Chronicles of Inequality [TOO MUCH, 29 April 2013]

Too Much April 29, 2013
THIS WEEK
Ed Stack, the CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods, has a rather unique claim to fame. A few years back, Stack invented “the stupid list.” He asked his managers and employees to list the three things Dick’s does “that make no sense.”We have a suggestion for the Dick’s “stupid list”: the windfalls Dick’s is stuffing into the pockets of Ed Stack. In 2012, news reports last week informed us, CEO Stack grabbed an astonishing $137 million cashing out stock options, on top of $10.7 million in his regular annual compensation.How much more did Stack take home last year than his workers? We don’t know. Under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, firms like Dick’s must reveal the gap between their CEO and median worker pay. But the federal Securities and Exchange Commission has so far made no move to enforce the Dodd-Frank mandate.Two dozen national citizen groups have just asked the new SEC chair, Mary Jo White, to stop the foot-dragging and start requiring CEO-worker pay disclosure. We need her to listen. More on the reasons why in this week’s Too Much. About Too Much,
a project of the
Institute for Policy StudiesProgram on Inequality
and the Common Good
Subscribe
to Too Much
Join us on Facebook
or follow us on Twitter

FacebookTwitter

GREED AT A GLANCE
America’s fourth- and ninth-biggest dailies, the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribunemay soon become the property of Koch Industries, the privately held corporation that fuels the fortune of America’s two most notorious right-wing billionaires, Charles and David Koch. The two papers stand as the crown jewels of an eight-daily chain that also includes high-profile papers in Baltimore and Orlando. The likely cost of the total package: $623 million, pocket change for the Koch brothers. Their personal net worths now total, Bloomberg estimates, $45 billion each. A Koch Industries flack is telling reporters that the Kochs would not meddle with the “independence” of any media that might fall into the Koch camp. But a new Columbia Journalism Review analysis of a media property already under Koch control shows a tendency to “blur reporting and opinion.••••

Doug OberhelmanCaterpillar CEO Doug Oberhelman has spent billions the last few years buying up heavy equipment rivals. But that buy-up spree hasn’t juiced up company earnings. So Oberhelman has tried squeezing a closer-to-home asset: his workers. He threw 700 employees out of work at a Cat plant in Canada after workers there rejected a 50 percent wage cut. Then, charges the United Steelworkers, Oberhelman bullied 800 workers at an Illinois plant into major pay concessions. In Wisconsin, the company threatened to axe 40 percent of one plant’s workforce just days before bargaining began on a new contract. Oberhelman’s strategy appears to be working — for Oberhelman. His take-home last year jumped by $5.5 million. Oberhelman’s 2012 $22.4 million, Caterpillar noted last week,reflects the company’s “pay-for-performance philosophy.”

Cara David, the top marketing exec at American Express, has some great news to report — for the businesses that service America’s rich. The latest AmexSurvey of Affluence and Wealth in America, co-authored with the Harrison Group,is estimating that luxury sales will grow 3.4 percent this year, over twice the growth forecast for national GDP. America’s top 1 percent, says David, have maneuvered themselves into “a better position to spend on luxury.” Gushes Harrison’s Jim Taylor: “Lessons learned from the recession — resourcefulness, self-reliance, and a deep sense of financial responsibility — continue to dominate purchasing strategies in the country’s most successful households.”

Quote of the Week

“We used to be a country with a rich heart. Now we’re the land of the heartless rich.”
Pam MartensKoch Brothers’ Wealth Grew By $33 Billion . . . as America’s Schools Report 1 Million Homeless Kids,Wall Street on Parade, April 24, 2013

PETULANT PLUTOCRAT OF THE WEEK
Mark BertoliniMark Bertolini, the CEO at health insurer giant Aetna, has been loudly warning Americans to beware next January 1, the date Obamacare finally goes into near full effect. Consumers, says Bertolini, will be facing “rate shock” when they see how much their insurance premiums are going to be costing. But he’s not saying why. Aetna and other insurers, industry whistle-blower Wendell Potter points out, have been making big bucks selling low-premium policies that lead consumers to believe they’re buying much more coverage than they actually get. Obamacare bans this “junk insurance,” and firms like Aetna will have to offer policies that provide real coverage. Expect Aetna to charge dearly for these policies. How else will the insurer be able to continue paying Bertolini his going rate? He pulled in a sweet $36.4 million last year. Share Too Much with your friends! They can sign up here to have Too Muchdelivered to their inboxes every Monday afternoon.
PROGRESS AND PROMISE
Know Where Your Premiums Are Going?  Only one state in America, Vermont, has so far moved to shove giant health insurers and their lavishly paid execs out of their central role in the nation’s health care. Vermont lawmakers two years ago passed legislation that puts the state on track to creating a “single-payer” health care system. But single-payer remains years away. In the meantime, Vermont is moving to up the heat on health insurer CEOs. State legislation enacted last year requires insurers to reveal to consumers exactly how much they spend on lobbying and advertising, how often they deny consumer claims, and how much they pay their CEOs. Take Action
on InequalityUrge your rep in Congress to back the Inclusive Prosperity Act, the new bill that would set a financial transactions tax on Wall Street speculation. More at the Robin Hood campaign.
IMAGES OF INEQUALITY
London mansion••••

The property in London’s 10 most exclusive boroughs, we learned earlier this year, now holds more value than all the property combined in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Insatiable global billionaire demand for London addresses now appears poised to drive that gap even wider. The second largest manse in London has just gone on the market for £250 million, about $382 million. The sale, if completed at the asking price, will make the “palatial Regency mansion” at 18 Carlton House Terrace the developed world’s most expensive abode.

 

Web Gem

Global Rich List/ See where you rate in the worldwide distribution of income.

INEQUALITY BY THE NUMBERS
Pew wealth study Stat of the Week

In the world’s top four financial hubs — New York, London, Hong Kong, and Singapore — over 300 residential properties sold for over $15.5 million in 2012, says a new report co-produced by Deutsche Bank. The total outlay for the 300 properties: over $10 billion, for an average over $33 million each.

 

IN FOCUS
From a Sloppy Spreadsheet, an Eternal TruthIf we let wealth continue to concentrate — and corrupt every element of our contemporary societies — we’ll all end up crying ’96 tears.’

Aging baby boomers may remember, from way back in 1966, a one-hit-wonder rock band that sported an all-time great of a name. That band — Question Mark and the Mysterians — may now have a worthy rival on the name front. Make way for Reinhart-Rogoff and the Austerians.

Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff don’t make smash records. They write learned economic papers that make austerians happy — and help smash the life prospects of average working families.

Austerians preach the absolute necessity of whacking away at government spending for public services. We must, these champions of austerity solemnly intone, discipline ourselves to reduce government deficit and debt, no matter the pain austerity may bring us.

And austerity does bring pain. People lose access to basic services. People lose jobs. People even go hungry. But some people — extremely affluent people — don’t mind austerity at all.

These affluents don’t send their kids to public schools. They don’t spend weekend afternoons at public parks. They never step aboard public transit. These wealthy don’t need public services and resent having to pay taxes to support them.

Austerity works for these affluents. Cutbacks in public services won’t, by and large, bring any discomfort to their daily lives.

And if austerity should create some unanticipated discomfort, they can always get their friends in high places to intervene — as Americans saw last week when lawmakers rushed to undo recent austerity cutbacks in the Federal Aviation Administration budget that had affluent people cooling their heels in airports.

Austerity cutbacks, notes Center for Economic and Policy Research economist Dean Baker, promise even greater payoffs — for the rich — down the road. The austerity push for cuts in programs like Social Security, he points out, “opens the door for lowering tax rates on the wealthy in the future.”

“If these sorts of social commitments can be reduced,” Baker writes, “then the wealthy can look forward to being able to keep more of their income.”

All this may help explain why pollsters have found, as economist Paul Krugmanpointed out last Friday, that wealthy Americans “by a large majority” consider budget deficits “the most important problem we face.”

America’s wealthy make their personal predilection for austerity equally plain to the politicians who seek their favor. These pols, for their part, want to be helpful to their deep-pocketed patrons. But these pols, Dean Baker reminds us, also have needs of their own. They need “evidence” they can use to show the general public that “austerity serves the general good and not just the rich.”

Three years ago, Harvard’s Reinhart and Rogoff supplied that “evidence,” via an academic paper that purported to show a clear and imminent danger whenever government debt hits a particular percent of Gross Domestic Product.

This Reinhart-Rogoff paper rushed to the “top of the charts,” in elite public policy circles. Austerians worldwide waved the paper at every opportunity. They cited Reinhart and Rogoff’s work as an unassailable justification for cutting government spending quick and cutting government spending deep.

Reinhart and Rogoff made no meaningful move to discourage the austerians. They basked instead in their global celebrity — until earlier this month when a team of unorthodox economists at the University of Massachusetts exposed the Reinhart-Rogoff paper as essentially a sloppy scholarly fraud.

This Massachusetts work quickly went viral. By last week, Reinhart and Rogoff’s Excel spreadsheet errors had become fodder for late-night TV comics.

End of story? Not quite. We have much more here than a spectacularly failed attempt to make the case for a doctrine that suits the sensibilities of the richest among us. We have powerful proof that inequality corrupts every corner of contemporary societies, even — and especially — our ivory towers.

The academic peers of Reinhart and Rogoff, the scholars who hold the nation’s most prestigious endowed chairs in economics, never once made any effort to check out the Harvard pair’s findings. The unraveling of their bogus case for austerity started with the digging of a skeptical grad student.

Like this article? Sign up
to receive the Too Muchweekly in your email inbox.

The lesson in all this? In a staggeringly unequal society, as Paul Krugman summed up last week, “what the top 1 percent wants becomes what economic science says we must do.”

The rest of us, of course, don’t have to listen, on austerity or any other front.

New Wisdom
on WealthMichael Peppard, Plutocracy in action: the FAA vs. National ParksCommonweal, April 26, 2013. Gridlock in Congress magically ends — when the affluent squeal.Sean Reardon, No Rich Child Left BehindNew York Times, April 28, 2013. A Stanford sociologist explains why rising income inequality needs to take center stage in debates over our education future.

 

 

 

 

The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class cover

Find out more about Too Much editor Sam Pizzigati’snew bookThe Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970.

NEW AND NOTABLE
Why Mitt Lost: The Role Inequality PlayedLarry Bartels, The Class War Gets Personal: Inequality as a Political Issue in the 2012 Election, NYU Law School Colloquium on Tax Policy
and Public Finance, April 23, 2013.Vanderbilt political scientist Larry Bartels has written widely and wisely about inequality over recent years. Last week, he presented this new analysis of the impact of inequality on the 2012 election, a study based in significant part on specially commissioned survey data. His basic finding: Mitt Romney owes his 2012 defeat to a “widespread public perception that he cared more about wealthy people like himself than about poor and middle-class Americans.”
Like Too Much?
Email this issue
to a friend



Barackodile Tears

Rainbows for the Ruling Class

The elevation of Obama to the highest office has prompted a veritable flourishing of unprincipled, opportunistic  African Americans.  Lisa L. Williams is typical of this morally squalid lot.

The elevation of Obama to the highest office has prompted a veritable flourishing of unprincipled, opportunistic African Americans. Lisa L. Williams is typical of this morally squalid lot.

by Randy Shields

One of the great things about America is that it’s easy to be psychic here. This is the land of psychic opportunity. Anyone can hang out a shingle and predict the future. Anyone can read a palm that’s greased. If you want to know what’s going to happen next in America, all you have to do is ask yourself: what’s the most outrageous, ironic, perverted and soul-crushing thing that can happen in any given situation? Whatever that thing is, that’s what will happen. And you won’t have to wait long to see your prediction come true.

So it was that last week San Francisco Pride announced that jailed war crimes whistle blower Bradley Manning would be an honorary grand marshal for this year’s LGBT Pride Celebration.

Before practically anyone had a chance to note how principled and inspiring Manning’s selection was, the decision was rescinded. Kevin Gosztola at firedoglake has an excellent overview and Glenn Greenwald has a list of all the corporate criminals that SF Pride takes money from and doesn’t find objectionable.

[pullquote]By exposing war crimes, Manning was actually doing his duty and nothing he did put the lives of American troops in danger. He caused embarrassment to the American empire because he showed that war crimes are routine. Everyone who raised hell with SF Pride’s original decision doesn’t, and can’t, name one instance of Manning putting a soldier’s life in danger because there weren’t any.[/pullquote]

Most interesting to me was the slavish worship of authority in SF Pride president Lisa L. Williams statement announcing that Manning would not be an honorary grand marshal: “Bradley Manning is facing the military justice system of this country. We all await the decision of that system. However, until that time, even the hint of support for actions which placed in harms way the lives of our men and women in uniform — and countless others, military and civilian alike — will not be tolerated by the leadership of San Francisco Pride. It is, and would be, an insult to every one, gay and straight, who has ever served in the military of this country.”

This is the same military “justice” system that gives out free passes and wrist slaps to the torturers of Abu Ghraib and the rapists and murderers of the children of Haditha, Iraq. The same system of “justice” that discourages female soldiers from reporting rape — and not a handful but the 20,000 servicewomen that even the Pentagon estimates are sexually assaulted every year, as noted in the 2012 Oscar-nominated documentary Invisible War. So, yes, Ms. Williams, we eagerly await what the mass murdering rape-friendly torture enterprise has to say about a brave young person who blew the whistle on its crimes.

By exposing war crimes, Manning was actually doing his duty and nothing he did put the lives of American troops in danger. He caused embarrassment to the American empire because he showed that war crimes are routine. Everyone who raised hell with SF Pride’s original decision doesn’t, and can’t, name one instance of Manning putting a soldier’s life in danger because there weren’t any. If anything, Manning helped hasten the departure of America from Iraq and saved US soldiers’ lives. When the working class finally vanquishes the capitalist class, there will be monuments built to Manning — and molded clear plastic Bush and Obama heads used as urinals in hospitals. When you’re admitted to the hospital, a nurse will ask, similar to paper or plastic: “Democrat or Republican?” (After the revolution, hospitals are gonna be fun places that keep peoples’ spirits up.)
[pullquote]The dead end identity politics of SF Pride, which sells out a peace hero like Bradley Manning to curry favor with the American ruling class, is what I had in mind. The empire loves your tameness, irrelevance and cowardice, SF Pride. You don’t bother the American ruling class — a five foot two, 105 pound soldier does because he has a conscience and because he didn’t make comfort the guiding principle of his life.[/pullquote]

When reading Williams’ statement, keep in mind what Manning did: he made available to WikiLeaks an on-board video of American helicopter gunners mowing down two Reuters news staffers and several Iraqi civilians, including children and first responders and then joking about it. WikiLeaks released thefilm almost three years after the crime occurred. SF Pride is more incensed at Manning for exposing this atrocity than the commission of it. What wonderful Barackodile tears Williams cries for the “civilians” that she falsely implies that Manning ever put in danger. How repulsive can you get? (Barackodile tears are tears shed by America’s historic first black president about dead, generally white, children gunned down in massacres while he simultaneously murders brown-skinned children in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.)

Last week I wrote about unclassconscious people wandering around nowhere and in emptiness and mistakenly believing that they’re on the “left.” I called them desolationists. The dead end identity politics of SF Pride, which sells out a peace hero like Bradley Manning to curry favor with the American ruling class, is what I had in mind. The empire loves your tameness, irrelevance and cowardice, SF Pride. You don’t bother the American ruling class — a five foot two, 105 pound soldier does because he has a conscience and because he didn’t make comfort the guiding principle of his life. He went against the most powerful force on earth, the American military, and knew that he would pay an annihilating price for it. That’s why so many soldiers are so venomous toward Manning — he’s got much more courage and honor than they do and they know it. Pro-Manning comments are trouncing anti-Manning comments in online LGBT publications like Washington, DC’s Metro Weekly and the San Diego LGBT Weekly. So who, exactly, is Ms. Williams representing? Perhaps the Whitey House because, according to her bio, Williams “organized satellite offices for the Obama campaign.”

The American empire, its resource wars and racist occupations, the blowback it provokes and the inevitable reduction in civil liberties — these aren’t “issues” that have “two sides.” Congratulations, SF Pride, you’re totally assimilated with the America that is fearful and timid, the America that glorifies authority and welcomes fascism, as we just saw in Boston. Maybe you’ll feel better when a gay soldier’s boot is on your throat and you’re hearing them assert their equality: “I’m just doing my job. I’m just following orders.” Perhaps SF Pride will go all the way and appoint a gay soldier critical of Manning as the Grand Martial Law Marshal.

It would be awesome if thousands of participants at this year’s June 29-30 Pride Celebration wore Bradley Manning masks and kicked in a dollar each to his defense fund. SF Pride needs repudiated in a big way. And now I feel a psychic vision coming on: if SF Pride knew that thousands of participants were going to wear Bradley Manning masks, they would ban all masks for “everyone’s security.” They would say that they must be able to identify everyone and that they have a responsibility to keep everyone “safe” — they, like most Americans, just don’t feel any responsibility about stopping their representative government from slaughtering innocent Muslims. Up against the wall, turn your head and cough — and have a great time. And don’t ever forget: constantly bombing people keeps you free and safe. Can’t you feel the freedom closing in around you?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Randy Shields can be reached at music2hi4thehumanear@gmail.com.Read other articles by Randy, or visit Randy’s website.




STEPHEN LENDMAN: US False Flag Pretext for War on Syria

Editor’s Note: Here’s the sanctimonious claptrap being distributed by the American media to the perennially clueless American public (this version courtesy of the Wall Street Journal) as they tighten the noose around the Syrian regime’s neck. As always, American officialdom’s hypocrisy beats just about any emetic on the market—PG

By JAY SOLOMON, WSJ

WASHINGTON—Republicans and Democrats pressed President Barack Obama on Sunday to do more to intervene and stop the civil war in Syria, citing a U.S. intelligence report released last week that concluded President Bashar al-Assad used small amounts of chemical weapons against his opponents.

But leading lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), also uniformly stressed on Sunday talk shows that they didn’t believe the U.S. should send American troops into Syria to confront Mr. Assad. Both lawmakers and the Obama administration are wary about U.S. involvement in another conflict in the Middle East after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. McCain argued that the U.S. should instead support a no-fly zone in Syria to protect civilians and rebels from Mr. Assad’s forces. Other lawmakers called for significantly more humanitarian aid.

“We have said that they need a no-fly zone, which could be obtained without using U.S.-manned aircraft,” said Mr. McCain, a sharp critic of Mr. Obama’s Syria policy, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “We could use Patriot batteries and cruise missiles to take out their air and to supply…the resistance with weapons.”

He said he didn’t want American “boots on the ground” but said that the international community should “be prepared with an international force to go in and secure these stocks of chemical and perhaps biological weapons.”

Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.) said on the same show: “I believe the United States could play a greater role in dealing with the humanitarian crisis…I don’t think the world’s greatest superpower, the United States, can stand by and not do anything.”

Obama abhors peace. He prioritizes war. His appetite exceeds his predecessors and then some. It’s insatiable.  He’s currently waging multiple direct and proxy wars. He plans more in Africa. He destroyed Libya. He’s ravaging Syria.

Read the Stephen Lendman piece on next page.

US False Flag Pretext for War on Syria

By Stephen Lendman

UK Daily Mail headlined “US ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime,’ ” saying:

“Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.”

“A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme ‘approved by Washington’ is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.”

“Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.”

“It reads: ‘Phil….We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington…’We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.’ ”

” ‘They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.’ ”

” ‘Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?’ ”

” ‘Kind regards, David.’ ”

“The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.”

“Dave Goulding’s Linkedin profile lists him as Business Development Director at Britam Defence Ltd in Security and Investigations.”

“A business networking profile for Phil Doughty lists him as Chief Operationg Officer for Britam, United Arab Emirates, Security and Investigations.”

“The US State Department had not returned a request for comment on the alleged emails to MailOnline today at time of publication.”

On January 30, Voice of Russia headlined “Britam tells VoR it was hacked,” saying:

It denied involvement “in a plot to destabilise Syria.” Red Hot Russia quoted a “software systems administrator” using the nickname “KungFu Spider,” saying:

“After looking at the email headers….I have to admit that the email does indeed look genuine.”

“The email was sent from ‘81.156.163.12’ which is a BT Wholesale ADSL IP address.”

“From there it was then relayed via ‘smtp.clients.netdns.net (202.157.148.149).”

“Finally it was delivered to a local mailbox on that server.

I hate to admit it, but all these facts check out. So with Mythbusters objectivity I have to call this one plausible…I just hope I don’t get a visit from the plods for this ill advised sleuthing.”

Last summer, Obama warned:

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”

That would change my calculus. That would change my equation…We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”

They include full-scale US intervention. Last March, a Brookings Institution report headlined “Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change.”

To “protect US interests,” it said, Assad can’t be allowed to triumph. Six options were proposed:

(1) diplomacy;
(2) coercion and diplomatic isolation;
(3) providing full support for opposition forces to oust him;
(4) a Libya-style air campaign;
(5) invasion “with US-led forces;” and
(6) a “multilateral, NATO-led (regime change) effort.”

On the one hand, it recommended giving diplomacy “one last chance.” On the other, it said it’s unlikely “diplomacy alone can resolve the crisis.”

It said Washington must intervene “to protect (its) many interests affected by the bloodshed of Syria.”

Russian politician Alexei Mitrofanov is a Duma Information Policy Committee member. Voice of Russia quoted him saying:

“Syria is facing a global info war. The masterminds of this war are doing everything they can to prevent information of Syrian official sources from leaking out.”

“(T)he truth about the Syrian conflict is different from the one presented by the western press.”

On April 28, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported Assad’s Permanent UN Representative, Bashar al-Jaafari saying “western countries are raising the issue of chemical weapons use in Syria is part of the campaign of pressure exerted on Syria in order to get concessions from it in various issues.”

“….Syria’s enemies fabricated various issues to pressure Syria’s but to no avail, and now they’re attempting to exploit the Security Council to recreate the Iraqi scenario, asserting that they will not succeed in these machinations because Syria has real friends in the Security Council, and because experts are presenting credible reports like the recent one which stated that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the UAE are all involved in smuggling weapons into Syria.”

“….the media war of exaggeration against Syria seeks to poison the international and Arab public opinion by promoting an erroneous image of what is actually happening in Syria, affirming that the Syrian government isn’t killing its own people as some claim; rather it’s facing armed terrorist who commit suicide bombings in residential areas, murder students in schools and universities, and undermine the national economy’s infrastructure.”

Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi said its military successes prompted false accusations about chemical weapons use. Russian Federation Council Deputy Chairman Ilyas Umakhanov suggested Moscow won’t leave Syria alone in its time of crisis, saying:

“Russia’s stance is that the Syrian people alone have the right to solve their problems without foreign interference.”  The battle for Syria rages. Western propaganda continues. Joseph Holliday is an Institute for the Study of War (ISW) fellow and former senior research analyst.  ISW calls itself “committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve US. strategic objectives.”

On April 26, Holliday’s Foreign Policy article headlined “Assad’s Chemical Romance,” saying:

“….the Syrian dictator’s cynical and clever chemical weapons strategy outfoxed Obama.”

“The Syrian regime’s subtle approach deliberately offers the Obama administration the option to remain quiet about chemical attacks and thereby avoid the obligation to make good on its threats.”

“But even more worrying, Assad’s limited use of chemical weapons is intended to desensitize the United States and the international community in order to facilitate a more comprehensive deployment in the future – without triggering intervention.”

Holliday appears to be goading Obama to intervene. He claimed previous Assad chemical weapons use. Repeating lies often enough get people to believe them. He said Assad “established a clear modus operandi for ramping up the battle without triggering international intervention: toe the line, confirm Western inaction, and then ratchet up the violence further.”

He made numerous false accusations. Assad’s “introduction of weapons of mass destruction intends to pave the way for more lethal and wide-ranging chemical attacks against the Syrian people in the future,” he claimed. Obama said “he’ll need a big, smoking gun to push him into taking on the responsibility of a decisive US response.”

“Unfortunately, the wily Assad doesn’t seem likely to give (him) such an easy decision.”  False flags and misinformation make it easier. On April 28, Haaretz headlined “Defected Syrian general claims he was ordered to use chemical weapons,” saying:

On March 15, Zakir al-Sakit defected. He claims superiors told him to use chemical weapons against “rebels” and civilians in Busra al-Harir. It’s about 90 km south of Damascus.  Expect defectors to say anything. Perhaps al-Harir was well-rewarded. His accusation lacks credibility.

He said he instructed his forces to use a harmless liquid. Haaretz cited opposition Syria National Coalition officials claiming Syrian forces fired “missiles with chemical arms” near Damascus.

Expect these type reports to continue. Obama appears heading for more war. Expect Syria to become another US charnel house. American-style humanitarian interventions turn out that way.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
 Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html  Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/us-false-flag-pretext-for-war-on-syria/

 

 

 




Why It’s Worth Going to Jail to Stop Keystone XL

Conor Kennedy, ecowatch.com

conorkennedy

••••

On Monday, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told the State Department that the information in the State Department’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Keystone XL pipeline is “insufficient.” Among EPA’s many concerns was the State Department’s failure to adequately address the pipeline’s impacts on climate change. EPA raised a host of other issues. In fact, the State Department’s EIS is not useful for answering some of the most basic questions about Keystone XL.

Ever since Feb. 13, when I chained myself to the White House fence with 47 other protestors urging President Obama to kill the Keystone pipeline, people have asked me why I felt strongly enough about the issue to endure arrest. Many of them have the same questions that should have been asked in the State Department’s EIS. If we don’t build the pipeline through the American prairie, won’t the oil companies just route it through British Columbia by rail, tank trucks or pipelines and sell their oil to Asia? Won’t the Keystone XL pipeline give America energy security and the U.S. jobs? Won’t the pipeline lower the price of gasoline at the pump? Haven’t the oil industry and government regulators given us adequate assurances that Keystone is safe? Don’t the oil and pipeline companies have their own incentives to make sure the Keystone pipeline doesn’t leak?

Here are the answers:

1) Is the Keystone XL Pipeline safe? Anyone who watched the oil industry and its regulators scramble to point fingers and dodge responsibility during the BP oil spill should be skeptical about industry claims of pipeline safety. Tar sands oil, sometimes known as bitumen, is extraordinarily corrosive and the industry has not figured out how to stop it from bursting even the most fortified pipelines. On March 31, an Exxon pipe carrying 95,000 barrels per day of Alberta tar sands oil from Illinois to Texas refineries burst and flooded an upscale suburb in Mayflower, Arkansas beneath an ocean of toxic heavy bitumen and lighter dilutents, added by oil companies to help the gelatinous bitumen move through the pipe. Arkansas taxpayers were shocked to learn that thanks to a loophole artfully created by the industry’s political allies, they—not the oil companies—will have to pay for the cleanup.

That same week a burst Minnesota pipeline vomited 15,000 gallons of Alberta crude. In 2010, an Exxon pipeline in Michigan spewed a million gallons of dilbit into the Kalamazoo River, causing the worst and most expensive pipeline-based oil spill in U.S. history. Experts are still scratching their heads trying to figure out how to clean up the Kalamazoo spill which received little coverage from the mainstream corporate media. Clean-up crews commonly collect aquatic oil spills using floatable booms. As it turns out, tar sands oil doesn’t float. Instead, it tarred and coated the Kalamazoo River bottom, which is the foundation of the aquatic ecosystem. In fact, oil and gas companies even shipping conventional oil, experience thousands of oil spills each year. In June, an Exxon pipe that runs parallel to the proposed route of the Keystone XL pipeline burst, spilling between 750 and 1,000 barrels, at a crossing on the iconic Yellowstone River and killed life in that blue ribbon trout fishery and national treasure for 25 miles.

Given the industry’s abysmal record, it’s safe to say that Keystone XL will experience a major spill and, due to its planned route, that spill will almost certainly contaminate the Ogallala aquifer, the sole water supply for millions of middle state Americans as well as the breadbasket of American agriculture and the ranching industries in seven states.

[pullquote]We don’t need oil-based fossil fuels while we ramp up renewables like Solar and Wind. Renewables are proven and market-ready technologies. Their widespread deployment is only being impeded by multibillion dollar annual subsidies to oil and gas [and flaccid support by the government—Eds]. In any case, the Keystone XL Pipeline is not a stop gap measure. Instead the pipeline will entrench our use of fossil fuels[/pullquote]

2) Keystone XL will not create significant American jobs. According to the State Department’s study, Keystone will provide only 35 full time jobs following the construction period. We could more beneficially create permanent jobs by incentivizing solar and wind development which, even with the current anemic federal incentives, are creating each year, more new generation capacity than all the incumbents (oil, gas, coal and nuke) combined. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are already 93,000 jobs in solar and 85,000 in wind, and those numbers are growing exponentially.

3) Keystone XL will neither improve energy security nor lower gasoline prices. Virtually all of Keystone’s Alberta tar sands oil is destined for Asian markets. Canadian and mostly non-U.S. owned oil services companies, the Koch Brothers, and Asian plutocrats will profit from the pipeline but there will be little value to the U.S. in terms of security or lower oil prices. In fact, U.S. oil prices will actually increase as the result of Keystone because U.S. oil prices are dictated not by world market prices but by refinery capacity in this country. Since tar sands oil destined for Asian markets will first be refined in U.S. refineries, tar sands will compete for limited refinery space and therefore drive up the price of oil. The State Department estimates that the average cost of American gasoline will actually rise upward of 7¢ per gallon if Keystone is constructed. The Pipeline will hurt the U.S. economy, not help it.

4) Why are environmentalists mad at Obama? Why have they made this the political line in the sand for his carbon legacy? Because this issue is one of the few issues that is solely under Obama’s control. President Obama doesn’t need to go to a Congress awash in democracy-polluting oil money. He can pull the plug on Keystone XL while sitting alone in the Oval Office. If we cannot win this issue with Obama, what hope do we have with other environment issues where he has to work with Senate Republicans?

5) If we don’t build Keystone, the oil companies will just haul their tar sands out by rail and truck, generating more carbon and more spills. The $7 billion Keystone pipeline will transport 1.1 million barrels each day—far more than could be transported economically by rail and truck traffic. If we stop Keystone, we lock most of this carbon permanently underground.

6) If we kill Keystone, the oil companies will not build a pipeline elsewhere in Canada. The oil industry will not build an alternative pipeline elsewhere in Canada. Resistance among Canadians in British Columbia, especially salmon-dependent First Nations, is even greater than here in the United States.

7) We don’t need oil-based fossil fuels while we ramp up renewables like Solar and Wind. Renewables are proven and market-ready technologies. Their widespread deployment is only being impeded by multibillion dollar annual subsidies to oil and gas [and flaccid support by the government—Eds]. In any case, the Keystone XL Pipeline is not a stop gap measure. Instead the pipeline will entrench our use of fossil fuels.

8) Keystone XL will have a catastrophic impact on climate change. The amount of carbon in the tar sands is equivalent to all the carbon in all the oil ever removed from Saudi Arabia. Burning the vast oceans of oil beneath Saudi Arabia has gotten us where we are today; ice caps melting, glaciers retreating on every continent, water supplies drying up, continent wide droughts disrupting agriculture and global food supplies, acidified oceans and rising sea levels, and climate chaos flooding our greatest cities. According to a new study published last week by Oil Change International, “Cooking the Books: How the State Department Analysis Ignores the True Climate Impact of the Keystone XL Pipeline,” the pipeline will emit 181 methane tons of carbon every year—the equivalent of 37.7 million cars or 51 new coal plants. There are 561 tons of carbon locked in Alberta’s tar sands. More than twice the amount, according to former Goddard scientist James Hansen, then have been released by all the oil and combustion in the history of mankind. We can double that sum by burning Alberta’s tar sands, but what genocidal politician or oilman, would want to do that to future generations? We could better solve our energy problems by scuttling the pipeline, investing in renewables, and putting the greedy megalomaniacs from Koch oil and Exxon’s puppets in the U.S. Capitol in jail, where they belong.

Visit EcoWatch’s KEYSTONE XL page for more related news on this topic.




As Others See Us

The Consequences of Runaway Executive Power

The West, Texas, plant explosion: many more victims, but led to much less media noise since it pointed fingers at lawless corporatism.

The West, Texas, plant explosion: many more victims, but led to much less media noise since it pointed fingers at lawless corporatism.

by RALPH NADER

In watching the massive media coverage and the reaction to the brutal bombing at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, the wise poem “To A Louse…” composed in 1785 by the Scottish poet Robert Burns came to me:

“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!”

English translation:

“And would some Power the small gift give us
To see ourselves as others see us!”

What must the “ithers” in the Middle East theatre of the American Empire think of a great city in total lockdown from an attack by primitive explosives when Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis and Yemenis experience far greater casualties and terror attacks several times a week? Including what they believe are terror attacks by U.S. drones, soldiers, aircraft and artillery that have directly killed many thousands of innocent children, women and men in their homes, during funeral processions and wedding parties, or while they’re working in their fields.

Here’s what they are thinking: that America is very vulnerable and ready to shake itself upside down to rid itself and protect itself from any terror attacks. The Bush regime, after 9/11, sacrificed U.S. soldiers and millions of innocents in the broader Middle East, drained our economy, so as to ignore the necessities of saving lives and health here at home, and metastasized al-Qaeda into numerous countries, spilling havoc into Iraq and now Syria. We have paid a tremendous price in blowback, because of Mr. Bush’s rush to war.

[pullquote]Every day in the U.S. there are preventable tragedies that receive no media coverage because they aren’t part of the “war on terror”, which has been crowding out stories that would have led to corrective actions to leave this country safer from the corporate predators within its borders.[/pullquote]

Why is the reaction to the events in Boston viewed by some as bizarre? Our president said “We will finish the race.” Do we really think that the attackers are doing this to disrupt our pleasure in foot racing?

The attackers, be they suicide bombers over there or domestic bombers here, are motivated by their hatred of our invasions, our daily bombings, our occupations, our immersion in tribal preferences leading to divide-and-rule sectarian wars. Studies, such as those by the University of Chicago Professor Robert Pape, and former adviser to Barack Obama and Ron Paul during the 2008 presidential campaign, conclude that entry into paradise is not the motivation for these suicide bombers. What drives them is their despair and their desire to expel the foreign invaders from their homeland.

Another “ithers’ – admittedly a smaller number – must see a giant country going berserk with media, speculation, rumors, accusations, and random mobilizations of military equipment. There are enough of these younger people who must say to themselves, maybe it is worth giving up their lives for a place in history – to make a nation be fearful because of their rulers’ staggering overreaction.

Why give these contorted young minds, frustrated by what they perceive as U.S. attacks on their religion or their ethnic group in their home countries, such incentives?

Massive overreactions by the mass media (have you seen CNN’s frenzied, nonstop quest for every bit of trivia and speculation hour after hour?) crowds out coverage of far greater preventable loss of life and safety in our country. Other commentators have covered the lesser-known yet huge explosion at the West, Texas fertilizer factory that destroyed far more property and took more human lives than the Boston Marathon assault. But, the dangerous fertilizer plant was corporate criminal negligence, or worse.

Every day in the U.S. there are preventable tragedies that receive no media coverage because they aren’t part of the “war on terror”, which has been crowding out stories that would have led to corrective actions to leave this country safer from the corporate predators within its borders.

Individually, many Americans intuitively understand the consequences of neglecting problems in our own country to engage in lawless wars and military adventures. Unfortunately, Americans collectively sing the song “que será, será” or “whatever will be, will be” because the big boys in Washington and Wall Street will always make the decisions. Be assured that they will often be stupidly harmful in the long-run to our country, and not just to millions of defenseless people abroad who have become victims of the collective punishment or random ravages of our massive push-button weapon systems.

In an impressive collection of excerpts titled Against the Beast, a Documentary History of American Opposition to Empire edited by John Nichols; the eminent historian Chalmers Johnson had this to say:

“. . .where U.S.-supported repression has created hopeless conditions, to U.S.-supported economic policies that have led to unimaginable misery, blowback reintroduces us to a world of cause and effect.”

At a first-ever Senate hearing earlier this week on the use of armed drones away from battlefields, initiated by Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and arrogantly boycotted by the imperial Obama Administration, Farea al-Muslimi, a young Yemeni from a village just attacked by a U.S. drone strike, gave witness.

Al-Muslimi said, “When they think of America, they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads, ready to fire missiles at any time. What radicals had previously failed to achieve in my village, one drone strike accomplished in an instant: there is now an intense anger and growing hatred of America.”

As President Obama told the Israelis about the Palestinians, “Put yourselves in their shoes.”

In country after country, the terrifying whine of 24/7 hovering drones and the knowledge that special U.S. killing teams can drop from the skies at any time, creates a state of terror.

A brute-force foreign policy [of] waging war can never effectively wage peace or sensibly engage in early conflict prevention or resolution. An illegal brute-force policy aligns itself with repressive regimes that crush their own people with American weapons and American political/diplomatic cover.

Jeremy Scahill, author of the new book Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, who has been in these countries and spoken with these villagers, says that our government has created unnecessary enemies and banked lots of revenge among these people over the past ten years. “This is going to boomerang back around to us,” he fears, adding that we’re creating “a whole new generation of enemies that have an actual grievance against us…have an actual score to settle.” Killing innocent men, women and children creates blowback that lasts for generations.

From these overseas regions, the message from the bombing at the Boston Marathon is that, until now, the high-tech buttons were only being pushed by the drone operators against them. After Boston they can see that other low-tech buttons can now be pushed inside the U.S. against defenseless gatherings of innocent people.

For our national security, the American people must recover control of our runaway, unilateral presidency that has torn itself away from constitutional accountabilities and continues to be hijacked by ideologues who ignore our Founding Fathers’ wisdom regarding the separation of powers and avoiding foreign entanglements that become costly, deadly and endless quagmires.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer and author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us! He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition.