Throwing the Lap Dog a Bone

We have a problem.

I'm not talking about the obvious problem of government's refusal to get the oil and gasoline prices under control. Notice I chose to use the word 'refusal' instead of something a little more negotiable like 'hesitation'. Word selection is intentional. Our government is refusing to take real action on this issue. But, that's not what I want to talk about.

I'm not talking about the insane profits being reported. Not Chevron's announcement of a 49% increase in quarterly earnings (source: CNN Money), nor Exxon's announced record 1st quarter net earnings of $8.4 BILLION (source: Washington Post), nor British Petroleum's or Shell's record profits of $19.3 BILLION and $22.94 BILLION, respectively (source: BBC News).

I'm not talking about the proposed changes being debated in Congress. According to a Wall Street analyst, the profit tax on oil company profits won't impact gasoline prices:

Wall Street analysts discounted the likelihood of congressional action against oil companies. "As someone in the industry for more than 25 years, I've seen it before," said Fadel Gheit, an oil company analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. "Penalizing oil companies does not lower prices at the pump. If we have a windfall profits tax, it will just create another moneybag for the government. It will not increase oil production by one barrel. It will not lower gasoline prices by one cent or alter our dependence on OPEC countries."
Source: Washington Post

I'm not talking of President Bush's disengenuous request for renewal of the effort to raise the mileage standards for vehicles. If the past is proof of the executive and legislative branches' commitment to reducing the dependency on oil by making vehicles more economical, forget about it.

But neither Congress nor the administration has shown much interest in raising passenger car standards, which were set in the 1970s and haven't changed since 1985. In March, the Bush administration said it would raise average fuel economy standards by 1.9 miles a gallon for sport-utility vehicles, pickups and vans for models in 2008 through 2011, a long-awaited move that environmentalists said was too modest.
Source: Washington Post

I'm talking about the $100 bone thrown to the lap dog which is the average American. Apparently, the Senate GOP leaders believe the average American is so naive as to take a deal where $100 in cash today is more important than the long-term reduction in the price of gasoline. This attempt at what in nothing less than a bribe reveals the mindset which is prevalent in Washington. Display to the citizenry the appearance of action, perhaps even provide a little something with which to entertain themselves, and the citizenry will feel as if their interests have been served.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The American public is not being served, it is being played.

I'd like to say this really jerks my chain, but then I don't have one. Do you?

Tagged: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Changing Face on Media Relations

With today's announcement of Fox News commentator Tony Snow as the replacement for White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, it is evident the Bush administration feels it necessary to have a spokesman with a stage presence. Snow's experience with the camera, his previous stint within the White House with the senior Bush's presidency, and journalist skills will serve him well.

Selecting a familiar face to deliver the administration's messages is a calculated and wise move. Not only is Tony Snow a familiar face in one of the most widely watched news channels, he is capable of managing the relationship with the audience, which is what ultimately counts. He also understands there is a gap which must be bridged between the Bush administration and journalist.

"President Bush hates responding to the press, hates responding to political enemies -- he thinks it's beneath him," Snow said on Fox News in March. "He's got a stubborn streak." What the president needed, he said, was "a series of vigorous defenses" of his position.
Washington Post

In order to kick-off the relationship building process with the media, he may need to start with restating his previous positions and framing them within the context of where he stands today.

Dee Dee Myers, a press secretary in the Clinton White House, said that if Bush wants smoother relations with journalists, "Tony has stature. He understands how the press works from both sides. He has a big personality, and that can be helpful." But she noted that Snow has "a long paper trail" and would have to defend policies he has criticized.Washington Post

Speaking of media presence...

Over at this blogger's site, I found an interesting analysis of the factors at play in the effort to corrupt the messages of serious researchers into areas which some very powerful groups would prefer not be critically analyzed. The article, The Destruction of the 911 Truth Movement, presents information on how major alternative news sites, the likes of Jeff Rense, and discussion forums, the likes of Above Top Secret, are used to assimilate, or disparage those which can't be assimilated, researchers with either a significant following or serious message which must be "handled".

Control of the media will determine which messages actually get delivered and what is contained therein.

Tagged: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Megalomania and Ponerology

megalomania  n.

1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.

ponerology n.

1. A division of theology dealing with evil; theological doctrine of wickedness or evil; from the Greek: poneros -> evil'.

Earlier this week President Bush declared himself "The Decider".  As I read those words, the above two words immediately came to mind.  I have provided the definitions above, and a few thoughts below...

Positions of power are full of individuals of the above types.

Study the types well.

Educate yourself in their ways.

Understand their purpose and aim.

They do not act in our best interest.

Protect yourself with knowledge.

And, remember these from Musashi Miyamoto's The Book of Five Rings...

• Think of what is right and true.
• Understand the harm and benefit in everything.
• Learn to see everything accurately.
• Become aware of what is not obvious.
• Be careful even in small matters.
• Do not do anything useless.

Tagged: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

FBI: Federal Bureau of Intimidation

Not long after columnist Jack Anderson's funeral, FBI agents called his widow to say they wanted to search his papers. They were looking for confidential government information he might have acquired in a half-century of investigative reporting. USA Today

Yesterday, we read about how the FBI is attempting to obtain the personal files of investigative reporter Jack Anderson under the pretext it will help the government's case against two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The lobbyists, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, have been charged with disclosing classified information.

Interestingly, the FBI is expanding the scope to remove any documents discovered during the search which may be stamped "secret", "confidential", or may be otherwise classified. Smells to me very much like a fishing expedition to attempt to identify individuals, sources or contacts, who may have helped Anderson obtain access to information revealing unethical, illegal, or less than flattering activities of certain powerful figures.

Mark Feldstein, a George Washington University journalism professor and Anderson biographer. Feldstein said he was visited by two agents at his Washington-area home in March.

Feldstein, who is writing a book about Anderson's relationship with Nixon, said the attempt is part of the "greatest assault on the news media since the Nixon administration."

"On the one hand, I think it's really disturbing to have the FBI come knocking at your door, demanding to look at things you've been reading. It smacks of a Gestapo state. On the other hand, it's so heavy handed to be almost ludicrous," Feldstein said. Washington Post

Today, another Washington Post article more accurately reports, albeit via the comments from Kevin Anderson, Jack Anderson's son, the more troubling aspect of this demand from the FBI:

Kevin Anderson said agents were "duplicitous" about their "true objective . . . to whitewash Jack Anderson's papers and attempt to remove from history embarrassing documents."

Here we see firsthand attempts at rewriting history, erasing all evidence of the truths, facts, and events as they occurred. Under the cover of the search for security leaks compromising national security, the true objective of silencing patriots and honest citizens who would reveal corruption, unconstitutional, and criminal behavior, will now be sought.

Any document can be classified and excluded from revelation under the guise of protection of national security, at the discretion of anyone with the power to apply the classification, and thus sweep under the rug any act or decision they choose.

Criminal acts and abuses of power would never be revealed. Everyone would continue to believe what a clean house the intelligence, military, executive, and legislative communities maintain.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Rockers Speak Out

Today, Neil Young joins the ranks of rockers speaking out against the policies and actions of the Bush administration. Seems that interviews aren't making out to the public, so might as well let the lyrics do the talking for you...

"I raise my hand in peace ... I never bow to the laws of the thought police ... I take a holy vow ... to never kill again ...

"In the big hotels ... in the mosques and the doors of the old museum ... I take a holy vow ... to never kill again."
from Living With War

Other artists who have spoken out include Steve Earle, Willie Nelson and the Rolling Stones.

According to CNN:

Veteran rocker Neil Young has recorded a protest album featuring an anti-Iraq war track with "a holy vow to never kill again" and a song titled "Let's Impeach the President," the singer said on Monday.

The New York Times reports on Neils' renewed activism:

Neil Young, who has periodically touched on political themes during a four-decade career, plans to release a hastily recorded new album ruminating on the war in Iraq and directly calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

The 10-song album, "Living With War," will probably represent Mr. Young's most overtly partisan work since the song "Ohio," recorded and quickly released by the group Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young as a response to the Kent State shootings in 1970.

I am finding more songs on the radio, specificaly the alternative radio stations, taking a stand against either the Bush administration or the Iraq war. System of a Down and Pearl Jam have songs critical of the war. Again, from the NY Times article:

The album comes at a time when major record companies and radio stations appear to have developed a degree of comfort with bluntly political material. The latest song from the band Pearl Jam, "World Wide Suicide," which accuses the president of taking soldiers' sacrifices for granted, recently logged three weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard modern-rock airplay chart. And Green Day's 2004 album "American Idiot" which addresses themes of alienation but also includes lyrics like "Sieg Heil to the president gasman," has emerged as a blockbuster, selling more than 5.4 million copies so far, according to Nielsen SoundScan data.

Green Day's web site is www.greenday.com.

Neil Young's web site is www.neilyoung.com.

Pearl Jam's web site is www.pearljam.com.

Rolling Stones' web site is www.rollingstones.com.

Steve Earle's web site is www.steveearle.com.

Willie Nelson's web site is www.willienelson.com.


Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Spring Cleaning in Washington

With Spring comes change. New life where only death or deep slumber existed.

Let the change start with the removal of Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State.

An Opinon piece in the Washington Post today reports on the high level of dissatisfaction with Rumsfeld within the ranks and the risk associated with allowing him to stay in his position. Yet, Bush's continued support for Rumsfeld, despite Rumsfeld's poor performance and continued criticism, is raising serious doubts about the president's ability to make sound decisions based on facts. The steadfast support Bush exhibits is not viewed as commitment, it is a realization of his stubbornness. A captain must know when to change course or risk crashing his ship.

Rumsfeld has lost the support of the uniformed military officers who work for him. Make no mistake: The retired generals who are speaking out against Rumsfeld in interviews and op-ed pieces express the views of hundreds of other officers on active duty. When I recently asked an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he guessed 75 percent. Based on my own conversations with senior officers over the past three years, I suspect that figure may be low.
...
Rumsfeld is a stubborn man, and I suspect the parade of retired generals calling for his head has only made him more determined to hold on. But by staying in his job, Rumsfeld is hurting the cause he presumably cares most about. The president, even more stubborn than his Pentagon chief, is said to have rejected his offer to resign.
David Ignatius, Washington Post

The New York Times reports :

"Are the floodgates opening?" asked one retired Army general, who drew a connection between the complaints and the fact that President Bush's second term ends in less than three years. "The tide is changing, and folks are seeing the end of this administration."
David Cloud and Eric Schmitt, New York Times

The public no longer buys the lies used to support the invasion of Iraq. And, to continue to believe the players which got us into this mess, makes fools of us all.

One who cannot see the reality of the situation, one who believes the lie because the truth is too painful or embarassing, lives a life dissociated from reality. The wife who fails to believe her husband is cheating on her, even though coming home late from work she can smell the perfume on his clothes. The proud parents who fail to believe their son or daughter may have a drug problem, even though the grades have slipped, the appearance has changed, and a different personality has replaced the one they loved. The citizen who once thought their country could do no wrong, only to find out they've been continually lied to and manipulated.

Spring is here and the time to clean house has come.


Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Flight 93 and the Making of a Patsy

The case to try and sentence Zacarias Moussaoui for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks has taken a long time to bring to court. Enough time for just about anything to happen. Even the unlikely, but not impossible, following scenarios:

• Apply interrogation techniques to "convince" Moussaoui of his involvement and role in the attacks.


• Silence, by pay-off or intimidation, those who witnessed Flight 93 being shot down.


• Re-create or alter the flight cockpit and data recorder data.

Anything is possible.

The truly sad and unforgivable side to this trial is the pain the families have to continue to endure reliving the day they lost their loved ones. And for what? To send some guy to his death who may or may not have been involved?

From today's Washington Post article:

The trial seemed an afterthought yesterday amid the drama of the recording. Prosecutors rested their case for the execution of Moussaoui, the only person convicted in the United States in connection with the attacks on the trade center and the Pentagon. The defense will now begin its case, and Moussaoui is expected to take the stand again as early as today.

In the trial's first phase, Moussaoui testified that he had planned to hijack a fifth plane and crash it into the White House on Sept. 11 with a crew that included shoe bomber Richard Reid. The jury found Moussaoui eligible for the death penalty and will decide whether he should be executed or spend his life in prison.

When the jury found Moussaoui eligible for the death penalty, it became evidently clear to me that emotions would overtake logic and reason in this trial. Now, after publishing the recordings, and reading the reactions in the courtroom, there is no doubt justice will not be served by dispensing the utlimate form of punishment on this man.

The government is throwing the public a bone! The real perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks have not been caught and will likely not be caught. Killing Moussaoui will appease many people, making them feel like at least one person was held accountable for the actions which forever changed this country. Although temporarily gratifying, the feeling will fade as more people begin to notice the disinformation campaigns.

Moussaoui is not the only patsy, there are 29 other patsies in Spain for the Madrid bombings.

Justice will truly be served when the real perpetrators are found and proven guilty in a court of law. Governments are replacing the real actors with stand-ins and hoping the audience doesn't catch on.


Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Latest Poll Results Reflect Disgust with Bush

The latest CNN / USA Today / Gallup poll results are out today and they reflect a growing dissatisfaction with George W. Bush and his administration. It is becoming evidently clearer there exists a very real lack of confidence in the administration's ability to handle the situation in Iraq and, more troubling, a growing sentiment of distrust. Result highlights are as follows:

• 57% believe going to war in Iraq was a mistake.


• 60% believe things are going badly in Iraq.


• 67% believe George W. Bush does not have a clear plan for Iraq.


• 51% believe the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.

It's no wonder Bush's ratings are at an all-time low of 36%. The evidence lies in the lack of substance behind the talk. Spin intensity is at an all-time high.

Everyone should be very concerned. It is not out of the realm of possibilities and, as the Bush administration is so fond of saying, all options are on the table for a significant event, either allowed to occur or planned and executed, to force the American public to rally around the president and thus provide the opportunity to increase his approval rating.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Once Upon a Time, there was Freedom of Speech

How fitting that prior to last night's State of the Union address by the president, Cindy Sheehan should be detained and arrested. According to CNN:

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.

And what exactly was on this "anti-war" t-shirt that resulted in her arrest? Well, brace yourself... nothing more than the number of American deaths since the beginning of the war with a simple question, "How many more?".

Outrageous! How this simple fact and question can be construed as offensive and in violation of any local ordinance is beyond me. The Washington Post reports that demonstrations within the Capitol are prohibited and that Capitol Police removed Sheehan after refusing to "close her jacket and quiet down". Anyone who has the courage to fight back and not submit to those who enforce conformity better watch out.

From the Washington Post article:

Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, opened her jacket to reveal a T-shirt that, according to a supporter, gave the number of U.S. war dead and asked, "How many more?"

She was also vocal, said U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, and after she ignored instructions to close her jacket and quiet down, she was led out and arrested. Demonstrating in the House gallery is prohibited.

Again, from CNN:

"She was asked to cover it up. She did not," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman.

Schneider said Sheehan was arrested around 8:30 p.m. on charges of unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail.

The incident is an apropos metaphor for the deteriorating conditions in America. Arresting an individual for peacefully expressing disagreement with the government. Am I wrong to believe, despite what I have been taught my entire life, that what this great country, America, stands for is no longer true? Can we, the American people, no longer peacefully disgree with the government without being hauled off and arrested? Apparently not.

Last night, not only did freedom of speech take a hit, but also the right to privacy as President Bush announced his commitment to continue domestic surveillance without oversight. Despite internal efforts to reign in the run-away administration, the president is convinced he has the authority to continue his domestic illegal spying program.

For a alternative view of last night's speech, something you will certainly not read or hear on mainstream media outlets, take a look at Paul Craig Robert's article on the Counter Punch website.

Mr Robert's article starts with the gloves off...

The state of the union is disastrous. By its naked aggression, bullying, illegal spying on Americans, and illegal torture and detentions, the Bush administration has demonstrated American contempt for the Geneva Convention, for human life and dignity, and for the civil liberties of its own citizens. Increasingly, the US is isolated in the world, having to resort to bribery and threats to impose its diktats. No country any longer looks to America for moral leadership. The US has become a rogue nation.

Least of all did President Bush tell any truth about the economy. He talked about economic growth rates without acknowledging that they result from eating the seed corn and do not produce jobs with a living wage for Americans. He touted a low rate of unemployment and did not admit that the figure is false because it does not count millions of discouraged workers who have dropped out of the work force.

and finishes with the knock-out punch:

The state of the nation has never been worse. The Great Depression was an accident caused by the incompetence of the Federal Reserve, which was still new at its job. The new American job depression is the result of free trade ideology. The new job depression is creating a reserve army of the unemployed to serve as desperate recruits for neoconservative military adventures. Perhaps that explains the Bush administration's enthusiasm for globalization.

Who is Paul Roberts? Is he some yahoo, conspiracy-believing, liberal? Far from it...

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

Go on and do yourself a favor. If you haven't done so already, read more of the alternative news and opinion sites. Visit the following and read information assembled by individuals seeking to reveal the truth of our current situation:

• American Free Press


• Counter Punch


• Information Clearing House


• Signs of the Times

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Speak Out While You Can

Today, the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee approved Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court. Although the full Senate will get a chance to vote on the recommendation, it is merely a formality. It is a done deal. Political ponerology in action.

With this Republican decision, the country moves one step closer to having the Supreme Court be nothing more than a rubber stamp for executive branch policies and decisions. It will not be long before the ideological line separating the presidency and a dictatorship fades, leaving the difference to mere semantics.

But, lest we lose all hope, there are some who are taking it upon themselves to express their right to privacy. Exercise your free speach NOW, while it still exists. In the not too distant future, the price of free speech will be the entry of all personal information into government databases. Breaches of privacy which would cause our fore-fathers, if they were alive today, to call for another revolution against a tyrannical government.

Photo courtesy of CNN

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Death of Democracy

We live in scary times.

Our form of government, which has served us well with checks and balances in place between Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, may very well move one step closer to death on January 24 when the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. The potential for our democracy to morph into a dictatorship has never been higher, nor closer to realization.

Alito is Bush's choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the deciding vote in several individual rights decisions:

O'Connor has cast the decisive fifth vote on cases upholding the right to an abortion, affirming affirmative action and limiting the application of the death penalty.

Her position as the key swing vote heightened the political stakes for Alito's nomination, with conservatives hoping he will swing the court to the right, and liberals fearful of the same thing.

So far, none of the Senate's 55 Republicans has announced opposition to Alito's nomination, meaning he can be confirmed with GOP votes alone, barring an increasingly unlikely Democratic filibuster.
USA Today

During his confirmation hearing, Alito dodged any direct answer on his position on abortion. It is clear he considers the Roe v. Wade decision open for re-evaluation. Newsweek's Eleanor Clift makes an interesting observation:

Now that the GOP is within striking distance of overturning Roe, they're having second thoughts. The public is not ready to abandon the landmark case legalizing abortion, and neither is the Republican Party. They used abortion as a wedge issue because the politics worked; they really didn't think abortion would ever be banned.

Would it be a good thing for the GOP to have the Roe decision overturned? Such a decision would unite the pro-choice supporters, which I truly believe to be the majority of Americans (not necessarily the most vocal), to rally around Democratic candidates who would support bringing the right of a woman to make decisions affecting her body back into her hands. Republicans' support for Alito would thus lead to their own demise.

It has become obvious from last week's hearings that Samuel Alito is more interested in upholding executive powers over individual rights. Answers to questions during his nomination hearings have proven to be quite revealing.

From a New York Times editorial:

In three days of testimony, he has given the American people reasons to be worried - and senators reasons to oppose his nomination. Among those reasons are the following:

EVIDENCE OF EXTREMISM Judge Alito's extraordinary praise of Judge Bork is unsettling, given that Judge Bork's radical legal views included rejecting the Supreme Court's entire line of privacy cases, even its 1965 ruling striking down a state law banning sales of contraceptives. Judge Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton - a group whose offensive views about women, minorities and AIDS victims were discussed in greater detail at yesterday's hearing - is also deeply troubling, as is his unconvincing claim not to remember joining it.

OPPOSITION TO ROE V. WADE In 1985, Judge Alito made it clear that he believed the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He had many chances this week to say he had changed his mind, but he refused. When offered the chance to say that Roe is a "super-precedent," entitled to special deference because it has been upheld so often, he refused that, too. As Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, noted in particularly pointed questioning, since Judge Alito was willing to say that other doctrines, like one person one vote, are settled law, his unwillingness to say the same about Roe strongly suggests that he still believes what he believed in 1985.

SUPPORT FOR AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY Judge Alito has backed a controversial theory known as the "unitary executive," and argued that the attorney general should be immune from lawsuits when he installs illegal wiretaps. Judge Alito backed away from one of his most extreme statements in this area - his assertion, in a 1985 job application, that he believed "very strongly" in "the supremacy of the elected branches of government." But he left a disturbing impression that as a justice, he would undermine the Supreme Court's critical role in putting a check on presidential excesses.

INSENSITIVITY TO ORDINARY AMERICANS' RIGHTS Time and again, as a lawyer and a judge, the nominee has taken the side of big corporations against the "little guy," supported employers against employees, and routinely rejected the claims of women, racial minorities and the disabled. The hearing shed new light on his especially troubling dissent from a ruling by two Reagan-appointed judges, who said that workers at a coal-processing site were covered by Mine Safety and Health Act protections.

DOUBTS ABOUT THE NOMINEE'S HONESTY Judge Alito's explanation of his involvement with Concerned Alumni of Princeton is hard to believe. In a 1985 job application, he proudly pointed to his membership in the organization. Now he says he remembers nothing of it - except why he joined, which he insists had nothing to do with the group's core concerns. His explanation for why he broke his promise to Congress to recuse himself in any case involving Vanguard companies is also unpersuasive. As for his repeated claims that his past statements on subjects like abortion and Judge Bork never represented his personal views or were intended to impress prospective employers - all that did was make us wonder why we should give any credence to what he says now.
January 12, 2006

How could it be possible that with all these doubts, such an individual would still be confirmed? Obviously, there exists a culture of political self-servitude and indebtedness repaid by placement based on past favors or relationships instead of qualifications.

This requires more study.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Remember John Lennon

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia


John Lennon (October 9, 1940 – December 8, 1980)

• Member of the British rock group The Beatles.


• Half of the Lennon-McCartney songwriting team.


• Vietnam War protester.


• Returned the MBE (Member of the Order of the British Empire) he received from Queen Elizabeth II "in protest against Britain's involvement in the Nigeria-Biafra thing and support of America in Vietnam".
  


• Husband of Yoko Ono.


• Peace supporter.


• Songs: "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Give Peace a Chance", "Imagine"


• 8th place in the 100 Greatest Britons of All Time vote conducted by the BBC in 2002.


• Assassinated by a deranged fan.

We miss you and God knows we need your voice in protest to the egregious actions of this American Administration.

Technorati Categories: Activists, Anniversary, Freedom, Heroes, News, News and Politics, Opinions, Protestors, Random Thoughts, War, Weblog

Pearl Harbor - 65 Years Later

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, leading to America's entry into World War II occurred at 7:55 AM (local time) on this day, December 7, in 1941.

The Washington Post reports:

The Dec. 7, 1941, surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and other military bases on Oahu lasted two hours, leaving 21 U.S. ships heavily damaged and 323 aircraft damaged or destroyed.

It killed 2,390 people and wounded 1,178.

Why does nobody mention the fact that the attack could have been prevented?! I guess someone believed it would be a better opportunity if it were allowed to happen.

From a September 2004 Common Dreams web site article:

In his 1982 book 'Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath', Pulitzer-prize winner John Toland reveals that almost everything the Japanese were planning to do "was known to the United States" on the morning of the attack, via intercepted messages never communicated to commanders at Pearl Harbor. He cites the case of US counterintelligence translator Dorothy Edgers who uncovered critical Japanese messages days before the assault, including "a scheme of signals regarding the movement and exact position of warships and carriers in Pearl Harbor." But Edgers' boss, Alwin Kramer, seemed "more annoyed than electrified" at the discovery and ordered her to "run along home." Unbeknownst to Edgers, Kramer was part of the subterfuge.

Please join me in a sincere moment of silence for all who were allowed to die senselessly due to the President Franklin Roosevelt's administration's decision not to warn the base of the incoming Imperial Japanese Navy.

Other books and articles:

• Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor
  by Robert Stinnett


• Pearl Harbor: Official Lies in an American War Tragedy?
  from a special program at The Independent Institute


• What We Need to Know About Pearl Harbor and Why
  by Charlotte Thompson Iserbyt, Times Record Contributor


• The McCollum Memo: The Smoking Gun of Pearl Harbor
  What Really Happened web site

Technorati Categories: Conspiracy, Military, News, News and Politics, Opinions, Random, War, Weblog

A Killer Goes Free

An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.

Source: Guardian Unlimited

Another day, another Palestinian child's killer goes unpunished. This is nothing new. It has happened over and over for years.

The manner of Iman's [the young girl] killing, and the revelation of a tape recording in which the captain is warned that she was just a child who was "scared to death", made the shooting one of the most controversial since the Palestinian intifada erupted five years ago even though hundreds of other children have also died.

An innocent girl whose cold-blooded murder will never receive the attention due the barbaric and needless act. Her only crime was to walk within a security zone on her way to school. A warning would have been appropriate. None was given.

A recording of radio exchanges between Capt R and his troops obtained by Israeli television revealed that from the beginning soldiers identified Iman as a child.

In the recording, a soldier in a watchtower radioed a colleague in the army post's operations room and describes Iman as "a little girl" who was "scared to death". After soldiers first opened fire, she dropped her schoolbag which was then hit by several bullets establishing that it did not contain explosive. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed, was heading away from the army post when she was shot.

Palestinian witnesses said they saw the captain shoot Iman twice in the head, walk away, turn back and fire a stream of bullets into her body.

On the tape, Capt R then "clarifies" to the soldiers under his command why he killed Iman: "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the [security] zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed."

At no point did the Israeli troops come under attack.

Capt R claimed that he had not fired the shots at the girl but near her. However, Dr Mohammed al-Hams, who inspected the child's body at Rafah hospital, counted numerous wounds. "She has at least 17 bullets in several parts of the body, all along the chest, hands, arms, legs," he told the Guardian shortly afterwards. "The bullets were large and shot from a close distance. The most serious injuries were to her head. She had three bullets in the head. One bullet was shot from the right side of the face beside the ear. It had a big impact on the whole face."

The Washington Post reports on the case in a very interesting manner, completely understating the callousness of the action. As a matter of fact, the tone of the entire article is very low-key compared to the Guardian article.

The article states the Israeli officer was acquited by a military court because "she [the girl] was already dead when he shot her". The defendant claimed "he did not identify the figure on the ground as a child" and "I'm happy and satisfied that the truth has come to light, I hope the army will understand its failure, the failure was not on my part."

Alright, so there are a few items making the readers feel he might very well be innocent, but let's see how the Post presents the position of the child:

Soldiers shot 13-year-old Iyman Hams as she approached a military observation post near the Rafah refugee camp in southern Gaza on Oct. 5, 2004. The soldiers said they thought she was planting a bomb. The girl's family said she was on her way to school.

Then, according to an army indictment, the officer approached the girl's body and fired two more shots _ an illegal practice called "verifying the kill." Palestinian doctors said that at least 15 bullets hit the girl.

Where's the stuff about the child getting up and trying to walk away before being gunned down? How about the bag being shot and not exploding thus proving there was no bomb in the bag? How about the part where witnesses saw the officer turn around and empty his magazine into the child's body after having shot her twice in the head?

I wonder why it is the Post article leaves out quite a bit of the damning evidence lending credibility to the case against the Israeli officer. Why are the facts not more prominently presented? Does the Post not want to foster anti-Israeli sentiment? Well, chew on that for a while, but now, back to this poor girl.

She was no match for young men with rifles and a life's worth of anti-Palestinian programming. Young Israelis are taught Palestinians lives are meaningless. Actions taken against Palestinians will not be punished.

It is sad to see how ethnic and religious differences are used to instill hate, to view others of different groups or beliefs as less than human. When children grow up in environments where this type of brainwashing is promulgated as "normal" behavior, the result is an inhuman being with no empathy toward others. Even though they may function "normally" within their society, they are truly abnormal within humanity.

Comments from an alternative news site:

The girl was clearly no threat. She had been identified by the Israelis as a scared, little girl. The article suggests that the only danger for the Israelis was if she had been sent out to lure them into a trap, which means the way for the Israelis to remain out of danger would have been to stay put. Instead, they go out, are not fired upon, which shows that it was not a trap, and then the accused empties his weapon into her body. However, this hypothesis implies that the Palestinians are such savages that they would risk the life of a small child in such a ploy. Such are the unstated assumptions in much mainstream news reporting on the conflict.

Source: Signs of the Times

Technorati Categories: Israel,
Media,
News, News and Politics, Opinions, Palestine,Politics,
Random Thoughts, Zionist

Veterans Day Speech a Disgrace

On this Veteran's Day, where America honors those who have gone to war in her name, President George W. Bush finds a way to disgrace the meaning of the day by making political statements in defense of the incompetence of his administration. The politicizing of the day detracts from the significance of the sacrifices made by America's men and women of the military.

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."

"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein."

"They believe that America can be made to run again [like in Vietnam], only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences."

"The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity."

"We must recognize the Iraq war as our central front against the terrorist."

President George W. Bush
11/11/2005 Veterans Day Speech
Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania

So the facts are irrelevant! What?! No need to re-write history to more accurately reflect the truth!

Perhaps the times have changed, perhaps not, but when I was growing up, I was taught to always tell the truth. No matter how painful. Withholding the truth, or creating a lie to cover the truth, could prove more costly in the long run.

Now, here is OUR president saying it is "irresponsible" to update the history to accurately report what happened. You see, the problem is that it does not look good for the whole crew who pushed for the war. Not only that, thousands have died as a result of the rush to war, and we have a bunch of boys stuck in Iraq, for who knows how long, witnessing and being asked to do things which they will never forget.

I guess it matters not that facts have been found which point out the deception used to lead the nation to war.

In January and February 2003, President Bush and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made dramatic assertions that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda and argued for military action to prevent Baghdad from providing its suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

Powell repeated the claim before the United Nations in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.

No such stockpiles turned up after the U.S.-led invasion, and the independent commission investigating al Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between the two entities.

Source: CNN

In a statement, Kerry retorted, "I wish President Bush knew better than to dishonor America's veterans by playing the politics of fear and smear on Veterans Day. Instead of trying to salvage his slumping political fortunes, the commander in chief should honor our men and women in uniform with a clear strategy for success in Iraq."

Kerry charged, "This administration misled a nation into war by cherry-picking intelligence and stretching the truth beyond recognition. . . . Today they continue the same games hoping Americans forget the mess they made in Iraq that's cost over 2,000 Americans their lives and their failure to find Osama bin Laden."

Source: Washington Post

So to distract the attention from the source of this entire mess, the administration's rush to war was based on lies and should thus be held accountable for their actions, the topics are manipulated to work on peoples' emotions. Bring up Vietnam, 9/11, how the terrosits are waging a "war against humanity", etc.

But, you know, everything is relative, depending on which side of the issue one supports. One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom-fighter. Here's a quote which could very well be the mantra for Iraqis fighting to rid their land of the invading American forces:

"No act of ours invited the rage of killers and no concession, bribe or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, we will never accept anything less than complete victory."

I am so sick of hearing the same old lines used to prey on peoples' emotions. Let emotions overrule the reason one would apply to the arguments and proof of this entire charade. We are all being played under cover of patriotism and religion. God help America. We, as Americans, will get what we deserve if we don't get wise to these ploys.
One final quote with which I whole-heartedly agree:

"Evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply."

Alrighty then, let's start with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Rove.

UPDATE
As of 12:00 EST, CNN poll results:

Created: Friday, November 11, 2005, at 12:08:26 EDT

Do you think the Bush administration manipulated the prewar intelligence on Iraq?

Yes 74% 93691 votes
No 26% 32407 votes

Total: 126098 votes

Technorati Categories: Ethics, Holidays, Military, News, News and Politics, Opinions, Random, Truth, Veterans, War, Weblog.

Non-Lethal Weapons Proliferation

In my earlier post, where I expressed my concern about the potential future common uses of "non-lethal" weapons systems against ordinary civilians, I mentioned the relationship between the military and academia. Well, today, I come across a New Scientist article which reveals yet another academic institution with a project related to non-lethal weapons. So, how many are involved in this type of research? Here are a few results from a quick search:

• Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project (University of Bradford)


• Institute for NonLethal Defense Technologies (Pennsylvania State University)
• 
  
• Non Lethal Technology Innovation Center (University of New Hampshire)

For a compilation of Internet resources, books, documents, and periodicals, go to this page located at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base web site, "Home of Air University and the 42nd Air Base Wing". There are links to all sorts of useful information:

• Active Denial Technology (Air Force Research Laboratory)


• Active Denial System (Sandia National Laboratories)


• Directed Energy Weapons (Defense Update Online Magazine)

From the amount of work and interest which has existed in the non-lethal weapons technologies, coupled with the fact we are beginning to see news of their use in non-military activities, leads me to believe that not only will the use of these technologies against civilian populations become more prevalent, but, also, that there exist more advanced weaponry which has yet to make it to the public media.

Electromagnetic Pulse weapons are old news:

Earlier this month, the widely respected magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology printed an article stating that "an attack on Iraq is expected to see the first use of high-power microwave weapons..."

The New York Post, citing unnamed U.S. military officials, reported yesterday that a preliminary Iraq battle plan "outlined for President Bush last week calls for the most extensive use of electronic and psychological warfare in history -- including secret new electromagnetic pulse weapons to disable Saddam (Hussein)'s entire command and control structure."

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

So what IS new???

How about Ethnic-Specific weapons? How about a genetically-engineered version of the Spanish Flu?

Nothing surprises me anymore...

Technorati Categories: Health, Military, News, News and Politics, Opinions, Random, Technology, Weapons, Weblog

Sonic Weapons Ward off Pirate Attack

A couple of days ago there was an attack on a cruise ship, the Seabourn Spirit, by a group of "pirates" (I'm surprised they were not labeled terrorists). At first, I thought it interesting a group would be so bold as to attack a ship from such a small boat. Then, the more I thought about it, the more it didn't make sense.

What could the pirates have hoped to accomplished? Force the crew to stop the ship by threat of gunfire, then take control of the entire ship and either rob everyone or hold everyone hostage? Perhaps attempt to gain some publicity by conducting some sort of execution in front of the attracted media to serve some cause? Who knows.

Travelers on the ship reported gunfire and at least one explosion from a grenade fired from a grnade launcher. CNN reports:

The Seabourn Spirit had been bound for Kenya when it was attacked by pirates armed with grenade launchers and machine guns on Saturday about 100 miles (160 km) off Somalia's lawless coast.

Bob Meagher of Sydney, Australia, said he climbed out of bed and went to the door of his cabin shortly before 6 a.m. after hearing a commotion outside.

"I saw a white-hulled boat with men in it waving various things and shooting at the ship -- at that stage it appeared to be rifle fire," he told Australian radio.

"My wife said, 'Look, they're loading a bazooka,' which we later discovered was called an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) launcher."

"There was a flash of flame and then a huge boom -- a terrible boom sound," he said, adding the grenade hit about 10 feet from where they were.

Other than the obvious questions of why the attack was attempted, a more disturbing question came to mind. What is a cruise ship doing with a sonic weapon? Again, from the CNN article:

The crew of a cruise ship attacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia used a sonic weapon to help ward off the attackers, the Miami-based Seabourn Cruise Line said Monday.

The sonic device, known as a Long Range Acoustic Device, or LRAD, is a so-called "non-lethal weapon" developed for the military after the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen as a way to keep operators of small boats from approaching U.S. warships.

So, here we have a practical application of a military device, although "non-lethal", which is also very likely in the hands of many other private and public places. Seems like an ideal crowd control device for police as well.

I guess my concern is how non-chalantly this is mentioned in the article as if it were a common item. A toaster it is not!

Perhaps more readers may want to find out what the Pentagon has been developing under the "non-lethal" weapons category. The military has developed microwave "non-lethal" weapons for crowd control.

Non-lethal weapons development is not relegated to the corporations having relationships with military projects, academia has long been used by the military as a source for basic R&D work. For example, there is the Non-lethal Technology Innovation Center, funded by the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD), with the following mission:

The Non-lethal Technology Innovation Center was created by a grant from the Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate to effect the next generation of NL capabilities by identifying and promoting the development of innovative concepts, materials and technologies within the academic community.

There even exist ethnic-specific weapons.

None of this is science fiction. It exists today!

The development of these weapons has been underway for quite some time and is now available for agencies outside the military.

What else is labeled as "non-lethal" and coming to a town near you? Keep your eyes open and ears perked for news of how those offering resistance are being treated. These may be the canaries in the coal mine. You will begin to see how non-lethal weapons may become as common-place, and who's use may become as "acceptible", as the stun guns used today.

Technorati Categories: Military, News, News and Politics, Opinions, Random, Technology, Weapons, Weblog

Judicial Preference

Average Americans, when going to court, don't get to select their judge.

Average Joe can't.

Celebrities like Martha Stewart, OJ Simpson, and Michael Jackson can't.

Not even corporate executives.

Unless, you're a politician.

In Travis County Texas, we have a perfect example of what it takes to make it happen. A powerful politican which has built a network of relationships based on money and political favors. Now, it's time to leverage those relationships.

As DeLay tries to find the "right" judge for his trial, more and more links between the politicans and judges are being revealed.

The first judge of DeLay's campaign finance trial, District Judge Bob Perkins, was removed Tuesday at DeLay's lawyer's request because of his contributions to Democrats.

The second judge, Senior Judge Pat Priest, was selected by state Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson. But, only after Chief Justice Jefferson had been asked to do so after Republican Administrative Judge B.B. Schraub, who was initially named to select a new judge, withdrew his name at the request of District Attorney Ronnie Earle. There was concern over Judge Schraub's political contributions to Republican candidates.

Now there's an issue about Justice Jefferson's links to DeLay which may result in the appointment of yet another judge.
CNN reports:

Jefferson's 2002 campaign treasurer, Bill Ceverha, was treasurer of DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee, according to state documents examined by The Associated Press.

The PAC is a co-defendant in DeLay's case and Ceverha was a defendant this spring in a civil trial brought by Democrats who lost state legislative races to Republicans in 2002.

Jefferson also was elected to his seat with the help of a $25,000 donation from the Republican National State Elections Committee, a group at the heart of the money laundering charge against DeLay.

He also received $2,000 from a DeLay-run PAC whose executive director is a co-defendant.

So what's wrong with a judge wanting to make contributions to his favorite policital party or candidate? Nothing, as long as there is no quid-pro-quo for the contribution and no appearance of impropriety.

The tough part is who makes the determination of what, if any, favors are being received as payback for the contributions? One can only make the best judgement with the information at hand. Information withheld is information not considered.

A University of Texas professor summed it up best:

The judicial wrangling is "a great shame," said Charles Silver, a legal ethics professor at the University of Texas Law School.

"It says that the judges who we elect can't be trusted to apply the law neutrally in cases that in some way, shape or form bear on their political beliefs," Silver said. "If that's true, we really need to revamp the whole system."

O what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!

Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics.

Secrecy and National Security

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the CIA has been using secret facilities throughout Eastern Europe and Asia to hide and interrogate captives on the Bush Administration's "War on Terror". Who is being kept and what interrogation techniques are being used? No one seems to know. Answers to questions and requests are readily declined on the grounds of potentially compromising national security.

As I have mentioned previously, "national security" is a fairly common and convenient excuse used by various intelligence and governmental groups to deny allegations and access to information, material, or resources. The reasons somethings are kept secret may be completely unrelated to security. It may very well be due to the legal or ethical ramifications.

From the WP article:

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.

The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.

The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

This appears to be nothing new. The decision to use the secret detention facilities arose from the knee-jerk responses to the September 11th attacks.

"We never sat down, as far as I know, and came up with a grand strategy," said one former senior intelligence officer who is familiar with the program but not the location of the prisons. "Everything was very reactive. That's how you get to a situation where you pick people up, send them into a netherworld and don't say, 'What are we going to do with them afterwards?' "

The article continues:

The idea of holding terrorists outside the U.S. legal system was not under consideration before Sept. 11, 2001, not even for Osama bin Laden, according to former government officials. The plan was to bring bin Laden and his top associates into the U.S. justice system for trial or to send them to foreign countries where they would be tried.

"The issue of detaining and interrogating people was never, ever discussed," said a former senior intelligence officer who worked in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, or CTC, during that period. "It was against the culture and they believed information was best gleaned by other means."

So, did the president know or not? Back to the article:

The agency set up prisons under its covert action authority. Under U.S. law, only the president can authorize a covert action, by signing a document called a presidential finding. Findings must not break U.S. law and are reviewed and approved by CIA, Justice Department and White House legal advisers.

Six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush signed a sweeping finding that gave the CIA broad authorization to disrupt terrorist activity, including permission to kill, capture and detain members of al Qaeda anywhere in the world.

It could not be determined whether Bush approved a separate finding for the black-sites program, but the consensus among current and former intelligence and other government officials interviewed for this article is that he did not have to.

Rather, they believe that the CIA general counsel's office acted within the parameters of the Sept. 17 finding. The black-site program was approved by a small circle of White House and Justice Department lawyers and officials, according to several former and current U.S. government and intelligence officials.

There appears to be legal wiggle room, as always, for those at the highest levels while the Lewis Libbys of the world take the heat. That's not to say those taking the heat are innocent, most likely they were the implementors of the unwritten, verbal signals from on high.

What are others saying about this latest revelation (which is not really a surprise based on all the documentation of illegal renditions having occurred over the last several years)?

From the Scotsman article "Terror suspects held in secret CIA prisons":

The CIA is already known to use Glasgow and Prestwick airports to stop off en route to other destinations when transporting prisoners who have been snatched under its programme of "extraordinary rendition". The US is understood to use the programme to transport prisoners to countries which are prepared to use unconventional methods, including torture, to extract information.

US planes have landed at a number of UK airports, including Heathrow and Gatwick, but Prestwick - with 75 recorded flights - and Glasgow - with 74 - are among the most popular stopping-off points.

From the ABC News article "EU Probing Report of Secret CIA Prisons":

The governments of the EU's 25 members nations will be questioned informally about the allegations, EU spokesman Friso Roscam Abbing said.

"We have to find out what is exactly happening," Roscam Abbing said. "We have all heard about this."

He said such prisons could violate EU human rights laws and other European human rights conventions. The commission is responsible for ensuring that EU rules are followed.

"As far as the treatment of prisoners is concerned … it is clear that all 25 member states having signed up to European Convention on Human Rights, and to the International Convention Against Torture, are due to respect and fully implement the obligations deriving from those treaties," Roscam Abbing told reporters.

He cautioned, however, that the EU head office could not take action against member states if they violated human rights codes.

From an AFP article "US on the defensive over reported secret CIA prisons":

The White House refused to confirm or deny that the CIA operates secret prisons, known as "black sites," for al-Qaeda captives in eastern Europe and other countries around the world.

"I am not going to discuss any specific intelligence activities," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "I would say that the president's most important responsibility is to protect the American people."

The refusal to discuss the matter was echoed by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Central Intelligence Agency.

And these are not actions which occurred in the past. Note the following from the above article, this is still going on!

Czech Interior Minister Frantisek Bublan was quoted by the on-line news outlet Aktualne.cz as saying that the Czech Republic recently turned down a US request to set up a detention center on its territory.

"The negotiations took place around a month ago," he was quoted as saying. The Americans "made an effort to install some of the sort here, but they did not succeed."

It appears as if this is the case. The CIA does have secret detention facilities and continue to actively use them, yet it may prove to be a challenge to get the governments to take any action against the agency to cease the activity, never mind to be held accountable for any humanitarian violations which most likely occurred during the period since September 11th.

Technorati Categories: Bush Administration, CIA, Current Affairs, Human Rights, Intelligence, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics, Tortune, War.

Taxes and Iraq

Recommendations were published yesterday by a presidential commission to "simplify" the federal income tax system. The process, from recommendation to approval to implementation, would normally take quite some time, usually several months to years, to finalize. Although, my instincts tell me the changes are not so much about simplicity or fairness, they are more about funding for the continued presence in the Middle East and other future preemptive military actions, therefore, we will likely see this move along on the fast-track.

There are two proposals: a simplified version of the existing income tax and the beginnings of a consumption-based system. Read the following Business Week article, "The Nuts and Bolts of Tax Reform", for more detail.

In either case, the result will likely be higher taxes for the average Joe, bigger breaks for those with bucks. The New York Times reports in the article "Higher Tax Rates for Most, Breaks for Some":

The biggest new tax breaks in the main proposal would go to stock market investors. They would collect most dividends free of tax, as opposed to the 15 percent tax rate that now applies to most dividends.

In addition, 75 percent of profits from the sale of stocks held for more than a year would be tax-free. The effect would be to nearly halve the rate for the highest-income taxpayers, to 8.25 percent from 15 percent.

The commission emphasized that its rationale for such changes was to get Americans to save more and borrow less. Such policies could prompt a one-time rise in share prices to adjust for the tax benefits.

So, companies get a boost from new investors. Monies which should be going into savings are being used to raise the stock price of companies whose major shareholders will then make profits, while the average Joe bets on the future of his "savings" (now in the stock market) assuming all the risk.

Investors who put their money into assets other than stocks would not fare so well. Gains from the sale of all other assets, including businesses, farmland and paintings, would be taxed at the same rate as wages.

Thus, a taxpayer in the top bracket who sold stocks for a $1 million profit would pay no more than $82,500 in taxes, while someone who made the same profit from selling a business, a farm or a Monet would pay four times as much. Under current law, most investors would pay $150,000.

Scott A. Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit group that seeks lower taxes, called the proposal "an incentive to buy stocks and a disincentive to be an entrepreneur."

And, what about the tax rate implications for Average Joe?

The panel would also raise to 15 percent from 10 percent the tax rate on the first $7,300 of taxable income this year for individuals and $14,600 for married couples. Taxpayers with incomes higher than this would also be affected by this higher rate.

The panel would also raise to 30 percent, from 28 percent, the rate that this year applies to individuals making as little as $70,000 and couples making as much as $178,000.

The 35 percent tax rate, which applies only to the top 1 percent of taxpayers (incomes above $326,450 now), would be cut to 33 percent.

However, for individuals, the 33 percent rate would begin at a much lower level of income, $100,001 instead of $150,150. Therefore, people in this income range would be paying a higher rate on their last dollars of income. In short, there would be higher marginal rates for most people making less than $326,450.

I guess the alternative to raising taxes, which is cutting spending, is not an option.

Today's Washington Post article, "Commission Recommends Overhaul of Federal Income Tax", warns of the impact to the housing market:

Still, the National Association of Realtors said "the value of the nation's residential property could decline 15 percent or more" if the panel's mortgage proposals become law. Gerald M. Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Home Builders, criticized the measures as "the biggest tax hike for homeowners ever considered."

Also, a warning of the impact to retirement and pension plans:

Life insurance companies and agents were also upset, fearing that the savings proposals could supplant or compete with their products. A coalition of life insurance associations called the plans "a retreat from America's historic commitment to helping Americans achieve financial and retirement security." The American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries said the plans would be "devastating to the retirement security of millions of American workers."

And, just to entice companies to expand their revenues outside the domestic US:

Both plans would assess companies only on their domestic profits, ending the United States' long-held policy of taxing income wherever it originates.

Onto Iraq...

The Senate went into a closed-door session yesterday as the Democrats pressed the Republican majority for an investigation into the intelligence the White House used to justify going to war with Iraq.

From a CNN report:

Democrats demanded that Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts move forward on a promised investigation into how Bush administration officials handled prewar intelligence about Iraq's suspected weapons programs.

The Democrats appear to be taking advantage of the series of events which have destabilized the White House. Will anything come of it?

Here are some comments from Republican Senator Bill Frist who, along with a whole lot of other politicians, should be nominated for an acting award:

Frist said Democrats had "hijacked" the Senate...

"This is an affront to me personally," said Frist, a Tennessee Republican. "This is an affront to our leadership. It is an affront to the United States of America, and it is wrong."

Let me correct Senator Frist, if I may. Being led into war with Iraq by an administration who knowingly lied to the American people and the world is an affront to the United States of America. What you are doing, Mr Frist, is an affront to the people of the United States and all the things for which the United States of America stand for.

Get out of the way, Mr Frist and fellow deceivers ...

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Iraq, Media, News, News and Politics, Opinion, Politics, Taxes, War.