Tal Afar bomb toll hits 152, deadliest of Iraq war: Tally arrives during week in which more than 500 died in sectarian violence

- We need to get the hell out of there, the surge is not working and we are the brink of a confrontation with Iran. Bush flat out lied to the America people and deserves to be impeached. Clinton lies about a sexual experience and they try to impeach him but Bush lies to invade a country and we do nothing!

MSNBC News Services

Updated: 2 hours, 39 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi government raised the death toll on Saturday from a truck bomb in the town of Tal Afar to 152, making it the deadliest single bombing of the four-year-old war.

Meanwhile, a series of bombings and attacks killed at least 17 people around the country, including nine construction workers who died when gunmen opened fire on their bus. The violence capped a week in which more than 500 people have died in sectarian violence.

Interior Ministry spokesman Brigadier Abdul Kareem Khalaf said 347 people were wounded in Tuesday’s attack on a Shiite area. There was another truck bomb in the mixed northwestern town on Tuesday, but it was small. (LINK)

Democracy is for the rich

By Kevin Barr

03/30/07 "Fiji Times" -- -- Democracy is a system of government where the political power rests with the nation's population either directly or through elected representatives. It is government of the people, for the people, by the people.

From this one should be able to infer that the purpose of democracy is to build a just society where the interests of all the people are cared for rich and poor, men and women, minorities as well as the majority and the economy works for the benefit of all. Democracy should be about the ordering of society to bring about justice for all. If it does not work for the common good then there is something seriously wrong.

The United States, in particular, has been a staunch promoter of democracy and has fought to have democracy entrenched throughout the world. Yet some writers have raised a number of important questions about the nature of US democracy.

For example, why is it that only those from wealthy backgrounds are able to become presidential candidates?

Why is it that the US not only champions democracy but champions extreme individualism and unbridled capitalism and has strongly opposed any form of socialism (which might spread the benefits of development more widely among people)?

Why is it that America's wealthy elites are able to exert such strong influence on political elections and economic decisions?

Alesina and Glaeser in their book Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe (2004) point out that all the American political institutions are ultimately the product of an 18th Century Constitution which was crafted by a minority of white and wealthy men of property determined to stop the State from expropriating their wealth and to limit the amount of redistribution the poor could demand of the rich. LINK

Terrorized by 'War on Terror'

How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America

By Zbigniew Brzezinski

03/25/07 "Washington Post' -- -- The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war." LINK

Democracy Dreaming

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

What is this thing called democracy? So easy to talk about, so difficult to make real. Pure democracy is not what our Founders gave us. Who would want a simple majority to control the minority? Instead, America was given a representative democracy within a constitutional republic where laws that protect all people trump majority rule. Standing between majority-won elections and government power are elected representatives: writing, overseeing and implementing laws. But when you can no longer trust the elected representatives what happens to American democracy? It becomes an oxymoron.

We have arrived at a delusional democracy. Delusional because Americans overwhelmingly cannot admit the painful truth that their limited democracy no longer works for the good of most citizens. Instead, through corruption and dishonesty, our representative democracy has morphed into a plutocracy that serves the wealthy, power elites and corporate masters that control the political system and through that the economic system.

The Framers of the Constitution had deep concerns about the long-term viability of the government structure they created. Some think that the checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government preserve its integrity. Really? The money that controls the legislative branch also controls the executive branch, and both of those control the judicial branch. Even worse, it has become clearer to increasing numbers of Americans that many parts of the Constitution – the supreme law of the land – have been directly or more deviously disobeyed or distorted. Constitutional rule is a myth. LINK

US Military Failure in Iraq: They Don't Understand Guerrilla Warfare

by max blunt

Of course, the 'surge' is working Of course, the violence is subsiding This is a guerrilla war! “When guerrillas engage a stronger enemy, they withdraw when he advances.” That’s right out of Mao Tse-tung’s classic treatise “On Guerrilla Warfare” “When the invader pierces deep into the heart of the weaker country and occupies her territory in a cruel and oppressive manner, there is no doubt that conditions of terrain, climate, and society in general offer obstacles to his progress and may be used to advantage by those who oppose him In guerrilla warfare we turn these advantages to the purpose of resisting and defeating the enemy" LINK

Understanding Empire: Hierarchy, Networks and Clients

By Prof. James Petras

The structure of power of the world imperial system can best be understood through a classification of countries according to their political, economic, diplomatic and military organization.

03/20/07 "ICH " -- --

Introduction:

The imperial system is much more complex than what is commonly referred to as the “US Empire”. The US Empire, with its vast network of financial investments, military bases, multi-national corporations and client states, is the single most important component of the global imperial system (1). Nevertheless, it is overly simplistic to overlook the complex hierarchies, networks, follower states and clients that define the contemporary imperial system (2). To understand empire and imperialism today requires us to look at the complex and changing system of imperial stratification.

Hierarchy of Empire

The structure of power of the world imperial system can best be understood through a classification of countries according to their political, economic, diplomatic and military organization. The following is a schema of this system:

I. Hierarchy of Empire (from top to bottom)
A. Central Imperial States (CIS)
B. Newly Emerging Imperial Powers (NEIP)
C. Semi-autonomous Client Regimes (SACR)
D. Client Collaborator Regimes (CCR)

II. Independent States:
A. Revolutionary
Cuba and Venezuela
B. Nationalist
Sudan, Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea

LINK

We Have Wiped Out Iraq: Every Single American Is Responsible by max blunt.... Given the marked escalation of the violence in the past several months, it is entirely likely that three-quarters of a million Iraqis have died as a result of the US invasion and occupation of their country Every significant institution in American society bears responsibility for this criminal enterprise, from the right-wing leadership that conspired to launch the war, to the Democratic Party, which voted the administration unlimited war powers and hundreds of billions of dollars in war funding, to the mass media, which transformed itself into a conduit for lies and war propaganda, both before the invasion and after

On the fourth anniversary of Washington’s unprovoked invasion of Iraq, President Bush delivered a five-minute midday televised speech pleading with the American people to give his latest escalation of the war more time to suppress Iraq resistance to the US occupation.

In a subdued and defensive tone, Bush recycled the same lies used to promote and justify the war since well before the launching of the “shock and awe” bombing of Baghdad in March of 2003.

He claimed once again that the US had intervened because of the “threat” Iraq posed to the world, without mentioning the supposed substance of that threat, weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorist groups, both of which were fabricated by the White House.

He made the absurd claim that the US-backed Iraqi regime is “working to build a free society that upholds the rule of law, that respects the rights of its people, that provides them security . . .” LINK

Think the Nation's Debt Doesn't Affect You? Think Again

By John F. Ince, AlterNet.
In addition to borrowing from the world's poorest countries, Bush & Co. are secretly confiscating your hard-earned dollars to support their out-of-control spending habits.

Sometime in the next year, Congress will start going through their periodic rituals and related public relations charades in an effort to absolve themselves of any blame for raising of the federal government's debt ceiling.

With Bush and cronies having added over $3 trillion dollars to the national debt, the country's credit card tab now stands at $8.8 trillion. This represents an astounding increase of over 45 percent since Bush came into office in January of 2001. And all this fiscal profligacy took place during the years when the CBO originally forecasted record surpluses of approximately $2.5 trillion. And there is no end in sight to the deficits.

More alarmingly we now rely on foreigners to finance over 40 percent of this debt with the lion's share coming from the Asian central banks. In FY 2006 the current account trade deficit is on track to set yet another record, on the order of $700 billion. To put this in perspective, billionaire investor Warren Buffet points out that, "15 years ago, the U.S. had no trade deficit with China. Now, it's 200 billion dollars." He says if the country does not change course, the rest of the world could end up owning 15 trillion-dollars worth of the United States. That's equal to the value of all American stock. LINK

The Obnoxious Power of the Israel Lobby

by max blunt at 02:57PM (CET) on March 20, 2007

The Evil AIPAC: [The American Israel Public Affairs Committee] Speaker Pelosi had just been booed at the AIPAC conference for the Iraq war when she rushed back to her office and struck the Iran provision from the bill – just as the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group had been insisting There is supposedly a taboo against Israeli government officials intruding too aggressively in their efforts to influence American politics, although that never stopped Ariel Sharon from openly calling for the U.S. to invade Iraq – as a prelude to taking on Syria and Iran Olmert went beyond anything Sharon ever attempted, however, in his AIPAC speech

In most democratic countries, a government that had birthed such a disaster as the Iraq war would have fallen long ago, but this one endures, and, in any case, its probable successor is not going to have a very different approach to foreign policy.

This was brought home by the recent action of the Democratic congressional leadership in stripping the military appropriations bill of a provision that would have required the president to seek congressional approval before attacking Iran.

Speaker Pelosi had just been booed at the AIPAC conference for criticizing the Iraq war when she rushed back to her office and struck the Iran provision from the bill – just as the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group had been insisting, albeit not too loudly.

After all, the AIPAC conference was supposed to be toning down the ongoing campaign to get us into a shooting war with Iran, but, as the Jerusalem Post pointed out, "the effort was laid to waste once Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert addressed the audience at the gala dinner Monday night." LINK

Consuming Celebrity Culture

by max blunt at 03:00PM (CET) on March 20, 2007

The celebrity is 'someone who is well-known for his well-knownness', a name renowned more for charisma than for heroic achievement In this 'Cult of Celebrity', superficial images replace ideals of virtue in a growing passion for celebrity itself. The sociologist Jean Baudrillard suggests that the 'Cult of Celebrity' is part of a larger trend towards living in the 'ecstasy of communication' We are bombarded by a succession of surface images in the media that do not connect with reality As a result, the distinction between what is real and what is imaginary disintegrates In effect, the beauty portrayed in images of celebrities becomes 'more real than real' in our consumer culture

Fame is not a new phenomenon. Characters of renown were admired in Ancient Greek and early Christian cultures.

Military, political and romantic heroes were worshipped similarly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Tales of their achievements formed the basis of the pedestal on which they were raised.

However, the 'Graphic Revolution' of the twentieth century heralded profound changes in the nature of stardom. Developments in photographic and cinematic technologies allowed images to be mechanically reproduced for mass dispersal in the media.

The celebrity now became 'someone who is well-known for his well-knownness', a name renowned more for charismatic beauty than for heroic achievement. In this 'Cult of Celebrity', superficial images began to replace ideals of virtue in a growing passion for celebrity itself. LINK

The 'Greening' of Capitalism [So Long As We Keep on Consuming]

by max blunt at 03:01PM (CET) on March 19, 2007 |

The capitalist creed is founded in part on the false notion that ‘human nature’ is an immutable force, self-interest will always win out, it’s built into our ‘genes’, no matter how hard we try, greed will triumph The entire 'green' issue is framed in the context of consumption or lack of it The marketing goal is to keep the capitalist system a going concern and rectify the mess it's made of the planet No mean feat and one the spin doctors are working overtime on selling to us

Perhaps the greatest contribution socialism has given us is the idea that we could, at last, take charge of our own destinies.

Prior to this, we assumed that ‘our betters’ knew best and that such ideas as freedom and justice, especially economic justice were utopian dreams, simply not realizable. LINK

True Confessions? The Amazing Tale of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

The sweeping Guantanamo "confessions" of al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed rival the scope of those made in the Stalinist purge trials of the 1930s, and should equally prompt us to question the legal process in which they were made...

By Anthony D'Amato

03/17/07 "Jurist" -- -- Students of the Stalinist purges of the 1930s will recall the astounding confessions made in open court by the accused persons. They had been severely tortured over weeks and months. But they showed up in court without external marks of torture. With all apparent voluntariness, they admitted subverting the Five-Year Plans that would have provided the Soviet people with necessary food items. They sabotaged factories, making sure the production lines were inefficient. They managed to import inferior metals so that Soviet tanks and automobiles would fall apart after a few months’ use. They infiltrated the Soviet Army and through dint of their persuasiveness, convinced the foot soldier that it was absurd to risk his life defending a dictatorial government. In short these accused persons, briefly in court on their way to the firing squad, took responsibility for everything that had gone wrong for the past two decades in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

So why is it today that no one draws the connection between the Soviet purge trials and the confession of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? Mohammed said that he had been tortured by his American captors. No one contradicted his assertion. Then he went on, with a straight and sincere face, to take responsibility for a long list of crimes recently perpetrated. LINK

What's It All About, Nancy?

Once Again, the Dems have Betrayed the Safety of the U.S. to Protect their Political Careers

By Linda O'Brien

“Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.” - Associated Press

03/14/07 "ICH" -- -- Said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.): "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran." What negotiating tool was that? Why, the power of a president who time and again has proven his reckless disregard for the truth, for democracy, and for accountability to launch yet another illegal and unprovoked war whose consequences are to be borne on the broken backs and brains and missing limbs of our soldiers and innocents who happen to live in the target nation.

Is there anyone, anywhere, who actually believes that Congress would refuse to authorize action against Iran if it took the slightest action against Israel? Surely there is no one in Congress who believes that. But that was the excuse given by the “rank and file” who must fear primarily political retaliation, not any genuine issue of safety for Israel. Because of that fear, they were willing to further endanger every citizen of the United States by exposing them to more insane behavior from the current occupant of the White House and his completely loony-tunes president of vice. Dear God. Over half of the ordinary Americans walking the streets of this country fear Bush’s unwarranted power and know we need to be protected from his irrational and illegal acts. But apparently most members of Congress are so blinded by their greedy ambition and insularity, they don’t recognize the threat we face. We face the re-creation of the results of what has been done in Iraq. LINK

Brave New World", "1984" & "The Trial" Predicted Present-Day America

by max blunt at 02:50PM (CET) on March 14, 2007

Franz Kafka's novel, The Trial, published in 1925 and George Orwell's novel, 1984, published in 1949,
read like contemporay commentaries on the practices of the Bush Regime In Orwell's 1984, people are

subjected to relentless spying A state or alleged state of war is used to maintain total control over everyone Lies have replaced truth,and the media serves as propagandist for the Ministry of Truth:

John Derbyshire is the sole remaining adult writing for National Review.

In a recent issue he noted that Aldous Huxley's novel, Brave New World, first published in 1932, now reads like contemporary news.

Huxley's fearsome predictions of a 26th century world have all come true six centuries early:

In vitro fertilization, genetically modified crops, stem-cell research, promiscuous recreational sex, the demise of marriage and families, and the epidemic use of prescription and illegal drugs to escape from anxiety, frustration and disappointment.

Alas, Franz Kafka's novel, The Trial, published in 1925 and George Orwell's novel, 1984, published in 1949, also have been turned into period pieces by the practices of the Bush Regime.

In Kafka's novel, Josef K. is arrested for reasons never given, tried for an unspecified crime, and executed. LINK

Why a Gonazales resignation is not enough

by Kagro X

Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 06:38:25 AM PDT

It now seems all but inevitable that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be forced to resign his position over the growing scandal surrounding the political strong-arming of U.S. Attorneys around the country. Resignation, even in supposed disgrace however, is insufficiently punitive to members of an "administration" that has made a practice of employing prominent Republican recidivists left over from what should have been career-ending scandals like Watergate and Iran-Contra.

But resignation as a punishment also fails to fit the crime. You may rest assured that apologists for Gonzales, Bush and Rove (whose involvement also seems obvious) will insist that there is no "crime" here, because the hiring and firing of U.S. Attorneys is within the president's prerogative. True, as far as it goes. But what clearly ought not to be is the political manipulation of federal investigations to bolster the electoral prospects of Republicans, and damage those of Democrats and other rivals. This is the sort of activity that's so obviously and fundamentally wrong that nobody has yet taken the time to devise a statute to address it. Instead, it occupies the space of a general crime against the Constitution, a subversion of our very system of government, and precisely the sort of crime for which the founders gave us the remedy of impeachment. That's what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are all about. It's not about lawbreaking at altitude. LINK

Surge Creep

Tom Engelhardt
When it comes to surging in Iraq, it's "encouraging" out there. So the President tells us ("Yet even at this early hour, there are some encouraging signs…"); so Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the surge commander in Baghdad, tells us ("[It's] too early to discern significant trends, [but] there have been a few encouraging signs…"). No, they're not talking about what Juan Cole calls the "new spate of massive and deadly bombings [that] has spread insecurity and further compromised the Iraqi government… right in downtown Baghdad, within spitting distance of the Green Zone, where the U.S. and the Iraqi government planned out the new security arrangements"; they're referring to some weapons caches found, some under-strength Iraqi units deployed to the capital, a possible small drop in deaths from sectarian violence. LINK

Opposing the Iraq War: Heroes of Resistance

By John Tirman, AlterNet. Posted March 13, 2007.

In the face of severe contempt and intimidation, a sizable number of Americans saw the charade for what it was and rued the oncoming disaster of war.

As we mark the fourth anniversary of Bush's catastrophic war in Iraq, a round of blaming is sure to ensue along with counts of U.S. soldiers killed and wounded, money spent, dreams dashed, and the like.

What we should also do is celebrate the people who opposed the war from the beginning. In the face of severe opprobrium and intimidation, a sizable number of Americans saw the charade for what it was and rued the oncoming disaster. They should be cheered, time and again.

It is easy to forget how brutally coercive the conventional wisdom was in the autumn of 2002 and winter of 2003. Even today, the supporters of the war, especially liberal hawks, insist that "no one" doubted that Saddam had nuclear or biological weapons, or that "no one" could have anticipated the chaos and mayhem to come. This is dead wrong. Many people warned of exactly such consequences. The predictions came from a broad spectrum of Americans, no less, from the old-fashioned conservatives of Papa Bush's circle to New Left veterans. LINK

Killing the Constitution By Irene Rheinwald

03/12/07 "ICH" -- -- The Bush-Cheney imperialist, neo-liberal, neo-conservative government, is arguably the apex of American hubris, an apex of demagoguery. Of course, one cannot dismiss the pride and arrogance of past administrations. President McKinley stated the United States must “civilize and Christianize” the Philippines. Woodrow Wilson, much-admired president and unabashed white supremacist, architect of ‘Wilsonian idealism’, occupied Haiti and the Dominican Republic, seized Vera Cruz, and sent American troops into European battlefields. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, America claimed the inalienable right to guide, either subtly or by force, the destiny of sovereign nations. Behind the seductive, morally presumptuous language of freedom and democracy is the unmistakable odor of imperial self-interest and disdain for autonomy. Determined to advance her narrow economic interests, the United States has worked to overthrow legitimately elected governments around the world http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm. Most recently, we have the fiasco of an illegal invasion of Iraq.

What, in the American psyche, permits governments to engage in illegal activities, all the while proclaiming noble aspirations? The truth is much more sinister. One mantle of hypocrisy is religion, that much abused font of enlightenment and enslavement, a tool manipulated for either great good or great evil. In addition, we must ask how religion affects the interpretation and application of the Constitution. LINK to the rest

Cheney Fleeing To Dubai
We’ve all been wondering where Cheney would seek exile, and today the answer was delivered: Dubai.
Cheney’s company, Halliburton, is suddenly moving corporate headquarters to the United Arab Emirates state. All the top executives are going to Dubai, which means they’ll be far out of reach of that pesky American Congress. “The oil giant will keep an office in Houston but the posts of chairman, president and chief executive will be based in Dubai,” BBC reports. Disgraced weirdo Micheal Jackson also fled to Dubai to avoid further criminal prosecution in America. Halliburton has been running its illegal operations — such as its oil business in Iran — out of its Dubai offices for years.
Cheney was officially CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, but he continues to earn a massive salary (“deferred compensation” and millions in stock options) for his continued hard work: giving Halliburton billions in no-bid contracts in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and even the hurricane-wrecked U.S. Gulf Coast.
Halliburton plans move to Dubai [BBC]

American Blog

Bush greeted in Brazil with protests, pushing biofuel agreement
by Chris in Paris · 3/09/2007 05:55:00 AM ET
Discuss this post here: Comments (39) · digg it · reddit · FARK · · Link

Is buying limited supplies of ethanol from Brazil really the answer to the problem? I can appreciate the interest of Petrobras executives to sell their product to the US, who have deeper pockets than Brazilian consumers, but what does that mean to Brazilians? Then there is the problem of promoting agriculture for biofuel production across Latin America, which large landowners might see as a new financial opportunity, but then what about growing crops for actual human consumption? Is it better to have a cheap day at the pump for Americans or have food on the table for people in the developing world?

The problem always comes back to a need for more efficiency standards and alternative energies that deliver a net positive. This, of course, raises the issue of going against Big Oil and their lobbyists, who would rather stay the course, pay lip service and drag their feet, blocking change. Bush is never going to go against Big Oil so it's up to the Democrats to push this issue and focus on the real issue instead of distractions like ethanol from Brazil.

Juicing the Stock Market The secret maneuverings of the Plunge Protection Team

By Mike Whitney

03/07/07 "ICH " -- -- The Working Group on Financial Markets, also know as the Plunge Protection Team, was created by Ronald Reagan to prevent a repeat of the Wall Street meltdown of October 1987. Its members include the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Chairman of the SEC and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Recently, the team has been on high-alert given the increased volatility of the markets and, what Hank Paulson calls, "the systemic risk posed by hedge funds and derivatives.”

Last Tuesday’s 416 point drop in the stock market has sent tremors through global system. An 8% freefall on the Chinese stock exchange triggered a massive equities sell-off which continued sporadically throughout the week. The sudden shift in sentiment, from Bull to Bear, has drawn more attention to deeply rooted “systemic” problems in the US economy. US manufacturing is already in recession, the dollar continues to weaken, consumer spending is flat, and the sub-prime market in real estate has begun to nosedive. These have all contributed to the markets’ erratic behavior and created the likelihood that the Plunge Protection Team may be stealthily intervening behind the scenes.

According to John Crudele of the New York Post, the Plunge Protection Team’s (PPT) modus operandi was revealed by a former member of the Federal Reserve Board, Robert Heller. Heller said that disasters could be mitigated by “buying market averages in the futures market, thus stabilizing the market as a whole.” This appears to be the strategy that has been used. LINK

Evidence Mounting for Armchair Revolution:

Ambivalent Couch Potatoes Mobilizing

By J.D. Suss

03/06/07 "ICH' -- -- Human activity causes global warming and climate change. Yet even otherwise reasonable and intelligent citizens disbelieve it. Why? To err is to be liberal, and, if footnotes are lacking, unscientific. Better to err as conservator (of what? the status quo?) of that set out below?

Agribusiness and factory farms put dangerous chemicals into the food chain. Synthetic fertilizers, antibiotics, growth hormones, pesticides, fumigants, and such – all go into our bodies. After all is said and done, you are what you eat, aren’t you? Forcing ruminants to eat corn instead of grass, and heavily investing in the monocrops of corn and soy is said to be at the root of alarming agro-problems. Hey, haven't you heard? Our modern, unnatural farm techniques are causing untold animal suffering and spoiling our environment. Haven't you heard?

Food technology and food processors work hand-in-glove with agribusiness and factory farms. It is not enough that our food is already adulterated because of how it is grown or raised. Laboratories genetically modify it. Manufacturers further degrade it via various processes that modify it in a multitude of other synthetic ways. With high fructose corn syrup in practically everything now (since its invention in 1980), child obesity and type-two diabetes have grown to epidemic proportions. And oh, say, can you see? Industrial food chain supermarket displays of sugary or artificially sweetened soft drinks – sugary breakfast cereals piled high. Hey, what about that?! We better get the FDA on the case! Hah! LINK

How Foundations Are Undermining America's Social Change & Public Interest Movements

Posted 3/24/06

Subject: The Revolution Will Not Be Funded
From Adbusters Magazine (Canada) The Secret to Being as Radical as We Want to Be is to Finance the
Revolution Ourselves

By Michael Shuman and Merrian Fuller

If Mohandas Gandhi were a typical North American activist these days, he
would probably be wearing a three-piece suit and working in a plush office
with his law degree prominently displayed. He would have little time to
lead protests, since every other week would be spent meeting with donors -
and those power lunches would hardly go well with fasting. He would be
careful to avoid salt marches or cotton boycotts, so as not to offend key
donors. To sharpen his annual pitch to foundations, he would be constantly
dreaming up new one-year projects on narrowly focused topics, perhaps a
one-time conference on English human-rights abuses, or a documentary on
anti-colonial activities in New Delhi. To ensure that various allies
didn't steal away core funders, he would keep his distance and be inclined
to trash talk behind their backs. In short, there's little doubt that the
British would still be running India.

The problem with activism today is that it is largely funded by grants and
gifts from rich foundations and individuals. The long-standing assumption
that you can take the money with few strings attached, and then run, needs
to be fundamentally reexamined. LINK

Check out this video. Just how scary are the far right, see for your self:

LINK to Video

Ethanol: Feed a Person for a Year or Fill Up an SUV?

By Robert Bryce, CounterPunch
While politicians and Big Agriculture insist on casting the need for ethanol in terms of national security, the larger issue is a moral one: are we going to use our precious farmland to grow food, or use it to make motor fuel?

The ethanol scam just keeps getting more and more absurd. In January, three U.S. senators -- two Democrats, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barack Obama of Illinois, along with Indiana Republican Richard Lugar -- introduced a bill that would promote the use of ethanol. It also mandates the use of more biodiesel and creates tax credits for the production of cellulosic ethanol. They called their bill the "American Fuels Act of 2007."

The most amazing part of the press release trumpeting the legislation is its fourth paragraph, in which Lugar declares that "U.S. policies should be targeted to replace hydrocarbons with carbohydrates."

Let's consider that for a moment. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the U.S. economy was primarily based on carbohydrates. For most people, horses were the main mode of transportation. They were also a primary work source for plowing and planting. Aside from coal, which was used by the railroads and in some factories, the U.S. economy depended largely on the ability of draft animals to turn grass and forage into usable toil. America's farmers were solely focused on producing food and fiber. And while the U.S. was moderately prosperous, it was not a world leader.

Oil changed all that. After the discovery of vast quantities of oil in Texas, Oklahoma, and other locales, America was able to create a modern transportation system, with cars, buses, and airplanes. That oil helped the U.S. become a dominant military power. Humans were freed from the limitations of the carbohydrate economy, which was constrained by the amount of arable land. LINK

Militarism, empire loom as threat to democracy

By: Byron Williams
Nemesis in Greek mythology was the goddess representing the spirit of divine retribution against those who succumb to hubris. Nemesis personified resentment against those who committed crimes with apparent impunity.

In his latest book, called "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic," author Chalmers Johnson offers a grim view for America as an empire.

"The main proposition in 'Nemesis', and the reason for the subtitle, is not just hype to try and sell books," Johnson said. "It is to argue history tells us there's no more unstable combination than that of a domestic democracy and a foreign empire."

According to Johnson, such attempts ultimately proved to be the undoing of the Romans, the British, the Germans and the former Soviet Union, thus, it would be extremely naive to believe America can maintain its present course. LINK

America on its Knees Before Tyranny

By Richard Mynick

03/02/07 "ICH" -- -- "The Star-Spangled Banner" painted the United States in 1814 as "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave." These words, though still mumbled by apathetic consumers at sporting events, amount to a cruel satire of the American people in 2007.

The 4th sentence of the Declaration of Independence reads "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (ie, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." It would be hard to find a more apt description of the US government in 2007, or a more appropriate remedy for this oppressive regime, increasingly loathed and feared by the citizenry.

We have a Constitution which defines a separation of powers. It also defines procedures for impeaching officials who violate its bedrock principles -- in particular, its Bill of Rights, its separation of powers, and its foundational notion that power derives from the consent of the governed. We make elected officials swear an oath to "protect and defend" this Constitution. Why bother with all this, if, when the day of tyranny finally arrives, the Constitution's own provisions are not used to defend the document's principles against the would-be tyrants who have so egregiously violated them?

In November, US voters told Washington that the public does not support the war; sees with increasing clarity that it is immoral and was launched on false pretexts; and wants it terminated. In response, Vice-Emperor Cheney snarled in a TV interview with an obsequious Bush toady that regardless of what the public or Congress might say about it, the White House intends not only to continue the war, but to escalate it.

Let's examine this extraordinary position. Here is a top official of a "democracy" -- in a war marketed as an effort to "spread democracy" -- stating publicly & with imperial scorn that he and his co-conspirators have the right to order the US war machine to bombard and occupy any nation they wish to target, even if their war is launched under demonstrably false pretexts. They claim the right to compel the public to furnish lives and bodies to be killed and maimed in the war, and to bear the moral and financial burdens of the war, in an action which not incidentally lets administration allies in the "defense" and oil industries profit handsomely from the ensuing mayhem. Needless to say, from Cheney's viewpoint, it's also of no moment that the war violates the Nuremberg Principles and UN Charter forbidding aggressive war, and that the conduct of the war violates international accords to which the US is a signatory. LINK