I'm currently attending the annual research conference of the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management. This morning I attended a session titled Reparations for African Americans: Considerations for a Non Incremental Policy. The panel was very enlightening and brought to mind a lot of new perspectives on the topic of reparations for African-Americans. The most memorable moment, though, has to go to NYU professor Lawrence Mead. Dr. Mead was not actually on the panel or a discussant, but (unfortunately) was sitting next to me in the audience. Following the presentations, Mead had the first question. I paraphrase:

I think that the approach each panelist is taking is based on a false premise. Namely, you are comparing the opportunities of black and white Americans. But black Americans, unlike white Americans, were brought here under slavery. So, unlike Japanese Americans who had their liberties taken away, black Americans were not deprived of opportunities in America. Wouldn't it be better to compare the opportunities and losses between blacks in America and blacks in Africa? And then isn't it obvious that blacks brought to America under slavery actually benefitted greatly from their situation? After all, they (eventually?) had access to greater opportunities and quality of life than those who stayed in Africa.

I was floored. My jaw dropped, my heart started racing, and I looked around for someone to point out the idiocy in Mead's suggestion. The very impressive Dr. William Darity from UNC Chapel Hill was quick on the draw and noted that he was well acquainted with the classic racist suggestion that black Americans were "lucky" to suffer the violence and indignity of slavery. He then went on to point out the obvious racist assumptions made by Mead (ie. that social and economic problems in African nations are the result of black inferiority and not intervention and manipulation by European colonialism and aggression - including the slave trade itself).

So far this conference has been a joy. I've attended several sessions that were fascinating. I've both learned a lot, and found new perspectives and directions that I want to pursue on my own. I was not expecting, however, to come face to face with 19th Century racist/colonialist apologists. Next time someone tells you that "racism isn't as bad as it used to be," have them watch Two Towns of Jasper and then listen to the racist apologia of people like Lawrence Mead.

Everyone wants to know if there's going to be a draft. Rumors have been flying ever since Democratic Representative Charles Rangel put together a bill to reinstate the draft in order to demonstrate the racial and class disparities currently in the military and to provide for a more equitable distribution of suffering. The idea, I believe, was to stop the march to war by threatening to send the sons and daughters of comfortable upper-middle class families. Of course, the American people don't do well with subtlety. Perhaps Congressman Rangel should have drafted 'Carrot Top' to make his point.

At any rate, people are still nervous about the prospects of military conscription. I, for one, think it highly unlikely if for no other reason than the most obvious - it's not politically tenable.

Zeynep, over at the indispensable Under the Same Sun, explains one way the U.S. is trying to get around conscripting the fortunate sons of the U.S.

Step 1: Hire mercenaries from the desperate populations of nations we've already savaged

Step 2: Hire mercenaries from nations that already have extensive experience oppressing large populations

So, don't worry - you won't be asked to fight as long as we have Salvadoran cannon fodder and South African special police to fall back on.

Who would've thunk it?

Eminem has a new song called Mosh. Watch the video here or on Launch.com.

Go to MTV's website and vote for it to be shown on TRL.

Let the President answer on high anarchy
Strap him with AK-47, let him go
Fight his own war, let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our soil
No more psychological warfare to trick us to think that we ain't loyal
If we don't serve our own country we're patronizing a hero
Look in his eyes, it's all lies, the stars and stripes
They've been swiped, washed out and wiped,
And Replaced with his own face, mosh now or die
If I get sniped tonight you'll know why, because I told you to fight

From the "Insult Added to Injury" files: The United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) yesterday doled out $195 Million to several nations (including the USA) and multi-national corporations. Where did the UNCC get this $195 Million? From Iraq, of course! Why is Iraq giving $195 Million to the UNCC? For war reparations from Saddam Hussein's 1991 invasion of Kuwait, silly!

I wonder who's pocketing that $195 million?

Naomi Klein has the story:

$37m have gone to Britain and $32.8m have gone to the United States. That's right: in the past 18 months, Iraq's occupiers have collected $69.8m in reparation payments from the desperate people they have been occupying. But it gets worse: the vast majority of those payments, 78%, have gone to multinational corporations, according to statistics on the UNCC website.

...

Here is a small sample of who has been getting "reparation" awards from Iraq: Halliburton ($18m), Bechtel ($7m), Mobil ($2.3m), Shell ($1.6m), Nestlé ($2.6m), Pepsi ($3.8m), Philip Morris ($1.3m), Sheraton ($11m), Kentucky Fried Chicken ($321,000) and Toys R Us ($189,449). In the vast majority of cases, these corporations did not claim that Saddam's forces damaged their property in Kuwait - only that they "lost profits" or, in the case of American Express, experienced a "decline in business" because of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait. One of the biggest winners has been Texaco, which was awarded $505m in 1999. According to a UNCC spokesperson, only 12% of that reparation award has been paid, which means hundreds of millions more will have to come out of the coffers of post-Saddam Iraq.

Apparently, Rumsfeld et al. expected U.S. troops to be greeted with flowers, candy, and checkbooks. Jeez, I can't believe their shooting at us. Don't they understand that we're there to help?

I'm sure it will work out in the end. After all, the Iraqis will more than make up the loss with the reparations the U.S. and multi-national corporations pay to Iraq once the current invasion and occupation are over. Right? Right???

I write letters.

This morning I read Sebastian Mallaby's column in Monday's Washington Post titled, The (Probably) Right Answer to Terrorism. Maybe I shouldn't read the news before I have my coffee. Below is my response.

Mr. Mallaby,

As you begin your column of 10/18 describing the massive about of e-mail you receive after writing about war issues, I expect that you will probably not read this - at least not in its entirety. Perhaps I only write for myself. I guess I'm okay with that.

Regarding your evaluation of the war in Iraq and the greater "war on terror", I think I can help alleviate some of the uncertainty and confusion you feel. I do not think you are paranoid, as you suggest. After reading your column I can only come to the conclusion that you are so uninformed about the situation that you write about it as I would about neurosurgery.

I do not claim to be an expert on foreign relations or issues of war and peace. I am but a low-level clerk in a state institution. Bear with me, though, as I think I have something worthwhile to say.

With regards to the war in Iraq: I think that you should take into consideration that the Iraqis are people, just like you and me. They have memories, and they engage in critical thinking. Are they better off under the U.S. than under Saddam? What a silly question! The Iraqi people are well aware that Saddam was the U.S. I know this administration and their apologists dismiss any problems with the fact that Saddam was brought to power with the help of the CIA, that he was aided and supported by the U.S. for decades (through Democrat and Republican regimes), that Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went to see his friend Saddam in the 1980's to see how we could help - but do we really expect the Iraqi people to forget all of this? I don't know - do they get the Washington Post?

The major event in Iraq over the past 30 years was probably the Iran-Iraq war - a war in which the U.S. supported both sides so that, as Henry Kissinger once quipped, both sides would lose. And both sides did lose. Around 500,000 Iraqis were killed in that 8 year war. Do you think the Iraqi people are unaware that the U.S. aided both their tyrannical dictator and their enemies? And yet we expect them to trust us now.

What about the cast of characters who make up the play of the U.S. "bringing democracy to the middle east"? Paul Bremer, John Negroponte, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Iyad Allawi? These men were not born in 2001 - they have long and sordid histories of "bringing democracy" to places like Honduras, El Salvador, and Iraq. Do we expect that the Iraqi people have memories as short as our own? That they are unaware of the atrocities committed by these very same men in past adventures of "liberation"? Do we think that the Iraqi people have forgotten the massacre of 1991 when President Bush called on the people of Iraq to rise up and be free? Saddam Hussein, then defeated and under U.S. military control was aided by the U.S. military in the massacre of the Iraqi rebels. How many mass graves that we are now shown as evidence of Saddam's tyranny are also evidence of our own?

We freed the Iraqi people from the torture and "rape rooms" of Saddam Hussein, then we set up torture chambers of our own. We appoint an ex-member of Saddam's secret police turned CIA operative (Allawi) as the interim President. The Iraqi people are not blind, they are not stupid. We patrol their streets with tanks and helicopters under a doctrine of force protection - one of our soldiers is worth how many of their children? And we expect them still to obey us.

Should the U.S. stay in Iraq? Why? So that we can bring them "democracy"? How much we think of ourselves! We are the new Christs, here to emancipate the spirits of the Iraqi people, lost in the desert. We need to get over ourselves. If we pull out of Iraq there will be violence, but there is violence now. The Iraqi people should be allowed to determine their own lives, their own future. We have terrorized them enough.

The "War on Terror" does not exist. This is a figment of the imaginations of public relations officials and speech writers. You know this. "Terror" is an emotion. "Terrorism" is a strategy. One can go to war against neither. Right now we are at war against the people of Iraq. We are at war against the people of Afghanistan. Would we like the countries to be peaceful? Yes, I believe we would - but only under our rules. We decide when the violence stops. So, then, how do we protect people from terrorism? Well, for one thing, we stop invading other countries, supporting vicious dictators, stop killing their children and raping their lands and economies. We should stop terrorizing the world.

The catalyst for this fear of terror was the unthinkably horrific murder of the people in the WTC and the Pentagon when 19 men from a desert across the world flew commercial airliners into buildings. Our immediate response was an emotional one - a cry for revenge. I admit, I am equally guilty of this. But when do we finally critically examine the situation? When do we admit that "they hate our freedom" is sophomoric, ridiculous? I am not suggesting appeasement - I am talking about making sure that what happened on September 11, 2001 never happens again. The best way to do that is to not let that happen anywhere ever again - not just in the United States. In 2001 the world mourned with us. But our reaction was the same self-defeating policy of committing more September 11's across Afghanistan and Iraq - threatening to spread out into Syria, Iran, and across the globe. We condemn the "terrorists" who use the threat of spectacular violence to coerce a population, but it is we who talk of "shock and awe", "bunker busters", "low yield tactical nukes." We, my friend, are terrorists.

The only way to stop terrorism is to stop spreading terror. Until you understand that, you will only continue to fuel the flames of violence, terror, and destruction across the world. Around 3000 innocent civilians were killed on September 11, 2001. Over 13,000 innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq. This is your solution for terror and violence? I pray for your soul.

And to think - I totally forgot to mention the over 500,000 Iraqi children dead as a result of U.S. imposed economic sanctions and former Sec. of State Madeleine Albright's evaluation that their lives were "worth it." I'm certian the Iraq people are unaware of that. After all, when was the last time you heard about that on the nightly news?

Steven E. Landsburg, professor of economics at the University of Rochester, has a very interesting article in Slate today - Bush's Tax Cuts are Unfair - To the Rich. Dr. Landsburg is probably a very good economist. Perhaps he can use some of his economic wisdom to buy a clue.

Dr. Landsburg argues that progressive taxation is "unfair." He's not arguing that it's bad for the economy - he's simply making a moral argument. I know little to nothing about either economics or philosophy, but even I can clearly see why Dr. Landsburg is dead wrong.

Landsburg works under two basic assumptions that, I will argue, are false.

First, he assumes that all dollars are equal - that is, whether you take one dollar from someone who lives on an annual income of $15,000 and one dollar from someone who lives on $150,000, that dollar has the same value. Regardless of what currency traders might want you to believe, though, the value of money is not only determined by markets, but by social context.

This is not really a new or complicated concept - parents often regulate the money they give their children in order to "teach them the value of money." Parents do not sit their kids down in front of the currency market reports, they want them to discover that money - purchasing power - is limited and that things you want or need don't just come free - you have to sacrifice for them. One of my favorite Biblical passages - less popular with the so-called "Christian" right - is the beginning of Luke 21

1As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

The dollar that is taxed from the poor is more valuable than the dollar that is taxed from the wealthy. Why? Because the dollar that is taxed from the poor represents real sacrifice - a greater limitation on necessities like food, medicine, shelter. The dollar that is taxed from the rich represents a much smaller sacrifice - maybe they have to wait a little longer to get that private jet or bespoke Italian suit.

Dr. Landsburg's second major mistake is in assuming that social services only benefit those who receive them directly. Landsburg says

...it seems patently unfair to ask anyone to pay over 30 times as much as his neighbors (unless he receives 30 times as much in government services, which strikes me as implausible).

Landsburg uses a little semantic slight of hand to confuse the issue. He refers to social services as "government services." Yes, the services are provided, or at least subsidized, by government - but these are not "government" services, they are "social" services - they are services to society.

Dr. Landsburg is an educated man, far more so than me, so I can't imagine that he doesn't understand the fact that a safe, healthy society raises the quality of life for everyone. Social services help families and individuals meet a minimum standard of living (and in the U.S. it is a low minimum compared to similar nations) to prevent social problems that threaten the prosperity and quality of life of everyone. Perhaps Dr. Landsburg believes that he and his rich friends have the resources to buy their way out of society? That they can wall themselves off from the common rabble and live in a paradise of wealth and prosperity, suffering no ill effects from the unwashed masses? Perhaps, but he would be very wrong.

The truth, I think, is that Dr. Landsburg and the "rich" for whom he fights, are just selfish and dishonest. For one thing, it is disingenuous to imply that the rich do not benefit (some might argue disproportionately) directly from "government services." What is a corporation, if not an entity of the state? Whose property and convenience do the police protect and serve? (A: Not the poor and marginalized) For whose wealth and interests does the government regularly sacrifice the sons and daughters of the poor and middle class in wars abroad? Whose wealth and interests are protected by patents, intellectual property law, the courts? Who receives the direct benefit of tarrifs, "free trade" agreements, and subsidies to corporations and industry? Who benefits from anti-labor laws? Whose wages and working conditions are regulated by the effects of INS policy?

Dr. Landsburg may believe that the rich are unfairly taxed. I'm sure he does. But based on his column, it only follows that the rich are unfairly taxed if Dr. Landsburg supports a government and society by and for the rich. It sounds like Dr. Landsburg would be much happier in a fuedalist society. But then, Dr. Landsburg would not likely be one of the rich. I can only conclude, then, that Dr. Landsburg is crying foul out of dishonest greed. Maybe we should tax whiny selfishness - the coffers of this government would overflow.

Yesterday's issue of The Daily Texan, the official student newspaper of The University of Texas at Austin, featured a great piece by Economics Junior Seth Harp, and I highly recommend you take the time to read it.

Mr. Harp was deployed to Iraq in December 2003 and has allowed The Daily Texan to print some of the letters he has sent home to friends and family. This first letter provides a clear, coherent, mature look at the Iraq War from the viewpoint of a soldier on the ground. Mr. Harp's frank and honest reflections offer a refreshing alternative to the all-too-common media manipulation of soldiers for politican ends.

"I close my eyes, and I see the faces of all the frightened but defiant drivers I'd watched through the sights of my rifle. I imagine what we must look like to them - armored, gun-toting, begoggled, androidish storm troopers, I'm sure. I remember how the first farmer we'd stopped had his daughter's sleeping head in his lap, and I remember how he'd rested his large calloused brown hand on her forehead, shielding her eyes so that if she awakened she would not see a creature such as myself rising from the bushes in the night.

"I don't think Iraqis know what this war is about any more than we do. Ernest Hemingway once wrote, "The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for." True. But I don't even know for certain who I am fighting against, or why, much less for what, or whom, I am fighting for. To me, this is all cold, professional, mercenary. Soldiers like me go to Iraq because we have no choice. It's our job. Once we're here we kill Iraqis to avoid being killed ourselves. There is no righteous anger compelling me to risk my life and kill others, as there would be in a just war. There is not that sense of reluctant duty that allows a soldier to overcome hardship, loneliness and fear like none ever felt before. There is only a moral emptiness that shrouds this graveyard of a desert like a moonless night."

For more on the war from the perspective of U.S. soldiers, you can visit Operation Truth.

Last night I attended a panel discussion, US Elections & Middle East Policy: Iraq, Palestine, Israel and Iran, featuring Ali Abunimah, the co-founder of ElectronicIntifada.net and ElectronicIraq.net; Michael Birmingham, a Voices in the Wilderness delegate and United Nations Development Program Volunteer in occupied Iraq; and Mehdi Noorbaksh, a professor of International Studies at the University of St. Thomas (Houston).

The event was put together by the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) at the University of Texas at Austin. The PSC, I have to say, is one of the best student organizations at UT, and it really gets too little recognition. The students who make up the PSC consistently put together excellent forums and opportunities to learn about Middle Eastern politics. If you're interested in learning about the political situation in Israel/Palestine, or the Mid-East in general, I highly recommend you attend lectures and forums sponsored by the PSC.

With regards to the current occupation of Iraq, though, Michael Birmingham managed to phrase something really well. Birmingham said that after living in Iraq he is most commonly asked two questions about the situation:

1.) Aren't the Iraqis better off under the U.S. than under Saddam?
2.) Shouldn't we keep U.S. troops in Iraq to prevent a civil war?

With regards to the first question, Birmingham pointed out that the people in Iraq have memories, and they have eyes - the can see what's going on around them, and they know what has happened to them in the past. The question, then, makes no sense in Iraq - are the Iraqis better off under the U.S. than Saddam? Saddam was the U.S. - he was put into power by the U.S., he was supported by the U.S., and only when he became inconvenient was he removed, only to be replaced by other dictators (Paul Bremer, John Negroponte, Iyad Allawi). Furthermore, the Iraqi people are not stupid - they know the history of people like Bremer, Negroponte, Allawi, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. Why should they expect anything different? Because this time the U.S. says it's going to bring freedom? That's what the U.S. always says.

That leads directly into the second question to which Birmingham responded, "we in the West need to get over ourselves." We, Birmingham said, don't have all the answers, and we need to recognize that too often we are at the core of the problems. If the U.S. pulled out of Iraq, would there be violence and devestation? There's violence and devestation now. But the people of Iraq have to have the latitude to determine their own lives. We've been terrorizing them for long enough.

I'm sure everyone in the world has seen this by now, but just in case one person hasn't (and they happen upon this site) - Jon Stewart went on CNN's Crossfire and decimated? humiliated? put in their place? (A: all of the above) Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson.

This was, actually, one of the finest pieces of public discourse that I've seen in years.

People are calling Jon Stewart a hero, and I think that speaks volumes - all it takes to be a hero these days is to be frank and honest.

The NYT reported yesterday that members of the U.S. Armed Forces are corroborating torture stories from detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison complex.

Many detainees at Guantánamo Bay were regularly subjected to harsh and coercive treatment, several people who worked in the prison said in recent interviews, despite longstanding assertions by military officials that such treatment had not occurred except in some isolated cases.

The people, military guards, intelligence agents and others, described in interviews with The New York Times a range of procedures that included treatment they said was highly abusive occurring over a long period of time, as well as rewards for prisoners who cooperated with interrogators.

There has been a lot in the news, lately, about the cash-for-weapons exchange program going on in Iraq. This sort of "gun buy-back" program has been used in cities in the United States before, and, as we well know, there are no more guns in American cities. Likewise, while the U.S. goverment seems to be happily touting the success of its new program in Iraq, there are reports coming out that it's not really working the way we might like.

"We have taken our precautions," sheik Mussa al-Sari, a local militia commander, said. "Our plan is to maintain our strength."

Furthermore, sources close to the militia in Sadr City said some of the gunmen were handing over weapons that are not properly functioning or were considered surplus. In some cases, they threw in one or two pieces in pristine condition to make the process look genuine.

Cash could be used to buy new weapons, the sources said on condition of anonymity. The process also doesn't require those surrendering weapons to prove al-Mahdi Army membership, meaning ordinary Iraqis were able to trade guns for cash.

On Tuesday, a woman in a black cloak, or abaya, turned in what looked like an antique rifle.

"It's extremely unlikely that al-Sadr's fighters will surrender all their medium and heavy weapons, and, given the widespread availability of military equipment in Iraq, they will be able to easily replace anything they give up, especially as they are receiving money in exchange for weapons," said Jeremy Binnie, Middle East editor for Jane's Sentinel Security Assessments in London. "The Mahdi Army's disarmament is something of a mirage."

Something of a mirage, huh? There have been so many mirages in Iraq in the past couple of years that I'm starting to wonder if the place even exists.

Article cited by Hamza Hendawi of The Associated Press appeared in Albuquerque Tribune Online

I don't really know much about the government's case against Zacarias Moussaoui, who has been charged with six counts of terrorism conspiracy, all related to 9/11. But this post at SCOTUS Blog really caught my attention.

From what I gathered from this post, the government is using as evidence against Moussaoui testimony from three members of al Qaeda who were directly involved in the 9/11 attack. The people are (allegedly) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged to be the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks; Ramzi Binalshibh, suspected of being a coordinator of the attacks, and Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hawsawi, an alleged paymaster of he plot.

Nobody knows where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, or Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hawsawi are, though, because they are allegedly being kept incommunicado in a secret location outside of the United States. In fact, the "testimony" that is being used in court is actually an edited summary of government interrogations. The three witnesses are not available for deposition, direct questioning, or cross examination.

Okay, so let me get this straight. The government is prosecuting a man using - and the courts are allowing - evidence that is supposedly testimony from members of al Qaeda. This testimony was given in secret with no officer of the court present and was given during the course of interrogation by government officials following 9/11. The testimony cannot be given by the actual witnesses in court, presumably since the witnesses have been disappeared by the government. No cross-examination of the testimony is allowed for those same reasons.

I would really like it if someone with legal training could explain to me how this is legal under the rules of evidence? Because to my simple mind, it seems like a miscarriage of justice as well as an incredibly horrifying precedent.

Lunchtime reading:

"Keep the Consumer Dissatisfied" by Charles Kettering, General Director of Research Laboratories at General Motors (1929).

Once the preliminary justifications for the invasion and occupation of Iraq (WMD, imminent threat, etc.) were shown to be (oops!) "mistaken," many hawks - especially those who are typically considered "liberal" - shifted to a justification of war based on humanitarian intervention.

Many on the Left responded by offering a historical critique of U.S. humanitarianism, pointing out the inconsistency in U.S. international humanitarianism, and suggesting that, perhaps, there are other factors at play - control of access to natural resources, projection of military power, etc. This was answered by some (Hitchens comes to mind) as illegitimate criticism because "now things are different" - the new administration dominated by neo-conservative ideology really is interested in a consistent, altruistic, humanitarian mission! Sure we defended and protected vicious killers like Saddam Hussein in the past - but no more! Saddam must stand trial in Iraq! He must be punished by the Iraqis he terrorized! Tyrants of the world take notice!

Now that we have turned this new leaf in international justice, I expect the U.S. will quickly extradite former Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada to stand trial for the massacre of civilians last year per the wishes of the Bolivian Congress.

After all, Bush is no "flip-flopper." Right?

- via Big, Left, Outside

Reuters reports that "Columbus Day" celebrations were quite eventful in Venezuela this year:

Supporters of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez celebrated Columbus Day on Tuesday by toppling a statue in Caracas of the explorer whom Chavez blames for ushering in a "genocide" of native Indians.

Chavez has called for "Columbus Day" to be celebrated in Latin America as "Day of Indian Resistance."

Sid the Fish follows the money behind the Sinclair Broadcasting propaganda and finds - guess what? - evidence of crooked backroom deals.

Naomi Klein got ahold of some documents about what appears to be an old-fashioned shakedown of Kuwait and the American taxpayer being perpetrated by our old friends Jim Baker, III and Madeleine Albright.

If you haven't already, head on over to Tiny Revolutions and check out what Seymour Hersh had to say at UC Berkeley the other day. I really, really hope he's mistaken.

Sy Hersh, in his recent lecture at UC Berkeley reminds us of a particularly apt Richard Pryor joke:

A man is caught in flagrante delicto by his wife.

Man: "I'm not cheating on you! Come on, honey, who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

October in Numbers

The National Debt is currently about $7,419,244,676,835.15

President Bush will probably sign a bill to give $137 billion in tax breaks into every corner of industry.

Consumer Debt is currently about $2037.9 Billion

When Cheney mentioned the "success" of 1984 El Salvador during the VP debate, I jumped up, yelled at the television, and stormed out of the room. How could anyone let him get away with that? Of course, his statement should serve as a grave reminder of what the men and women in this administration have in mind when they say "democracy."

"Twenty years ago we had a similar situation in El Salvador," Cheney said. "We had a guerilla insurgency controlled roughly a third of the country, 75,000 people dead. And we held free elections. I was there as an observer on behalf of the Congress... And as the terrorists would come in and shoot up polling places as soon as they left, the voters would come back and get in line and would not be denied their right to vote. And today El Salvador is a [whole] of a lot better because we held free elections... And [that concept] will apply in Afghanistan. And it will apply as well in Iraq."

The most relevant fact that the Vice President omits here is that the 75,000 people were killed not by the guerillas, but by the government that Cheney was supporting and its paramilitary death squads. The second most relevant fact is that the 1984 elections were widely recognized as a farce, with a long line of genuine opposition candidates already having been killed off and with the U.S. spending $10 million to manipulate the outcome. That this is the model for exporting democracy says a lot about what the neoconservatives have in store for us.

- from Crimes in Freedom's Name: Dick Cheney's El Salvador by Mark Engler at Z Net

Today, HR 10 passed 282-134 with 17 abstentions in the House of Representatives.

The record of the vote is available here.

The following 69 Democrats voted for a bill that legalizes the practice of outsourcing torture. Please call, write, e-mail, fax, or visit these legislators - especially if you are a constituent of one of them - and ask them why they voted to legalize torture; ask them if they believe that torture is compatible with freedom and democracy; ask them if they believe that arbitrary detention with no judicial review is compatible with freedom and democracy; ask them for an explanation for why they are voting to expand the authoritarian measures of the USA Patriot Act. What the hell, ask them why they hate our freedom. I'd like to know.


Robert Andrews
Chris Bell
Marion Berry
Sanford Bishop
Tim Bishop
Leonard Boswell
Rick Boucher
Allen Boyd
Corrine Brown
G.K. Butterfield
Ben Cardin
Ben Cardoza
Brad Carson
Ed Case
Ben Chandler
William Lacy Clay
James Clyburn
Bud Cramer
Artur Davis
Jim Davis
Lincoln Davis
Peter DeFazio
Peter Deutsch
Cal Dooley
Chet Edwards
Bob Etheridge
Martin Frost
Bart Gordon
Stephanie Herseth
Baron Hill
Joe Hoeffel
Tim Holden
Darlene Hooley
Steny Hoyer
Steve Israel
Chris John
Patrick Kennedy
Ron Kind
Nick Lampson
Jim Langevin
Nita Lowey
Frank Lucas
Jim Marshall
Jim Matheson
Karen McCarthy
Carolyn McCarthy
Mike McIntyre
Mike Michaud
Brad Miller
Dennis Moore
Collin Peterson
Earl Pomeroy
David Price
Mike Ross
Steve Rothman
Dutch Ruppersberger
Max Sandlin
Adam Schiff
David Scott
Ike Skelton
Vic Snyder
John Spratt
Charlie Stenholm
Gene Taylor
Bennie Thompson
Jim Turner
Mark Udall
Robert Wexler
David Wu

I wonder if tonight, during the second Presidential Debate, the moderator will ask either candidate about the use of radioactive weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Will the moderator ask either candidate about the radiation poisoning of U.S. troops?

Al Giordano at BigLeftOutside asks, "What if Kerry wins?"

If you read nothing else about the election today, read this.

thanks to Bonsey Jones for the link.

Recenly, I have written about my belief in the need to hold the Democratic Party to task in exchange for our support. Corporate and right-wing interests are very good at keeping the pressure on politicians, making sure that they understand that their support is not unconditional. I think that it is imperative that leftists/progressives/liberals do the same. Our votes should not be taken for granted, and we should not be relied upon to simply support "the lesser of two evils."

By now most of us are pretty familiar with Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the neo-conservative think tank that has been ghost writing much of the foreign policy coming out of the Bush administration. But PNAC is not the only kid on the block with a plan.

Since everything is "new" these days, the Democratic Party's answer to the "neo-conservatives" is the "New Democrats." And as the neo-conservatives have PNAC, the New Democrats have the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). Don't be fooled by the name, though - PPI is anything but "progressive." PPI is tied directly to the Democrat Leadership Council - a group of powerful pro-militarism, pro-corporatism, status-quo conservatives.

Reading through PPI's reportProgressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, one wonders whether or not PPI is a subsidiary of PNAC. Both organizations are heavily militaristic, and both generate policy from a founding principle that the solution to the world's problems is through projection of U.S. and corporate dominance on a global scale.

We must hold the Democratic Party accountable. We must pressure Kerry, as well as all other elected officials, not to adopt the policies of imperialist organizations like PPI, or conservative corporatists like the DLC. The first part of that is fight is knowing who they are - not pretending that because an organization calls itself "progressive" that it actually promotes progressive values.

What good is electing a new administration that will replace Paul Wolfowitz with someone with the same beliefs, only in a different suit? The election in November is not just about getting rid of the Bush administration, it's about changing policy priorities. The corporations and imperialists are not going stop pushing hard to have their interests put forward. It's up to us to counter that push with a fight for the interests of humanity.

Mark Hand at Press Action makes an interesting proposal:

If those of us who have never completely understood the Left’s reflexive attraction to the Democratic Party vow to give the party’s repugnant nominee for president our vote this election season, will the lefty [anybody but Bush contingency] promise that Election 2004 will be the last time they endorse a Democratic nominee and pledge to begin working on Nov. 3 toward building a separate political party with the goal of eventually giving the Republicrats a run for their money?

I voted for Nader in 2000, and I don't regret that at all. Ideally, I think one should always vote for the candidate with whom one most closely agrees - not taking into consideration electoral strategy. Unfortunately, the two major political parties in the United States dominate the electoral process and make sure that there is not an effective alternative. I think this is patently undemocratic. I also, though, feel like I cannot make all my decisions based on some ideal - there are real consequences to be considered, and they're not always obvious. Life is messy and complicated, and I don't have all the answers. So, what's a guy to do? Well, the state that I live in is considered to be solidly in the Bush camp. So, there's a very good chance that no matter for whom I vote, Bush will take all the electoral votes from my state. That's the reality.

I have been supporting the Democratic party this go-round because I decided that I think it's better to have the (albeit probably small) progress in having a Kerry administration rather than a Bush administration. It's very troubling to me to hear Kerry say that he wants to follow in the foreign policy footsteps of John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, but I think the reality is that another four years of not just Bush, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, and their ilk would be far worse than four years of a (hopefully) gridlocked government under Kerry.

I think that Hand is absolutely right about one thing - the need for progressives to organize a viable political party that can present a clear alternative to the two dominant parties.

I feel like I'm stuck in one of those morality puzzles:

You are on a footbridge over the train tracks. You know trains and can see that the one approaching the bridge is out of control. On the track under the bridge there are five people; the banks are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time. You know that the only way to stop and out-of-control train is to drop a very heavy weight into its path. But the only available, sufficiently heavy weight is a large man wearing a backpack, also watching the train from the footbridge. You can shove the man with the backpack onto the track in the path of the train, killing him; or you can refrain from doing this, letting the five die.

Is it morally permissible for you to shove the man? Yes or No

Questions like this are interesting until you have to face them in real life. So, I tell you what - if you want to start organizing a real progressive political party, give me a call. I'm all for it. In the meantime, I have not been convinced of a better, realistic alternative to a vote for the Democratic party this November.

Slate has a disturbing interview with an international terrorist.

The following is an excerpt from Karl Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Reading it, I had the funny feeling that Marx was channeling a certain future American President; but I suppose it could have been so many people:

That which is for me through the medium of money - that for which I can pay (i.e., which money can buy) - that am I, the possessor of the money. The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. Money's properties are my properties and essential powers - the properties and powers of its possessor. Thus, what I am and what I am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness - its deterrent power - is nullified by money. I, in my character as an individual, am lame, but money furnishes me with twenty-four feet. Therefore, I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and therefore so is its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good. Money, besides, saves me the trouble of being dishonest: I am therefore presumed honest. I am stupid, but money is the real mind of all things and how then should its possessor be stupid? Besides, he can buy talented people for himself, and is he who has power over the talented not more talented than the talented? Do not I, who thanks to money an capable of all that the human heart longs for, possess all human capacities? Does not my money therefore transform all my incapacities into their contrary?

If you want to read something particularly sickening, The Independent has this story.

I hope to God that these reports are mistaken.

Oops!

I chose not to watch the entire Vice Presidential debate last night. I just didn't have the stomach for it, I guess. I think I lost patience about the time that Dick Cheney said

John Edwards, two and a half years ago, six months after we went into Afghanistan announced that it was chaotic, the situation was deteriorating, the warlords were about to take over. Here we are, two and a half years later, we're four days away from a democratic election, the first one in history in Afghanistan. We've got 10 million voters who have registered to vote, nearly half of them women.

That election will put in place a democratically elected government that will take over next December.

We've made enormous progress in Afghanistan, in exactly the right direction, in spite of what John Edwards said two and a half years ago. He just got it wrong.

Regardless of what Cheney would have us believe, reports out of Afghanistan to not back up the rosy scenario he attempts to imply with his carefully chosen words. People seem to think that, because we don't hear much about Afghanistan anymore, everything must be going smoothly there. There are reasons to believe, however, that it is not the case that Afghanistan is quickly moving towards democracy.

Asia Times Online is running a series called Afghanistan: Ballots and Bullets that presents a somewhat different picture from that painted by the current administration.

Setting Afghanistan aside for a moment, as it is only one area in which I think the President and Vice President are being less than forthcoming, I am concerned by a more general trend that I see in the rhetoric on both sides.

John Kerry said, in his debate against President Bush, that

I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.

This should cause progressives to look up. Now, I certainly think that we should deal appropriately with terrorists. But I think anyone reading this should immediately ask what I mean by "deal appropriately." In the same way, I think that, while I support Kerry over Bush for the Presidency, we must hold him accountable for his actions. If he decides to take the foreign policy route of doing what the Bush administration did only better, then there needs to be a vehement response - he needs to know that this is not the will of the people, and it is not an acceptable plan.

Too often, lately, I hear people on news programs debate about whether or not "there are enough troops on the ground." This, to me, is missing the point - is the current plan of occupation a reasonable, workable plan? If not, sending more troops will not improve the situation on the ground - at best it will maintain the status quo, at worst it will exacerbate the violence.

We need to hold our government accountable for its actions. We need to be resolute in demanding that free and democratic elections take place in Afghanistan and Iraq. Pressure and influence from the U.S. government will render foreign elections illegitimate, and will fuel the flames of distrust and anti-Americanism. We need to demand that the U.S. rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure that we destroyed. We need to demand that everyone - including Americans - be held accountable for war crimes.

While we talk about changes to current policy within the context of the situation as it now exists, we need to also continue to offer a clear and complete critique of the decision to invade Iraq and the underlying principles that a policy of "regime change" represents. We need to offer a principled critique of our approach to combating terrorism - state terror as well as religious terror.

We need to be honest about and critical of our role in the world; U.S. policies and interests; human and civil rights in this country and the world. We need to continue to monitor the situation in Afghanistan as well as Iraq; the war there is not over, certainly not for the people - including Americans - who continue to die in political violence.

Politicians hope to convince an unaware public that things are better than they really are; we need to let them know that we are not blind; we are not content to spend our free time watching television and visiting outlet malls while men and women are suffering and dying. We need to let them know that we know what's really going on, and it is unacceptable.

Naomi Klein has an eloquent response to the Hitchens claim that the left supports terrorists in Iraq.

Last night I volunteered for a few hours as a deputy voter registrar. While I was registering voters, something happened that shook me up.

I was sitting in a parking lot at 7th and Rio Grande when a man approached the voter registration table. He was white, about 6' 2"; he wore his light hair in a short flat-top and a "van dyke" goatee; he had an athletic build and wore a red t-shirt. The man was very friendly and smiling. I asked if he needed to register to vote and he said, no, but asked if I had seen a group of protesters in a blue caravan. I told him that I had only been there for a short time, but that I hadn't seen anything like that. He then asked if there were any political demonstrations or events planned for that evening. I said that I was not aware of anything other than the Tom Delay protest that was supposed to happen earlier in the day but had been cancelled. The man asked if that was supposed to take place at 9th and Congress, which I confirmed. He asked if I knew of anything else going on or knew anything about a flyer that he proceeded to hand me. The flyer was a generic sort of information sheet about Wackenhut. I said I didn't know anything about it. He asked again if I had seen a blue van, this time adding that it had California license plates. I was wondering why this guy was asking so many questions - he seemed really friendly - and I guess it showed. The man flashed his Private Investigator license and told me that he worked for Wackenhut and was trying to locate the people who had been handing out the flyer. At that moment my stomach sank. I began reviewing everything I had said, hoping that I had not given the man any information that could be useful. I said, again, that I didn't know anything about the situation. The man smiled and said, "thanks. They're trying to unionize." He walked over to his white two-door Pontiac car and sat inside for a while before driving off.

For more information on Wackenhut go here.

This story should serve as a reminder that, while corporations often wear a mask of innocence and benevolence, their true face is one of violence and intimidation. If you know anyone who is active in the effort to unionize or draw attention to questionable practices of Wackenhut, please relay this information to them. I didn't ask the man what he wanted with the protesters, but I doubt that he wanted to invite them to tea.

Do not, however, let this story intimidate you. If anything, it should show the absolute need to continue to speak out more and bring attention to the corrupt practices of corporations such as Wackenhut. Unionizing, protesting, or handing out literature critical of a corporation is neither illegal nor unethical; intimidating workers and private citizens is.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan:

The deaths of three Afghan soldiers and two militants over the weekend, barely noted in news reports, brought to at least 957 the number of people reported killed in political violence this year, according to an Associated Press review. The toll includes about 30 American soldiers.

- Boston Globe

"See, the transition from torture chambers and rape rooms and mass graves and fear of authority is a tough transition."

-President George W. Bush, 15 April 2004


Texas:

Johnson alleges that [Texas Department of Criminal Justice] corrections officials were complicit in his 18-month ordeal of rape and sexual servitude, turning a blind eye to his plight and, according to his legal complaint, taking "sadistic pleasure" in his torment.

Guantanamo Bay:

A British detainee at Guantanamo Bay said in a letter revealed Friday he was tortured and abused during detention, in what is believed to be the first such claim to come from inside the prison.

Abu Ghraib Prison, Iraq:

Out of the interlocking scandals and controversies symbolized by Hooded Man and Leashed Man, the pyramids of naked bodies, the snarling dogs, and all the rest, and known to the world by the collective name of Abu Ghraib, one can extract two "master narratives," both dependent on the power and mutability of the images themselves. The first is that of President Bush, who presented the photographs as depicting "disgraceful conduct by a few American troops, who dishonored our country and disregarded our values"—behavior that, the President insisted, "does not represent America." And the aberrant, outlandish character of what the photographs show—the nudity, the sadism, the pornographic imagery—seemed to support this "few bad apples" argument, long the classic defense of states accused of torture.