Wednesday, April 30, 2003
In the age of the Internet, of everpresent and ready access to information, to support a position, an argument, in real time, there's a new game afoot, an emergent reality brewing. Spinning spin. On the fly, spontaneous spin by the freshest of the fresh. In this case...freelixir. Offering up the free elixir of liberation. Mind and body. Freedom and democracy. Quench your thirst. Millions more DJ's are to come. Thousands are already out here.
The American Dream is alive and kicking. For everyone. For everybody. For people all over the world. Unite. Come together. For freedom. In this century. Now.
Don't miss Henry Waxman, Ranking Minority Member of the U.S. Senate's Committee On Government Reform, point out some compelling pieces of information, and ask some disturbing questions, in a letter to Donald Rumsfeld.
Specifically, he is wondering why Marc Rich, the man Clinton pardoned, and who was so villified by Republicans and the Bush Administration for his dealings with Iran, "whether technically legal or not", should be held to a different and more demanding standard than corporate person Halliburton, who through foreign subsidiaries continued to deal with Iran and Iraq while Vice President Dick Cheney was at the helm. Cheney, in fact, has defended Halliburton's dealings with Iran as, for wont of a better phrase, technically legal. Even more interesting...
Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.
During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq.
"Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying.
Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.
Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries said they knew of no policy against dealing with Iraq. One of them said he was certain Cheney knew about the deals, though he had never spoken about them to the vice president directly.
In a July 30, 2000, interview on ABC-TV's "This Week," Cheney denied that Halliburton or its subsidiaries traded with Baghdad. Three weeks later, on the same program, he modified his response after being informed that a Halliburton spokesman had said that Dresser Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump traded with Iraq.
Cheney has long criticized...unilateral U.S. sanctions, which he says penalize American companies. He has pushed for a review of policy toward Iraq, Iran and Libya.
Sure makes the French, accused of selling their souls to defend their deals and contracts with Iraq, seem a little less naughty now, doesn't it?
Cheney left Halliburton with a $34 million retirement package last July when he became the GOP's vice-presidential candidate.
Also, don't miss this neat little wrap up of all of this seeming shadiness by Citizen Works.
The Scoop reports on Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, the company chosen to fight oil well fires in Iraq without competitive bidding.
Kellogg Brown & Root, the company chosen last month by the Pentagon to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq, has a long history of supporting the same terrorist regimes vilified by the Bush administration and on at least one occasion defrauded the United States government to the tune of $2 million, according to public documents.
Damning charges, if well founded, as they seem to be. Better yet, they've got a lineup of the "axis of evil" that Halliburton has cut deals with over the years.
Halliburton's dealings in six countries - Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Nigeria - show that the company's willingness to do business where human rights are not respected is a pattern that goes beyond its involvement in Burma.
I'm the last person to start making Halliburton out to be a criminal. I understand the corporate imperative, as currently sanctioned, and suscribe 100% to the pursuit of enlightened self-interest. The political side of it though rankles me, to the point where the hackles are raised. America is about freedom, and democracy, and integrity. And to sell this out for economic self-interest is not American.
The last thing we need is these guys floating back and forth from CEO of mega corporations to leadership positions in our republican democracy. We just don't. If you care to argue otherwise, bring it. I'll knock you down. Corporations and democracies by nature run diametrically opposed. It's time for the return of public servants and enlightened politician-diplomats in high American leadership positions, and the end of rule by corporate managers and agents of the military-industrial complex.
In case you forgot, or are somehow directed to this original permalink.
Mark over at the The American Sentimentalist has an intriguing analysis and investigation of the use of polemics in weblogs. Now, I wouldn't know know exactly what he's talking about, as I am totally innocent of any polemics whatsoever. He clearly is not talking about me.
Huh? What's that? Oh. I see...it's a good thing. Yes, it is. Mark makes a great case for the individualist enterprise of the blogger, and transforming the medium of news and opinion from one of limited producers feeding a largely passive customer base to a more active, engaged, and rewarding experience of affirmation. He gets pretty philosophical, but it's definitely digestible if you give yourself some time. I'm still taking it in myself, and will report back later on my full thoughts and revelations in its regard.
Also, I'm blog rolling Mark right now. Well, immediately after this post. I'm surprised I haven't stumbled upon him earlier. He's really got a great blog, one that holds a multitude of unique and thoughtful insights. Thanks for letting me know you're out there Mark.
Cyndy has a great post over at Mouse Musings about life, death, and the passing of the seasons. Be sure to check it out. I discovered her a little while back, and love her poetry. Here's the poem that hooked me.
Transparency and accountability must be the watchwords for post-war reconstruction in Iraq following the endemic corruption of the government of Saddam Hussein, according to Transparency International (TI), the world's leading non-governmental organisation engaged in the fight against corruption. "It is essential that Iraq be spared the kickbacks habitually paid in post-war situations by some multinational companies," said TI Chairman Peter Eigen today.
And don't miss these previous posts on the investigations of dictators' bank secret bank accounts and also of ExxonMobil for bribery in Kazakhstan. We have to get to the root of these problems and make sure they don't root out democracy. Let's do it.
Corpwatch has been doing some checking up on Bechtel. Interesting. The key here is just to get more transparency and accountability, and less conspiracy, corruption and graft. Is that too much to ask? Also look here for more on Bechtel winning the war contracts.
UNICEF reports that with chlorine supplies dwindling in southern Iraq, swift action must be taken to ensure the health and safety of Iraqi children.
How ironic that Newt Gingrich thinks the U.S. State Department has "collapsed." After all, as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, he contributed directly to weakening the department as an instrument of U.S. national security. It is thanks to Colin Powell that the department is back on the road to recovery. What is needed is a greater emphasis on diplomacy — not an indictment of it — as Anne Richard argues.
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
Well, it seems Blogger managed to break my last post there, towards the bottom, so I'll just readd that part and get out of the house. I'll be back tonight with some follow up developments on the themes of the past several days. In the meantime, keep an eye on the redesigned Dog House.
Also, the permalink doesn't seem to be working at The Watch, so just cruise over and check it all out, and don't miss What Is The Liberal Philosophy?, not to mention Spiritual Warfare from this weekend.
Well, it's going to be very busy today. With that in mind, I'm going to throw out some redirects and shout outs, and leave the good work to others. Before I do though, I want to spotlight the Commonweal Institute.
The Commonweal Institute is a communication, education, and research organization committed to advancing centrist-progressive principles - commitment to future generations, a balance between business and society as a whole, environmental protection, inclusiveness and fairness, separation of church and state, personal choice and privacy, and a comprehensive and nuanced approach to national security - through development and dissemination of information and policy proposals.
Remember, it's the conservate cabal, as a Iike to call them, which has aggressively transformed media that has radicalized and marginalized a good portion of society. Supporting enlightened efforts at reversing this trend are in all of our best interests. I highly recommend you go check them out.
Okay, now to the redirects. I've been keeping a close eye on things, and these have my attention the past day or so. First, The Watch has been posting close to my heart, with an emphasis on compassion and out-of-the-box, nonviolent understanding, especially with this piece by Mary on George Lakoff and metaphors. I'll have more to post on this later, as I'm building an appreciation and criticism of Lakoff's metaphors and politics theme, but that's for another time. There's tons more great stuff on that site, you should definitely keep scrolling up after following the link.
Second, Dave Johnson, a fellow over at the Commonweal Institute, has been steadily blogging topics of great interest, especially this fascinating one on electronic voting systems over at Seeing The Forest, and how they are or could evolve given some enlightened support from people and government.
Also of interest: Bohemian Mama has a plethora of information regarding the arrest of Mike Hawash and Patriot Act workings, Meme Cauldron has your trusty WMD Scoreboard, and I hear hopefully the top terrorist RPI ratings coming out soon, TBogg on a despairing Krugman and emergence of a suddenly more compassionate Bush, and don't forget about We Want The Airwaves, as we can't drop the ball on monitoring media and winning the struggle for diversified media ownership.
Okay, that's all. I'll be back tonight with some follow up developments on the themes of the past several days. In the meantime, keep an eye on the redesigned
Monday, April 28, 2003
Philosophically, in our age of Enlightenment values and the rise of science and technology, it seems sometimes that we lose our humanity, and that we don't notice or even contemplate the reality of death from a Cruise Missile shot from hundreds of miles away. Or the suffering of a city unhinged by war and lack of leadership or authority. Or disastrously inadequate water and medical facilities for a people we have liberated. Or even the suffering and injustice that happens here at home, along with the lack of feeling of vestment by the common American in political affairs. A feeling as if we're not connected, not able to make a difference, not realistically able to work together to affect change and forge a more responsive democracy. In other words, to use a metaphor of the Internet, to overcome a perceived scarcity of political bandwidth, a scarcity which seems to make active participation too expensive to accomplish.
And so as we doggedly pursue freedom and technological and utopian consumerism, and escape into entertainment and television, it seems we become ever more isolated from the world that nurtures us, and the cultures that surround us, even as we force this world and its cultures to become ever more interlinked and intertwined through global flows of information, money, commerce and knowledge. Faced with all of this, what is a grassroots, hands-on movement to do? To still matter?
MoveOn.org has an answer. In their efforts to mobilize people, and to form electronic advocacy groups based upon items of concern to both reasonable defense of freedom and democracy and compassionate action to alleviate unnecessary suffering of the unfortunate, they help raise the level of participation possible in society to near heroic levels.
Whether it's fighting corporate offshore draft dodgers, encouraging letters to the editor in support of an enlightened, collective approach to the realization of a future democratic Iraq, or creating a vigilant Media Corps to urge greater and more responsible reporting and involvement by our media, these are but examples of why this organization deserves much praise for its outstanding work and grassroots innovation using the Internet.
Noone knows exactly where the future is going, but as Americans we treasure freedom, and as human beings we treasure compassion. We share this with all other peoples, and as the world goes global, we need to make sure this is exactly what we are communicating. Moveon.org has the right idea, and global advocacy as a phenomenon is on the bubble and about to explode. Join in, and take charge of your freedom, country and world.
*****
Also, along these lines, Lisa English ruminates on another organization involved in grass roots democratic action - Reclaim Democracy. Corporations are not people, do not have an innate love of freedom, and do not feel compassion for their fellows. Think about this for a moment, and then go over and read about reclaiming democracy.
This week, thousands of Kurdish families started to move back to their old lands from around the country. Families from the autonomous Kurdish area further north had begun to return the week before. The Baath party forced most Kurdish families into internal exile to remote and poor areas. Some 200 families from Al-Zendi were driven to Ramadi located in the dry and dusty desert towards Jordan. Kurds are happy to return to their green and fertile fields in the north. But strangers now occupy their land, and some seem ready to fight for it.
PUK officials are now supporting the claims of the returning Kurds. "The occupiers will have to go back to their home districts," says Nur Eddin Daoudi, a political officer who says his task is to escort Kurds to their original homes. "Some of them are not even real Iraqis." The PUK is clearly aiming to reverse the Arabisation introduced by the Baath party. About 750,000 "Arabs and Bedu" in Kirkuk district will have to leave because they were "instruments of the Baath party," Daoudi says.
Though the Kurds promise to respect the human rights of these non-Kurds, this situation should be closely monitored.
Update: More information from the Asia Times. It could get nasty over there.
It's amazing to me how the mainstream media is only now coming to this conclusion about our war case. The only reason I started bloggin in the first place was my alarm at the absurd coverage of the war and its justification. I wrote a protest on the eve of the war, which I mailed and submitted to every media outlet I could find, and subsequently posted it on this site after its creation.
It's a crucial time in American history. The incompetent, scandalous and crooked are becoming the norm. The latest incident involving the forgery of the Niger nuclear documents is a telling case-in-point. Confronted with this development, a key component of our case for war against Iraq, all we get from our leaders and these documents' former champions is a shrug. Oh well, we passed it along in "good faith". We are not incompetent, or criminal, it just managed to "slip through". Forget about it. And we couldn't have been responsible for it, because our people are competent, talented professionals who surely would have done a better job of forging these documents. And so on...
...[and] anyone who's looking for reasons, to engage their reason, to determine the right thing to do, the moral course of action, will find nothing but ideology and fiction, speculation and threats, forgeries and plagiarism emanating from our most competent war orators. The mere presence of a plagiarized, decade-old student thesis, and the aforementioned Niger document forgery, as key references for our case is more telling than anything else. The plagiarized student claiming to have been able to give more updated information if he had been consulted only adds insult to injury.
This is my story, and my reason for being here. I'm glad I found the blogosphere, and believe our responsibility to be great. What responsibility you may ask? To bring the wide amount of information and news available on the Internet into focus and to make it accessible. Made-to-order global news filtering. Not to mention opinion. And I firmly believe this will impact the mainstream media themselves. This war in Iraq is a test case for a new policy of sharing information and dissent, and not just for demonstrating America's new national security strategy.
To be honest, I challenge you to read my protest and find anything much different than you find in this article in yesterday's Independent entitled How The Road To War Was Paved With Lies...
The case for invading Iraq to remove its weapons of mass destruction was based on selective use of intelligence, exaggeration, use of sources known to be discredited and outright fabrication, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
A high-level UK source said last night that intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war with Iraq. "They ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat," the source said. Quoting an editorial in a Middle East newspaper which said, "Washington has to prove its case. If it does not, the world will for ever believe that it paved the road to war with lies", he added: "You can draw your own conclusions."
Only now we're discovering this? This shameless political manipulation of national security and intelligence, not to mention unapologetic arrogance in deceiving and browbeating the international community, UN, and especially France? Think about this for a minute. If this really was about us flexing our muscles and showing everyone who is boss, especially the Islamic World, why did we so slander and disparage the French? Why were they so obligated to go along with our new security strategy, which clearly positions everyone but us as bit players? We clearly need a more inclusive and enlightened style of leadership and approach to solving problems and forming policy.
Everyone makes mistakes, including me, you, and our great nation. Perfection is not an option, or even a desired value, and we needn't worry about it. Self-awareness and integrity, on the other hand, are well within our control, both as individuals and as a nation, and at bottom require taking ownership and accountability for our actions, knowing why we do them, and being aware of their consequent effects. Unfortunately, as the masters of secrecy and plausible deniability, we never own up to anything.
Thus our dilemma. One cannot act with integrity and at the same time duck information that would seem to prove one otherwise. This is called weakness. Strength is facing the conflicting information with open eyes, ears and minds, evaluating, challenging, responding, discrediting, acknowledging and integrating. Engaging. Perhaps more than anything else, reveling in the newfound wellspring of information and global communication we've constructed, and building new alliances and finding novel solutions to age-old problems. Surely this sounds better than plausibile deniability and shock-and-awe warfare, doesn't it? I hope so. Never forget that this is our life, our time, and our place, and we're free to pursue these great adventures and vast challenges ahead with integrity rather than plausible deniability, if we choose to do so. We should. These are heady times, and we are ready people.
We need to start by being more vigilant, and demanding openness, accountability, integrity and sharing of information. Our government here in America has now forfeited its claim to secrecy in almost any matter. When Clinton was president, much progress was made in declassifying information and implementing the Freedom of Information Act. The Bush Administration has rolled this back, ostensibly for national security reasons. But with this revelation in today's Independent, along with those we already knew before the war, it's clear that this secrecy is being cynically used for political purposes. That in fact intelligence assessments are being strangely and terribly twisted to support policy and conclusions that the facts just don't support. To me, this shames our great nation, and dishonors our name and puts a shadow on our integrity. It's time that all patriots step up and take a stand on this. This is not how we should do business, and it will certainly not win friends and allies in the war against terrorism.
Sunday, April 27, 2003
Maximum access to government information is a fundamental right and a shared responsibility of both the press and the public. Despite that, freedom of information is in deep trouble today. And because it is in deep trouble, democracy is in deep trouble.
The public and the press alike must recognize that delay and denial of access to government information is in fact censorship. It is censorship of the most insidious sort because it is censorship at the source.
There may be no more compelling case in America today. We need to protect our civil liberties, including against the ominous Patriot Act. The freedom of information, and the sunshine laws to ensure it, are essential to democracy and accountability. To integrity. Even to market fairness, as only the truly naive will tell you that American foreign policy does not have impacts on the economy or market. Perhaps even worst of all, the reality of secrecy, corruption and suspicious links between industry and government leads to suspicion, distrust and conspiracy thinking in the body politic. In the people. And this only works to divide and weaken us...
It matters because in an environment of secrecy and information suppression, citizens grow increasingly distrustful of their leaders, increasingly unsupportive of decisions made behind closed doors, increasingly suspicious of secrets locked away in files, and increasingly angry at bureaucratic resistance to granting access to even the most routine records.
In such an environment, paranoia and conspiracy theories thrive, and opportunities for improving government policies and practices go begging.
In such an environment, it is not just the dream of democracy but the reality of democracy that begins to shrivel and confront the idea of a slow death.
It's time we start taking responsibility for our freedom and democracy.
It's not just the USA Today and the mainstream media that are beginning to call for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Many in the alternative media, and almost a unanimous number of progressives and political independents, are also raising the IRV banner. Suprisingly, even the two major parties are looking at it...
Spurred by the memory of Ralph Nader spoiling Al Gore's election, by other third party threats to major party incumbents and by expensive runoff contests, instant runoff voting (IRV) has moved to the top of major parties' reform agenda in several states. At the same time, a growing number of social change activists are supporting IRV as a means to bring new ideas and energy into electoral politics resulting in its adoption in cities like San Francisco and on campuses like the Universities of Maryland and Illinois.
Before discounting this out of hand, I challenge you to analyze the arguments for and against this less costly, more efficient, more inclusive form of voting. You'll actually be surprised to find trouble finding reasoned opposition to IRV, due to the fact that there is no enlightened opposition to IRV, only reactionary arguments from entrenched interests opposing change and/or the ideal of greater representation itself.
Why does this movement matter? The very fact of the acrimonious debate in 2000 over Ralph Nader's campaign between Green Party voters and Democrats reveals a serious flaw in our antiquated 18th century electoral rules. Unfortunately, with our current method, voting for your favorite candidate can lead to the election of your least favorite candidate. Providing the means to express one's real views and ensuring majority rule are basic requirements of democracy, but our current system badly fails these tests...
IRV simulates a series of runoff elections, but in a single round of voting that corrects the flaws of runoffs and plurality voting. At the polls, people vote for their favorite candidate, but they also indicate their "runoff" choices. They do this by ranking candidates on their ballot. If a candidate receives a majority of first choices, she or he wins. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and a runoff round of counting occurs. In this round your ballot counts for your top-ranked candidate still in the runoff. The eliminated candidate is no longer a "spoiler" because the votes of that candidate's supporters go to their runoff choice. Rounds of counting continue until there is a majority winner...
Alternet, in this article, provides a fair and through examination of what IRV is all about. I encourage you to check it out, and then evaluate and make a decision. Do not stand idly by and let others make it for you, or browbeat you into voting "against" candidates rather than "for" candidates.
To achieve truly fair representation, full (or "proportional") representation remains the Holy Grail for electing legislators. But IRV is the quickest way to eliminate the spoiler dynamic that suppresses candidacies – and the debate and participation they could generate. If progressives learn one lesson from Election 2000, let it be that all of our elections should be conducted under fairer rules. Real democracy needs a rainbow of choices, not the dull gray that results in one of the lowest voter turnouts in the democratic world.
Saturday, April 26, 2003
With all of the talk coming out of the administration that we weren't really worried about WMD, we may as well revisit some of the other theories that were postured in the run up to war. Back in December, Michael Renner of the WorldWatch Institute explained an amazing pattern.
From Pakistan to Central Asia to the Caucasus — and from the eastern Mediterranean to the Horn of Africa — a dense network of U.S. military facilities has emerged. Many bases have been established in the name of the “war on terror.” But what they really have in common is their proximity to major oil production facilities or strategically important pipelines...
In Colombia, meanwhile, the stage is set for the United States to get drawn ever more deeply into the country’s civil war. The Bush Administration has decided to provide training and equipment for Colombian troops...
Why? It’s not, as one might think, solely because of the country’s drug exports to the United States. In reality, these U.S.-supported troops are also protecting an oil export pipeline against frequent bombings by rebel forces...
He goes on to make further points about defanging OPEC and ensuring that oil prices stay low in order not to encourage alternative energy sources. It's an excellent article, and well worth reading. Since the war has gone totally postmodern, and noone seems to be able to say exactly what it's about, we may as well start assuming the obvious and consider this the work of oil magnates ensuring their viability.
*****
Update: Also don't miss my post on The New Great Game, an excellent analysis by The Ecologist magazine of American energy policy and how it specifically relates to the War on Iraq. Better yet, unless you're short on time or bookmarks, forget my post and just read it direct.
The new Great Game is being played out not only in the Middle East but also in other energy-rich regions such as West Africa and the Caspian Sea. There too, the scramble for petrol reserves and pipeline routes is producing bloody conflicts, proving beyond doubt why oil has been called ‘the tears of the devil’.
Iraq, however, has become the linchpin in a US strategy to secure cheap oil while breaking the clout of the Arab-dominated oil cartel Opec. Iraq sits on an astronomic 112 billion barrels of crude. At 12 per cent of the world’s reserves, this is the second largest proven source in the world. Only Saudi Arabia (with 262 billion barrels and roughly one fourth of the earth’s total resources) has more oil. At the moment, Iraq legally exports about two million barrels a day as part of the UN ‘food for oil’ programme. Most of its oil production facilities are in dire need of technical modernisation, but the UN sanctions keep foreign investors out. If sanctions were lifted after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, trans-national energy corporations could start exploiting Iraq’s huge oil fields. There would be no shortage of suitors: Iraq’s light, low-sulphur oil is considered to be among the best in the world. Moreover, the fact that the country’s oil reserves often lie right under the earth’s surface makes it extremely cheap to drill. Production costs in Iraq can be as low as $2 a barrel.
The rest of the article is not to be missed. The historical analysis is very telling, and makes a good case for where we stand today.
*****
Update: Don't miss these rants on the virtual realities of war (including bloggers) and postmodern war in the age of W.
Disarmament Diplomacy advocates an Inner Space Treaty.
The incentive for an adversary to pursue the military application of atomic engineering - either on a battlefield or on a massively destructive scale - may, ironically, be increased by the evident enthusiasm of the US military for the new possibilities. As with other advanced technologies, the defensive and offensive utility of nanotechnology is hard to distinguish; from an adversary's point of view, it may even be dangerous to try. Here, for instance, is a recent news story on 'nanoarmour' for US troops:
"The Massachusetts Institute of Technology plans to create military uniforms that can block out biological weapons and even heal their wearers as part of a five-year contract to develop nanotechnology applications for soldiers, the US Army announced... MIT won the $50 million contract to create an Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, or ISN. The ISN will be staffed by around 150 people, including 35 MIT professors... The unique lightweight materials that can be composed using nanotechnology will possess revolutionary qualities that MIT says will help it make a molecular 'exoskeleton' for soldiers. The ISN plans to research ideas for a soft - and almost invisible - clothing that can solidify into a medical cast when a soldier is injured or a 'forearm karate glove' for combat, MIT said. Researchers also hope to develop a kind of molecular chain mail that can deflect bullets. In addition to protecting soldiers, these radically different materials will have uses in offensive tactics, at least psychologically. 'Imagine the psychological impact upon a foe when encountering squads of seemingly invincible warriors protected by armour and endowed with superhuman capabilities, such as the ability to leap over 20-foot walls,' ISN director Ned Thomas said in a release."
Amazing. I'm not prepared to comment on this yet. Stay tuned.