lives from the bastards, under such things as the pretense that mortgage payments were not just another gussied up form of rent, and so forth). If you've got the money to pay for access to their networks, it's great. I guess. If you're too poor, then you are left to fight it out in naked barbarian streets of the unwired. Given the choice, most of us would rather be inside the gates, not on the streets. But any rational person would fear the gatekeepers.

Already we are seeing cognitive mutations of our relationships with our homes, our communities and our idea of what the world is. I had an absolutely brilliant young man visit me in Belize, well known as a futurist on the Internet and avid player of Second Life. By his own admission, he could not find anyone in the entire country he could communicate with.

Community and the world are becoming concepts, images and ideas ungrounded in the earthly "thingness" and the attending husbandry and respect for such, and replaced by the ultimate purchased commodity, the experience of life itself. Each person becomes an experiential Empire of One. Occupant of a single node in the network, seeking personal validation through paid-for personal experience and free from the bonds of human cooperation and responsiveness. Free from material boundaries.

Experience products, compared to those of industrial capitalism, are dirt cheap for the bastards to produce. The hard costs, land, factories, labor, are outsourced (dumped) in China. Let the Mandarin capitalists own those burdens.

The Mandarin capitalists are deliriously happy to accept 'em. Because they can offset those costs in a million ways they'd just as soon not talk about. Like burning the cheapest sweat-labor coal in the dirtiest power plants they can build to power their workhouse chip factories. As in, Hey Chang! It's quitting time. Go beat those goddamned peasant workers back into their chicken cages for the night!"

Meanwhile, back here in the land of free, we are, as always, at least one water buffalo step ahead of the Chinese when it comes to enterprise. Consequently, we have moved on from Proudhon's property-as-theft model, to extortion.

The new extortion is conducted through creation of a state of artificial scarcity, which is done by turning the dials of your patents, softwares and intellectual property rights machinery, which is protected by your corporate legal goon squad.

The time for extortion through consciousness capitalism is ripe in both senses of the word. People in developed nations, America especially, are ditching material goods, the veritable mountain of Asian techno-junk, sweat-labor clothing, and gewgaws, not to mention the now-worthless, overpriced suburban fuckboxes they purchased to store all that stuff in.

Nothing is stranger, or sadder in a way, than watching the monolithic suburban yard sale that is now America suburban Saturday morning. Material assemblage might be a better word than sale, because there are almost no buyers, not even many "for free" takers. Just sellers. Everybody needs cash to pay down the plastic. Or eat. It's broke out there. (Although Europeans and North Americans don't really know the meaning of the word broke yet. Ask folks south of the equator).

Meanwhile, at the Twilight Zone Café, in Winchester, Va., Ernie, the retired backhoe driver takes another pull on his Old Milwaukee beer and says: "Now tell me this perfessor, didn't we bring all this on ourselves? Ain't we got some personal responsibility for what happens to us?"

Good question. Did we create this catastrophic system, or was it created by the bastards, and in turn re-created us?

How much is attributable to the smallness and ratlike sensibilities of ordinary men such as ourselves? Has human ingenuity and ability to mass replicate goods and information provided nothing more than a theater of operations for some macabre and prolonged last act in the human drama -- ecocide?

"Oh, science will come up with something," observes Ernie. "It always does."

I bite my tongue and don't say that I believe human ingenuity is much overrated stuff. But even assuming it isn't, and that we all get issued solar-powered houseboats during the global-warming meltdown, we're still gonna need oxygen.

Maybe Ernie is right, though. Maybe we did bring all this on ourselves by not accepting that new "personal responsibility," the Republican Party proffered a while back. But I'm blaming the bastards anyway, because first off, they've got all the power; and second, they've become obscenely rich off it; and third, I don't like the fuckers to start with. And it's not because I am jealous of their wealth either. I leave that mediocre sort of animal jealousy to realtors and super-striving dentists.

After a rather short stint in "the ownership society," material products are now increasingly replaced by immaterial licensed experiences. We will no longer "own" anything, much less attempt to own everything we can lay hands on. Which is good. But the bastards will finally own everything. Which is bad.

Certainly cognitive capitalism will relieve stress on the world's resources to some degree. A nation of cyber-vegetables trying to get laid or get rich in a Second Life-type experience may be easier on poor old Mother Earth, though she's probably be gagging at the thought of what we'll have become.

Malcontent that she is, Mother Earth has been unhappy with man's behavior for a long time. And after being, bombed, mined, poisoned and generally molested for so long, who can blame her for her opinion, which is that, "On the sixth day, God f***ed up."

Three beers and a couple thousand words later, it's hard to disagree.



Joe Bageant is author of Deer Hunting With Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War (Random House Crown), a book about working-class America. A complete archive of his online work, along with the thoughts of many working Americans on the subject of class can be found on his Web site.

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
Updated: A Moment Heavy with the Threat of Right-Wing Violence

Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 1:33 PM on August 4, 2009.

Scary stuff.


I'm not naive, and am past being surprised by corporate front-groups' astroturf campaigns.

But this thing FreedomWorks hatched up to urge angry right-wing villagers to grab their pitchforks and intimidate and threaten law-makers at town hall meetings takes it to a new, and I think dangerous level. Here's a right-wing group run by corporate lobbyists directly obstructing the political process. Bill Scher:

Is this a bona fide grassroots rebellion? Not exactly. As ThinkProgress' Lee Fang uncovered on Friday, the lobbyist-run national conservative group FreedomWorks is promoting an instructional memo titled "Rocking The Town Halls" which advises right-wing activists to "Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half ... Be Disruptive Early And Often ... Try To 'Rattle Him,' Not Have An Intelligent Debate..."

In the U.S., we tend to take our fellow citizens' acceptance of the basic democratic process for granted. But this kind of thing, combined with some other stories that are in the news, suggests we shouldn't be so sanguine about it.

Consider the context:

Steven D: "The number of death threats Obama is receiving is 400% higher than the number Bush received. It's also stretching an understaffed Secret Service to its limits trying to keep track of them all."

USA Today: "Gun owners are packing heat in record numbers, fearful of stricter gun control under the Obama administration and higher crime in a sour economy. Some states and counties report a surge in applications for concealed weapons permits since the November election."

The Telegraph: "Hundreds of incidents of abuse or intimidation apparently motivated by racial hatred have been reported since the Nov 4 election...White supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Council of Conservative Citizens have seen a flood of interest from possible new members since the landmark election of the first black president in US history. Far right groups are also capitalising on rising unemployment in the economic downturn and a demographic shift that could make whites a minority by mid-century, the centre said."

It's a scary moment. And while they have a Constitutional right to spew their venom, it's a moment created by talk-radio hate-jocks and "mainstream conservatives" alike.

Update: Here's VZEQICVA, from the comments:

TODAY WILL PUT THEM OVER THE EDGE

Bill Clinton got the two journalists released in North Korea, Obama celebrated his birthday with Helen Thomas (he's a classy guy), Prince of Blackwater/Xi will probably be arrested, The new G.I. Bill was passed yesterday, and it's still only 5PM EST. while the pathetic Republicans go to the town hall meetings and holler at each other. Savor the moment.


Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
FreedomWorks
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search


This article is part of the front groups portal on Sourcewatch. Join our team of citizen journalists researching and exposing industry secrets.

FreedomWorks, founded in 1984 and described as a 501c4 "grassroots organization," is chaired by former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey. The organization's President is Matt Kibbe. [1] FreedomWorks was formed in 2004 when Citizens for a Sound Economy merged with Empower America.[2]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Founding
* 2 Astroturfing activities
* 3 Social Security
* 4 Health care
* 5 Non-profit for hire?
* 6 2006 elections
* 7 Personnel
o 7.1 FreedomWorks c(4) Board of Directors
o 7.2 FreedomWorks Emeritus Board
o 7.3 Former Board Members
o 7.4 FreedomWorks foundation c(3)
o 7.5 Former Board Members
+ 7.5.1 Projects
* 8 Staff
o 8.1 Federal and state campaigns
+ 8.1.1 State directors
+ 8.1.2 Development
+ 8.1.3 Public affairs
+ 8.1.4 Operations
* 9 Other people affiliated with FreedomWorks
* 10 Contact info
* 11 Articles and resources
o 11.1 Related SourceWatch articles
o 11.2 References
o 11.3 External resources
o 11.4 External articles

[edit]
Founding

The cause for confusion is that FreedomWorks was founded in 1984 as Citizens for a Sound Economy. The name was changed as part of the merger deal in 2004. The organization has been continuously operating since 1984. Although the FreedomWorks' web site states that it was founded in 1984, announcements made by the organization and reported in the press July 22, 2004, stated that "Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp and former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray [joined] forces to counter MoveOn.Org and other liberal Democrat groups in the November [2004] elections" and that Armey, "chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE)" and Kemp, "a co-founder of Empower America, [were] merging their two organizations into FreedomWorks to foster a 'freedom agenda'," according to the Washington Post's Ralph Z. Hallow.

Another announcement, made by FreedomWorks in the Cato Institute's Social Security This Week August 20, 2004, weekly newsletter, stated that it was created as a result of the "merger of Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), Jack Kemp's Empower America, and the Republican Liberty Caucus." However, the Caucus' website does not indicate that it was part of the merger. [3] This is completely inaccurate and FreedomWorks has no formal affiliation

Hallow reported July 22, 2004, that "FreedomWorks will have a complicated legal structure giving it nonprofit status as a 501(c)(3), a 501(c)(4), a 527 [committee] and a federal political action committee." Additionally, the "new group, headquartered in Washington, will have a full-time campaign staff on the ground in the presidential battleground states of Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as in Illinois and Texas."
[edit]
Astroturfing activities

According to its website in February, 2009, "FreedomWorks is now working with other groups to plan a massive, nationwide tea party protest day for Tax Day on April 15th, 2009" [4], the Tax Day Tea Party protests.

In 2008, FreedomWorks was behind the creation of a fake grassroots web site called Angryrenter.com which rallies opposition to "the Obama Housing Bailout." The site urges people to oppose bailing out mortgage companies. The site claims to represent "Renters and responsible homeowners against a government mortgage bailout."

Michael M. Phillips, a reporter with the Wall Street Journal investigated AngryRenter.com and reported:

AngryRenter.com looks a bit like a digital ransom note, with irregular fonts, exclamation points and big red arrows -- all emphasizing prudent renters' outrage over a proposed government bailout for irresponsible homeowners. "It seems like America's renters may NEVER be able to afford a home," AngryRenter.com laments. The Web site urges like-minded tenants to let Congress feel their fury by signing an online petition. "We are millions of renters standing up for our rights!" Angry they may be, but the people behind AngryRenter.com are certainly not renters. Though it purports to be a spontaneous uprising, AngryRenter.com is actually a product of an inside-the-Beltway conservative advocacy organization led by Dick Armey, the former House majority leader, and publishing magnate Steve Forbes, a fellow Republican. It's a fake grass-roots effort -- what politicos call an AstroTurf campaign -- that provides a window into the sleight-of-hand ways of Washington.[1]


[edit]
Social Security

In December 2004, FreedomWorks employee Sandra Jacques was introduced at a White House economic conference as a "single mom" from Iowa who supported the Bush administration's Social Security privatization plan. According to White House budget director, Jacques was was an example of how Bush promotes his agenda with testimonials from "regular folks." As the New York Times pointed out, however, "Ms. Jaques is not any random single mother. She is the Iowa state director of a conservative advocacy group." [5]

The Times also noted that Jacques "spent much of the past two years as a spokeswoman in Iowa for a group called For Our Grandchildren, which is mounting a nationwide campaign for private savings accounts."

In January 2005, FreedomWorks announced that it was organizing a "Fly-in' to Washington DC as part of a "grassroots" lobbying effort for Social Security privatization and to attend a "White House town hall meeting" on the issue with President George W. Bush.[6] One of the 80 people the group brought to Washington was a Seattle-area businessman, Scott Ballard, the son of a long-time Republican politician in Washington state. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported: [7]

He was contacted by the White House last Wednesday about his willingness to participate in an event. White House aides called again Thursday and told him they'd like him to appear at a town hall event with the president. Later that same day, Ballard got a call from FreedomWorks, a group founded by former Republican Reps. Dick Armey and Jack Kemp, offering to pay his expenses.

[edit]
Health care

FreedomWorks, which was one of the lobbying groups involved in orchestrated the anti-Obama "tea parties" on April 15, 2009, in summer of 2009 began pursuing an aggressive strategy to create the image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform at Congressmembers' town-hall meetings in their districts. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website "Tea Party Patriots," describes how members should infiltrate town hall meetings and harass and intimidate Democratic members of Congress:

Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put tIle Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up ... You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep's presentation. Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep's statements early. If he blames Bush for something or offers other excuses -- call him on it, yell back and have someone else follow-up with a shout-out ... The goal is to rattle him ..." [2]

[edit]
Non-profit for hire?

"Speaking as the co-chairman of FreedomWorks" on CNBC in December 2004, Armey "spoke glowingly of 'Rx Outreach,' a national mail order program for low-income people that had just been launched by Express Scripts Inc., a pharmacy benefit management firm based in Maryland Heights, Mo." At the time, FreedomWorks "had been working with Express Scripts' public relations firm, and a week later issued a news release praising Rx Outreach. Now, Express Scripts says it plans to donate money to Armey's group, though it won't say how much or when." [8]

"Critics say the arrangement could call into question FreedomWorks' tax-exempt status because it appears that the group was a 'mouthpiece' for hire," wrote the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which noted that assertion was "sharply disputed by FreedomWorks." Bill Allison of the Center for Public Integrity said, "It's rare to see someone pushing a company this directly. It does look like it's more of a commercial for this company than a discussion of policy." Law professor Frances Hill noted that "corporate contributions to nonprofits are not supposed to benefit the donor." Hill added, "What it begins to look like is that the organization is operating for the private benefit of the company." [9]
[edit]
2006 elections

In September 2006, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that FreedomWorks "listed Wisconsin's 8th Congressional District race along with 15 other contests around the country where the group will work to highlight economic issues in the November elections. ... Two Republicans and three Democrats are running for the 8th District seat held by Republican Rep. Mark Green, who is running for governor." [10]

The other "competitive races" where FreedomWorks is devoting its "$4 million campaign budget" for 2006 include U.S. Senate races in Michigan, Nebraska and Washington state, and House races in California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington state, according to a press release put out by the group. [11]
[edit]
Personnel

The new group was initially co-chaired by Richard K. Armey, C. Boyden Gray and Jack Kemp. Former chair at Empower America William Bennett was a senior fellow focusing on school choice.

Board member listings are from the Freedom Works website (accessed December 15, 2006) and/or other references, as indicated.
[edit]
FreedomWorks c(4) Board of Directors

* Dick Armey, Co-Chairman
* James H. Burnley, Venable
* Matt Kibbe, FreedomWorks
* Thomas Knudsen, Thomas Publishing Company
* Richard J Stephenson, Cancer Treatment Centers of America
* Steve Forbes [12]

[edit]
FreedomWorks Emeritus Board

* Bill Jaeger, Jaeger Vineyards

[edit]
Former Board Members

* C. Boyden Gray
* David H. Padden, Padden & Company, Inc.

[edit]
FreedomWorks foundation c(3)

* Dick Armey, Co-Chairman
* Ted Abram, American Institute for Full Employment
* Matt Kibbe
* Frank M. Sands, Sr.

[edit]
Former Board Members

* C. Boyden Gray

[edit]
Projects

* Center for Global Economic Growth

* Richard W. Rahn, Director General

[edit]
Staff
[edit]
Federal and state campaigns

* Molly Byrne, Vice President
* Rob Jordan, Director of Federal and State Campaigns
* Max Pappas, Policy Director
* Brendan Steinhauser, Grassroots Manager
* Wayne T. Brough, Ph.D., Vice President of Research

[edit]
State directors

* Florida: Vacant
* Colorado: Beth Skinner
* Michigan: Randall Thompson
* North Carolina: Allen Page
* Oregon: Russ Walker
* Texas: Tina Peyton
* Vermont: Rob Roper
* Washington: Jamie Daniels
* Wisconsin: Cameron Sholty

[edit]
Development

* Jaci Brown, Vice President of Development
* Andrew Smith, Director of Development
* Melissa Raphael, Deputy Director of Development
* Barry Aylstock, Development Assistant

[edit]
Public affairs

* Chris Kinnan, Director of Public Affairs
* Adam Brandon, Press Secretary

[edit]
Operations

* Judy Mulcahy, Vice President of Operations
* Tiffany Carper, Executive Assistant, Dick Armey
* Alberta Kinard, Office Administrator
* Jill Tobias, Assistant

[edit]
Other people affiliated with FreedomWorks

* Justin Cleveland
* Lawrence A. Hunter: "Dr. Hunter is chief economist at FreedomWorks and senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Innovation." [13]
* Kevin L. Mannix: FreedomWorks Oregon [14]

[edit]
Contact info

FreedomWorks
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 11th Floor,
Washington, DC 20006-5805
Phone: (202) 783-3870
Fax: (202) 232-8356
Toll Free: 1-888-564-6273
E-mail: cse AT cse.org
Website: freedomworks.org

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
Right-Wing Harassment Strategy Against Dems Detailed In Memo: ‘Yell,’ ‘Stand Up And Shout Out,’ ‘Rattle Him’

This morning, Politico reported that Democratic members of Congress are increasingly being harassed by “angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior” at local town halls. For example, in one incident, right-wing protesters surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and forced police officers to have to escort him to his car for safety.

This growing phenomenon is often marked by violence and absurdity. Recently, right-wing demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office. Missing from the reporting of these stories is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama’s reforms.

The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:

Tea Bagger Memo

– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”

– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

The memo above also resembles the talking points being distributed by FreedomWorks for pushing an anti-health reform assault all summer. Patients United, a front group maintained by Americans for Prosperity, is currently busing people all over the country for more protests against Democratic members. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the NRCC, has endorsed the strategy, telling the Politico the days of civil town halls are now “over.”

Meanwhile, AHIP, the trade group and lobbying juggernaut representing the health insurance industry is sending staffers to monitor town halls and other right-wing front groups are stepping up their ad campaign to smear reform efforts. The strategy for defeating reform — recently outlined by an influential lobbyist to the Hill newspaper as “delay” then “kill” — is becoming apparent. By delaying a vote until after the August recess, lobbyists are now seizing upon recess town halls as opportunities to ambush lawmakers and fool them into believing there is wide opposition to reform.
Update Amy Menefee, communications director of Americans for Prosperity and its anti-health reform group Patients United, wrote to ThinkProgress regarding this post:

"Several blogs have picked up your post: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/rec ... ment-memo/ which mentions Americans for Prosperity's efforts next to your mention of Bob MacGuffie's memo about town hall meetings. Mr. MacGuffie's memo was his own work. I would appreciate your help in correcting the erroneous rumor people have passed around that this memo came from AFP. We have encouraged our members to attend town halls, ask questions and register their opinions about issues including health care -- as all citizens should do. We always promote civil dialogue and do not condone disruptive behavior."

As noted in the post, MacGuffie is a volunteer who actively posts and volunteers with the website Tea Party Patriots. A review of the sponsoring organizations reveals that both FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity are sponsors of the website as "Freedom Coalition" partners. A few months before joining Americans for Prosperity, Menefee herself worked for the medical device/pharmaceutical industry-funded "think-tank" called the Galen Institute.

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Media
Immigration
Human Rights
Environment
Water
Health
Drugs
Sex
Corporations and Work
World
Politics
Take Action
Newsletter
DrugReporter


Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

* AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.

Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Search:
Advertisement
Advertisement

DrugReporter

Burning Questions for the Authors of 'Marijuana Is Safer'

By Paul Armentano and Steve Fox, AlterNet. Posted August 15, 2009.

The authors of a new book on misconceptions about marijuana respond to the torrent of comments on an excerpt published on AlterNet.
Tools
email EMAIL
print PRINT
125 COMMENTS
picture24
Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? by Steve Fox, Paul Armentano and Mason Tvert



On August 6, AlterNet posted an excerpt from the new book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving Americans to Drink? (Chelsea Green, 2009). Reader response was overwhelming. Within hours, the excerpt was AlterNet's most trafficked and commented upon features of the week.

Co-authors Paul Armentano and Steve Fox have responded a selection of several of the comments, as well as some of the most common questions they have received since Marijuana Is Safer was released.

AlterNet: What do you believe are the biggest misconceptions about marijuana?

Paul Armentano: There are two broad misconceptions about marijuana. On one side, you typically have those opposed to any change in marijuana policy claiming that the plant is far more dangerous to the user and to society than it actually is. On the other side, you sometimes have proponents of cannabis law reform arguing that it is virtually harmless. Both positions are incorrect, and we go to great lengths to explain this fact in Marijuana Is Safer. The bottom line: no potentially mind-altering substance is harmless, including marijuana. But by any measurable standard, marijuana is much safer than alcohol, and our book provides readers with an objective frame of reference – the legally regulated use of alcohol by adults – for which they can objectively compare the use of marijuana. For those readers who don’t believe that marijuana is safer than booze, our book will change they way they think about pot; for those readers who already support changing our antiquated and draconian pot policies, our book will change the way they talk about marijuana.

AlterNet: In Marijuana Is Safer, you compare and contrast the relative harms and legal status of marijuana and alcohol. So, in what ways is marijuana safer?

Steve Fox: Marijuana is safer than alcohol in virtually every way that matters. First, marijuana is far less toxic. Alcohol, quite literally, is a poison. That is why excessive alcohol use often causes vomiting. The body is rejecting the poison. And, as most people know, consuming too much alcohol can result in an overdose death. Marijuana, on the other hand, is virtually non-toxic to healthy cells and major organs. In fact, the active components in marijuana – known as cannabinoids -- actually mimic chemicals naturally produced by the body (so-called endocannabinoids) that are necessary for the maintenance of proper health. Further, unlike alcohol, marijuana does not depress the central nervous system, making an overdose impossible, regardless of how much a person consumes. (There are no recorded marijuana overdose cases in history.) Beyond overdose deaths, the U.S. government estimates that consumption of alcohol is the primary cause of about 35,000 American deaths annually. And those are deaths attributed just to the adverse health impacts of alcohol ingestion on the body – not deaths from alcohol-induced accidents or incidents. The comparable government figure for marijuana deaths is zero.

That said, contrasting the health effects of the two substances on the body is just one part of the equation. The more troubling aspect of steering Americans toward alcohol is that alcohol use is far more likely to be associated with violent crime. We devote almost an entire chapter in the book to detailing the multitude of alcohol-driven offenses. We discuss campus-based sexual assaults and other acts of student-on-student violence. We also provide federal government statistics demonstrating the staggering number of alcohol-related violent crimes in this country. We even include information about alcohol-related violence from around the world. By contrast, marijuana use is not associated with an increased likelihood of violent behavior – or even risk of serious injury. Just the opposite. It is actually more likely to tamp down tensions and aggressive behavior, as the former chief of the Seattle Police Department explains in the foreword to the book.

AlterNet: But isn’t marijuana smoking is at least as dangerous in terms of lung disease and cancer as is smoking tobacco?

Paul Armentano: No it isn’t, and there’s now a large body of evidence available in the scientific literature affirming this. For example, a retrospective cohort study of 65,000 people by Kasier Permanente concluded that marijuana use is not associated with tobacco-related cancers or with cancer of the colon, lung, skin, prostate, breast, or cervix, among others. More recently, a 2006 population case-control study, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles, reported that lifetime use of cannabis was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or aerodigestive tract, and further noted that certain moderate users of the drug experienced a reduced cancer risk compared to non-using controls. And finally, the results of a just-published case-controlled study in the August 2, 2009 edition of the journal Cancer Research Prevention found that lifetime marijuana use was associated with a ‘significantly reduced risk’ of cancer, specifically head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Moreover, those concerned with potential health risks associated with smoking marijuana can choose to vaporize it. Vaporization heats marijuana to a temperature where active cannabis vapors form, but below the point of combustion – therefore enabling consumers to significantly reduce their intake of potentially noxious smoke. In 2007, a team of investigators at San Francisco General Hospital in California compared the combustible contents of smoked marijuana cigarettes to marijuana vapors and determined: “Vaporization of marijuana does not result in exposure to combustion gases and [was] preferred by most subjects compared to marijuana cigarettes. … [It] is an effective and apparently safe vehicle for THC delivery.”

AlterNet: What about the claim that the consumption of marijuana is likely to be a strong contributory factor in a number of severe psychoses including bipolar illness, mania, depression, schizophrenia and others.

Paul Armentano: This is serious question and we address it in our book. To date, allegations linking marijuana use and the development of mental illness in otherwise healthy adults have been based on specious evidence. That is why a recent comprehensive review by the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs determined, “The evidence for the existence of an association between frequency of cannabis use and the development of psychosis is, on the available evidence, weak.”

That is not to say that some people, such as those predisposed to certain mental illnesses, may not face some increased risks from marijuana use, just as these same people face increased risks of an adverse reaction from consuming alcohol. However, health risks connected with drug use, when scientifically documented, should not be seen as legitimate reasons for criminal prohibition, but instead, as reasons for legal regulation. If there does exist a minority population of citizens who may be genetically prone to potential harms from cannabis (such as those predisposed to schizophrenia), then a regulated system would best identify and educate this sub-population to pot's potential risks so that they may refrain from its use, if they so choose.

AlterNet: One commenter posted: “Pot is not safer than alcohol because it accumulates in the body over a long period of time. You can detect pot in your urine for a long time after consumption.” How do you respond to this allegation?

Paul Armentano: The commenter is correct that alcohol’s active psychoactive ingredient, ethanol, is water-soluble while marijuana active components, the cannabinoids, are fat-soluble. That said, ethanol, is converted by the body almost immediately to acetaldehyde, a known carcinogen. This is why you see studies finding such a strong association between even moderate alcohol use and cancer. In short, just because alcohol is water-soluble and leaves the body rather quickly does not mean it is not harmful to health.

By contrast, cannabinoids are surprisingly non-toxic so their persistence in the body poses no serious threat to health. In fact, it’s this slow half-life that likely prevents cannabis users from suffering from substantial abstinence symptoms (e.g., physical withdrawal) when they cease using it. Of course, marijuana’s excretion pattern is hardly unique. Plenty of other legal drugs, such as certain prescription steroids or even vitamin D, are fat-soluble and have similarly slow elimination times. About the only serious downside of pot’s pharmacokinetics is that its presence can be detected on certain drugs tests for days and sometimes weeks after past use, making cannabis consumers far more susceptible to discrimination in the workplace.

AlterNet: Several posters raised concerns pertaining to marijuana and driving? How does marijuana’s affects impact driving compared to alcohol?

Paul Armentano: Alcohol and marijuana have contrasting effects on psychomotor skills and performance. Specifically, alcohol intoxications is associated with more aggressive driving while marijuana use is associated with more cautious behavior. This is not to imply that marijuana will not adversely impact psychomotor skills. Marijuana most certainly can impact psychomotor performance and driving under the influence of pot ought to be discouraged – both via public education campaigns as well as criminal and administrative penalties. However, evidence of marijuana’s culpability in on-road driving accidents and injury is nominal compared to that of booze.

AlterNet: Another commenter posted: "How about we not use drugs or alcohol? How about we don't ‘push’ anything?" How do you respond?

Steve Fox: Every developed society throughout history has used psychoactive substances -- primarily alcohol and marijuana. The use of them is essentially unavoidable. That said, our book is not ‘pushing’ the use of any substance; it is simply acknowledging the objective fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol. By suggesting that our criminal laws recognize this truth, we would not be ‘pushing’ another vice – rather we would be giving adults the option to choose a less harmful alternative to for relaxation or recreation. Currently our laws intentionally steer citizens toward the use of alcohol when many of them would prefer to use the far less harmful substance, marijuana.

AlterNet: How important of an issue is this for people who don't smoke pot?

Steve Fox: It is tremendously important. As marijuana policy reform advocates have been saying for years, it is unconscionable that we have arrested what is now over 20 million Americans since 1965 for nothing more than violating marijuana laws. Moreover, enforcement of marijuana laws diverts law enforcement time and resources away from preventing and investigating violent crimes.

But the purpose of our book is to give citizens a new angle to consider. We want them to understand the consequences of steering the American people away from marijuana and toward alcohol. We want parents of college-aged and post-college-aged women to think about whether their daughters would be safer at a party, bar or fraternity where people are drinking or at a home or at an event where people are primarily using marijuana. Would they rather their daughter encounter a group of drunk guys walking home at night or a bunch of guys who were high? Similarly, we believe people who care about reducing domestic and partner violence – perhaps in their own lives – should consider whether advising past abusers to use marijuana instead of alcohol to unwind might be beneficial.

By raising these points and posing these questions, we are not trying to start a modern day movement to bring back alcohol prohibition. Far from it. We believe adults should be allowed to use either substance responsibly. But we, as a society, should no longer ignore that marijuana is less likely to lead to violent behavior. We see university presidents across the country trying to reduce dangerous alcohol use in order to prevent accidents and acts of violence on campus. Some have even proposed lowering the drinking age to accomplish this goal. Yet they have generally been unwilling to consider the possibility of allowing students to use marijuana instead of alcohol. Why? It is likely that it would reduce alcohol-related incidents on campus, including sexual assaults and date rapes. Isn’t that an important goal?

There has never been a public discussion about whether giving adults the option of using marijuana instead of alcohol might actually make our communities safer. We believe that it is time to have that conversation – and it is one that will be of interest to all Americans.

AlterNet: Let's say marijuana becomes legal. How would you envision it being regulated, produced, distributed, and sold?

Paul Armentano: We devote an entire chapter of Marijuana Is Safer to addressing this topic. In short, rules regulating the sale and use of many legal products, and alcohol in particular, are complex and vary greatly according to state and local laws. Nowhere in the United States is booze legal in the same manner that oranges are chewing gum are legal. In virtually all cases, the laws regulating alcohol’s possession, sale, and use are designed to reflect cultural mores, maximize public safety, and discourage abuse – particularly among young people. We propose that similar standards should govern the regulated sale and use of cannabis.

AlterNet: What's the best argument a marijuana legalization supporter can make, when faced with staunch opposition?

Steve Fox: As we say throughout our book, we believe the most effective response – as opposed to an ‘argument’ – is to help your opponent understand or appreciate that marijuana is not as scary as he or she probably thinks it is. The goal in any discussion should be to persuade that person to view marijuana as merely another recreational substance – used by most consumers in a manner very similar to the way alcohol is used – but one that is far less harmful than alcohol, both to the users and to society. Let the person know that far from ‘adding another vice’ for citizens to use, society would actually benefit if people were allowed to responsibly enjoy a less harmful alternative for recreation or relaxation, if that is what they prefer. At worst, the opponent should be hard-pressed to defend the idea that we should punish adults who make the rational choice to use the less harmful substance.

To learn more about Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?, check out The Great Marijuana Book Bomb.


Paul Armentano is the deputy director of NORML (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). Steve Fox is director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project. They are co-authors, along with Mason Tvert of the book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink (2009, Chelsea Green).

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 8:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
If Right-Wingers Get Their Way, 22,000 Americans Will Continue to Be Killed by Lack of Health Care Each Year

By Mark Ames, AlterNet. Posted August 13, 2009.

This is a battle against people who want to protect a system that has killed more Americans than WW II -- not a debate tournament.


The right-wing anti-Obama-care movement is OK with killing off tens of thousands of Americans each year.

That's what this is all about: The right-wingers and their corporate sponsors are protecting a medieval and violent health care system that kills more Americans each year than all the Americans who have died in the war on terror since 2001, including the 3,000 victims of 9/11, and the 5,000-plus U.S. service members who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Every two months, the American health care industry is party to the slaughter of more Americans than al-Qaida managed to kill. Osama bin Laden must look at the Tea Baggers, FreedomWorks, health-industry billionaires like Rick Scott and the rest, and think, "If only I could kill as many Americans as they do! These guys are pros!"

They need to answer for this -- they need to explain why they are trying to protect a system that kills 22,000 Americans per year -- a figure based on a landmark report by the prestigious Institute of Medicine.

In fact, 22,000 is a conservative figure -- one of the authors of that report thinks the real figure in 2006 alone was 27,000 Americans killed from our health care system, perhaps as high as 40,000. But I'll stick to the conservative casualty number of 22,000, which is horrific enough.

If you believe in making health care available to every American, there's no reason to be skittish about talking about it on these terms. The right wing sure as hell isn't: in fact, its whole argument against health care reform is a hypothetical, future-tense dystopia of Americans murdered by their government, a fiction invented by hired marketing whizzes.

It's winning the "debate" based on a lie that hasn't even happened, whereas in this present-tense reality we all inhabit now, one American dies every 24 minutes because of this health care system.

It's time we protect ourselves and those we love, and that means stopping this slaughterhouse and saving Americans.

That's why health care reform isn't the place for wonkish debate and complicated rational arguments -- this is a battle to protect ourselves from people who are fine with their fellow citizens dying in horrible pain, not a debate-club tournament.

The right-wing thugs crashing Obama-care town hall meetings don't seem to mind being party to the mass murder of Americans, because they hate our freedoms.

For example, the freedom to elect a president whom they disagree with, or whose skin color they find repulsive. These goons hate Americans so much that they're willing to get violent -- actually, that's almost redundant, because it's like saying, "They're willing to get violent in order to kill 22,000 of us."

But that's how it is: They're attacking anyone who threatens to pull the plug on a health-care monster that's responsible for slaughtering some 200,000 Americans this decade.

If you go back to the first successful campaign to destroy first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care program in 1993, then the total number of Americans killed is well over 300,000 -- that's more than the 292,000 Americans who died fighting Fascism in World War II. Let me repeat: Since 1993, more Americans have been killed by our health care system than were killed on the battlefield in World War II.

It's no coincidence that the same rat who led America into the disastrous war in Iraq -- pundit Bill Kristol -- is the same one who led the fight against health care reform in 1993 and 2009.

Kristol has more American blood on his hands than a thousand Benedict Arnolds -- he was party to the slaughter of more than 4,000 Americans in Iraq and the death of America's geopolitical power. And with health care, Kristol has been one of the health care junta's prime ideologues, resulting in deaths of a few hundred thousand Americans here at home. Not that he's hiding it. Kristol himself wrote recently, "This is no time to pull punches. Go for the kill."

Let's take Kristol at his word -- he sees Americans trying get the sort of health care he has, and his response is to "Go for the kill." And that's exactly what they're doing: killing us.

So let's stop pretending that the health care battle is a "debate," because it's not.

It's a fight, a struggle to the death, to avoid death and suffering. The right wing understood this long ago, and that's why its winning -- again. The right-wingers are fighting for a system that kills Americans for their personal profit. And like colonial overlords, they're now unleashing hired thugs to attack anyone who threatens their riches.

It's the oldest and most serious battle of all: the battle for life and death, between misery and happiness -- all of which are scarce resources. When you look at this stripped of the silly civics-class sheen that too many progressives adhere to, then the right wing's vicious tactics aren't at all shocking, but rather, obvious.

Since the dawn of time, man has murdered, terrorized and plundered in order to live longer and healthier. That's all that's going on -- but in this fight, one side showed up to the battlefield ready for blood, and the other side -- the majority of Americans who voted for Obama, or the 76 percent of Americans who support a public option plan -- showed up armed with debate points and sneers.

No wonder we've all but lost.

And we'll remain stuck in this retro-Middle Ages nightmare, in which health care CEOs earn billions and golf in luxury until they're well over 100 years old, while 52 million Americans have no health care coverage at all.

It's a transfer not only of this nation's wealth but of American blood and vital organs -- transferred from the bodies of tens of millions of Americans and into the richest 1 percent's longevity, just like the way Grandpa in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre stayed alive by eating the flesh and blood of gullible Americans.

The stats prove that we are ruled by cannibals: the gap between the lifespan of America's wealthiest and its poorest has doubled since 1980. Overall the lifespan of the average American has plummeted from its No. 13 world ranking in 1960 to No. 42 today, lower than Costa Rica's.

Usually, you only find this sort of plummeting longevity ranking in countries occupied and exploited by brutal colonial powers that could give a damn how many natives die under their watch. The Congo under Belgium's King Leopold saw lifespans plummet while a handful of royal outsiders looted the country as quickly as they could.

America is the new Congo: we're subject to a handful of King Leopold billionaire colonialists, like the veiny-headed freak Rick Scott, looting the wealth and murdering tens of thousands, employing embittered natives as thug collaborators to keep the local population from demanding better conditions for ourselves.

Scott is literally a Texas Chainsaw Massacre character -- the one-time business partner of former President George W. Bush in the Texas Rangers scam, Scott made millions for himself in the 1990s by creating a health care monster called Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., which defrauded American taxpayers out of billions through false Medicare bills.

It paid the largest corporate fraud fines in history -- $1.7 billion -- and squeezed even more money by downsizing staff to the point where "babies were attended as infrequently as every three hours. Once, the only nurse caring for seven ill infants was so busy she failed to hear an alarm when a baby stopped breathing. A parent dashed to the baby and stimulated breathing, the state report said." [New York Times, 5/11/97]

Scott should not be allowed to walk free. By any standard I know of, he is a traitor who profits off the deaths of Americans, and he should be tried for his crimes against this country. All of his hundreds of millions of dollars are blood profits extracted from American corpses.

Rick Scott should be tarred and feathered, shipped off to Guantanamo until he gives up all of his blood money, and then strapped into a space capsule and fired off into deep space to ensure that this monster never harms another American again. That's in a just world.

But in our Congo-America reality, Scott is a respectable oligarch, all over the airwaves and Washington as the leader of the Conservatives for Patient's Rights group, back in the health care clinic business, fighting to keep his loot and that of his fellow health care billionaires, at the expense of tens of thousands of American lives.

And guess what? He's winning. He's winning because he's willing to see Americans die in order to enrich himself.

The colonized peoples of Africa, India, China and elsewhere had to fight to overthrow the vampires that ruled them and killed them. It's time we understood that these people hate us, and America for them is merely a slaughterhouse whose profits fund their pat lives.

Until we understand what's at stake as much as they do, we'll never have a chance in hell of saving ourselves.


Read more of Mark Ames at eXiledonline.com. He is the author of Going Postal: Rage, Murder and Rebellion: From Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton's Columbine and Beyond.

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
Just what is going on in Afghanistan?

U.S. President Barack Obama must be asking himself that as he contemplates the soaring casualties among coalition troops, the expanding Taliban influence and the conflicting advice from allies and advisers on what needs to be done.

Canada's military and development strategists probably have similar questions as the February 2011 deadline approaches to withdraw this country's fighting forces from Taliban-infested Kandahar.

A regular contributor to CBCNews.ca, Daniel Lak is an author and journalist who spent 12 years in South Asia for the BBC, covering India, Pakistan, Nepal and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in1996.

Since coming to office in January, Obama has put Afghanistan centre stage, ordering 21,000 extra U.S. soldiers and Marines there and naming new generals and diplomats. NATO allies were told to emulate Canada's example and let their troops fight more aggressively against insurgents and al-Qaeda.

Yet first assessments of the new strategy haven't been encouraging.

Obama's own military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, told the Wall Street Journal in August that the Taliban were gaining the upper hand.

"It's a very aggressive enemy right now," he said, "We've got to stop their momentum, stop their initiative. It's hard work."
A General's warning

McChrystal later denied he said the Taliban were winning, but the reason for his concern is clear: insurgents now dominate at least a third of the country's districts, and their bombs are killing more coalition soldiers than ever before — 72 in the month of July alone.
U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top coalition commander in Afghanistan, has commissioned a report, due in September, on steps to turn the war around. (Associated Press)U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top coalition commander in Afghanistan, has commissioned a report, due in September, on steps to turn the war around. (Associated Press)

One of the general's advisers, the respected security analyst, Anthony Cordesman, says the U.S. is running out of time if it wants to stop Afghanistan from sliding into further anarchy.

Up to 45,000 more soldiers might be needed, he wrote recently in a report for the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Along with countering the insurgency, Cordesman says the U.S. and its allies need to tackle drug trafficking, government corruption and endemic poverty if they are going to make a difference.

It's not going to be easy.

"NATO nations will need to be more honest with their peoples," Cordesman says. They will have to "explain the risks and reasons for fighting in more depth and show why they should have strategic patience and make a long-term commitment."
Surge 'too late?'

The Pakistan journalist and author, Ahmed Rashid, agrees. He's been covering Afghanistan for three decades, and thinks the country has reached a crucial turning point.

"We're on the right track right now," he told CBCNews.ca from his home in Lahore, "the surge in troops, improving governance, fighting drug mafias and taking a regional approach. But it may be too late.

"Let's not forget that it's year eight for this war and we've only just begun to emphasize counter-insurgency."

Rashid's point — that it's year eight for this war — has not gone unnoticed. Public opinion has noticeably soured on the war effort in many countries, Canada included, according to a recent Ekos Research poll.

As well, influential voices right around the world are already asking if there's any real point to an international military presence in Afghanistan.

Former British diplomat Rory Stewart, who has lived in Kabul and walked across Afghanistan for his book, The Places In Between, argues that Western governments just don't get it.

Afghanistan, he says, is not a democracy waiting to happen, or a place that takes easily to foreign influence.

"It is impossible for Britain or its allies to build an Afghan state," Stewart says, "They have no clear picture of this promised 'state' and such a thing could only come from an Afghan national movement, not as a gift from foreigners."
Visions of Vietnam

In the U.S., Boston University historian, Andrew Bacevich, a former military commander, goes even further.

He argues that American national security is actually harmed by the country's expanding military presence in Afghanistan.

In Washington, Bacevich says, it is simply assumed that Afghanistan is important, "much the way that 50 years ago otherwise intelligent people simply assumed that the United States had a vital interest in ensuring the survival of South Vietnam.
A Canadian soldier, part of a so-called stabilization team, accompanies an Afghan National Police officer on a search for weapons near Kandahar City. (Canadian Press)A Canadian soldier, part of a so-called stabilization team, accompanies an Afghan National Police officer on a search for weapons near Kandahar City. (Canadian Press)

"Now, as then, that doesn't stand up to scrutiny."

Like Stewart, Bacevich urges policy makers to draw down military forces and ramp up development spending and diplomatic support to counter cross-border influence from Iran, Pakistan and Central Asia.

For now, though, that's not a viable option as far as Washington is concerned and it is making sure its NATO partners, Canada among them, hear that message.
What should Canada do?

Cordesman, in fact, may be one of the message carriers.

His warning, in a recent interview with the Canadian Press, that Canada's planned departure a little over a year from now could hurt the entire NATO mission, is quite possibly an indirect plea from the Obama administration for Canada to stay in Kandahar for the foreseeable future.

But this country's Afghan plans, whether military or development, might just depend as much on domestic politics as anything else, according to University of Toronto professor Wesley Wark.

"That withdrawal date [in 2011] was not chosen with Afghan security in mind."

"It'd be hard for a minority government to change that date," Wark says. "Perhaps this government is hoping it becomes a majority before then, which would make a parliamentary decision on changing the Afghan mission more likely.

University of Calgary political scientist Barry Cooper contends that Ottawa has yet to decide what to do about Afghanistan, for a variety of reasons.

"The best reason to be there is because our best friend, the United States, needs us. So do the Afghans," Cooper says, "We're a long way from a firm decision on this."

Back in Afghanistan, Canadian journalist Kathy Gannon feels there's a growing sense among Afghans that Western countries are more concerned with their local realities than the state of this beleaguered nation.

Speaking to the CBC from Kandahar, Gannon said life has grown much worse for ordinary Afghans in recent years, despite international military and development aid.

"People are losing hope in the future," she said. "Progress, if any, is slow, incremental.

"People who never became refugees before, during the Russian occupation, the civil war, the Taliban, now they want to go. That's bad."

Still, it's clear — at least at this particular junction — that President Obama, along with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other NATO leaders, is committed to a strategy that emphasizes counter-insurgency, through the (mostly U.S.) troop build-up and renewed efforts to entrench progress in education and infrastructure work.

What is unclear is whether that level of commitment can endure many more years.

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
Think Vietnam Vets Were Screwed? Wait Until You See How Many Veterans of Bush's Wars End up in Jail

By Penny Coleman, AlterNet. Posted September 9, 2009.

Far too many soldiers end up behind bars while the rest of us are free to ignore the human evidence of what our military ventures really cost.


As all the other justifications for the U.S. invasion of Iraq have fallen by the wayside, it is ironic that the one that remains is "freedom," because in the name of someone else's freedom, we train our own soldiers to behave in ways that may very well cost them their own.

Gordy Lane is a retired Syracuse police detective who served in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. As a cop, it was his job to put lawbreakers behind bars, but as a veteran, he understands that when you go to war, "you come back a little different than when you went over there."

"Listen," he says, "you pop up out of a foxhole, and you blow a guy's head open like a watermelon. The other two guys in the foxhole start patting you on the back and saying, 'Good job!' because you just did the worst thing that you can do to another person. How do you translate that into civilian life?"

For far too many soldiers, the simple answer is, you don't.

But with them behind bars and out of sight, most of the rest of us are free to ignore the human evidence of what our military ventures really cost. Even putting issues of compassion and justice aside, any number of alternatives to prison have been shown to save taxpayer money.

For example, the average annual cost of incarceration in New York state in 2008 was $44,000 a year. But a 2009 report by the Legal Action Committee found that for every individual diverted from prison into community-based treatment programs, the state would save between $62,492 and $88,892 a year.

The LAC calculated those savings by subtracting the average cost of treatment (for addiction or mental-health issues) from the cost of incarceration. It turns out to be cheaper, both in the long and the short run, even considering expenditures such as program administration and court supervision, if projected savings in health care, public assistance and future criminal justice involvement is also considered.

With that in mind, as these new wars drag on, and as more and more service members find themselves entangled in the criminal justice system, it seems worth asking, in whose interest is the status quo maintained? Especially when there are more humane and even more rational solutions available.

Jim Strollo, who directs the veterans program at Groveland Prison in New York, has "a group of veterans that meets on Thursday nights that addresses PTSD, among other things.

"But I'm not a trained counselor. We have the Office of Mental Health, but they are not equipped to do a lot of counseling because crisis intervention keeps them so busy. Veteran inmates rely in the counseling of their peers. They do the best they can."

Even 10 years ago, veterans at Groveland and other New York prisons had more support and treatment options than they have today.

Don Little, who coordinated the NYS Department of Correctional Services' Veterans Programs from 1986 until December 2004, when he retired, told me sadly, "We had good results. We made the department look good, and we weren't even spending the state's money. I just don't understand."

Reintegrating Vets into Civilian Life

After the war in Vietnam, when veterans began showing up in the nation's prisons in large numbers, Vietnam Veterans of America was the first organization to respond with rehabilitation programs specifically designed to help returning troops reintegrate into civilian life.

NYDOCS adopted VVA's design and did perhaps the best job of implementing the program.

"We even had the VA involved, " Little says proudly. "They provided trained substance-abuse and PTSD counselors, and the NYS Division of Parole and Department of Labor had signed on as well."

By 1993, NYSDOCS could boast a recidivism rate (five years after release) of 8.9 percent for veterans who had completed the program, compared with 51.6 percent for non-veterans.

In 1999, 19 facilities in NYSDOCS offered veterans programs. Then, for the sake of "efficiency and effectiveness," those programs were consolidated. There are now three. And since the consolidation, program participation no longer counts toward certificates of "earned eligibility," which make an early parole more likely.

"Our program was undermined at the highest levels of the department," Little recalls with bitterness. "They said vets were getting preferential treatment. But I believe they just didn't want it to succeed. Vindictive, that's what it seemed to me."

What happened to those demonstrably successful programs makes no sense in human or even in fiscal terms. But even while various agencies of government appear content to keep veterans behind bars and out of sight, an array of creative and compassionate -- not to mention economically rational -- solutions continue to emerge, put forward by concerned individuals.

The Syracuse police force, for example, like police departments in communities across the country, includes a lot of Reservists and Guard members. In the past, they went right back to work when they came home. But Gordy Lane came up with a program designed to help the department and its officers with the entirely predictable re-entry issues they face following a deployment.

To that end, Lane has involved local professionals, including representatives from the police department, the mayor's office, the district attorney's office, the Vet Center and the VA, in a plan to make sure they are not sending a liability out onto the street.

"After all, this guy's got life and death strapped to his hip."

Now when these veterans/cops come home, the department gives them two weeks paid leave, during which time they are walked over to the VA to make sure they understand the services and benefits to which they are entitled, and then on to the Vet Center, where they must sign up for one-on-one counseling with a PTSD expert.

The PTSD expert decides when the cop/veteran is ready to go out on the street. And when he or she does get the green light to go out, he or she is paired with an Iraq or Afghanistan vet, who determines when/if he or she is ready to carry a gun.

Lane calls it a "commonsense approach" and, he adds, "It's free."

Programs like Lane's are cropping up across the country, but helping veterans/officers with re-entry issues only takes pressure off one side of the equation.

There is still the issue of what happens when symptomatic behaviors bring other veterans into contact with police.

"A vet won't back down," says Lane, "and neither will law enforcement. They are like two rams. What we have to do is help law enforcement understand these guys."

Training to Recognize Signs of PTSD Vets

Last year, Steve Darman, a Vietnam-era vet and an adjunct professor of sociology at State University of New York Institute of Technology in Utica, did a countywide study of prisoner re-entry issues that convinced him that health care, human services and crisis-intervention workers, as well as law enforcement, need to be trained to recognize the characteristic behaviors and needs of traumatized veterans.

"These new vets, just like the vets from Vietnam, they do perimeter checks at night so they can feel safe. And sometimes they do it with weapons. They don't sleep at night like most people, so they are out there walking around their property at 2, 3 in the morning, and local law enforcement can roll up and misunderstand. The cops need to learn to think twice."

Darman says he imagines "front-line responders all over the country are having similar problems with vets in crisis," and adds that he "would also guess that the outcomes for our vets are not good."

The accumulation of tragic stories in Oneida County alone -- stories like the Utica police officer who was fired last year for severely beating a verbally abusive Vietnam vet with a PTSD diagnosis while the vet was handcuffed to a gurney in a hospital psychiatric ward -- those kinds of stories impelled Darman to develop a one-day training workshop for local law enforcement, which he hopes will help keep similar future confrontations from escalating into prison sentences -- or worse.

But he fears that a crisis is looming, that the numbers will be daunting. The problem "goes way beyond the cost of incarceration," he warns. "PTSD, addiction and homelessness reinforce each other, producing a downward spiral that is almost always accompanied by incarceration. When we try to 'manage' veterans without helping them heal, there are costs attached everywhere."

Guy Gambill, director of research and policy at the Veterans Initiatives Center and Research Institute, predicts that the number of veterans of today's conflicts who will have run-ins with the criminal justice system "will exceed those of the Vietnam generation by a long shot."

To support that claim, Gambill points to a whole slew of "emendations and additions to our criminal codes since the Reagan administration. Laws requiring mandatory minimum sentencing and three-strike laws enhance sentences for a panoply of lower-level offenses and will bring unprecedented numbers" into the justice system.

Furthermore, large numbers of service members have "volunteered" for economic reasons. They come from the working class, and according to Gambill, "the well-documented inequities in our legal system make it far more likely that when this generation of soldiers transgress, they will do time."

And he notes that the "signature" wound of today's war, traumatic brain injury (TBI), which "in those cases where there is co-morbidity for substance abuse and/or where PTSD is present, there is an apparent link to violent behavior. That psychological component is often misinterpreted by law enforcement."

Gambill has been instrumental in getting a version of California's alternative-sentencing law -- which gives judges the option to take military service into consideration at sentencing -- passed in Minnesota this year, and he is working on getting a federal version passed.

Alternative "Veteran Court" Model

Another optimistic response has come from Buffalo (N.Y.) City Court Judge Robert Russell, who parlayed his experience with the successful drug- and mental-health-court concept into the first "veteran court."

Instead of prison, a veteran who has gotten himself or herself into trouble with the law is introduced to a court-supervised support community tailored to address the many readjustment issues specific to veterans -- from simple life-maintenance issues, to addictions, mental-health issues, housing and legal problems. The approach is holistic, the staff are largely veterans, and the focus is on recovery, not punishment.

More than 100 veterans have been admitted to the court in the past year. Their retention rate is 91 percent, and they predict a recidivism rate on a par with the mental-health court's, somewhere around 4 percent. Those numbers are particularly impressive when compared to the 60-70 percent national average.

Greg McClure, who is the project director at the new veterans court in Rochester, N.Y., sounds optimistic: "It's easy to spend money to punish, more of a challenge to find programs that work. This works. Our recidivism rates in the drug courts are way below the national average, and the veterans court is a little lower than that.

"I think it will be very difficult for anyone to say this isn't a good idea. It's taking care of people who have taken care of us."

Brock Hunter, a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer who worked with Gambill to draft the state's alternative-sentencing legislation, is less sanguine.

"We have like 2 million folks who have served now in the current conflicts, and well over half of them are still in the military. These are the folks who have done four or five or six combat tours. When they finally get out, that's when the s**t is really going to hit the fan."

Although Gambill and Hunter are quick to point out that they have nothing but the deepest respect for Russell and his court, they fear that such courts can only handle a relatively small number of cases. And they are further limited, at least as currently conceived, because they are proscribed from handling anything but "nonviolent" crimes. That language, Gambill says, is "simply too vague to be reasonable."

"In lots of states, Minnesota for example, any offense involving a controlled substance is considered violent. Add disorderly conduct, driving intoxicated, illegal gun possession, and we've ruled out a large percentage of the guys we are talking about. If what we are trying to do is not send as many veterans to jail as we did post-Vietnam, that's a colossal stupidity."

Hunter adds: "It is exactly the cases involving violent crimes that are the ones we should focus on. These are they guys who need help the most. They are likely going to be the veterans who are suffering from the more severe cases of PTSD, and if they go untreated, they are going to pose a greater danger to society when they get out than when they went in."

What Hunter has found to be a useful legal strategy is what in Minnesota is called "a stay of adjudication." Hunter says this is when a veteran enters a guilty plea that the judge does not accept. The process in effect puts the veteran on probation. The judge can then order him to seek treatment from the VA, or even to serve a few days in jail, if he thinks he needs to get the guy's attention.

Still, the justice system retains some leverage, some insurance that this troubled veteran is going to get the help he needs to get his life back in order. And if he complies, the charges are dismissed, and he has a clean record.

Like the veterans court, Hunter's solution requires that the mechanism be worked out on a case-by-case basis. That can only succeed if an adequately funded legal system has access to an adequately funded support network, including accessible VA treatment, housing, education and employment support.

Any solution that is going to work will be expensive and will require a very different set of priorities from those responsible for the policies that are now in place.

But, Gambill warns, "The way we are doing things now will ensure one thing: We will end up with the same numbers of veterans who 'fell through the cracks' as after Vietnam ... they may get there via different routes, but get there they will."


See more stories tagged with: veterans

Penny Coleman is the widow of a Vietnam War veteran who took his own life after coming home. Her book, Flashback: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Suicide and the Lessons of War, was released on Memorial Day 2006. Her Web site is Flashback.

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: other current events,,,tdsocr
PostPosted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 314
Robert Fowler is shown in a cellphone picture in the only photo publicly released from his time in captivity.Robert Fowler is shown in a cellphone picture in the only photo publicly released from his time in captivity.

Retired Canadian diplomat Robert Fowler says the four months he spent in captivity with a band of al-Qaeda militants has fortified his critical view of Canada's role in Afghanistan — that the time and money would be better spent elsewhere.

"I cannot object to the objective in Afghanistan, but I just don't think in the West that we are prepared to invest the blood or treasure to get this done," says Fowler, a veteran diplomat who was in Niger as a UN Special Envoy when he was captured last December.

In an exclusive interview with CBC chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge on The National, Fowler revealed details of his harrowing 130 days in captivity after he and assistant, Louis Guay, were abducted northwest of Niger's capital, Niamey.

"It strikes me as rather extreme that one goes out and looks for particularly complex misery to fix," Fowler said about Canada's mission in Afghanistan. "There's lots of things to fix that can be done more efficiently and probably more effectively."

Fowler spent 38 years as a public servant and diplomat, serving as foreign policy adviser to former prime ministers Pierre Trudeau, John Turner and Brian Mulroney, before retiring in 2006. He was Canada's longest-serving ambassador to the United Nations, and worked on issues such as blood diamonds in Angola and the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.

Watch CBC's The National Wednesday night for more on Robert Fowler's story, including his emotional phone call home to his wife while he was being held captive.

Though a "noble objective," Fowler describes the Afghan mission as one of the most "complex, challenging" missions.

Canada's combat role in Afghanistan is scheduled to end in 2011, after nearly a decade of military involvement in the war-torn nation wracked by Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgencies. The Canadian military's death toll continues to rise, hitting 129 on Sunday with the deaths of two soldiers.

"It's not just the commitment and the wasting of our youth and the enormous, enormous cost in difficult financial times. It's to get it done, we will have to do some unpleasant things. I mean some deeply hard, this isn't — this is not a nice war."
No love, no joy in al-Qaeda camp

During their time in captivity, Fowler and Guay were given a remarkable glimpse into the lives of their captors, al-Qaeda's North African wing, the Algeria-based al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM.

The two were held at gunpoint by a group of about 20 men and children, ranging in age from seven years old to 60, as they moved from location to location to evade detection. Fowler says they were never tortured and their captors always maintained their distance.

"They live in a world that I can't understand," said Fowler. "There was no fun, there was no love, there was no joy."
Members of al-Qaeda took Fowler and Guay hostage on the N1 highway, about 45 kilometres northwest of Niger's capital, Niamey.Members of al-Qaeda took Fowler and Guay hostage on the N1 highway, about 45 kilometres northwest of Niger's capital, Niamey. (CBC)

"The only time I saw real excitement," says Fowler, was when a "new hot DVD" was delivered to the group from central al-Qaeda.

It was played during one of the regular "movie nights" — when the captors would prop a laptop on a pile of three spare tires so the group could view propaganda videos of blowing up American soldiers and convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Lots of suicide bombers crashing through gates blowing up some buildings … and every time this would happen the audience would scream.

"I eventually refused to go to TV night," said Fowler. "I said I had seen the twin towers come down 400 times. I don't need to see them again."
17 days of camel

Fowler and Guay spent most of their time in transit, sleeping or sitting in a catatonic state in the 50 C heat of the sub-Saharan environment.

The men survived largely on pasta and rice but ate meat, such as goat or sheep, on occasion. Once, their captors caught a camel, which provided meals for the group for 17 days.

"They'd immediately dry it and hang strips on the trees and in that climate, it would dry instantly," says Fowler. "It was actually pretty good. Mind you, any meat was pretty good. We knew that we desperately needed protein and we just weren't getting it."

Though water was plentiful, it was not always drinkable after being pulled from desert wells in filthy containers, some stamped with skull-and-crossbones danger symbols.

By the time Fowler and Guay were released on April 22, along with two European tourists, the retired diplomat had lost nearly 40 pounds, suffered a fractured vertebra from the 56-hour bumpy drive right after their capture and lost a tooth.
Ransom still unclear

Fowler wouldn't speak to ongoing speculation about whether a ransom was paid for his release.

He says he doesn't know what behind-the-scenes negotiations led to his safe trip home, but acknowledges, "I mean, they got something. I don't know from whom or how."

"Prime Minister Harper has said very clearly that Canada paid no ransom. I have absolutely no reason to believe he was misstating the fact."

His captors at one time demanded 20 of its members be freed in exchange for the hostages.
'Hope was weak'

The most heart-wrenching moment for the Canadians came on Day 85 when the captors granted them a phone call to their wives — a strategic move by the al-Qaeda wing to mobilize support back home.

After a 19-hour drive to a sand dune near the Algerian border, the two trekked to the top of the razorback dune to tap into the Algerian cell network for the phone call.

It was a frustrating experience as the men encountered answering machines, a dead battery and a quickly depleted credit line on the phones. But eventually, they got through.

"Then I was getting into the goodbyes and [my wife Mary] gave me hell. She said, 'What do you mean goodbye? You're coming home. We've got lots of things to do. Don't give up, don't be silly.'"

Throughout it all, Fowler struggled at times to keep spirits high.

"I never felt confident this will work out well," he says. "There were days when hope was weak …deeply depressing moments.

"But no, I never gave up hope."

_________________
"I pledge allegiance to the world, to care for earth and sea and air, to cherish every living thing, with peace and justice everywhere." ; Lillian Genser


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group