The Soul Suckers of Endless Compromise

“Dems” is short for “Dementors”
by TOM WRIGHT

Every four years this happens to me again.  My phone stops ringing, my emails aren’t returned, my liberal friends avert their gaze if we chance upon the same aisle at Safeway.

Was it something I said?  Did I hog the mushroom dip and the Cote du Rhone at their last soire?  Have I not been flossing?  But then it hits me: they know I will not be supporting the Democratic nominee for President again.

Now, I am no Republican, and certainly not a centrist “Independent,” a euphemism for “I have no opinions—I am just here to shop.”  No, I am, in a quite literal sense, a born Democrat.  My parents actually met at the 1956 Democratic Convention in Chicago, and my birth announcement featured a little Donkey cartoon and said, “It’s a Democrat!”  In the last three decades, though, I have voted for the Democratic nominee only once, and that, I here confess, was Obama in 2008.  I have never voted for the Republicans, of course.  Even this year, I sit eagerly eyeing the weather forecast, hoping that Tropical Storm Isaac will build to a Category 5 Hurricane, zero in on the Republican convention like some hapless trailer park, and confirm for me at last the existence of God.

But I have no patience for my liberal friends’ insistence on robotic support for Obama, or even for my progressive friends’ qualms about whether to remove their Obama bumper stickers.   You could pick a topic absolutely at random to demonstrate Obama’s betrayal of his supposed “base,” but let’s look for now at just one, his record in the area of “National Security.”

Start with torture, kind of an important subject, at least in days past.  Billions will be strewn along this interminable “campaign trail” without either candidate ever once stepping in that unmentionable topic, a practice candidate Obama denounced four years ago.  Notwithstanding his order to close the CIA’s “black sites,” this President has nothing to crow about in the human rights department.  As Prof. Alfred McCoy haswritten, Obama’s legacy here is two-fold: impunity at home and rendition abroad.

Meet the New Boss.  Same as the Old Boss

At home, the “Justice” Department (evidently named by a staff comedy writer) has pursued a strict policy of blocking prosecutions of Bush-era torturers or architects of torture, and denying victims a chance for a day in court.  This was no mean task, by the way.  The Bush people had run their “enemy combatants” operation like Mafia dons muscling in on Vegas, with a network of CIA “black sites”  on multiple continents, as well as an extensive “outsourcing” program to client torture states (those neoliberals, always sending American jobs abroad).

As the U.S. is a signatory to the 1994 Convention Against Torture, Obama was required by law to prosecute all acts of torture. And with him being a Constitutional law professor, I’m betting he knew that.  He not only declined to do so (something about wanting to Look Forward Not Backward, which I have been unable to locate in the text of aforementioned Convention), but he even stopped other countries from trying to do anything.

As we know from Wikileaks, Obama secretly collaborated with Congressional Republicans to block the Spanish judiciary from indicting six former Bush officials for torture. (Spain had a “universal jurisdiction” law governing crimes against humanity, under which they prosecuted Chilean dictator Pinochet, for example.) Now, Obama couldn’t have been blamed for Spain trying to do something that he himself was unwilling to do.  We wouldn’t have expected him to order Spain around like a servant, Spain being its own country and all.   (He is manifestly unable to order Israel around, and they’re on the federal payroll). So this was purely gratis.

Not even private contractors had to worry.  When a conscience-stricken whistleblower revealed that a Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, arranged the CIA’s international “torture flights” ferrying “extraordinary rendition” prisoners to their foreign appointments, Jeppesen became the target of a lawsuit by some of the victims.  Obama succeeded in crushing this effort in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  As Jane Mayer (one of the best journalists writing on this issue) wrote in The New Yorker,

An eleven-judge panel sided, 6-5, with lawyers working for Obama’s Justice Department, which essentially claimed that protecting state secrets is more important than protecting human rights. Amazingly, the Justice Department argued successfully that the entire subject of “extraordinary rendition”—dispatching torture (sic) suspects to other countries to be interrogated harshly—was so sensitive that it had to be hidden from the American public, to the point of barring its victims from seeking redress in court.

Let Them Eat Maple Syrup

No Obama supporter should be allowed near a voting booth before passing a written test on the case of Maher Arar.  He was a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, the father of young children, who happened to be changing planes at JFK (not trying to enter the U.S.).  By some typically shabby intelligence work, he was arrested by Bush’s agents, accused of having ties to Al Qaeda, and bundled off to Syria (yes, that Syria) for a year of torture in a cramped underground “coffin.”  When his shattered psyche and body were released, he was returned to Canada.  The Canadians acknowledged his innocence, apologized, and awarded him a multi-million dollar settlement in what was still an obviously inadequate compensation.

As for the Americans who did the dirty work?  “We’re sorry. Your case raises too many sensitive security concerns.  The Land of the Free is closed today.  Please try your call again later.”

Obama weighed in on Arar’s case in 2010, arguing successfully against a Supreme Court hearing, and ensuring that Arar will never have his day in a U.S. courtroom.  As the Center for Constitutional Rights wrote

The Obama administration could have settled the case, recognizing the wrongs done to Mr. Arar – as Canada itself has done. Yet it chose to come to the defense of Bush administration officials, arguing that even if they conspired to send Maher Arar to torture, they should not be held accountable by the judiciary.

They All Look Alike

Then there was the case of Khaled el Masri, a German citizen trying to go on holiday in Macedonia in 2003.  But he had the twin problems of 1. Being a Muslim and 2. Having one of those funny names that sounded kind of like another guy we were looking for. So, instead of seeing Galichnik National Park, Khaled got a surprise tourist package courtesy of the CIA.  First, he was interrogated for 23 days in a Macedonia hotel. By this time, they suspected they had the wrong guy, but under orders from CIA headquarters, as The New Yorker  reported, “he was handcuffed, blindfolded, driven to an airport, severely beaten, stripped, anally probed, dressed in a diaper and tracksuit, placed on a plane, drugged, and flown to Afghanistan, where he was imprisoned for more than four months.” Your standard “Rendition” fare.   As Jane Mayer wrote, “Masri says that he was chained in a freezing cell with no bed, and given water so putrid that he could smell it across the room. He was threatened and stripped, and could hear other detainees crying all around him.”  After going on a hunger strike, and losing sixty pounds, he was finally released after being flown, handcuffed and blindfolded, to Albania.

Obama continues to maintain that the very existence of the Renditions program is a state secret, blocking Khaled el-Masri’s access to an American courtroom.  The CIA officer involved in the case has twice been promoted. According to Mayer, “no criminal charges have ever been brought against any C.I.A. officer involved in the torture program, despite the fact that at least three prisoners interrogated by agency personnel died as the result of mistreatment.” Last year, as Alfred McCoy writes,

Attorney General Eric Holder announced an end to any investigation of harsh CIA interrogations and to the possibility of bringing any of the CIA torturers to court. (Consider it striking, then, that the only “torture” case brought to court by the administration involved a former CIA agent, John Kiriakou, who had leaked the names of some torturers.)

That would be in keeping with Obama’s policy of going after not the criminals, but only the whistleblowers, like Bradley Manning, Wikileaks, Thomas Drake (look him up), etc.

Meanwhile, in places like Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration continues to avail itself of the services of its allies, who it knows are committing systematic torture.  McCoy again:

As the CIA expanded covert operations inside Somalia under Obama, its renditions of terror suspects from neighboring East African nations continued just as they had under Bush. In July 2009, for example, Kenyan police snatched an al-Qaeda suspect, Ahmed Abdullahi Hassan, from a Nairobi slum and delivered him to that city’s airport for a CIA flight to Mogadishu. There he joined dozens of prisoners grabbed off the streets of Kenya inside “The Hole” — a filthy underground prison buried in the windowless basement of Somalia’s National Security Agency. While Somali guards (paid for with U.S. funds) ran the prison, CIA operatives, reported the Nation’s Jeremy Scahill, have open access for extended interrogation.

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

                                                                        George Orwell, “Notes on Nationalism”

In a society as coarsened as ours, saturated in violent media spectacle, it was only a matter of time before Jack Bauer torturing the stuffing out of some sorry-assed terrorist would need some jazzing-up.  Which is why the Good Lord gave us Predator drones!   Now, instead of having to capture all those suspects, and go to the trouble and expense of flying them around for torture sessions, we just call in the Predators, or the even nastier Reaper drones, and bring on the Hellfire missiles.  (Is there a secret committee of deranged televangelists that thinks up these names?  I am just curious.)   Under this new program, which grew dramatically under Obama, now we just kill people.  The funny thing is, Americans don’t seem very interested in the new spectator sport yet. What’s up here?

John Pilger brings up an interesting fact, writing that “in the week Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, he ordered bombing attacks on Yemen, killing a reported 63 people, 28 of them children.”

Did anyone else miss this besides me?  I am sorry, but I think that if Martin Luther King had killed 28 children the same week he won the Nobel Peace Prize, it would have made the papers.

There is something very creepy about how little people seem to know or care about this new techno video game form of warfare.  Jane Mayer, writing in 2009, noted that

…the embrace of the Predator program has occurred with remarkably little public discussion, given that it represents a radically new and geographically unbounded use of state-sanctioned lethal force. And, because of the C.I.A. program’s secrecy, there is no visible system of accountability in place, despite the fact that the agency has killed many civilians inside a politically fragile, nuclear-armed country with which the U.S. is not at war.

From fewer than fifty drones in 2000, the Pentagon now has more than 7,500.  This is clearly what they intend to be the new way of doing business.  And we don’t even know what the price tag is.  As Medea Benjamin notes in her recent book Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control, “At the height of government deficit-reducing cuts in 2012, the US taxpayer was shelling out $3.9 billion for the procurement of unmanned aircraft, not counting the separate drone budgets for the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security.”

“Sentence First, Verdict Later!”

(The Queen of Hearts, Alice in Wonderland)                  

But Obama, mustering ever more “audacity,” has extended the drone war to target the very Constitution itself.   Last year he authorized–and carried out—the execution of three U.S. citizens, without charge or trial.  The three were Anwar Al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, and Anwar’s sixteen year-old son Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki (there are those funny names again).  All were put on a government “kill list” and assassinated in drone strikes in Yemen. Other bystanders, including another teenager, were also killed in the attacks.   (All military-age males in a target zone get counted as combatants unless there is specific intelligence posthumously proving they were innocent.)

This is from the Center for Constitutional Rights:

“When a 16 year-old boy who has never been charged with a crime nor ever alleged to have committed a violent act is blown to pieces by U.S. missiles, alarm bells should go off,” said CCR Senior Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei. “The U.S. program of sending drones into countries in and against which it is not at war and eliminating so-called enemies on the basis of executive memos and conference calls is illegal, out of control, and must end.”

Call me old-fashioned, but I think that all Democrats should be able to agree on that.  Which in a sane country would raise the question of whether Obama should be impeached, rather than re-elected.  But we live in this country, don’t we?  And in this country, earnest liberal-minded people feel they must concentrate on stopping Mitt Romney, or there will soon be public beheadings of Planned Parenthood workers, and all that.  What I am wondering is this: is there no limit, beyond which Democrats will not support Obama?  Beyond which they just have to say, “Not with my vote–Not in my name?”

But we are sooooo far from that.  I think we are mostly like Orwell’s “nationalist,” never even hearing about the atrocities of our own side.  Like victims of  Dementor attacks in Harry Potter, our very souls are being sucked out by the endless series of compromises and adjustments to an ever more debased and violent National Security State.  Swept up by the inexorable gravitational pull of unlimited corporate money, we have lost our political parties, our res publica, the commons.  The means of mass communication, in their ever-growing sophistication, are deployed as the tools of human consciousness production, and are used only to distract us, stimulate consumer demand, misinform, disempower.    We don’t denounce Obama’s crimes because we’ve already forgotten about them, or—more likely—we never heard about them in the first place.  They weren’t talking about them on The View.   Everyone on NPR seems to think things are okay, and if they aren’t, we can start an Internet petition and Obama will do better in his second term. He certainly seems like a nice man, and he’s trying to do the right thing.  He’ll come around.   Plus, he sings just like Al Green.

Fortunately for most of my liberal friends, they won’t have to agonize too much about their vote, because they live out here on the Commie West Coast, and the Electoral College has already nullified their importance in the grand scheme of things.  It will all come down to a few people in the divided “swing states,” like that Mormon bastion of Nevada, best known for its gambling and legalized prostitution (you gotta love this country!)  You all vote for Obama if you wish.

But they’ll have to waterboard me.

Tom Wright lives in Olympia, Washington. He can be reached attomwright59@comcast.net, or, in the near future, in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




Romney/Ryanism in Tampa

By Stephen Lendman

Tampa may never be the same. Republicans left it pockmarked. At least they’re gone. Residents welcomed their departure. Three days of pre-scripted hokum were featured. Romney/Ryan speeches featured revisionist history. Democrats get their turn next week.  Campaigning is in high gear. According to Bloomberg, “you’d need six months to watch every presidential campaign ad.” As of August 22, 526,633 (30 or 60 second) spots were run.

By election day November 6, perhaps they’ll top a million. And that’s only for president. All House and 33 Senate seats are up for grabs. So are numerous others at state and local levels. They range from gubernatorial to local school boards.

A war of words hammers US voters nonstop. Relief won’t come until post-election. America’s campaign season never ends. Preparations begin immediately for the next cycle. Big money plans it that way. Candidates and officeholders either go along or find another line of work. Voters get betrayed every time.

Tampa was Exhibit A. Romney/Ryan represent socially destructive interests. Obama’s the same. Voters are stuck between fire and brimstone.

America’s political process is too dysfunctional and corrupted to fix. People should either vote independent or stay home. Both major parties are two sides of the same coin. Not a dime’s worth of difference that matters separates them.

They represent money power and imperial lawlessness. People needs are spurned. Bipartisan complicity plans destroying them entirely. Social America is on the chopping block for elimination. Political Washington’s vision is dark age harshness.

Obama/Biden/Romney/Ryan represent the worst of all possible worlds. Obama’s con man days began in Illinois. Before entering politics, Romney parlayed grand theft into super wealth.

As Bain Capital head, he profiteered by leveraged buyouts, asset-stripping companies, and leaving thousands of workers high and dry. As president, he’ll do for America what he did to one plundered company after another.

On August 29, Matt Taibbi headlined his Rolling Stone article “Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.”

He calls him the flip side of Che or Trotsky. He’s a human wrecking machine. He’s right out of predatory capitalism’s central casting. He’s a visionary for everything harming people.

His campaign reflects “a shimmering pearl of perfect political hypocrisy.” He’s kept it hidden out of sight. Ryan’s his alter ego. He’s “a self-righteous anal, thin-lipped, Whitest Kids U Know penny pincher who’d be honored to tell Oliver Twist” the soup bowl is empty, go hungry.

On the one hand, Romney claims “a prairie fire of debt” is ravaging America. On the other, he got super-rich by “borrowing vast sums of money that other people were forced to pay back.” He’s one of the “most irresponsible debt creators of all time.”

In Ryan, he’s got “perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous” than himself on the evils debt piled up by borrowed money. “No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big a lie.” In November, he may become the exception that proves the rule.

He’s unapologetic. He’s emblematic of Wall Street fraud, greed, and indifference about human need and welfare. He’s one of their own. He can be president, Treasury secretary and Fed chairman all in one. He represents everything wrong with America getting worse.

He’s a dagger at humanity’s heart. He’s the perfect frontman for destroying decades of social progress. Give him four years and it won’t exist. He endorses government of, by and for super-rich elites like himself.

He’s “a new and improved version” of Gordon Gekko dressed up in better PR and more grandiose notions of wealth and power. He envisions leveraged buying out America. He’ll leave everyone else to pay the tab.

His business model is scorched earth asset stripping. Expect ordinary people to be left high and dry. He wants America looking like one company after another he wrecked. He thinks it’s OK as long as his hands don’t look dirty.

His free market notions suck life from people. He’s a brigand who discards them like trash. He believes only making money matters. He made piles the old fashioned way by stealing it. Dirty money buys as much as honest cash. Romney got lots of federal help making plenty.

Government giveaways enriched him. So did business-friendly tax provisions. They facilitate leveraged buyout scams. They made Romney super-rich.

Before he took office, James Petras called Obama “the greatest con man in recent history.” He compared him to Melville’s Confidence Man. “He catches your eye while he picks your pocket.” Romney one-ups him and then some. He knows every dirty trick in the book to steal, wreck human lives, and get off scot free.

He’s the perfect frontman for financialized America. It uses money to make more of it without manufacturing anything. It prospers at the expense of others. It hides wealth in tax havens. It watches from the sidelines while America crumbles.

America: It’s being transformed into Guatemala, complete with police state harshness. Come January, Romney may head the grand scheme. Obama’s able to match him blow for blow.

Imagine the state of the nation four years hence under either leader. Imagine having endless wide awake nightmares. Imagine the worst of all possible worlds. Obama/Romney assure it. They’ll be no place to hide.  Take no prisoners defines their style. Romney comes off brash. Obama’s more subtle. Either way they’re flip sides of the same coin. Decades earlier Republicans and Democrats wouldn’t recognize their modern-day successors.

Political conventions today bear little resemblance to earlier ones. Predictability replaced suspense. In 1976, Gerald Ford contested Ronald Reagan on the convention floor to become Republican nominee. In 1960, Jack Kennedy lacked a majority until Wyoming voted last. Everything now is pre-scripted theater. It’s like watching an old film aired many previous times.

Tropical storm Isaac/turned hurricane had first say in Tampa. It shortened circus shenanigans to three days. Reactionary extremism, hokum, grandiosity, and revisionist history took center stage. Influence peddling dominated behind the scenes deal making.

Pre-scripted bluster went off as planned. Dissembling obscured reality. Delegates were fed red meat malarkey. Tough issues were ducked. They were distorted by falsely claiming Romney/Ryan have ways to fix America.

Today’s political conventions are coronations, not nominations. Suspense and political honesty are nowhere in sight. Everything heard is predictable.

In Tampa, politicians impersonated actors. Clint Eastwood played the opposite role. He fell flat and then some. He sounded more under the table than over the top.

Critics called his cameo “bizarre” and “embarrassing.” At age 82, best stick to gardening. Even Republicans called it a mistake to invite him. Democrats make fools of themselves next week. Ready or not, Charlotte awaits their arrival.

They’ll match Republicans blow for blow. Rhetoric alone separates them. Politics on either side of the aisle reflect flip sides of the same coin. They’re lawless, merciless, inhumane, anti-labor, anti-welfare, racist, neoliberal, elitist, pro-business, pro-war, and anti-populist.

A previous article said both parties believe America’s future depends on greater wealth disparity, ignoring public need, waging war on humanity, silencing truth, and cracking down on non-believers.

On November 6, voters get to choose between either wing of America’s money party. Duopoly power offers no alternative.

A Final Comment

All week, Tampa was on virtual lockdown. Hundreds of protesters showed up. Thousands of cops confronted them. Media scoundrels largely ignored them.

They marched on the RNC’s convention site. Occupy Tampa came out. Ahead of convention week, they noted an unemployment crisis, a do-nothing Congress, and other vital unaddressed issues. They complained about security protocol restrictions compromising their First Amendment rights.

Occupy the RNC was there. They’re unaffiliated. They stand in solidarity with Charlotte DNC protesters. They railed against both parties. The parties are tied to corporate rule, war, economic injustice, and freedom extinguishing policies.

America’s “entire system….is rooted in greed and power.” Exploitation and oppression are prioritized. They demand better like others. They facilitated logistics for protesters.

They published Tampa Principles. They support political diversity within their struggle for social, economic, and environmental justice. They’re committed to treating everyone with respect.

They oppose repressing dissent, surveillance, infiltration, disruption, police brutality, and restrictive “free speech zones” far from convention activities. They united for change not possible without sustained commitment.

Code Pink came out in force. During Romney’s speech, their members stood up chanting and unfurling banners saying “People over Profits.” “Democracy is not a business.”

They interrupted Ryan’s speech. They demanded women’s rights, control over their own bodies, and healthcare, not warfare.

They stormed the streets and convention site day and night. They delivered messages saying end wars and get money out of politics. They explained America’s broken electoral system. What’s the point of kicking out bums for new ones.

Dressed as pink police, they staged mock citizens’ arrests at every Condi Rice event. At a pro-Israeli one, they denounced its illegal occupation. They spoke out against war on Iran. With barely a chance to exhale, they’re off for Charlotte and more demonstrations.

Others in Washington shut down a busy intersection as Romney was about to accept his party’s nomination. They chose a spot known for activism.

They protested his politics of the rich. They held signs saying “Stop the Romney economy.” “We are here to protest Romney’s nomination.” People need to hear disenfranchised voices.

Others must lend support. The only solution is world revolution. Change comes only from the bottom up. It’s time to challenge the beast and slay it.

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays 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   

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




We Are Writing the Epilogue to the World We Knew

Seas of death

Intro by Jenelle Green     1 September 2012
While politicians fiddle, the world burns. While the press plays he-said, she-said, the ice melts, the seas rise.  In 1990 we could have averted this disaster and saved money doing it. As late as 2010 we still had a shot at avoiding it. But now, the die is cast, the future foretold. What follows will be an epilogue to civilization, as we knew it.

Imagine a world where vast regions of an acidic ocean are dominated by jellyfish. A world where tuna, salmon, halibut swordfish, crabs, shellfish, shrimp and the rest of the seafood we take for granted – the primary source of protein for more than a billion people – is virtually gone. Oh, and that might come with a side of oxygen depletion. You know, the stuff we breathe. Think of it as planetary COPD.

So yeah, Hell is coming, but it’s coming a lot faster than any predictions you’ve see so far from the scientific community.

Now, as we’re closing the book on civilization as we know it, yes, let’s talk about how we can increase the production and use fossil fuels; let’s serve up divisiveness, hate and fear at a time when unity and courage are needed; let’s get guns into the hands of every possible frightened and hate-filled person so we can up the ante on the chaos to come; let’s talk about gutting government – the only force capable of mounting a coherent response to this unfolding tragedy.

That’s the real Republican platform.

Democrats? They don’t even have a platform. To the extent they do, it seems to be “We’re not quite as bad as them.”

And the press? They’re busy hammering away at the Epilogue.
__________________________________________

We Are Writing the Epilogue to the World We Knew
by John Atcheson
The data continue to roll in, and they are telling us we are in the process of bringing an end to the world we evolved in, and creating a new, harsher world. We will be forced to devote more and more of our resources trying to adapt to this new world, and less on development.

While politicians fiddle, the world burns.  While the press plays he-said, she-said, the ice melts, the seas rise.

In 1990 we could have averted this disaster and saved money doing it. As late as 2010 we still had a shot at avoiding it.  But now, the die is cast, the future foretold.  What follows will be an epilogue to civilization, as we knew it.

Hyperbole?  Let’s look at the facts.

Arctic sea ice hits lowest extent ever measured (and it’s still melting) – check.

Hottest winter, spring, summer, year, decade ever measured – check.

Most extensive drought in 50 fifty years, and getting worse – check.

Worst floods in recorded history – check.

Hottest seas in eons – check.

Most acidic oceans ever measured – check.

Most greenhouse gasses released in a single year – check.

Highest sea levels since Pleistocene – check.

Most permafrost melted (with record releases of methane) ever measured – check.

Massive crop failures and record high food prices – check.

Most severe weather events ever recorded – check.

Meanwhile, in Tampa, the fossil fuel funded Republican Party is doubling down on climate denial, pushing greater use of oil, coal and gas, and trying to gut programs designed to save energy and use more renewables.  In short, they’re working diligently to hasten our demise.

And no, that’s not hyperbole, either.  Check out Romney’s energy plan.

What about the Democrats?  Well, except for one mention of climate change in an interview with Rolling Stone, the President has been mum on the topic, as has most of the rest of the Party.

How about the press?  Week after week of record heat and drought brought nary a mention of global warming.  It was as if people were dropping dead from bullets, but no one mentioned guns – oh wait.  Bad analogy.  That’s actually happening.  OK, how about, as if the nation were getting obese, but no one mentioned massive farm subsidies for fattening foods – Whoops.  That’s happening too.  Oh well, you get the idea.

And so the last chapter concludes.  The story ends.  Only the Epilogue remains.  The part where we reveal the fate of the characters.

But here’s the thing.  We are writing the story, but our children and their children’s children will inhabit the epilogue.

Imagine a world where vast regions of an acidic ocean are dominated by jellyfish.  A world where tuna, salmon, halibut swordfish, crabs, shellfish, shrimp and the rest of the seafood we take for granted – the primary source of protein for more than a billion people – is virtually gone.  Oh, and that might come with a side of oxygen depletion.   You know, the stuff we breathe.  Think of it as planetary COPD.

The land?  An unending series of drought, flood, fire and famine.  Throw in some disease, a little social chaos – with as many as billion climate change refugees  desperately swarming the planet by 2050.  Good thing the Republican platform reinforces everybody’s right to bear assault weapons.

The coasts will be their own special blend of hell on earth.  Ports will have to be abandoned.  The richer countries might get away with extraordinarily expensive dikes, levies, and pumps for a while, but eventually even they’ll have to be abandoned. Wicked storms will be routine.  International trade will become difficult and unreliable.  That is, assuming anyone has the social cohesion and political capacity to engage in global trade.

This is the epilogue we are writing. It is all but inevitable at this point. What Bill McKibben called, global warming’s terrifying new math.

But as terrifying as McKibben’s math is, it doesn’t even consider the increasingly likely horror of methane releases from permafrost and clathrates.  Methane just happens to be 72 times as strong a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide in the short term, and 25 times as strong over the long term.  And there are 1.5 trillion tons of carbon trapped in perma-frost and about the same amount in clathrates.

Not to get all techno-geek on you, but the people modeling the effects of this much carbon suggested it would be hell on Earth by 2100.  But in calculating the rate and amount of methane and carbon released from Arctic sources, they didn’t even add in the effect of accelerated warming from the permafrost releases themselves.  In other words, they looked at greenhouse gas emissions from conventional sources only, despite the fact that releases from methane feedbacks are equivalent to those from fossil fuels.

So yeah, Hell is coming, but it’s coming a lot faster than any predictions you’ve see so far from the scientific community.

Now, as we’re closing the book on civilization as we know it, yes, let’s talk about how we can increase the production and use fossil fuels; let’s serve up divisiveness, hate and fear at a time when unity and courage are needed; let’s get guns into the hands of every possible frightened and hate-filled person so we can up the ante on the chaos to come; let’s talk about gutting government – the only force capable of mounting a coherent response to this unfolding tragedy.

That’s the real Republican platform.

Democrats?  They don’t even have a platform. To the extent they do, it seems to be “We’re not quite as bad as them.”

And the press?  They’re busy hammering away at the Epilogue.

John Atcheson is author of the novel, A Being Darkly Wise, an eco-thriller and Book One of a Trilogy centered on global warming. His writing has appeared in The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the San Jose Mercury News and other major newspapers. Atcheson’s book reviews are featured on Climateprogess.org.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




Blum’s Anti-Empire Report: Withdrawing allegiance to the empire (9.1. 2012)

“We pledge allegiance to the republic for which America stands and not to its empire for which it is now suffering.”

More than 50 million dead and the destruction of most of Europe and Germany itself to get rid of this consciousness pestilence.

Louis XVI needed a revolution, Napoleon needed two historic military defeats, the Spanish Empire in the New World needed multiple revolutions, the Russian Czar needed a communist revolution, the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires needed World War I, the Third Reich needed World War II, the Land of the Rising Sun needed two atomic bombs, the Portuguese Empire in Africa needed a military coup at home. What will the American Empire need?

Perhaps losing the long-held admiration and support of one group of people after another, one country after another, as the empire’s wars, bombings, occupations, torture, and lies eat away at the facade of a beloved and legendary “America”; an empire unlike any other in history, that has intervened seriously and grievously, in war and in peace, in most countries on the planet, as it preached to the world that the American Way of Life was a shining example for all humanity and that America above all was needed to lead the world.

The Wikileaks documents and videos have provided one humiliation after another … lies exposed, political manipulations revealed, gross hypocrisies, murders in cold blood, … followed by the torture of Bradley Manning and the persecution of Julian Assange. Washington calls the revelations “threats to national security”, but the world can well see it’s simply plain old embarrassment. Manning’s defense attorneys have asked the military court on several occasions to specify the exact harm done to national security. The court has never given an answer. If hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, consider an empire embarrassed.

And we now have the international soap opera, L’Affaire Assange, starring Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, Ecuador, and Julian Assange. The United States’ neo-colonies of Sweden (an active warring member of NATO in all but name) and the United Kingdom (with its “special relationship” to the United States) know what is expected of them to earn a pat on the head from their Washington uncle. We can infer that Sweden has no legitimate reason to demand the extradition of Julian Assange from London from the fact that it has repeatedly refused offers to question Assange in the UK and repeatedly refused to explain why it has refused to do so.

The Brits, under “immense pressure from the Obama administration”, as reported to former British ambassador Craig Murray by the UK Foreign Office,2 threatened, in a letter to the Ecuadoran government, to raid the Ecuadoran embassy in London to snatch Assange — “[You] should be aware that there is a legal basis in the United Kingdom, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987, which would allow us to take action to arrest Mr. Assange in the existing facilities of the embassy”. Over the August 18 weekend the London police actually made their way into the building’s internal fire escape, coming within a few feet of Assange’s room, as he could hear. The law cited by the Brits is, of course, their own law, one not necessarily with any international standing.

The UK has now formally withdrawn its threat against the embassy, probably the result of much international indignation toward Her Majesty’s Government. The worldwide asylum system would fall apart if the nation granting the asylum were punished for it. In this violent world of terrorists, imperialists, and other dreadfuls it’s comforting to know that an old fashioned value like political asylum can still be honored.

A look back at some US and UK behavior in regard to embassies and political asylum is both interesting and revealing:

In 1954, when the United States overthrew the democratically-elected social democrat Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and replaced him with a military government headed by Col. Carlos Castillo Armas, many Guatemalans took refuge in foreign embassies. US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles insisted that the new Guatemalan government raid those embassies and arrest those individuals, whom he referred to as “communists”. But Castillo Armas refused to accede to Dulles’ wishes on this issue. Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer, in their comprehensive history of the coup,3 state:

“In the end, Castillo Armas disregarded Dulles’ suggestions. He himself was a product of the widespread belief in Latin America that embassy asylum and safe-conduct passes were a fair resolution to political conflicts. Virtually every politically active Guatemalan, including Castillo Armas, had sought political asylum in an embassy at one time or another and had obtained safe conduct from the government. Dulles’ suggestion for a ‘modification’ of the asylum doctrine was not even popular within the American Embassy.”

It should be noted that one of those who sought asylum in the Argentine Embassy in Guatemala was a 25-year-old Argentine doctor named Ernesto “Che” Guevara.

Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish judge who is one of Assange’s lawyers, came to international attention in 1998 when he indicted former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet while he was in England. But the British declined to send Pinochet to Spain to face the indictment, in effect giving him political asylum, and allowed this proverbial mass murderer and torturer to walk free and eventually return to Chile. Julian Assange, not charged or found guilty of anything, is a de facto prisoner of the UK; while the New York Times and the BBC and the numerous other media giants, who did just what Assange did by publishing Wikileaks articles and broadcasting Wikileaks videos, walk free.

This past April, Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng escaped house arrest in China and took refuge at the American Embassy in Beijing, sparking diplomatic tension between the two countries. But the “authoritarian” Chinese government did not threaten to enter the American Embassy to arrest Chen and soon allowed him to accept an American offer of safe passage to US soil. How will Julian Assange ever obtain safe passage to Ecuador?

In August 1989, while the Cold War still prevailed many East Germans crossed into fellow-Soviet-bloc state Czechoslovakia and were granted political asylum in the West German embassy. How would the United States — which has not said a word against the British threat to invade the Ecuadoran embassy — have reacted if the East Germans or the Czechs had raided the West German embassy or blocked the East Germans from leaving it? As matters turned out, West Germany took the refugee-seekers to West Germany by train without being impeded by the Soviet bloc. A few months later, the weaker “Evil Empire” collapsed, leaving the entire playing field, known as the world, to the stronger “Evil Empire”, which has been on belligerence autopilot ever since.

In 1986, after the French government refused the use of its air space to US warplanes headed for a bombing raid on Libya, the planes were forced to take another, longer route. When they reached Libya they bombed so close to the French embassy that the building was damaged and all communication links were disabled.4

In 1999, NATO (aka the USA), purposely (sic) bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.5

After Assange took refuge in the Ecuadoran embassy and was granted asylum by the South American country, the US State Department declared: “The United States is not a party to the 1954 OAS [Organization of American States] Convention on Diplomatic Asylum and does not recognize the concept of diplomatic asylum as a matter of international law.”6

Ecuador called for a meeting at the OAS of the foreign ministers of member countries to discuss the whole situation. The United States opposed the request. For Washington the issue was simple: The UK obeys international law and extradites Assange to Sweden. (And then, chuckle-chuckle, Sweden sends the bastard to us.) End of discussion. Washington did not want the issue blown up and prolonged any further. But of the 26 nations voting at the OAS only three voted against the meeting: The US, Canada, and Trinidad & Tobago; perhaps another example of what was mentioned above about a dying empire losing the long-held admiration and support of one country after another.

The price Ecuador may pay for its courage … Washington Post editorial, June 20, 2012:

On several occasions President Obama, when pressed to investigate Bush and Cheney for war crimes, has declared: “I prefer to look forward rather than backwards”. Picture a defendant before a judge asking to be found innocent on such grounds. It simply makes laws, law enforcement, crime, justice, and facts irrelevant. Picture Julian Assange before a military court in Virginia using this argument. Picture the reaction to this by Barack Obama, who has become the leading persecutor of whistleblowers in American history.

Since L’Affaire Assange captured world headlines the United States, as well as the United Kingdom, have on several occasions made statements about the deep-seated international obligation of nations to honor extradition requests from other nations. The United States, however, has a history of ignoring such requests, whether made formally or informally, for persons living in the US who are ideological allies. Here’s a partial sample from recent years:

Former Venezuelan president Carlos Andres Perez, whom the Venezuelan government demanded be turned over to stand trial for his role in suppressing riots in 1989. He died in 2010 in Miami. (Associated Press, December 27, 2010)

Former Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada fled to the United States in 2003 to avoid a trial for the death of about 60 people in La Paz during a military crackdown on demonstrators. In 2008, Bolivia formally served the US government with a request to extradite him back to Bolivia, which was not acceded to. (Associated Press, February 13, 2006; also see his Wikipedia entry)

In 2010, a US federal judge denied Argentina’s extradition request for former military officer Roberto Bravo, who was facing 16 murder charges stemming from a 1972 massacre of leftist guerrillas in his homeland. (Associated Press, November 2, 2010)

Luis Posada, a Cuban-born citizen of Venezuela, masterminded the bombing of a Cuban airline in 1976, killing 73 civilians. Inasmuch as part of the plotting took place in Venezuela, that government formally asked the United States for his extradition in 2005. But instead of extraditing him, the United States prosecuted him for minor immigration infractions that came to naught. Posada continues to live as a free man in the United States.

In 2007 German prosecutors issued arrest warrants for 13 suspected CIA operatives who had abducted German citizen Khaled el-Masri in 2003 and flown him to Afghanistan for interrogation (read torture). The CIA then realized they had kidnapped the wrong man and dumped el-Masri on the side of an Albanian road. Subsequently, the German Justice Minster announced that she would no longer request extradition, citing US refusal to arrest or hand over the agents. (The Guardian (London), January 7, 2011)

In November 2009 an Italian judge convicted a CIA Station Chief and 22 other Americans, all but one being CIA operatives, for kidnapping a Muslim cleric, Abu Omar, from the streets of Milan in 2003 and flying him to Egypt for the usual interrogation. All those convicted had left Italy by the time of the judge’s ruling and were thus tried in absentia. In Italy they are considered fugitives. Although there were verdicts, arrest warrants and extradition requests in the case, the Italian government refused to formally forward the requests to their close allies, the Americans; which, in any event, would of course have been futile. (Der Spiegel [Germany] online, December 17, 2010, based on a Wikileaks US cable)

The hidden, obvious, peculiar, fatal, omnipresent bias of American mainstream media concerning US foreign policy

There are more than 1,400 daily newspapers in the United States. Can you name a single paper, or a single TV network, that was unequivocally opposed to the American wars carried out against Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada, and Vietnam? Or even opposed to any two of these wars? How about one? (I’ve been asking this question for years and so far I’ve gotten only one answer — Someone told me that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer had unequivocally opposed the invasion of Iraq. Can anyone verify that or name another case?)

In 1968, six years into the Vietnam war, the Boston Globe surveyed the editorial positions of 39 leading US papers concerning the war and found that “none advocated a pull-out”.7

Now, can you name an American daily newspaper or TV network that more or less gives any support to any US government ODE (Officially Designated Enemy)? Like Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Fidel or Raul Castro of Cuba, Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Rafael Correa of Ecuador (even before the current Assange matter), or Evo Morales of Bolivia? I mean that presents the ODE’s point of view in a reasonably fair manner most of the time? Or any ODE of the recent past like Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia, Moammar Gaddafi of Libya, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, or Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti?

Who in the mainstream media supports Hamas of Gaza? Or Hezbollah of Lebanon?

Who in the mainstream media is outspokenly critical of Israel’s domestic or foreign policies? And keeps his/her job?

Who in the mainstream media treats Julian Assange or Bradley Manning as the heroes they are?

And this same mainstream media tell us that Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, et al. do not have a real opposition media.

The ideology of the American mainstream media is the belief that they don’t have any ideology; they are instead what they call “objective”.

It’s been said that the political spectrum concerning US foreign policy in the America mainstream media “runs the gamut from A to B.”

Long before the Soviet Union broke up, a group of Russian writers touring the United States were astonished to find, after reading the newspapers and watching television, that almost all the opinions on all the vital issues were the same. “In our country,” said one of them, “to get that result we have a dictatorship. We imprison people. We tear out their fingernails. Here you have none of that. How do you do it? What’s the secret?”8

On October 8, 2001, the second day of the US bombing of Afghanistan, the transmitters for the Taliban government’s Radio Shari were bombed and shortly after this the US bombed some 20 regional radio sites. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended the targeting of these facilities, saying: “Naturally, they cannot be considered to be free media outlets. They are mouthpieces of the Taliban and those harboring terrorists.”9

Notes
Sam Smith, editor of the Progressive Review ↩
Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala (1982), pp.222-3 ↩
April 15, 1986 ↩

Boston Globe, February 18, 1968, p.2-A ↩
John Pilger, New Statesman (London), February 19, 2001 ↩
Index on Censorship (London), October 18, 2001 ↩

William Blum is the author of:

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

 




The Climate Bites Back

DAVID SIROTA, Creators.com
As a wildfire/flash flood cycle ravages the American heartland, “the climate bites back” may be the 21st century’s karmic rejoinder to the hysterical screams of “freedom!” and “property rights!” when it comes to urban sprawl.

No doubt, we’ve long understood the invisible dangers of such sprawl. For years, we’ve been warned by researchers of the direct connections between unplanned and gluttonous construction projects and human-created carbon emissions. We’ve been told specifically that suburbanization’s spread of population into ever-larger swaths of wilderness inherently results in more roads, more cars, more carbon emissions, more climate change — and thus, more chances for nature-related disasters.

But in go-go America, these scientific truisms were no match for McMansion fantasies. As coastal folk headed to the Rocky Mountain frontier with visions of big-but-inexpensive castles far away from the inner city, the term “zoning” became an even more despised epithet than it already had been in cowboy country. Rangeland and foothill frontiers subsequently became expansive low-density subdivisions, and carbon-belching SUVs chugged onto new roads being built farther and farther away from the urban core. That is, farther and farther into what the federal government calls the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and what fire experts call the dangerous “red zone.”

The numbers are stark: According to the Denver Post, between 1990 and 2000, 40 percent of all homes built in the nation were built in the WUI — and “a Colorado State University analysis expects a 300 percent increase in WUI acreage in the next couple decades.” In the last two decades in fire-scorched Colorado alone, I-News Network reports that “a quarter million people have moved into red zones,” meaning that today “one of every four Colorado homes is in a red zone.”

As noted, the super-sized American Dream that came out of 1980s and 1990s mythology explains much of this ongoing homebuyer support for sprawl.

But public policy is also actively encouraging the expansion.

At the municipal level, weak building codes and zoning regulations often do not mandate what’s necessary to prevent — or mitigate — fires that all taxpayers then have to pay to put out. At the national level, Colorado Public Radio, citing findings from the watchdog Headwaters Economics, reports that federal funding formulas mean “local governments have little (incentive) to stop zoning mountain areas for more housing more housing when they know the federal government will come in and pay most wildfire suppression costs when the blazes spark.” Meanwhile, more homeowners living in wilderness areas means more preemptive fire suppression, which leaves more underbrush on the forest floor — underbrush that becomes extra fuel when a conflagration eventually ignites.

Ultimately, just like the federal flood insurance program was creating incentives for construction in flood areas, America is creating incentives for localities to permit development in fire red zones and for homeowners to avoid investing in expensive fire-mitigation planning. Worse, these incentives are being created at precisely the moment when climate change is making floods and fires bigger than ever.

Fortunately, after Hurricane Katrina and other weather-related cataclysms, the most recent federal transportation bill included some modest steps to reform the flood program. That is a welcome — if tacit — admission that the consequences of climate change can no longer be ignored. The climate will, indeed, bite back.

Whether living near an ocean or a forest, that’s a motto all homeowners will have to learn. It’s a lesson reminding us that Mother Nature doesn’t care about ideological notions of “frontier freedom” or “property rights.”

Having ignored that lesson for too long, we now face consequences. Should McMansion dreams, weak zoning laws, perverse federal policies and climate change denialism collectively lead us to pretend such consequences don’t exist, the inevitable result will be more destruction.

Let’s keep this award-winning site going!

Yes, audiences applaud us. But do you?If yes, then buy us a beer. The wingnuts are falling over each other to make donations…to their causes. We, on the other hand, take our left media—the only media that speak for us— for granted. Don’t join that parade, and give today. Every dollar counts.
Use the DONATE button below or on the sidebar. And do the right thing. Even once a year.

Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.