But in case someone doesn't, it's a pet peeve of mine that when this phrase comes up, it is parsed as meaning that kids are suffering; this is not the case, in this usage, the word "suffer" means "tolerate".
Posted on Jul 23, 2003, 9:00 AM from IP address 4.33.80.24
it may have started that way w/ (some) pop media, but by now the rest of it is simply monkey-see/monkey-do w/out any comprhension... this is how language devolves.
Posted on Jul 24, 2003, 8:38 AM from IP address 4.33.82.88
> "I think the American people continue to express their support for
> ridding the world of Saddam Hussein based on just cause, knowing that
> Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons that were unaccounted
> for that we're still confident we'll find," Mr. Fleischer said. "I think
> the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass
> destruction to tell the world where they are."
Posted on Jul 9, 2003, 9:13 PM from IP address 4.43.248.214
Another trick used in the 1920-1945 era by another leader in a small European country who was also very popular with his followers and liked to invade other countries, and the trick still works! - Max
Bush's Data Dump
The administration is hiding bad economic news. Here's how.
By Russ Baker
Posted Friday, July 11, 2003, at 12:56 PM PT
Slight of hand?
The Bush administration is finally facing tough questions about its selective use of intelligence in selling war with Iraq. But Americans shouldn't just be skeptical of what the president says about WMD. They should be skeptical of what he says about GDP. In economic policy even more than in war policy, the Bushies have successfully suppressed, manipulated, and withheld evidence to serve their policy purposes.
Of course every administration likes to trumpet its good news and hide its bad, but what's remarkable about the Bush team is its willingness to stifle data that had been widely released and to politicize data that used to be nonpartisan.
The administration muzzles routine economic information that's unfavorable. Last year, for example, the administration stopped issuing a monthly Bureau of Labor Statistics report, known as the Mass Layoff Statistics program, that tracked factory closings throughout the country. The cancellation was made known on Christmas Eve in a footnote to the department's final report—a document that revealed 2,150 mass layoffs in November, cashiering nearly a quarter-million workers. The administration claimed the report was a victim of budget cuts. After the Washington Post happened to catch this bit of data suppression, the BLS report was reinstated. (Interestingly, President George H.W. Bush buried these same statistics in '92, also during a period of job losses. They were revived by President Clinton.)
The Bush economic team has snuffed its own reports when they reach conclusions that don't match the administration's rosy scenarios. The administration deep-sixed a study commissioned by then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that predicts huge budget deficits well into the future. As noted by the Financial Times in late May, this survey, which asserted that the baby-boom generation's future health care and retirement costs would swamp U.S. coffers, was dropped from a 2004 budget summary published in February 2003—at the same time the White House was campaigning for a tax-cut package that critics warned would greatly expand future deficits. "The study's [analysis of future deficits] dwarfs previous estimates of the financial challenge facing Washington," wrote the FT. According to the FT, a Bush official said the study was merely a thought exercise.
The administration also muffled a customary report whose findings would have forced key corporate supporters to pay more to their employees. The annual Adverse Effect Wage Rate establishes the minimum wage that can be paid each year to about 50,000 agricultural "guest workers" in the H2A Program. From AEWR's 1987 inception until 2000, the Department of Labor released the report in February. But in 2001, DOL withheld the wage figure until August, and only published it after the Farmworker Justice Fund threatened a lawsuit. In 2002, the DOL held up the report until May, again releasing it only after the prospect of legal action. The delays helped big agricultural firms, largely in the tobacco states and the South, by allowing them to pay their field workers last year's lower wages, saving the employers millions of dollars. Among those benefiting politically were Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's husband, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, whose state relies on several thousand guest workers in its tobacco fields and who receives large contributions from agricultural interests.
Another administration trick is playing with the length of its economic forecast periods, which puts the best possible face on bad news while exaggerating the projected benefits of its own initiatives. For example, to heighten the impression that Social Security is running out of money (thereby strengthening the case for allowing workers to divert money from the system into private retirement accounts), the administration has predicted shortfalls far in the future by relying on preposterously long forecast periods. In a superb analysis of the budget in the June Harper's, Thomas Frank noted that in 2002 the administration declared an $18 trillion shortfall in Social Security and Medicare—about five times the current national debt. Frank notes that in order to arrive at the $18 trillion figure—since Social Security is currently in surplus—the administration used a "cumulative seventy-five-year estimate [Frank's itals] based on extreme long-term projections ... ." Meanwhile, even as it relies on 75-year projections for Social Security, the same document replaces traditional 10-year budget projections with five-year ones, claiming the longer-term numbers were unreliable.
President Bush also politicized the Council of Economic Advisers, which is supposed to produce straight analysis, not administration spin. CEA staffers complained that top Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey, not even a member of the council, encouraged them to produce data supporting the president's controversial tax cut initiatives. CEA chairman Glen Hubbard also pushed staffers to find literature supporting the questionable argument that tax cuts created job growth.
On other occasions, the administration has punished economic officials who didn't follow the company line. Treasury Secretary O'Neill left the administration after, among other fits of candor, he expressed skepticism about economic figures the White House had released and suggested that the tax cut could be better used to buttress Social Security. And before Lindsey was made to take a dive, he predicted that the war in Iraq could cost upwards of $200 billion, a figure that infuriated the White House, which was selling the anti-Saddam campaign as a comparatively cheap victory.
Important economic data that casts a bad light on administration policies has been expunged from government Web sites. The Department of Labor removed a report showing the real value of the minimum wage over time, claiming it was "outdated." With no minimum wage hike since 1997, the Web site would have shown minimum-wage workers faring increasingly poorly under the Bush administration, while their real income went up under Clinton. (Some subheadings from the report: "Real Value of the Minimum Wage Continues Decline"; "Minimum Wage Falls Relative to Average Hourly Earnings"; "Minimum Wage Falls Below 2-Person Family Poverty Threshold.")
Earlier this year, a study predicting mediocre job growth from Bush's proposed $674 billion economic stimulus plan disappeared from the Council of Economic Advisers' Web site. The study forecast an average increase of only 170,000 jobs—0.1 percent of the workforce—every year through 2007. The study was pulled just after a major Jan. 7 Bush budget speech to the Economic Club of Chicago. "In the out years, by their own estimate, their plan is a job and growth killer," says Jared Bernstein, economist at the Economic Policy Institute. "Instead of doing what serious analysts would do and going to the drawing board to re-evaluate, they just took the offending document off the Web site."
Certainly, each one of these Bush team moves can be explained: administrative concerns, government paperwork reduction, outdated material, etc. Cumulatively, however, they certainly look suspect. We've seen the future, and it's been deleted.
Posted on Jul 12, 2003, 1:12 PM from IP address 207.159.110.202
But I don't see it. Why build a such a monumental structure ? Espec. as they neglected the other part of the equation, it takes two, or at least it used to.
Posted on Jul 9, 2003, 3:03 AM from IP address 207.159.110.50
Eh... no. It's about the worship of a deity known as the "Great Goddess"; these people were ruled by queens, the kings, such as they were, were ritualistically sacrificed every year & their blood used to fertilize the crops. But since we know it (Stonehenge) was a sort of astronomical observatory anyway these other symbolic attributes (if such they are) must be secondary. I still think it's compltely crackpot.
Posted on Jul 9, 2003, 9:42 AM from IP address 4.33.85.171
If U are person who likes to chat
play games or battle other people/against a computer
look after pets/animals/yourdigimon,
or who just likes a challenge,
try visiting this great site, Neopets.com, by clicking the link below.
STRUAN Stevenson, the Scottish chairman of the European Parliament’s fisheries committee, will today call for an urgent investigation into claims that nuclear submarines could be destroying fragile fish stocks around Scotland’s coastline.
Mr Stevenson, a Conservative MEP, will say evidence earlier brought to the fisheries committee based on scientific research from military sources shows that fish could be killed after being exposed to sophisticated detection equipment being used on board some nuclear submarines.
He will say the committee heard that fish exposed to sounds of the same frequency and duration from low frequency activated sonars (LFAS) - used on board nuclear submarines to detect other submarines in shallow waters - suffer mortality, internal injuries, eye haemorrhaging and auditory damage at levels above 160 decibels.
Fifty-seven per cent of brown trout died after exposure to levels above 170 decibels and there were concerns that marine mammals, as well as human divers, could also be affected.
Mr Stevenson will explain that scientific analysis shows injuries from these sonars had caused whales to die, most notably in the Bahamas and the Canary Islands last year.
A study by Norway’s Institute of Marine Research revealed that trawl catch rates of haddock and cod fell by up to 70 per cent over a 2,000sq mile area where low frequency air guns were being used, heightening fears that LFAS posed a "significant threat" to already depleted fish stocks throughout the world’s oceans.
Mr Stevenson, speaking ahead of today’s call, said: "This is a matter of grave concern, particularly on the west coast of Scotland, where UK and US nuclear submarines regularly pass through the Firth of Clyde on their way to and from the naval base at Faslane.
"The collapse of fish stocks in the Firth of Clyde has been echoed around the rest of the UK coast and indeed across the globe. In light of the evidence it may not always be the fishermen who are to blame for dwindling fish stocks.
"I believe it is now time for the European Parliament to step in and carry out further investigations into the effects of LFAS on fishing, and I am writing to the research directorate of the European Parliament to look into this as a matter of urgency.
"It may be too little, too late for the industry, but conservation of stocks shouldn’t just be left to our fishermen if others continue to destroy stocks when there is an alternative."
Mr Stevenson added: "There is another cause for concern. It appears that the impact of active sonar on human divers is also more severe than originally presented. The likelihood of panic behaviour in unalerted recreational divers, exposed to LFAS, has been recognised as a serious threat by British Navy doctors.
"The US Navy’s tests of LFAS on their own alerted personnel indicate that fairly strong aversive behaviour would be expected at exposures well below 145 decibels. Indeed, the navy has acknowledged that exposure to LFAS poses risks to recreational divers hundreds of miles from the LFAS source.
"Acoustic trauma and mortalities caused by sonar over vast areas of the marine environment is now an issue of major international controversy.
"There are existing alternative methods for underwater surveillance that are as effective as LFAS, and should be used in preference to these noise pollutants.
"It appears that more scientific evaluation is required urgently before we can ever allow the US and UK military to increasingly pollute the world’s marine environment with these devastating LFAS."
A Ministry of Defence spokesman insisted that the Royal Navy was not to blame.
The spokesman said: "The position is quite simple. We don’t have LFAS in our nuclear submarines. In fact we don’t have LFAS in operational service in the navy at all." He added: "I can’t speak for the Americans."
Posted on Jun 30, 2003, 2:19 AM from IP address 209.201.75.133
Posts: 129
Joined: Oct 2002
Thursday June 26, 2003 7:43 PM (NEW!)
8 million could lose overtime pay
New labor rules would cost workers money, study argues
By Jon Bonné
MSNBC
June 26 — Up to 8 million U.S. workers could lose their right to overtime pay if Bush administration rules are put in place, according to a new study released Thursday. The new proposed rules would dramatically change who qualifies as a salaried worker, and which hourly wage earners are able to collect overtime.
THE REPORT, by the Economic Policy Institute, highlights dozens of professions that would be impacted by the new rules and argues that hundreds of thousands of workers could be moved from hourly wages to a fixed salary. It would also expand the types of work responsibilities that can be barred from overtime, and would cap a right to overtime for almost anyone earning more than $65,000 a year.
The study’s numbers sharply contrast Labor Department estimates that 1.3 million low-wage workers would qualify for overtime under the new rules, while 640,000 professional workers would lose their potential for overtime.
Some 2.5 million salary earners and 5.5 million hourly employees would lose their overtime, according to the estimates by the group, which is affiliated with labor unions. Some of the most impacted job types would include: mid-level supervisors such as restaurant managers or safety inspectors; professionals such as dietitians, social workers and writers; and technical specialists, such as dental hygienists, drafters or computer programmers. The report’s authors argue the new rules would lead to longer hours for most employees with minimal cost to companies.
“That will have a big impact on their personal family budgets and also on their hours of work,” said EPI vice president and policy director Ross Eisenbray. “It’ll be more profit, but it won’t end up in worker paychecks.”
The proposed regulatory changes, which amount to an overhaul of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, were first released last March by the Labor Department. A public comment period ends Monday, though no public hearings were scheduled. They could be implemented as soon as this fall and the administration wants them in place by next year. If so, it would be the first major overhaul of the overtime rules in nearly 30 years.
Among those changes would be to raise the baseline salary under which all employees qualify for overtime. Right now, standards still employ a figure from 1975: Anyone earning less than $155 per week automatically qualifies. The new rules would raise that to $425 per week, or about $22,000 a year.
According to the study, the changes’ real impact would be in how workers are defined:
Some employees are currently exempt because they hold advanced degrees or did postgraduate study. But most white-collar workers with any education beyond high school would be placed in a category of “learned professional” and would likely be exempt — unable to earn overtime. Many “learned” professions would now allow on-the-job experience to replace academic training: chefs or practical nurses might be exempted from overtime because academic study is largely vocational in nature. The Labor Department argues that would simply give credit for “equivalent knowledge and skills” gained outside academic programs.
Workers would no longer be required to exercise decision-making and judgment in order to be considered a professional, or to mostly do “production” work in order to gain overtime rights. Instead, an employee considered to be in a “position of responsibility” could be made exempt.
Overtime exemptions for “executive” employees would be expanded to many lower-level supervisors who manage just a handful of employees, such as fire sergeants or retail sales supervisors. Even if employees who mostly perform routine, non-exempt tasks can still be made exempt. In one example the study cites, someone who stocks shelves could be considered an exempt employee if they also spend some time handling customer complaints.
IMPACT ON PAYROLLS
The Bush administration and business groups argue the changes are necessary to reflect a growing service sector in the economy, and to spur economic growth and hiring practices. Among the arguments is that by paying less overtime to more highly skilled workers, employers would have more money in their payroll to hire new employees and reduce the unemployment rolls.
Many businesses also support the Labor Department’s argument that the new rules will simplify how workers are segmented based on the type of work they do. Some business owners, for example, would like to see an end to the “production dichotomy” — the split between workers who “produce” and those who supervise. Those divisions, they argue, are representative of the labor act’s 1939 origins in an industrial economy and don’t reflect modern times.
“That makes sense if you think of an assembly line. It doesn’t make much sense if you think of a service economy,” said Michael Eastman, director of labor law policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce . “How do you take regulations written in the 1940s and try to apply it to your webmaster?”
Organized labor, meantime, has been on a vocal campaign against the new rules, arguing they would not only hurt workers but would actually discourage hiring. The AFL-CIO, for example, believes the new rules — by increasing the number of salaried workers — would allow employers to shift more work onto salaried employees, extending their work hours without any cost to the company.
“Just because people may sit down all day instead of stand up doesn’t mean they should be expected to work 80 hours a week without overtime pay,” said AFL-CIO spokeswoman Kathy Roeder.
ROLES BLURRING
In fact, the original purpose of the FLSA rules were to guarantee certain worker rights, both in establishing a minimum wage and in preserving a 40-hour work week — discouraging companies from overworking employees by imposing, in essence, a financial penalty. But if anything, Americans’ work week has kept lengthening, with U.S. workers now far outpacing their counterparts in the developed world.
For more details
• FLSA info from the U.S. Department of Labor
• Read EPI's report
DoL is accepting public comments at:
Fax: (202) 693-1432
whd-reg@fenix2.dol-esa.gov
And by one view, the new economy dictates that companies place more responsibility on their workers. One sign of that is what Charles Tharp, professor of human resource management at Rutgers University, calls a “a very jobless recovery”: firms increasing their productivity without growing payrolls at all. A single worker now has far more flexibility and personal responsibility — both of which can translate into longer hours, more work and some confusions about what a worker’s role should be.
“With more team-based organizational structures, with people managing themselves ... some of the old definitions around exempt and non-exempt have become rather blurry,” said Tharp. “It’s been a bit of a mess.”
Many companies agree the current rules have made for a bit of a morass, and while they see the new definitions as helping to clear up some vague definitions, though they would like to push the Labor Department for even more clarity, which is an issue for them in stemming labor lawsuits.
Both sides, actually, are hoping for clarity through the rules, and both are glad to give workers credit for their skill sets. But the report’s authors worry that the credit being given for workers’ experience and increased autonomy will translate into a smaller paycheck.
“They’re trying to say that really there’s not a difference anymore between a professional engineer and the person that engineer supervises,” Eisenbrey said. “It’s true they do have a lot of skill and that’s a good thing. But it’s not a reason to deny them pay when they work overtime.”
==================================================
Please explain how you get the Idea americans will get a raise out of the bush plan.
>>>>right now, clinton's plan, full time job, $155.00 a week.............$8,060.00/year
soon, bush's plan, full time job, $425.00 a week....................$22,000.00/year
america's workers are better off under bush's plan. with bush we get a raise of almost $14,000.00/year!!! think how that would help the average family.<<<<<
While a raise of that Magnitude would be of great benefit to struggling Americans working at the lowest end of the economic spectrum, the article clearly points out that the plan only raises WHO would be automatically eligible for overtime from those who earn only $155 dollars to those who earn only $425.00 a week. This bill specifiys no additional income, and instead actually reclassifys some workers who are now eligible for overtime to an "exempt" catagory - a Definite loss of earning power.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, the cost of Labor has fallen dramatically , caused by the effects of thirty years of inflation:
>>>Is the measuring device, known as the dollar, losing value? A gallon of gas at 20 cents when I was a kid, now approaches $2.00, and is considered a bargain, compared to other price increases. It's the SAME GAS! It just takes ten times as many dollars to fill your tank, and that is the least alarming comparison I can think of. Comparing other things, such as houses, shows the dollar to be the gigantic fraud it really is. Locally, just a few years ago, one could buy land adjacent to the National forest for under $1,000 an acre, and now these plots are over $2,000 per acre. With nice views, try $10,000 an acre. SAME LAND! Just being bought with declining value dollars. Hide 'em under your mattress, and they still go down, because we have no power to stop the dollar's decline. It is government that is issuing them, not us. I'm not spending like it is going out of style, government is. I don't print to pay, government does. When it does, everyone's dollars lose value. Millions do not understand Stott's law, which is so simple, that it is ridiculous. "The more of anything there is, the less they will be worth," and that includes DOLLARS! <<<
declining dollar
A Great site everyone should look at is:
the value of money
1. How much money today has the same "purchasing power" as $1.00 in the year 1941 ?
$12.23 in the year 2002 has the same "purchase power" as $1.00 in the year 1941.
$6.94 in the year 2002 has the same "purchase power" as $1.00 in the year 1951.
$6.01 in the year 2002 has the same "purchase power" as $1.00 in the year 1961.
$4.45 in the year 2002 has the same "purchase power" as $1.00 in the year 1971.
$1.98 in the year 2002 has the same "purchase power" as $1.00 in the year 1981.
$1.32 in the year 2002 has the same "purchase power" as $1.00 in the year 1991.
$1.04 in the year 2002 has the same "purchase power" as $1.00 in the year 2000.
This Calculator does not adjust for regional differences, Nor for differences such as real estate and utilities, But it does give you a general idea.
Another one:
Inflation calculations
What cost $1.00 in 1941 would cost $2.11 in 1961.
What cost $1.00 in 1961 would cost $1.31 in 1971.
What cost $1.00 in 1971 would cost $2.13 in 1981.
What cost $1.00 in 1981 would cost $1.59 in 1991.
What cost $1.00 in 1991 would cost $1.30 in 2001.
What cost $1.00 in 1941 would cost $12.15 in 2001.
What cost $1.00 in 1961 would cost $5.75 in 2001
Posted on Jun 29, 2003, 6:16 PM from IP address 207.159.111.130
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Saturday May 31, 2003
The Guardian
Sean Penn has issued a damning indictment of President George Bush, the Iraq
war, and the American media - in the shape of whole page advertisement in
yesterday's New York Times.
In a long and reflective essay, the film actor warns that the US flag is in
danger of becoming "a haunting banner of murder, greed, and treason against our
principles".
Penn visited Baghdad before the war and was vilified in the US for doing so. In
the ad, he pours scorn on the motives for the war, which he suggests is now
mainly benefitting US business. Although the New York Times does not give
details of how much has been paid for a specific ad, a member of its
advertising department said yesterday that a similar "advocacy" ad would cost
$125,647.
In the essay, Penn mocks President Bush's recent landing, dressed as a fighter
pilot, on an aircraft carrier off California.
"He seemed quite pleased with this, his military service," writes Penn. "He
likes it better now than when he was a member of the Texas national guard, when
in 1972 he simply failed to show up for duty for over a year in wartime.
"I certainly wouldn't want to remind him that, were he Awol in a time of war,
that would amount to treasonous desertion."
Describing the attacks on him after his Iraq visit, Penn wrote that he
"experienced first hand the repressive condition of public debate in our
country...I was beginning to feel the price paid by a citizen exercising a
position of dissent."
In a law suit, Penn has claimed he was dropped from a film project because of
his anti-war statements.
He went on: "Our flag has been waving, it seems, in servicing a regime change
significantly benefitting US corporations." He takes a sideswipe at the
newspaper in which his ad appears for its "unchallenging" coverage of weapons
inspections: "We see chaos in the Baghdad streets but no WMDs."
And he criticises TV for showing "grateful" Iraqis "with no true acknowledgment
that true poverty will bring the best of us to our knees".
He concludes: "Osama bin Laden's agenda is being furthered by our fear,
promoted by the invective language of media and a congress that shamefully
cowers from criticism."
He also criticises Democrats for failing to challenge President Bush: "It has
been an obscene and cowardly betrayal of their constituents." He urges everyone
to vote when the time comes.
Figures who have offered much milder criticism, as did the Dixie Chicks in
London this year, have been subjected to death threats and boycotts.
Posted on May 31, 2003, 4:11 PM from IP address 4.43.252.98
>Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 01:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
>From: USA AMERICA <us00419@go.com>
>Subject: HI
>To: us00419@go.com
>X-Mailer: GoMail 3.0.0
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.0 required=5.0
tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,OPPORTUNITY,LINES_OF_YELLING,LINES_OF_YELLING_2,LINES_OF_YELLING_3,SUPERLONG_LINE,FROM_AND_TO_SAME,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS
version=2.20
>X-Spam-Level:
>
>MY NAME IS CAPTAIN GIPSON NATHAN FOXES, A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN 97 BATTALLION
REINFORCE TO THE CAPITAL CITY OF IRAQ (BAGHDAD).
>
>DURING THE SURVEILLANCE TO CAPTURE SAD DAM HUSSEIN THE THEN PRESIDENT OF IRAQ
ALLEGED FOR MISCONDUCT, MISUSING OF POWER AND FULLY ENSLAVING THE ENTIRE
CITIZEN OF IRAQ. IN THE PROCESS OF THIS SURVEILLANCE AT OUR DISEMBARKING TO
BAGHDAD IN OUR ATTEMPT TO CAPTURE SAD DAM HUSSEIN, MEMBER OF THE MARINE
TROOPS INCLUDING ME WERE LUCKILY GAINED ASSESS TO THE PRESIDENTIAL VILLA AND IN
ATTEMPT TO SEARCH FOR HIM THE CAPTURED SECURITY IN CHARGE OF THE VILLA DIRECTED
US TO THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIVATE SAFE TO RUN FOR THE SAFETY OF THEIR LIFE.
>
>AS WE GAINED OUR ENTRANCE TO THIS PRIVATE SAFE OF THE PRESIDENT WE FOUND SOME
BOXES CONTAINING ALL KINDS OF AMMUNITIONS, DIAMOND, GOLD, SAD DAM HUSSEIN
DOLLARS, AND AMERICAN DOLLARS, WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE INSTRUCTION BY
DESTROYING EVERY THING THEREIN, AS WE BEGIN FROM THE
>AMMUNITION AND SAD DAM HUSSEIN DOLLARS, A CAPTAIN COLLEAGUE CALLED MY
ATTENTION AND MADE ME TO REALIZE THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MAKE A
HEAD WAY IN LIFE.
>
>AS THE TROOP BATTALION COMMANDANT, I ORDERED THE LOWER RANKED OFFICERS
AMONG US TO LEAVE THE SPOT IN PRETENCE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. IT IS FROM THIS END
WE REMOVED SIX BOXES OF FULL AMERICAN DOLLARS EACH CONTAINING
>$15.8MUSD AS INDICATED ON EACH BOXES. WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE, WE SUCCEEDED IN
MOVING THE BOXES TO NEGHBOURING COUNTRY OF IRAQ (KUWAIT) WHERE WE SHARE THE
MONEY WITH EACH OFFICER HAVING $31.6MUSD.I HAVE FURTHER SUCCEEDED IN LODGING
THIS MONEY INTO TRUST AND FINANCE
>HOUSE.
>
>I AM PRESENTLY IN MY COUNTRY (UNITED STATE 0F AMERICA) AND NOW SEEKING FOR YOUR
HELP AND ASSISTANCE FOR YOU TO COME TO MY AID I PROPOSED THAT YOU STAND AS MY
PROXY PERSON TO CLAIM THIS BOXES THAT CONSTANT MONEY SINCE I HAVE RETURNED TO
THE CAMP. MOREOVER, ANY MOMENT FROM NOW WE SHALL STILL BE DEPLOYED TO IRAQ
SINCE THE DEATH OF SAD DAM HUSSEIN HAS NOT BEING CONFIRMED. AS TO GET THE METAL
BOX OF THE MONEY OUT OF THE TRUST AND FINANCE HOUSE, TRANSFER IT TO YOUR
ACCOUNT WHERE WE CAN MAKE USE OF IT IN A LUCRATIVE BUSINESS INVESTMENT.
>
>THIS TRANSACTION IS NOW ONLY KNOWN BY YOU, AND MYSELF THE SECRECY AND
CONFIDENTIALITY SHOULD BE MAINTAINED FOR THE SUCCESSFUL TRANSFER OF THIS FUND.
THESE FUND WAS DEPOSITED WITH A SECRETE CODE THAT MEANS IT WILL BE MORE EASY
FOR YOU TO RETRIEVE THE FUND AND I WITHHOLD THE SECRET CODE FOR SECURITY
REASONS AS YOU SHOW INTEREST THE SECRET CODE OF DEPOSIT WILL BE GIVEN TO YOU
AFTER SOLID ARRANGEMENT WITH BOTH OF US THEN YOU CAN NOW PROCEED TO THE
FINANCE HOUSE TO RETRIEVE THE MONEY AND TRANSFER THE MONEY INTO YOUR ACCOUNT.
>
>
>FOR SECURITY REASONS, WE WOULD BE COMMUNICATING THROUGH FAX OR E-MAIL BUT
PREFERABLY FAX. PLEASE SEND ME YOUR PRIVATE FAX NUMBER FOR CONFIDENTIAL
DISCUSSIONS.
>
>I SHALL BE DELIGHTED TO RECEIVING YOUR RESPONSE TOWARDS ASSISTING ME. MY
PRIVATE FAX LINE IS +1-419-844-0250
>
>YOURS TRULY,
>CAPTAIN GIPSON NATHAN
Posted on May 19, 2003, 9:46 AM from IP address 4.33.81.225
ARCATA, Calif. - More than 100 cities and one state have passed resolutions condemning the USA Patriot Act, saying it gives the federal government too much snooping power. But in this liberal fold of Northern California's Redwood Curtain, a simple denouncement just doesn't go far enough.
To cooperate with the act, the City Council says, is criminal.
Starting this month, a new city ordinance would impose a fine of $57 on any city department head who voluntarily complies with investigations or arrests under the aegis of the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism bill passed after Sept. 11.
Arcata's law is mostly symbolic, since federal law trumps any local ordinance. Still, the notion of civic disobedience is drawing plenty of attention.
"We knew we were doing something a little bit bold," says Dave Meserve, the councilman who sponsored the ordinance. "It certainly did not occur to me that it would catch the imagination of the American public."
In Arcata, the ordinance is the latest in a long line of actions that set the former mill town apart from the flannel-clad conservatism of California's North Coast.
Home to about 16,000 and nearly 300 miles up the coast from San Francisco, Arcata made waves in the early 1990s as the first city with a Green Party majority. Greens now hold two of five seats on the council, which recently issued a proclamation against war in Iraq.
At Northtown Books, one of several businesses lining Arcata's charming town square, employees have followed reaction to the ordinance with interest.
"Some of the reports of what's going on here have made it seem like, 'Oh, it's those crazy hippies in Arcata,'" Herzog said.
The USA Patriot Act gives the government new powers to use wiretaps, electronic surveillance and other information gathering. Opponents say it violates civil liberties; supporters say it has helped fight terrorism.
"The Patriot Act has been an invaluable tool in the government's efforts to prevent terrorist attacks," said Justice Department spokesman Jorge Martinez, who said the act is constitutional and is being used only against people suspected of acting as agents of a foreign power or foreign terrorist organizations.
But Martinez calls the groundswell of resolutions "merely symbolic. We haven't had an instance where localities are not complying."
Posted on May 18, 2003, 1:16 PM from IP address 4.43.250.4
Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Heights
by
(no login)
NYTimes article on Bush Admin's use of VISUAL IMAGES
Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Heights
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
WASHINGTON, May 15 - George W. Bush's "Top Gun" landing on the deck
of the carrier Abraham Lincoln will be remembered as one of the most
audacious moments of presidential theater in American history. But it was
only the latest example of how the Bush administration, going far beyond
the foundations in stagecraft set by the Reagan White House, is using the
powers of television and technology to promote a presidency like never
before.
Officials of past Democratic and Republican administrations marvel at
how the White House does not seem to miss an opportunity to showcase
Mr. Bush in dramatic and perfectly lighted settings. It is all by design:
the
White House has stocked its communications operation with people from
network television who have expertise in lighting, camera angles and the
importance of backdrops.
On Tuesday, at a speech promoting his economic plan in Indianapolis,
White House aides went so far as to ask people in the crowd behind Mr.
Bush to take off their ties, WISH-TV in Indianapolis reported, so they would
look more like the ordinary folk the president said would benefit from his
tax cut.
"They understand the visual as well as anybody ever has," said Michael K.
Deaver, Ronald Reagan's chief image maker. "They watched what we did,
they watched the mistakes of Bush I, they watched how Clinton kind of
stumbled into it, and they've taken it to an art form."
The White House efforts have been ambitious - and costly. For the
prime-time television address that Mr. Bush delivered to the nation on the
anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House rented three barges
of giant Musco lights, the kind used to illuminate sports stadiums and
rock concerts, sent them across New York Harbor, tethered them in the
water around the base of the Statue of Liberty and then blasted them
upward to illuminate all 305 feet of America's symbol of freedom. It was
the ultimate patriotic backdrop for Mr. Bush, who spoke from Ellis Island.
For a speech that Mr. Bush delivered last summer at Mount Rushmore,
the White House positioned the best platform for television crews off to
one side, not head on as other White Houses have done, so that the
cameras caught Mr. Bush in profile, his face perfectly aligned with the four
presidents carved in stone.
And on Monday, for remarks the president made promoting his tax cut
plan near Albuquerque, the White House unfurled a backdrop that
proclaimed its message of the day, "Helping Small Business," over and
over. The type was too small to be read by most in the audience, but just
the right size for television viewers at home.
"I don't know who does it," Mr. Deaver said, "but somebody's got a good
eye over there."
That somebody, White House officials and television executives say, is in
fact three or four people. First among equals is Scott Sforza, a former ABC
producer who was hired by the Bush campaign in Austin, Tex., and who
now works for Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director. Mr.
Sforza created the White House "message of the day" backdrops and
helped design the $250,000 set at the United States Central Command
forward headquarters in Doha, Qatar, during the Iraq war.
Mr. Sforza works closely with Bob DeServi, a former NBC cameraman
whom the Bush White House hired after seeing his work in the 2000
campaign. Mr. DeServi, whose title is associate director of
communications for production, is considered a master at lighting. "You
want it, I'll heat it up and make a picture," he said early this week. Mr.
DeServi helped produce one of Mr. Bush's largest events, a speech to a
crowd in Revolution Square in Bucharest last November.
To stage the event, Mr. DeServi went so far as to rent Musco lights in
Britain, which were then shipped across the English Channel and driven
across Europe to Romania, where they lighted Mr. Bush and the giant
stage across from the country's former Communist headquarters.
A third crucial player is Greg Jenkins, a former Fox News television
producer in Washington who is now the director of presidential advance.
Mr. Jenkins manages the small army of staff members and volunteers
who move days ahead of Mr. Bush and his entourage to set up the
staging of all White House events.
"We pay particular attention to not only what the president says but what
the American people see," Mr. Bartlett said. "Americans are leading busy
lives, and sometimes they don't have the opportunity to read a story or
listen to an entire broadcast. But if they can have an instant understanding
of what the president is talking about by seeing 60 seconds of television,
you accomplish your goals as communicators. So we take it seriously."
The president's image makers, Mr. Bartlett said, work within a budget for
White House travel and events allotted by Congress, which for fiscal 2003
was $3.7 million. He said he did not know the specific cost of staging Mr.
Bush's Sept. 11 anniversary speech, or what the White House was
charged for the lights. A spokeswoman at the headquarters of Musco
Lighting in Oskaloosa, Iowa, said the company did not disclose the prices
it charged clients.
White House communications operatives in previous administrations
said many costs of presidential trips were paid for by whoever was
deemed the official host of a trip - typically a federal agency, a city or a
company. Trips deemed political are paid for by the parties.
"The total cost of a trip is ultimately shared across a wide spectrum of
agencies and hosts," said Joshua King, who was director of production of
presidential events in the Clinton administration. "To get to who really
pays for presidential events would keep a team of accountants very busy."
The most elaborate - and criticized - White House event so far was Mr.
Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major
combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people,
including
the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded
himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's
landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.
Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had
choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of
the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right
shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly
capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The
speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour
light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.
"If you looked at the TV picture, you saw there was flattering light on his
left
cheek and slight shadowing on his right," Mr. King said. "It looked great."
The trip was attacked by Democrats as an expensive political stunt, but
White House officials said that Democrats needed a better issue for
taking on the president. A New York Times/CBS News nationwide poll
conducted May 9-12 found that the White House may have been right: 59
percent of those polled said it was appropriate, and not an effort to make
political gain, for Mr. Bush to dress in a flight suit and announce the end
of
combat operations on the aircraft carrier.
But even this White House makes mistakes. One of the more notable
ones occurred in January, when Mr. Bush delivered a speech about his
economic plan at a St. Louis trucking company. Volunteers for the White
House covered "Made in China" stamps with white stickers on boxes
arrayed on either side of the president. Behind Mr. Bush was a printed
backdrop of faux boxes that read "Made in U.S.A.," the message the
administration wanted to convey to the television audience.
The White House takes great pride in the backdrops, which are created by
Mr. Sforza, and has gone so far as to help design them for universities
where Mr. Bush travels to make commencement addresses. Last year,
the White House helped design a large banner for Ohio State as part of
the background for Mr. Bush; last week, the White House collaborated
with the University of South Carolina to make Sforzian backdrops for a
presidential commencement speech in the school's new Carolina Center.
"They really are good," said Russ McKinney, the school's director of public
affairs, as he listened to the president.
Television camera crews, meanwhile, say they have rarely had such
consistently attractive pictures to send back to editing rooms.
"They seem to approach an event site like it's a TV set," said Chris
Carlson, an ABC cameraman who covers the White House. "They dress it
up really nicely. It looks like a million bucks."
Even for standard-issue White House events, Mr. Bush's image makers
watch every angle. Last week, when the president had a joint news
conference with Prime Minister José Mariá Aznar of Spain, it was staged
in the Grand Foyer of the White House, under grand marble columns, with
the Blue Room and a huge cream-colored bouquet of flowers illuminated
in the background. (Mr. Sforza and Mr. DeServi could be seen there
conferring before the cameras began rolling.) The scene was lush and
rich, filled with the beauty of the White House in real time.
"They understand they have to build a set, whether it's an aircraft carrier
or
the Rose Garden or the South Lawn," Mr. Deaver said. "They understand
that putting depth into the picture makes the candidate or president look
better."
Or as Mr. Deaver said he learned long ago with Mr. Reagan: "They
understand that what's around the head is just as important as the head."
Posted on May 17, 2003, 3:10 PM from IP address 4.43.242.43
How the GOP struck gold with its permanent "war on terrorism"
by
(no login)
How the GOP struck gold with its permanent "war on terrorism"
Demos are hoping that a collapsing economy will doom Bush like it did his father. But his dad didn't have Osama bin Laden in his corner -- or Karl Rove.
May 8, 2003 | Opponents of President Bush are hoping that he suffers the
same political fate his father did in 1992 by winning a war with Iraq only
to lose reelection at home because of a soft economy. But with the shooting
in the latest Iraq war mostly over and the 2004 campaign well underway,
influential Democratic insiders are warning that may be wishful thinking.
Young Bush, they say, has two things his father did not: the ongoing war on
terrorism and bare-knuckled political advisor Karl Rove.
Rove plays politics with national security -- and public insecurity -- in
ways that Bush Sr.'s White House never dreamed of. Since the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, the administration has boldly, and at times brazenly,
exploited the aftermath for political gain. Before the Republicans'
triumphant 2002 midterm election victories, the White House used
terror-related issues and the specter of war with Iraq to keep timid
Democrats off balance and the staggering economy off of Page 1. And it
appears certain that Rove will employ a similar script in the 18 months
before the next election.
"The Democratic Party keeps putting out talking points that are all about
1992 [comparisons], but I say '92 is not a playbook we can pull out," says
Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. "Except for
the Bush DNA and the same last name, that's where the similarities end.
George Bush is beatable -- he's a lousy educator and a lousy economist --
but he's added a very important element to his résumé since 9/11, commander
in chief. Democrats must have a very good answer to how they will protect
American citizens. It's national security, stupid."
"This is not going to be a repeat of 1992, this White House is too smart for
that," agrees James Zogby, a senior advisor to the Gore campaign and now
president of the Arab American Institute. "They're not going to let the war
culture fade. Bush is a 48 percent president acting like an 80 percent one
and the difference is 9/11. He knows that and he's not going to let go of
it. The war on terrorism can be a never-ending war, but without the
fatigue."
That perpetual-war approach contrasts sharply with Gulf War I, which came to
an abrupt end and was not tied to any larger crusade. That allowed Bush Sr.
to claim victory in the short term, but allowed Americans to turn their
attention back to domestic issues, such as the weak economy and a president
who was seen as weak on economic issues.
Today, in Rove's the hands, the permanent war on terrorism is like a
political gold mine. "Everything, including a war, is a potential campaign
event for Karl," says James Moore, coauthor with Wayne Slater of "Bush's
Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential." "He has great a
skill at keeping messages simple and accessible. And the message today is
the war and economy are wrapped up in security, that there's unfinished
business with the war on terrorism and why would you change commander in
chief in the middle of war? It's a helluva salable message."
With little-known presidential Democratic candidates currently trailing Bush
badly in the polls, particularly over the issue of national security, Rove
and the increasingly brash White House are openly using the might of the
U.S. military to make sure this president does not suffer the same fate as
his father, who chronically battled his own wimp factor.
"Rove's doing things a bit more boldly than he's done in the past because
he's able to get away with them," says Moore, citing Bush's high-profile
visit to an aircraft carrier last week. "The president was essentially a
draft-dodger during the Vietnam War -- he disappeared for his last year of
his [National Guard] flight service -- yet he's portrayed in a flight suit
as some kind of war hero. But Democrats and the national media never address
the hypocrisy," says Moore. "Both Karl Rove and the White House say, 'Why
stop?' It won't come back to haunt them because the environment changed
after 9/11."
The contrast in how Bush handles military celebrations before and after 9/11
is telling. Back in April 2001, Bush opted to stay out of the spotlight
during the emotional homecoming for 24 crew members of a U.S. surveillance
plane who were forced to land on China's Hainan Island after a mid-air
collision that left one Chinese pilot dead. Following 11 tense days of
negotiation, the administration won the crew's freedom.
When the appreciative servicemen and women touched down at Whidbey Island
Naval Air Station 50 miles north of Seattle, they climbed onto a podium and
shook hands with local dignitaries and politicians, while throngs welcomed
them home. Bush, however, was not among them. Bush insisted he did not want
to insert himself into the private moment of a family reunion, and that he
wanted to avoid the "hoopla."
Fast-forward 25 months and it appears Bush's aversion to hoopla --
especially military hoopla -- has been cured, undoubtedly with the help of
Rove. Last week, he staged perhaps the most elaborate photo-op in history
aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, which was homeward bound
from the Persian Gulf. Of course, Bush didn't just arrive on the ship; he
donned a full flight suit and flew in an S-3B Viking jet that was snared by
the Lincoln's flight deck restraining wire. The event generated
extraordinarily rich, symbolic images for the White House.
Only after the carefully staged television event was over did it become
clear the that the White House misled reporters when it insisted Bush had to
fly in a jet to the Lincoln, rather than in a traditional and less dramatic
helicopter, because the ship was hundreds of miles offshore; in fact, the
Lincoln was less than 40 miles from San Diego when Bush touched down. The
Navy slowed the ship's approach to port in order to give Bush enough time to
arrive on the decks before the Lincoln docked. Then the crew maneuvered the
gigantic ship in order to give the White House the Pacific Ocean as a
backdrop, not the quickly approaching San Diego coastline.
Critics suggest it was simply the latest in a long list of crass attempts by
the White House to play politics with national security issues related to
either 9/11 or the war with Iraq. For instance, the administration announced
the creation of the Department of Homeland Security on June 6, 2002, in
order to drown out the news of FBI agent Colleen Rowley's testimony before
Congress that same day. She detailed the memo she wrote to superiors that
might have helped prevent the 9/11 attacks, had the FBI under Bush's watch
not ignored the memo.
Actually, the maneuvers go back to Sept. 11 itself, when the White House and
Rove were spinning furiously to counter criticism that Bush spent the day
hop-scotching around the country on Air Force One, from Florida to Louisiana
and Nebraska before finally returning to the White House where he made some
ineffectual remarks to a terrified nation. Two days after the attacks, and
still scrambling to fix the problem, Rove and the administration announced
it had uncovered "credible evidence" the White House and Air Force One had
been terrorist targets on Sept. 11, which explained why Bush made so many
unscheduled stops and took so long to return to the White House.
The tactic stopped the political bleeding for Bush, with critics suddenly
reluctant to question his questionable Sept. 11 response. By the end of the
month though, the story fell apart and the White House all but conceded it
had no "credible evidence" that any such threats were ever made against Air
Force One. "Karl plays outside the bounds -- whatever is necessary to win,"
says Moore.
Last year, the White House gave a photo taken of Bush aboard Air Force One
on Sept. 11 to the Republican Party, which sold the photo to political
donors. Democrats denounced the move as blatant attempt to cash in on the
national tragedy. The charge apparently had no effect. More recently, in
another audacious move, the Republican Party broke a longstanding agreement
with Democrats and moved its nominating convention from August to September.
That means come 2004, Bush will receive his party's nomination in New York
City just days before he attends memorials marking the third anniversary of
the World Trade Center attacks. The Republicans' convention announcement
caused barely a ripple of protest among pundits or members of the passive
opposition party.
"The White House doesn't even care that the Democratic Party exists," says
one Democratic operative, who sees the current dynamic as just the latest
example of how the two parties approach politics by different sets of rules.
"Democrats play the game the way children play marbles on the playground,"
the operative said. "Republicans play it like they own the marbles and the
playground ... We worry about what the editorial pages will say and try not
to hurt anybody's feeling. They play it the way the game's supposed to be
played."
The game has certainly changed since Bush's father was in the White House
and looked to James Baker, the former secretary of state, for political
guidance following Gulf War I. "There's no question Bush Sr. was far less of
a political president than this president," say Rick Shenkman, editor of
George Mason University's History News Network. Aside from a victory parade
in Washington and a Desert Storm video shown at the '92 Republican
Convention, "he didn't really seek to exploit the Gulf War victory,"
Shenkman says. "He could've done a lot more rah-rah stuff."
Moore and others trace the difference directly to the differences between
Baker and Rove. "Baker fancied himself a diplomat and didn't like retail
politics, and when he did them it was almost pro forma," says Moore. By
contrast, "Rove is absolutely a political animal and lives for that stuff.
"W. implicitly trusts Rove in a way his father did not trust James Baker,"
Moore adds. "W. is able to be freed up, to do what he does because he knows
Karl has everything under control. W. doesn't fret about a backlash over the
absurdity of flying out to Lincoln, because Karl has it all perfectly
planned. The timing is right, the image is right, the message is right. And
the press won't ask questions."
That's another crucial factor working in favor of the White House that Bush
Sr. did not have in 1992 -- a tame press corps that, like many Democrats,
feels uncomfortable asking pointed questions of a wartime president. That's
when the press isn't simply fawning over Bush. In NBC's April special,
"Commander in Chief: Inside the White House at War," anchor Tom Brokaw spent
the first 10 minutes of his exclusive interview walking Bush through the
decision to launch an opportunity strike against Saddam Hussein before the
scheduled start of the attack after getting intelligence that Hussein was
inside a Baghdad bunker. The strike was portrayed as a victory of American
intelligence and military ingenuity; Brokaw never told viewers that most
intelligence analysts believe Saddam survived the missile attack.
Despite the advantages that come with Rove's expert manipulation of the
wartime political climate, it's still possible the president's reelection
bid could collapse between now and 2004. If the economy continues to
stagnate and public opinion remains opposed to his tax cut proposal, the
emerging narrative of his reelection could be that Bush is doomed to repeat
his father's defeat.
"If you assume the war in Iraq is over and reconstruction is messy and if
there aren't new instances of terrorism, I don't think he's in a lot better
shape than his father was in terms of the context for reelection," says
Jeremy Rosner, a Democratic pollster and national security specialist. "This
campaign is not over by any means. Bush could still win the war and lose the
election."
And the fact is his postwar jump in the polls has not been all that
impressive, and nowhere near as dramatic as his father's following Gulf War
I. According to surveys conducted by Newsweek, Bush's job approval ratings
today are up just 13 points from the eve of the war.
Still, some Democrats, surveying the candidates and the media landscape
those candidates must traverse, worry about the coming election. "I'm
optimistic because I'm a fighter, but we've got a long way to go," says
Brazile. "This could be 1972 for Democrats," she says, referring to
Republican Richard Nixon's rout of Democratic Sen. George McGovern.
"There's nobody to challenge the president," adds Democrat Zogby. "The
debate is theirs, it's on their turf, and Democrats and the press are too
afraid to ask questions. I fear for what's going to happen to Democrats in
2004."
Posted on May 8, 2003, 12:56 PM from IP address 4.43.255.153
The story of Jesus Gonzalez is a cautionary tale for the future. A young
Chicano born in Mexico and raised in California, Gonzalez grew up surrounded
by relatives who were active in the United Farm Worker's, the labor union
founded by pacifist Cesar Chavez. In high school, he organized against
Proposition 187, the anti-immigrant initiative, and in support of Native
American environmental causes. Despite his early childhood formation within
progressive circles, Gonzalez surprised everyone who knew him when he
decided to drop out of college because he had to be a marine. "I know school
is important," he told his parents, "but I need to do this" (Jennifer Mena,
"Fallen Marine Is Recalled as Pacifist, Activist," L.A. Times 4/24/03).
In the simple phrase "But I need to do this" lie the dire consequences of
militarization's power and success. Drawing upon distorted notions of
masculinity, the glamour of the uniform, and the myth of rugged
individualism, military recruitment ads-a solitary marine scaling the face
of a mountain, for example-cast a spell to which working class youth are
especially susceptible. A relative lack of economic and educational
opportunities seals the ideological deal. In Gonzalez's case, the fantasy of
military service simply overwhelmed the humanistic values with which he had
been raised. On April 12, 2003, he was killed by small arms fire at a
checkpoint somewhere in Iraq.
Scholar John Gillis contrasts older forms of militarism in which civil
society is separate and subordinate to military authority with contemporary
militarization. According to Gillis, militarization is the process by which
"civil society organizes itself for the production of violence." Whereas
militarism once was understood as a set of beliefs limited to specific
social groups or sectors of the ruling class, militarization is a series of
mechanisms that involve the entire social edifice.
In liberal democracies in particular, the values of militarism do not reside
in a single group but are diffused across a wide variety of cultural
locations. In twenty first-century America, no one is exempt from
militaristic values because the processes of militarization allow those
values to permeate the fabric of everyday life.
Examples are numerous and I will name only a few. The incursion of military
recruiters and teachings into the public school system is well known. The
proliferation of JROTC units in American schools began in the early 1990s
and continues today. Television spots, print ads, and websites for all the
service branches are sophisticated marketing tools designed to attract young
people who are unsure of their future.
At marines.com, for example, after the initial sounds of gunfire open the
home page the potential recruit reads: "At the core of every Marine is the
warrior spirit, a person imbued with the special kind of personal character
that has defined greatness and success for centuries. And in this
organization, you will be regarded as family." "You are special, you are a
fighter, we will take care of you"--this is an especially seductive message
for young men and women without economic privilege and who often do not
enjoy stability at home.
For middle class suburban youth, one of the fastest growing "sports" is
"paintball" in which teenagers stalk and shoot each other on "battlefields"
(In San Diego, paintball participants pay an additional $50 to hone their
skills at the Camp Pendleton Marine Base). Far from the figurative violence
of popular culture, the Bush administration is rewriting nuclear arms policy
and plans to militarize outer space are moving forward without public
scrutiny. At the level of media ritual, the president favors speaking to
captive audiences at military bases, defense plants, and on aircraft
carriers.
These and other practices that glorify the instruments of real and symbolic
violence will have unforeseen and long-term consequences. In the meantime,
billions of dollars for the military-corporate-educational complex ($399
billion for the Pentagon alone according to the administration's FY2004
Discretionary Budget Request), color-coded "terrorist alerts," police and
"homeland security" raids on immigrant communities, and FOX news bulletins
for even the most mundane Defense Department briefing all work to create a
climate of fear and anxiety that is unprecedented in U.S. history.
If we feel less safe today than ever before, it is because the entire
culture has organized itself with the dual objective of either perpetrating
violence or defending itself from violence. Given the current
administration's proposed budget cuts (including major reductions in
veterans's benefits), it appears that self-defense is a less worthy
objective than arsenal building. One commentator recently put it this way:
"George W. Bush has inspired new terrorist threats to the United
States--according to the official testimony of his own CIA--where none
existed. At the same time, he purposely starves those localities and
institutions on which the complex and expensive task of terrorist protection
ultimately falls and yet the increasingly Foxified media tell a story only
of heroism: of the US military, of the American people and of the President
of the United States, who has so far managed to avoid service to either one"
(Eric Alterman, "Bush goes AWOL," The Nation 4/17/03).
In the United States, where elaborate formal structures of representative
democracy, a free press, and pluralism exist (at least on paper),
militarization's primary structures must take shape through lies and the
obfuscation of reality. The Bush administration has taken the art of the lie
and the control of information, strategies that sustain all large
bureaucracies, to a new level. Colin Powell's performance at the United
Nations before the invasion of Iraq was only the most spectacular example of
the Bush regime's willingness to lie to the world.
Frustrated by the pattern of deceit that led to the invasion of Iraq, a
leading economist writing in the New York Times was compelled to pose the
question: "Aren't the leaders of a democratic nation supposed to tell their
citizens the truth?" (Paul Krugman, "Matters of Emphasis," 4/29/03). Or as
one journalist predicts: "We're heading for big trouble as a nation if we
aren't even concerned that our heads of state may be manipulating us by
manipulating the truth. In a nation where hypocrisy is rewarded, expect more
lies" (Robert Steinback, "Did Our Leaders Lie to Us? Do We Even Care?,"
Miami Herald 4/30/03).
Militarization and open democratic societies, then, do not make a good
match, the former producing pathologies at both the individual and
collective levels. The face of militarization on the ground is perhaps most
disturbing insofar as it reveals a disconnected hardening of individuals to
human suffering. The most highly militarized sector of U.S. society-the
armed forces -attempts to deny this by concocting a self-image premised on
humanitarian concern for their victims. From Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
down to officers in the field, the illusion is that the U.S. military is the
most effective and destructive in history even as it is the most concerned
with avoiding civilian deaths.
>From this bizarre cocktail of contradictory missions comes the novel phase
"lethal and compassionate." The phrase is deployed to erase from the
historical record hundreds of Iraqi and Afghan civilian casualties (the
exact number of which we will never know) or to congratulate ourselves for
airlifting an Iraqi boy to a hospital in Kuwait. There is no mention of the
"lethal" side of the equation-the fact that the boy lost his entire family
and both his arms to U.S. bombs.
"Lethal and compassionate" may work as a public relations slogan and a
psychological sleight of hand for some in the military but recent accounts
of combat in Iraq suggest that the brutality of warfare cannot be sanitized
for long. Simply read Peter Maass's devastating description of marine
activities near Baghdad in which two journalists report how a squad leader,
after his troops fired on several civilian vehicles, shouted: ''My men
showed no mercy. Outstanding'' ("Good Kills." New York Times 4/20/03) or the
admission by recently returned marine reservist Gus Covarrubias that he
executed in cold blood two Iraqi prisoners because some marines had been
shot and "The Marines are my family" ("Marine Discusses Execution-Style
Killing," Associated Press 4/26/03).
Or consider the case of Sgt. 1st Class Jeff Lujan who gave the order to
shoot into a civilian truck at a checkpoint only to discover that his men
had killed a woman and a young girl. "I've reconciled myself," Lujan said.
"We did the right thing, even though it was wrong" (Geoffrey Mohan,
"Memories Don't Die So Easily," New York Times 4/18/03). For other GIs,
militarized values will not be reconciled so easily with the values
instilled by family and church. The psychic and social costs of these
dreadful ironies are hidden in a flurry of flag-waving and patriotic zeal.
As James Carroll brilliantly put it: "Photographic celebrations of our young
warriors, glorifications of released American prisoners, heroic rituals of
the war dead all take on the character of crass exploitation of the men and
women in uniform. First they were forced into a dubious circumstance, and
now they are themselves being mythologized as its main post-facto
justification -- as if the United States went to Iraq not to seize Saddam
(disappeared), or to dispose of weapons of mass destruction (missing), or to
save the Iraqi people (chaos), but ''to support the troops.'' War thus
becomes its own justification. Such confusion on this grave point, as on the
others, signifies a nation lost" ("A Nation Lost," Boston Globe 4/22/03).
Assuming the nation is not beyond redemption, people of good will who
opposed the American invasion of Iraq ought to consider turning their
attention to the long-term consequences of militarization. Unless
militarization is systematically exposed and resisted at every site where it
appears in the culture there will be more young men and women who follow the
path of Jesus Gonzalez. What should become of the antiwar movement now?
Perhaps yet another march and demonstration will prove less productive than
focusing our energy on devising strategies to slow down a process that
threatens both the future of our children and the soul of the nation.
Jorge Mariscal is a member of Project YANO, a San Diego-based organization
made up of veterans and activists who are working to demilitarize our
schools.He can be reached at: gmariscal@ucsd.edu
Posted on May 6, 2003, 1:55 PM from IP address 4.33.80.138
>Terry Jones: Welcome aboard the Iraqi gravy train
>
>Monty Python's Terry Jones comments on the rebuilding of Iraq
>The Observer, Sunday, April 13, 2003.
>
>Welcome aboard the Iraqi gravy train! Congratulations to all the winners of
>tickets to take part in the greatest rebuilding show on earth. Well, the war
>has been a huge success, and I guess it's time for congratulations all
>round. And wow! It's hard to know where to begin.
>
>First, I'd like to congratulate Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) and the Bechtel
>Corporation, which are the construction companies most likely to benefit
>from the reconstruction of Iraq. Contracts in the region of $1 billion
>should soon coming your way, chaps. Well done! And what with the US dropping
>15,000 precision-guided munitions, 7,500 unguided bombs and 750 cruise
>missiles on Iraq so far and with more to come, there's going to be a lot of
>reconstruction. It looks like it could be a bonanza year.
>
>Of course, we all know that KBR is the construction side of Halliburton, and
>it has been doing big business with the military ever since the Second World
>War. Most recently, it got the plum job of constructing the prison compound
>for terrorists suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Could be a whole lot more deluxe
>chicken coops coming your way in the next few months, guys. Stick it to 'em.
>
>I'd also like to add congratulations to Dick Cheney, who was chief executive
>of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, and who currently receives a check for $1
>million a year from his old company. I guess he may find there's a little
>surprise bonus in there this year. Well done, Dick.
>
>Congratulations, too, to former Secretary of State, George Schultz. He's not
>only on the board of Bechtel, he's also chairman of the advisory board of
>the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group with close ties to the
>White House committed to reconstructing the Iraqi economy through war.
>You're doing a grand job, George, and I'm sure material benefits will be
>coming your way, as sure as the Devil lives in Texas.
>
>Oh, before I forget, a big round of appreciation for Jack Sheehan, a retired
>general who sits on the Defence Policy Board which advises the Pentagon.
>He's a senior vice president at Bechtel and one of the many members of the
>Defence Policy Board with links to companies that make money out of defence
>contracts. When I say 'make money' I'm not joking. Their companies have
>benefited to the tune of $76bn just in the last year. Talk about a gravy
>train. Well, Jack, you and your colleagues can certainly look forward to a
>warm and joyous Christmas this year.
>
>It's been estimated that rebuilding Iraq could cost anything from $25bn to
>$100bn and the great thing is that the Iraqis will be paying for it
>themselves out of their future oil revenues. What's more, President Bush
>will be able to say, with a straight face, that they're using the money from
>Iraqi oil to benefit the Iraqi people. 'We're going to use the assets of the
>people of Iraq, especially their oil assets, to benefit their people,' said
>Secretary of State Colin Powell, and he looked really sincere. Yessir.
>
>It's so neat it makes you want to run out and buy shares in Fluor. As one of
>the world's biggest procurement and construction companies, it recently
>hired Kenneth J. Oscar, who, as acting assistant secretary of the army, took
>care of the Pentagon's $35bn-a-year procurement budget. So there could also
>be some nice extra business coming its way soon. Bully for them.
>
>But every celebration has its serious side, and I should like to convey my
>condolences to all those who have suffered so grievously in this war.
>Particularly American Airlines, Qantas and Air Canada, and all other travel
>companies which have seen their customers dwindle, as fear of terrorist
>reprisals for what the US and Britain have done in Iraq begins to bite.
>
>My condolences also to all those British companies which have been
>disappointed in their bid to share in the bonanza that all this wonderful
>high-tech military firepower has created. I know it must be frustrating and
>disheartening for many of you, especially in the medical field, knowing
>there are all those severed limbs, all that burnt flesh, all those smashed
>skulls, broken bones, punctured spleens, ripped faces and mangled children
>just crying out for your products.
>
>You could be making a fortune out of the drugs, serums and surgical
>hardware, and yet you have to stand on the sidelines and watch as US drug
>companies make a killing.
>
>Well, Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian President, has some words of comfort for
>us all. As he recently pointed out, this adventure by Bush and Blair will
>have created such hatred throughout the Arab world, that 100 new bin Ladens
>will have been created.
>
>So all of us here in Britain, as well as in America, shouldn't lose heart.
>Once the Arab world starts to take its revenge, there should be enough
>reconstruction to do at home to keep business thriving for some years to
>come.
>
>Thank you, good night, and God bless America.
Posted on Apr 21, 2003, 9:44 PM from IP address 4.43.251.41
