Worse Than Watergate

John Dean (not Howard), former White House counsel for Richard Nixon back in the Watergate days, has written a new book, Worse Than Watergate. What a great title! There is a great interview on Salon.com with the author.

The Bush Double Standard

Sen. Daschle gave a excellent speech on the US Senate floor that points out Bush's double standard. If you say something he disagrees with you should be investigated and your character should be attacked as violently and ruthlessly as possible. If you say something he agrees with you should not be investigated and your character ought not be questioned. If a fact is uncomfortable then it should remain classified and hidden from public scrutiny, but if it helps Bush politically then it should be de-classified right away.

" The September 11 families – and our entire country – deserve better. Our democracy depends on it. And our nation's future security depends on it."

Condi Rice Dissembles on 60 Minutes

When I watched Condi Rice interviewed on 60 Minutes I also noted a subtle little shuffle when Rice was asked about Richard Clarke's apology to the families of the 9/11 victims.

ED BRADLEY::
Will the families of those people who were killed hear an apology from you? Do you think that would be appropriate?

CONDOLEZZA RICE:
The families, I think, have heard from this president that - and from me, and from me personally in some cases in that field in Pennsylvania or at the World Trade Center, how - deeply sorry everyone is for the loss that they endured. You couldn't be human and not feel the horror of that day. We do need to stay focused on what happened to us that day. And the best thing that we can do for the memory of the victims, the best thing that we can do for the future of this country, is to focus on those who did this to us.

Being sorry for the loss those people endured is not the same as being sorry for screwing up. Nice try Condi, but what the families of the 9/11 victims want is an apology for the administration's screw ups. When is this administration ever going to take responsibility for the results of its actions and policies?

The following catalogue of lies on the same interview comes to you courtesy of the The Center for American Progress

RICE CLAIM: "The administration took seriously the threat" of terrorism before 9/11.

FACTS: President Bush himself acknowledges that, despite repeated warnings of an imminent Al Qaeda attack, before 9/11 "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism. Similarly, Newsweek reports that his attitude was reflected throughout an Administration that was trying to "de-emphasize terrorism" as an overall priority. As proof, just two of the hundred national security meetings the Administration held during this period addressed the terrorist threat, and the White House refused to hold even one meeting of its highly-touted counterterrorism task force. Meanwhile, the Administration was actively trying to cut funding for counterterrorism, and "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism" despite a serious increase in terrorist chatter in the summer of 2001.

Source: "Bush At War" by Bob Woodward
Source: Refusal to hold task force meeting -
Source: Only two meetings out of 100 -

RICE CLAIM: "I don't know what a sense of urgency any greater than the one we had would have caused us to do anything differently. I don't know how...we could have done more. I would like very much to know what more could have been done?"

FACTS: There are many things that could have been done: first and foremost, the Administration could have desisted from de-emphasizing and cutting funding for counterterrorism in the months before 9/11. It could have held more meetings of top principals to get the directors of the CIA and FBI to share information, especially considering the major intelligence spike occurring in the summer of 2001. As 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick said on ABC this morning, the lack of focus and meetings meant agencies were not talking to each other, and key evidence was overlooked. For instance, with better focus and more urgency, the FBI's discovery of Islamic radicals training at flight schools might have raised red flags. Similarly, the fact that "months before Sept. 11, the CIA knew two of the al-Qaeda hijackers were in the United States" could have spurred a nationwide manhunt. But because there was no focus or urgency, "No nationwide manhunt was undertaken," said Gorelick. "The State Department watch list was not given to the FAA. If you brought people together, perhaps key connections could have been made."

Source: Slash counterterrorism funding -
Source: CIA knew 2 hijackers in the U.S. -

RICE CLAIM:“Nothing would be better from my point of view than to be able to testify, but there is an important principle involved here it is a longstanding principle that sitting national security advisors do not testify before the Congress.”

FACTS: Republican Commission John F. Lehman, who served as Navy Secretary under President Reagan said on ABC this morning that "This is not testimony before a tribunal of the Congress…There are plenty of precedents for appearing in public and answering questions…There are plenty of precedents the White House could use if they wanted to do this.” 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick agreed, saying “Our commission is sui generis…the Chairman has been appointed by the President. We are distinguishable from Congress.” Rice's remarks on 60 Minutes that the principle is limited to "sitting national security advisers" is also a departure from her statements earlier this week, when she said the principle applied to all presidential advisers. She was forced to change this claim for 60 Minutes after 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste “cited examples of non-Cabinet presidential advisers who have testified publicly to Congress." Finally, the White House is reportedly moving to declassify congressional testimony then-White House adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002. By declassifying this testimony, the White House is breaking the very same "principle" of barring White House adviser's testimony from being public that Rice is using to avoid appearing publicly before the 9/11 commission.

Source: Quote from Tony Snow Show -

RICE CLAIM: "Iraq was put aside" immediately after 9/11.

FACTS: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." The President therefore did not put Iraq aside -- he merely deferred it to a second phase, after Afghanistan. To the question of Iraq or Afghanistan, Bush replied: let's do both, starting with Afghanistan. In terms of resources, the Iraq decision had far-reaching effects on the efforts to hunt down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As the Boston Globe reported, "the Bush administration is continuing to shift highly specialized intelligence officers from the hunt for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to the Iraq crisis."

Source: September 17th directive -
Source: Rumsfeld orders Iraq plan -
Source: Shifting special forces -

Revealing stuff.

Frat Boy Does It Again

So what's dubya up too now. He thinks the fact that we didn't find any WMD's a joking matter.

Mr Bush made the joke at a black-tie event for radio and television journalists in Washington on Wednesday night.

He narrated a slide show, described as the White House election year album, making hay of the administration's reputation for secrecy and strained relations with European allies. But it was the joke about the war in Iraq that drew attacks.

A slide showed Mr Bush in the Oval office, leaning to look under a piece of furniture. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere," he told the audience, drawing applause.

Another slide showed him peering into another part of the office, "Nope, no weapons over there," he said, laughing. "Maybe under here," he said, as a third slide was shown.

This isn't a frat drinking party dubya. The cavalier attitude about his own deceitful rationale for war reaches new heights of decadence and corruption. Whats so funny about 500+ American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi's dying for a needless and arrogant war. Bush is our Caligula.

Colorful Confusions

Is my home state of Utah a red state or a blue state? It may seem this is a very simple one to answer. Utah has voted Republican consistently for many years. This year Bush is polling over 60 percent here. Well then Utah is a red state. What does it mean to be a red state? Well if we believe the electoral maps used on the network television stations, red states are states that vote for Bush. But isn't red the color for the Communist party? Don't we call Communist China Red China?

Now things get really confusing. I came across an article called Mormon Manifesto. Now, in Utah at least, the vast majority of Mormons are true blue Republicans. Or should that be true red Republicans. In other parts of the country the religion doesn't correllate with party affiliation as well. For those of you who don't know, Mormons make up close to 70% of the population in Utah. This correllation between religion and party affiliation purports to explain why Utah votes Republican so consistently. But consider the following from the article I linked to above.

To offer an encapsulated history from Building the City of God, it was in February 1831 that Joseph Smith gave a revelation to the followers of his new religion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This became known as The Law of Consecration and Stewardship, also known as “the Lord’s law,” the “Order of Enoch,” or the First United Order. This was meant to be a major instrument in reorganizing the social and economic patterns of his followers. Because much of society seemed to “disintegrate from the excesses of individualism and pluralism,” Smith wanted to build a haven for unity among a people “fragmented by their individualistic search for economic well-being.” Based on the principle that everything on the earth and the earth itself belonged to the Lord, “every member of the church was asked to ‘consecrate’ or deed all his property, both real and personal, to the bishop of the church. The bishop would then grant an ‘inheritance’ or ‘stewardship’ to every family out of the properties received, the amount depending on the wants and needs of the family as determined jointly by the bishop and the prospective steward.” This Law was intended to redistribute the wealth and place “all family heads on an equal footing,” based on the belief that one person shouldn’t have more possessions than another because that’s where “the world lieth in sin.”

Replace the church with the people in this scenario and you have Communism. Now remember, the article claims that The Law of Consecration and Stewardship is a revelation. That means God told the prophet Joseph Smith that all family heads should be on an equal footing and unequal distribution of the wealth leads to sin. So maybe Utah should be a red state. Red like China, not red like network television electoral maps.

Same Shit, Different Day

The Bush administration has attacked Kerry for "gutting" the intelligence services in 1995. What they didn't mention is that the Republican congress passed an almost identical cut that year and furthermore that the cut was something like a paltry 1% of the CIA budget. Get the straight dope on this issue here.

Now we get this from the Washington Post. "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows."

Advertise in the area you are weakest. That seems to be the order of the day. Beer commercials suggest that you will get laid if you drink their beer. Problem is with too much beer you become fat and limp.

Where is the Bush Administration weakest? The economy? No, the president doesn't have as much control over the economy as people would like to think. This isn't to say that Bush's policies aren't terrible. Bush is weekest on security. Like a drunken machine gunner, Bush attacks a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist threat to this country. Richard Clarke, a former anti-terrorism advisor to no less than four administrations put it best. "I find it outrageous that the President is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it"

Nothing Has Changed Today

Lies, more lies, and no accountability. Same old, same old.

Just for fun. On November 8, 2001 Bush said the following to Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso during a White House meeting.

"Do you have blacks, too?"

Single Payer, The Time is Now

Doctors, Labor Unions, and the CEO's of the big three auto-makers in America support a single payer health care system. Read about it here. It seems the only people who don't support it are insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, right wing ideologues, and John Kerry.

God's Delivery Boy

I enjoyed this. Bush: I'm God's Delivery Boy

Rumsfeld Caught in a Bald Faced Lie

Here is a link to a pdf file of the transcript from Face the Nation on CBS.

Here is the relevant excerpt.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.

Now are we convinced that the administration straight out lied to the American people about the war in Iraq. Unless your head is where the sun don't shine, it is hard to deny it now.

UPDATE: Here is a link to a streaming video.

Propaganda

The Guardian reports:

TV news reports in America that showed President George Bush getting a standing ovation from potential voters have been exposed as fake, it has emerged.

The US government admitted it paid actors to pose as journalists in video news releases sent to TV stations intending to convey support for new laws about health benefits.

Investigators are examining the film segments, in which actors pretending to be journalists praise the benefits of the new law passed last year by President Bush, to see if they could be construed as propaganda.

Even more disturbing...

The government also prepared scripts to be used by news anchors. "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare," the script reads.

"Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details." The "reporter" then explains the benefits of the new law.

According to the article the US government has been creating such "Video News Releases" since the 1980's. This is really disturbing stuff. Here we are watching something that we think is a reporter asking government officials about some new law they signed, when in actual fact it is a canned news release.

The government defended the videos, which Democrats described as "disturbing". "The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector," a health department spokesman told the New York Times.

This is the government's defense? The practice is "common" and "routine"? What if it was common and routine for 10-year-olds to get raped in the basement of the White House. Would that make it alright? Absolutely shocking.

A Very Useful Article

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Tax Cuts Don't Necessarily Equal Jobs

According to an interesting article in the Washington Post, it is hard to find historical proof that tax cuts lead to more jobs.

Here are a couple of interesting stats from the article.

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan again slashed taxes. Taxation fell from 19.6 percent of the economy that year to 17.4 percent in 1983. The unemployment rate, however, rose over that period, from 7.6 percent to 9.6 percent. By 1989, taxation had drifted upward again, to 18.3 percent of the economy, but unemployment had fallen to 5.3 percent.

And the following is my favorite, since conservatives like to bash nations with a welfare state system.

Total taxation in Sweden, including local taxes, is equal to 59.2 percent of that country's economy, the highest level in the 27-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In contrast, the U.S. total tax burden is 30.6 percent, lowest among the OECD members. Yet unemployment for the past two years in Sweden has been considerably lower than U.S. levels.

So how do we explain this?

"Burtless suggested that the issue is not tax levels but tax structures. Sweden has high taxation, but its generous social welfare system rewards citizens for the number of years spent working."

That makes sense to me. It seems there may be many ways to improve the employment situation and the economy, but the real question is which way is fair.

Old Master Beats New Technology

The following game is from a mysterious Russian called Genrikh Chepukaitis. He never became a grandmaster but he was known to be able to beat anybody at blitz chess. The annotations are from Chepukaitis himself and are almost as entertaining as the game. For more of his games check out the original ChessCafe article this is taken from. If you would like to play through the game on a chess board here is the link.

White Genrikh Chepukaitis
Black Strong Computer
Result 1-0
ECO A45
Let me invite you to the board as I defend some of my ideas. The following game was played against a computer, a strong program, one of the major ones.

1 d4 Nf6
2 Bg5 . . .

Here comes my favorite bishop-kamikaze in the only opening I employ with White, the only opening I know. Generally one should not care about the "objective" value of the opening. There are only openings one knows and those one does not. The former are good, and the latter are bad.

Black to move

2 . . . Ne4
3 Bh4 g5
4 f3 gxh4
5 fxe4 e5
6 e3 Qg5!

This plan was Boleslavky's suggestion with the evalutation: "White cannot defend the dark squares."

White to move

7 Kf2 . . .

Back then it was my humble opinion - White can't defend the dark squares without his King.

7 . . . Bh6
8 Qe1 exd4
9 exd4 Qc1

The greedy computer sees a weakness on b2 and attacks it.

10 Nc3 Qxb2
11 Bd3 . . .

I do some make-up for my position. (Chepukaitis says one should treat your position like a woman. They like to be made pretty with make-up)

11 . . . Bd2!

Computers are so good at tactics! Now I have to give up the Exchange.

White to move

12 Qxd2 Qxa1
13 Nf3 . . .

And a rook. What's wrong - I could not bring my pieces out without sacrificing it.

13 . . . Qxh1
14 Qg5 . . .

Threat is simple - Qe5+. The naive attempt to protect this square with 14...d6 costs Black the game after 15. Nd5! Nc6 16. Bb5. So the computer creates a burrow for his King and gives back some material.

Black to move

14 . . . c6
15 Qe5+ Kd8
16 Qxh8+ Kc7
17 d5 . . .

With the cheap idea d5-d6+.

17 . . . b6
18 d6+ Kb7
19 Qd8 Na6

I terrorized the machine with mating threats, but it parried them all. What shall White do now?

20 Bf1

And suddenly White leaves Black's King alone and traps his Queen. There is no defense against the threat Qxh4 and Nc3-e2- g3. The game was over in a couple of moves.

Black to move

Bush, Keep Your Grubby Hands Off Venezuela

The Indepedent reports that the United States has been secretly funding Hugo Chavez's opponents in Venezuela. Amongst his opponents are oil executives of course.

We wouldn't stand for another country trying to influence our elections. We would be utterly outraged. How can the Bush administration justify sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. America is not an oil company Mr. Bush, peoples lives and livelihoods are involved. Keep your grubby, oil stained hands off Venezuela.

Is it Treason?

The Senate Intelligence Committee report on WMD's will be "Damning" says Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona in a Reuters article today. He goes on to say that the blame will be spread around.

When commenting on Edward Kennedy's charge that the Bush administration mislead the nation into war Kyl said, "That charge, if more than just over-the-top bluster, would be close to an allegation of treason -- suggesting that the president deliberately put our young men and women in harm's way for no purpose other than politics."

Well duh. Yes Senator Kyl, that is what many of us on the left have been saying for close to a year now. Don't act so shocked and pull your head out.

Unbelievable

Among the terrorists being detained at Guantanamo Bay that were so dangerous that we couldn't give access to an attorney was a 12 year old boy! What the hell is wrong with this administration. Read about this and other outrages from this Kafkaesque tale here.

Bush Lies to His Own Party

Bush lied to his own Republican party about the cost of his prescription drug program. Check it out here. Does this president ever tell the truth?

Democracy, Not "Free Markets"

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class
by Thom Hartmann

Here are a couple of headlines for those who haven't had the time to study both economics and history:

1. There is no such thing as a "free market."

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative belief in "free markets" is a bit like the Catholic Church's insistence that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System in the Twelfth Century. It's widely believed by those in power, those who challenge it are branded heretics and ridiculed, and it is wrong.

In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government.

Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government.

And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work.

Read the rest of this excellent article here.

Dub Sez

"I don't understand how poor people think."

- George W. Bush, confiding in the Rev. Jim Wallis, New York Times, 08-26-03

Obviously.

Tenet Duped by Bush Administration Too

The Houston Chronicle reports:

A special intelligence unit at the Pentagon privately briefed senior officials at the White House on alleged ties between Iraq and al-Qaida without the knowledge of CIA Director George Tenet, according to new information presented at a Senate hearing Tuesday.

The disclosure suggests that the controversial Pentagon office played a greater role than previously understood in shaping the administration's views on Iraq's alleged ties to the terrorist network behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and bypassed usual channels to make a case that conflicted with the conclusions of CIA analysts.

Its nice to see all of this finally come out.

Nader's Untimely Campaign

John Buell's article Ralph Nader's Untimely Campaign in Perspective expresses precisely my view on his candidacy this year. Some of my readers and I have had a discussion of his candidacy in a previous post. I think this article is a good contribution to that discussion.

Get Over It

"...in fact intellectual progress usually occurs through sheer abandonment of questions together with both of the alternatives they assume— an abandonment that results from their decreasing vitality and a change of urgent interest. We do not solve them: we get over them." —John Dewey

Some Things Never Change

"We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot box, the legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized... The newspapers are subsidized or muzzled; public opinion silenced; business prostrate, our homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of capitalists."

"The urban workmen are denied the right of organization for self-protection; imported pauperized labor beats down their wages; a hireling standing army... established to shoot them down... The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes.... From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed two classes—paupers and millionaires...."

The foregoing was the preamble to the Populist Party platform in 1892. Some things never change. And some things do... Today we have no viable 3rd party.

Corporate Crackdown

The following article can be found in the March/April 2004 Print Edition of Adbusters Magazine.

Corporate Crackdown
by Jeff Milchen, Director of ReclaimDemocracy.org

When Tom Paine published the Pamphlet "Common Sense" in January 1776, six months before the Declaration of Independence was signed he sought to transform citizen protest into full-bore rebellion. Armed fighting between colonists and the British had broken out months before, but the colonists still identified themselves largely as English subjects fighting a tyrannical government. Their anger was aimed at the king and parliament for ignoring their rights guaranteed by England's unwritten constitution.

Paine sought to persuade his readers that their problems went beyond corrupt or abusive government. He rejected no only King George III but also the legitimacy of aristocracy and the entire British system. Rather than treating the monarch with customary deference, he boldly declared the 11th-century monarch William the Conqueror, to be "a French bastard landing with an armed banditti and establishing himself King of England against the consent of the natives."

"Common Sense" was wildly successful. By the spring of 1776, newspapers reported "innumerable" converts to independence, including "tens of thousands of common farmers and tradesmen." With burning urgency Paine had gone on to call for the colonies to break from Britain and within the year, they did.

Our struggle with oppression today is not directly against government. It is against the most dominant institution of our time: the corporation. And, as it did in 1776, Paine's radicalism - in its true meaning of "going to the roots" - can inform our battle plan.

Many people now accept corporate domination of our political life, yet they seldom discuss the extent to which corporations control our physical existence. Agribusiness dominates our food supply; auto, oil and energy corporations determine what's in our air, and to a frightening extent, whether we live in peace or in war.

But corporations are no more part of the natural order than the English monarchy. As little as 150 years ago, they didn't exist in the form we know today. American citizens strictly controlled them though state legislatures, which accepted incorporation as a way to fund public projects like highways or canals. State legislatures explicitly defined corporations as entities subordinate to democracy and with a narrow set of privileges. Some states forbade business lobbying, influencing elections, or even attempting to sway public opinion. Violating these limits could lead to dissolution - a corporate death penalty.

During the Industrial Revolution relentless pressure from wealthy business owners expanded corporate privileges dramatically. By 1890, most long-standing corporate restrictions had been eliminated, and the US Supreme Court had granted the corporation the legal standing of natural persons, or "corporate personhood." Soon after, the court bestowed Bill of Rights protections upon them with virtually none of the responsibilities of citizens. Effectively, the rights of citizens had been subordinated to institutions that now had the power to undermine personal liberties and democracy.

A powerful resistance movement arose. The poor farmers who launched the Farmers' Alliance in the 1880s built cooperatives to bypass the iron grip bankers and large merchants held over their land and livelihoods. They soon realized dismantling the political influence of corporations was vital to their cause, and in 1892, they launched the last serious challenge to two-party domination in the US: the Populist Party. Populists focused on changing structures, not just symptoms. They sought to replace existing banks with a democratically controlled financial system and to nationalize railroads and telegraph networks. The Populists were not socialists (quite the contrary, actually) but they realized that free markets were impossible with oligarchies controlling the arteries of commerce.

The regulatory system created in the early 1900s was promoted by corporate leaders, trying to redirect this insurrections against corporate power. Big business succeeded by effectively channeling that rebellion into protest against separate abuses. These individual grievances were then adjudicated by agencies dominated by the very businesses responsible for those abuses. Today, this regulatory system remains what the US Attorney General reassured corporate leaders it would be back then - "a barrier between corporations and the people."

We must tear down that barrier. Pursuing bureaucratic remedies like environmental impact reports or labor commission hearings are necessary tactics, but such defensive maneuvers cannot move us forward. We delude ourselves by thinking today's industrial aristocracy will be more responsive to the people's rights than the old one - or that appealing to our representatives in Washington can solve structural problems. As long as we permit corporate and private wealth to dominate politics, "democracy" will be a platitude from the mouths of demagogues rather than reality.

The extension of corporate "rights" is accelerating. In 1978, the US Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law that barred corporations from spending money to influence ballot initiatives, dubbing it a violation of corporate "free speech." Courts have ruled since that municipalities attempting to control the placement of cell phone towers violate corporate "civil rights." Corporations selling computerized voting machines invoke constitutional privilege against "unreasonable searches" to prevent people from ensuring that proprietary software isn't used to manipulate elections. And Nike recently battled to a draw in a legal contest to establish a constitutional right for corporations to lie.

What can we do to change this trend when the traditional means of protest aren't working? In simple terms, we need to build a movement to reclaim democracy where it begins - at the local level. Citizens can press local and state governments to pass laws challenging corporate personhood. Such ordinances and resolutions could parallel those passed by more than 220 communities in symbolic opposition to the oppressive "USA Patriot Act," that led to Congressional bills to scale it back. The motivation is similar: Our rights as citizens are in grave danger.

A "progressive" undertaking? Not necessarily. Nebraska, South Dakota, and several other conservative Midwestern state have passed laws forbidding corporate ownership of farms. At least 11 townships in rural Pennsylvania have done the same. Real conservatives are the first to recognize that corporations were established strictly as business entities and should remain so.

Small business owners in the US have helped lead successful efforts from Port Jefferson, New York to Solvang, California that subordinate presumed corporate "rights" by banning or capping the number of chain restaurants allowed to operate there. Many more communities are proactively excluding big box stores through size caps or bans, rather than fighting individual battles against Wal-Mart and other chains.

Citizens can further such efforts by documenting ways that corporate personhood robs citizens of power to their communities from corporate harms. Example: if a factory repeatedly breaks health, safety or environmental laws, public officials may be barred from inspecting corporate property without first obtaining a search warrant, as if corporate property were personal property. Of course, this enables companies to conceal dangers and imperil communities.

Eventually, local officials may follow the lead of tiny Porter Township, Pennsylvania. When agribusiness giant Synagro complained that a law controlling use of toxic sludge as fertilizer violated its constitutional rights within its jurisdiction. Months later, a neighboring community followed Porter's example. These efforts demonstrate that with the right language and framing of issues, exposing the insolence of corporations can inspire radical, proactive challenges to the legitimacy of corporate power. If such defiance were to spread, corporate executives would face tough decisions: concede significant privileges, or risk confrontation on a scale not seen since the 1773 Boston Tea Party and the ransacking of East India Company property (then the world's second largest corporation).

The rights of US residents aren't the only ones threatened. perhaps the most significant US export isn't grain or pharmaceuticals but the legal and institutional structure of corporate control. US authorities declared last year that Iraq must accept foreign investment and corporatization of its nationalized oil industry before a permanent government takes charge. So "democracy" is welcomed only after the most important economic decisions for the future of Iraqis have been decided for them, after transnational corporations control their economic lifeblood.

But instituting corporate rule is done typically without armies. Trade treaties such as NAFTA and GATT are basically globalized versions of the "Interstate Commerce Clause" of the US Constitution - used by the Supreme Court to invalidate state laws that banned corporations from importing and dumping hazardous waste from other states. Power is being transferred to secret transnational tribunals where the corporation is always king.

Activists can help reverse the trend by framing the ongoing assaults by CEO George Bush and company - on workers, forests, human rights - within the context of corporate domination, and by promoting structural solutions alongside necessary damage control measures. But it's the new push from corporations to widen their personhood rights still further that could offer an immediate opening.

In January, Monsanto Inc. lawyers argued their case against Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser before Canada's Supreme Court. Basically, Schmeiser is accused of allowing the wind to infest his farm with Monsanto's patented GE crops. Should the court side with Monsanto, Canadians will have fertile ground to organize rural communities and enact initiatives like those passed in Pennsylvania to deny illegitimate corporate rights.

Fifty-five million Americans joined a federal government list allowing them to opt out of being called by telemarketers. But last September a district court judge overturned the law that set up the list designed to keep for-profit companies (though not non-profits or politically-motivated callers) from pestering people at home. Judge Nottingham outrageously concluded that telemarketing companies possessed equal protection "rights" that would be violated by de facto discrimination against corporations, and that those presumed rights trump our right to personal privacy. The number of citizens with direct self-interest in this case makes it a stellar organizing opportunity - especially if the appeals court, that began its review in November, affirms the corporate claim.

Such conflicts can be used to enlist people of any ideology into battling "corporate personhood" via an obvious and direct impact on their lives. This work could trigger growth in awareness and engagement against corporate personhood, much like Seattle did for opposing secondary structures of corporate rule like the WTO. The key will be convincing average citizens that they and their families are oppressed by illegitimate corporate power, not by buffers like government agencies or politicians currently in office.

The opportunities will differ from one location to another, but let's heed Tom Paine's approach and transform our myriad single-issue protests into an outright rebellion to tear down the anti-democratic structures of corporate rule and institute some genuine democracy. Yes, its a huge challenge to change the rules, but sensible people don't keep playing a rigged game.

Blix Says Iraq War Was Illegal

In an interesting article from the Independent, Hans Blix explains why he believes the Iraq war was illegal. Blix wasn't just the head weapons inspector. He is also an attorney specialising in international law.

Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorised the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire.

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."

He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said.

Mr. Blix argues, rightly in my opinion, that a second resolution was required to permit war.

Bush Lets Terrorist Off the Hook

The Washington Post reports: "A German appeals court on Thursday ordered a new trial for the only person convicted to date for a role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying that the man's trial had been compromised by the United States' refusal to provide access to a key witness."

So why isn't the Bush administration providing this witness?

"U.S. officials have called Binalshibh a central conspirator in the attacks, but they declined to produce him for the trial, citing national security concerns."

National Security concerns!?!? Isn't it a national security concern to make sure those who conspired to attack us on that tragic day in September get convicted? This president is going to run a campaign based on security. If Americans will just read a newspaper, they will see this campaign strategy as utterly laughable.

Jane Says

The cover of the latest Nation is amusing. Click it to go to the website.

Bill Clinton as VP?

What do my readers think of this idea. Bill Clinton could be Kerry's running mate. According to this article it would not be unconstitutional.

The first objection, the constitutional one, can be disposed of easily. The Constitution does not prevent Clinton from running for vice president. The 22nd Amendment, which became effective in 1951, begins: "No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice."

No problem. Bill Clinton would be running for vice president, not president. Scholars and judges can debate how loosely constitutional language should be interpreted, but one need not be a strict constructionist to find this language clear beyond dispute. Bill Clinton cannot be elected president, but nothing stops him from being elected vice president.

True, if Clinton were vice president he would be in line for the presidency. But Clinton would succeed Kerry not by election, which the amendment forbids, but through Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which provides that if a president dies, resigns or is removed from office, his powers "shall devolve on the vice president." The 22nd Amendment would not prevent this succession.

Can you imagine the debate between Clinton and Cheney?!?!

Okay everyone, give me reasons why this would be a horrible blunder or an ingenious idea.

John Kerry for President

Now that Kerry has all but clinched the Democratic nomination, it is time to rally behind him to defeat the most criminal administration in history. It is clear that we were mislead about WMD's in Iraq. It is also very clear that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. If you have any lingering doubts about this have a look at Knight-Ridder's new analysis concerning links to Al Qaeda.

Contribute to Kerry's campaign with as much money as you can and as soon as you can so that he can compete against the Bush juggernaught in the critical early framing of the campaign to come.

If you still have a primary left. Go vote for Kucinich. This isn't a threat to Kerry and it will give Kucinich a chance to get his issues consideration at the Democratic Convention.

Clear Evidence of Water on Mars

"NASA scientists say the Mars rovers have found what they were looking for -- hard evidence that the red planet was once 'soaking wet.'

'We have concluded the rocks here were once soaked in liquid water,' said Steve Squyres of Cornell University. He's the principal investigator for the science instruments on Opportunity and its twin rover, Spirit."

Read about it here.

Making the World Safe for Capitalism

If you ever thought the Bush administration was interesting in spreading democracy, this will disabuse you of that notion.

King George

"I've not made up our mind about military action."
—George W. Bush

March 6, 2003
White House press conference. Washington, D.C.