WTO Talks Collapse Amidst Developing Countries' Reluctance to Sacrifice Food Security

Last Minute Attempt to Push Through a WTO Expansion "Deal" Fails

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Despite trade ministers' hopes for a last-minute deal, World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations collapsed yet again today, and observers at the talks in Geneva say that the failure is not surprising, given the reluctance of India and other developing nations to sacrifice food security measures in the wake of the recent global spike in food prices.

Given President Bush's lame duck status, negotiators had been called to Geneva to try to push through a last-minute deal before Bush left office. Because negotiators need about six months after a deal on the major issues to complete the details of the agreement, this possibility has now evaporated.

"Given what's been on the table, no deal is better than a bad deal. A Doha conclusion would have had major negative impacts for workers and farmers in developing countries. The tariff cuts demanded of developing countries would have caused massive job loss, and countries would have lost the ability to protect farmers from dumping, further impoverishing millions on the verge of survival," said Deborah James, Director of International Programs for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who has been observing the talks in Geneva.

It is unclear why negotiations were proceeding, given the fact that the U.S. delegation does not have a mandate to conclude negotiations, as made clear by a letter from Senators Feingold and Byrd sent to President Bush last week. In addition, cuts in subsidies agreed to by the U.S. are also incompatible with the new U.S. Farm Bill passed by Congress, and over-riding a veto by President Bush.

Many developing nations not invited to participate in the exclusive "Green Room" meetings in Geneva this past week are likely to continue strong opposition to a deal in the midst of a global economic downturn and increasing concerns over food security.

At a time when many countries are seeking to reduce dependence on troubled economies in the U.S. and Europe, and as fears of a global recession loom, many nations are questioning the development gains to be achieved from trade liberalization. The projected gains from the Doha Round offer developing countries very little in potential gains. According to World Bank modeling, developing country benefits would be just 16 percent of total world gains, or 0.16 per cent of GDP. This works out to less than a penny per day per capita in the developing world. Poverty reduction - which in itself would be very limited - would reach only 2.5 million people.[1] These projections do not include many of the costs of implementing the Doha Round, which UNCTAD estimates to be as much as four times the projected gains.

The Doha Round could also increase world prices for food.[2] Since most developing countries are net food importers, the recent increase in food prices has led some developing country governments to reconsider food security mechanisms such as tariffs and domestic subsidies, which the WTO seeks to reduce. A number of countries have also imposed restrictions on exports, in response to the food crisis.

"There just hasn't been much to gain for developing countries in this round - or for that matter, the majority of people even in the rich countries," said CEPR Co-Director and economist, Mark Weisbrot. "The attempts by the rich countries to reduce policy space for developing countries in manufacturing are widely seen as 'kicking away the ladder' that rich countries like the United States used when they were developing countries.

"The whole process of subordinating national policy to special commercial interests - whether in agriculture, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals (one of the most powerful interests and gainers in the WTO), or the financial sector - has gone way too far. Growth and development in most countries has been hurt, and they are pushing back. In the United States, too, rising inequality and now an economic downturn have provoked a backlash."

Throughout the negotiations, some developing nations promoted trade policies and objectives at odds with the Doha Round's objectives of opening developing country markets, including commitments to food sovereignty and defending policy space for alternative forms of economic development.

In a written statement, Bolivian president Evo Morales said that, "The WTO negotiations have turned into a fight by developed countries to open markets in developing countries to favor their big companies."

[1] Kevin P. Gallagher and Timothy A. Wise, "Back to the Drawing Board: No Basis for Concluding the Doha Round of Negotiations". Research and Information System for Developing Countries Issue Brief. No. 36, April 2008.
[2] Sandra Polaski, "Winners and Losers: Impact of the Doha Round on Developing Countries". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 2006.

--CEPR press release, July 29, 2008

The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. CEPR's Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, Professor and Director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fears-of-a-shutdown-2008-07-30.html

Fears of a shutdown

By Mike Soraghan and Manu Raju

Posted: 07/30/08 07:56 PM [ET]

The prospect of a September government shutdown loomed over the Capitol on Wednesday as the two parties fought over rising energy prices. It’s a fight some members of either party are willing to have, but others worry about who will get blamed for a repeat of the 1995 shutdown that President Clinton pinned on a Republican Congress. Lawmakers and staff are starting to talk not just about how to avoid such a repeat, but also about who would gain and lose November election votes if it happened. “The Democrats will probably want to play chicken,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). Senate Republicans debated strategy at a party lunch Wednesday, discussing whether they should block a continuing resolution (CR) that must pass in September if the government is to continue functioning, according to lawmakers who attended. The moratorium on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) has been renewed annually for decades in spending bills by Republican and Democratic presidents and Congresses. Since Democratic leaders this year are not planning to pass most of the individual spending bills, Congress will have to pass a CR to keep government functioning past Sept. 30. Usually, such resolutions pass easily. But this year, soaring gas prices have changed the political calculus and Republicans have decided the issue might rescue them at the polls. Republican leaders say Congress should not leave for the August recess without taking a vote on drilling. Republicans would likely have to make the first move by filibustering a bill, or by President Bush vetoing a spending bill. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said he doesn’t think the GOP would go through with it. “I believe the Republican Party would be risking even more wrath of the American people than they’ve gotten so far,” said Van Hollen, who’s in charge of electing more Democratic House members this fall. “I think the people on the Republican side will pull back.” The White House also brushed off the possibility of a shutdown, emphasizing that it’s Democrats who control whether there’s a vote on offshore drilling. “We’ll try to be hopeful that Democrats will do their job by passing appropriations bills and do what the American people want them to do by allowing drilling, and try not to speculate on what might happen if they fail on both of those,” said White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore. Bush rescinded the executive order banning offshore drilling, but Congress must also act to open the waters to exploration. Bush on Wednesday again called on Congress to lift the moratorium. But he’s never threatened a veto of a bill with the moratorium included in it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime opponent of offshore drilling, has called the notion that expanded drilling would ease prices at the pump a “hoax.”

Who the hell /hasn't/ figured out that if we use offshore drilling that it won't affect gas prices and it's all about putting money into the coffers of the corporations?

Housing Bailout Bill

WATCH THIS



http://current.com/items/89132048_housing_bailout_bill_another_800_billion_gift_from_the_taxpayer_to_wall_street

Cuban Missile Crisis: Version 2.0 - Now with more douchebaggery!

In 1962 Russia place missiles in Cuba stating that they were only to add to Cuba's defense. (Admittedly not entirely unwarranted as the United States had attempted a coup d'tat on the Cuban government not too long before during the Bay of Pigs incident.) This was in response to the United States placing nuclear capable missiles in Turkey, and was one of times during the Cold War that there was a distinct fear of nuclear warfare.

Under the authority entrusted to me by the Constitution as endorse by the resolution of Congress:

It shall be the policy of this nation that any launch from Cuba on any nation in the western hemisphere will be consisted an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States requiring a full retaliatory response on the Soviet Union

I call on Chairman Khrushchev to halt and eliminate this clandestine reckless and provocative threat to world peace and the stable relationship between our two nations. I call on him further to abandon course of world domination and adjoin in a historic effort to end the perilous arms race and to transform the history of man

Part of the problem was also the presence of missiles in Turkey, which needless to say made the Russians a bit unhappy.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world had ever come to nuclear war. In order to abate this crisis the United States pulled the missiles out of Turkey, and Khrushchev dismantled the nukes in Cuba.

Now, fast forward about fifty years. So, sometime around the 14th of this month the US was told by Russia that if they continued trying to place a missile shield in the Czech Republic that Russia would respond with force. In a Russian newspaper called the Kremlin (considered very close to the government of Russia but the Russian administration denies that their hands are tied to the story), Russia contemplates using Cuba as a veritable staging ground for nuclear missiles.

The United States claims that the reason that they want to have a Star Wars defense stationed in the Czech Republic is protection from Iran and their nuclear capabilities, it's also been proven long before this month that Iran simply does not have nuclear capabilities. Iran stopped uranium enrichment four years ago.

If the United States discontinues the Star Wars program, what effect will that have for the possibility of war with Iran? Why was this administration choosing now of all times to build it up, and why did Russia step in to stop it?



History, it seems, is a tool just sharp enough for this administration to impale itself on.

Ja, wir können

So, Barack Obama gave his big speech today in Berlin. This aroused memories for many of the Cold War-era speeches given there by both Presidents Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy. ABCNews has the scoop on the transcript (in about 4 pages), if you are like me and you don't have TV, or you just want to skip the punditry:

• http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5442292&page=1

No, I haven't read it yet. I figured I'd get the link/news up first. A good review probably demands its own entry anyhow.

I was expecting to post McCain's transcript as well later on, but it seems that flying out to a gulf oil rig during hurricane season turned out to not be the brilliant idea that he thought it would be. I actually think that this is probably better for his image anyhow: He's trying to distance himself from Big Oil and the Bush administration. It does absolutely no favors to that image to give a speech to a privileged selection of folk that have been selected to appear on a giant oil well with him.

Here's an idea, Sen. McCain: fly out to West Texas and give an energy independence speech against the backdrop of the Rocky Mountains and the numerous windmill generators out there. Organize bussing to get an audience out there to listen. Then maybe, just maybe, I will actually believe that you are serious.

Additionally, another happening today that should bring up nostalgic memories of the Cold War (for those of us lucky to remember any of it):

• Rumors that Russia plans to station nuclear bombers in Cuba, in response to our EU missle shield

As of now, however, Russia has not confirmed these rumors, and some officials have denied their validity. However, I find it an interesting coincidence that the Obama speech happened and this missle story broke on the same day.

For those interested, the title is "Yes We Can" run through the German translator at google.com.

I found out I was wiretapped: Some reflections

Here's the list of people who were illegally wiretapped.

I'm #1 on page six.

Apparently, they were recording my calls! Or at least one of them. I don't understand why, or how. I have AT&T and haven't ever called outside of the country that I can think of (it's really expensive).

Other friends of mine are also on the list.

I knew that Obama's vote was wrong before I knew I was illegally wiretapped.

But this morning, I called the ACLU to see what my legal rights were now, and because of Obama's vote (and others) for telecom immunity, I now have no legal recourse. I can't do anything about it. Nothing. They broke the law, my privacy was violated, and they're getting away with it.

Now that this affects me personally, and knowing that my right to recourse has been taken from me by Obama, I find it unconscionable to support Obama.

It strikes me as bizzare that friends of mine are saying to me, "Asher, I support your fight here, but I support Obama still. I totally agree with you though, his FISA vote was wrong."

From my perspective, I feel totally violated, and these shows of support for me mingled with shows of support for Obama totally baffle me.

How can people support him? It's like I was robbed, and people are saying, "yeah, it sucks that you were robbed, but you know, that guy who robbed you is cool, so I'm going to hang at his place for a party tonight."

People who are saying they support Obama but also support my fight against the FISA decision are liars. They've turned their backs on me, and everybody else who has had their privacy violated.

I have no faith in the Left-wing/progressive movement anymore. They're all so caught up in the Obama love-fest that they just don't realize what a terrible politician he really is.

The Left Wing is just as guilty of the same starry-eyed fervor that swept Bush into office. They will lie to themselves to fend off the truths that show how he is not what they think he is.

They believe whole heartedly in their candidate, they won't let facts get in the way.

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama is going to win this next election. We are going to see four more years of a Democratic George W Bush.

The Democratic Party is not an opposition party.
The Voters won't notice that they're being fed the same bull pie from both parties.
And for their lack of observation, they will get what they deserve.

I just found out that FISA affects me directly- I WAS WIRETAPPED

So I'm super, ultra, mega, pissed at Obama right now.

I am on the list of Maine residents who were illegally wiretapped by Verizon:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/220733/Verizon-Wiretapping-PUC-All-Names

I shit you not! Right there #1 on page 6!

The funny thing is, I am not only not a terrorist, but I also haven't placed any calls outside of the USA (it's too damned expensive.)

The NSA/FISA issue is obvious on it's face, but when it affects you personally, it takes you to a whole new level.

But then, all politics is personal right?

I called the MCLU, and because of the FISA vote, I currently have no rights to challenge this.

F**K YOU AND YOUR "COMPROMISE" Mr OBAMA.

This does it for me. Obama is a weak-willed traitor to the Constitution. I have no reason to beleive him when he takes his oath of office to protect and uphold the constitution-- his vote on FISA negates it fully.

It's sealed beyond a question of a doubt at this point-- I'm voting for Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney.

Nickelodeon is Brain washing our Kids!

So the other day I was just hanging out watching a little TV. (After seeing this I remember why I usually stick to CSPAN.) I flipped on Nickelodeon just to see what crappy ass cartoons they are showing now days. (Long live Captain Planet and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!) Nickelodeon is now doing this whole "Kids Pick the President" thing.

Well this song came on talking about how we have real democracy in the USA.



Please tell me you are at least slightly disturbed.

After watching that, all I could think is, "I wonder how much the US Government paid Nickelodeon to do this?"

It is good for our kids to want to get involved, but when they are being fed this bullshit that we are "living large" because we have a "democracy" I find that kind of reminiscent of brain washing. It is feeding and brain washing our kids to believe we live in this utopian society. Now don't get me wrong, there are countries up shit's creek without a paddle, far worse than we are. But -COME ON-!!

Why isn't Nickelodeon singing about important things like the Peak Oil Crisis or maybe how we need to pull out of Iraq -now-, rather than how we can live large and be comfortable because our "rights" could never be taken way. You are in charge because you vote.

All I have to say to that is....LIES!

Here is my video response I posted on youtube. Perhaps you all would like to join in with my little challenge.



And remember kids, it's in our Constitution that, it is not only our right, but our responsibility as American citizens, to question an invasive governmental action which clearly undermines our Constitutional rights. Perhaps a song about this would be better?

Iraq withdraw timetable set

American troops could only be in Iraq so long as the Iraq government was allowing them, otherwise the US would be considered (more so) an occupying force, legally, by the UN. Initially when Iraq stated that they no longer wanted the US there it was rejected by the United States. Then, quietly, Bush rescinded.

Unpublished by much of the mainstream media I finally found a lone article on this written by the NY times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Bush, in a Shift, Accepts Concept of Iraq Timeline
Ashley Gilbertson for The New York Times

Soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division patrolled the town of Nasr Wa Salam, between Baghdad and Falluja, on Friday.


Article Tools Sponsored By
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: July 19, 2008

HOUSTON — President Bush agreed to “a general time horizon” for withdrawing American troops in Iraq, the White House announced Friday, in a concession that reflected both progress in stabilizing Iraq and the depth of political opposition to an open-ended military presence in Iraq and at home.

Mr. Bush, who has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals as dangerous, agreed to at least a notional one as part of the administration’s efforts to negotiate the terms for an American military presence in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

The agreement, announced in coordinated statements released Friday by the White House and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, reflected a significant shift in the war in Iraq. More than five years after the conflict began with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the American military presence now depends significantly, if not completely, on Iraqi acquiescence.

The White House offered no specifics about how far off any “time horizon” would be, with officials saying details remained to be negotiated. Any dates cited in an agreement would be cast as goals for handing responsibility to Iraqis, and not specifically for reducing American troops, said a White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe.

But the White House statement said that the two leaders “agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.”

The announcement could alter the American political debate over the war in Iraq and how best to end it now that even Mr. Bush is willing to speak of an end to the American presence. It came on the eve of a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, who has vowed to pursue a strict phased timetable for withdrawing most combat troops from Iraq over 16 months beginning next year. He has cited Iraq’s eagerness for a timetable as support for his strategy.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, called the announcement “a step in the right direction,” but derided what he called the vagueness of the White House commitment. Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, praised the agreement as evidence that Mr. Bush’s strategy of sending additional forces last year had worked and he sought to use it as a cudgel against Mr. Obama.

“An artificial timetable based on political expediency would have led to disaster and could still turn success into defeat,” Mr. McCain said.

Mr. Bush and his aides, traveling in Tucson and Houston to attend Republican fund-raisers, insisted again that the administration was not accepting any timetable for withdrawing American forces, which now total roughly 140,000. But the administration has faced increasing resistance from a newly confident Iraq, where some officials have said publicly that Iraq can take charge of much of its security by 2009, and be able to operate without American help by 2012.

Under pressure from political parties wanting a diminishing American role, Mr. Maliki began demanding something in the agreement that would make it clear that American troops were on the way out. Iraq’s statement on Friday, reflecting those internal sensitivities, referred more specifically than the American version to “a time frame for the complete transfer of the security responsibilities to the hands of the Iraqi security as preface to decrease the number of the American forces and withdraw them later from Iraq.”

In Baghdad, a member of Mr. Maliki’s Dawa Party, Ali al-Adeeb, said the withdrawal of American and other foreign forces was fundamental to an accord. “The Iraqi government considers the determination of a specific date for the withdrawal of foreign forces an important issue to deal with,” he said. “I don’t know what the American side thinks, but we consider it the core of the subject.”

Mr. Adeeb suggested that a final agreement was not imminent, but White House aides said they were confident one would be reached by the end of the month. “We’re converging on an agreement,” an administration official said, noting that negotiators continued to hammer out provisions involving security matters. Those include command of military operations, legal immunities for civilian contractors and the authority to detain prisoners.

On the prospect of dates for American withdrawals, Mr. Johndroe, the White House spokesman, said that the agreement would not prescribe American troop levels over time, but rather reflect a transition to Iraqi command. “The agreement will look at goal dates for transition of responsibilities and missions,” Mr. Johndroe said in an e-mail message. “The focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on what troop levels will be.”

The agreement that American and Iraqi negotiators are now completing is more modest than the long-term strategic pact that Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki pledged last November to negotiate to replace the United Nations mandate at the end of this year.

The administration dropped a promise in that initial agreement to provide long-term security for Iraq, something that would require a treaty and Congressional approval. It has also backed off other demands for sweeping powers to continue military operations there indefinitely.

The negotiations have been bogged down by issues involving the laws governing American troops, diplomats and civilian contractors, as well as details like customs duties and drivers’ licenses for American soldiers.

Administration officials now say that they are negotiating an agreement that would establish the legal authority for American commanders to conduct combat operations, control airspace and detain Iraqi prisoners, while deferring the more complicated details of a “status of forces agreement” to the next administration. The United States has such agreements that govern its military presence in Germany, South Korea and some other nations. Some Bush administration officials had envisioned concluding a similar accord with Iraq before Mr. Bush left office.

Friday’s statements noted the gradual handover of security to Iraqi forces, now complete in 10 of Iraq’s 18 provinces, though not in the most volatile ones, where American and Iraqi troops continue to wage war with insurgents. The statements suggested that the final agreement could link the complete transition of control in the remaining provinces to the withdrawal of American forces — a timetable, though, without specific dates.

The statements also referred to the withdrawal this month of the last of five additional combat brigades that Mr. Bush ordered to Iraq last year. The American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, is now reviewing the possibility of withdrawing more beginning in September.

On Wednesday, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said that he hoped that more brigades could come out; some administration and military officials have previously indicated that as many as 3 of the remaining 15 brigades could begin to withdraw by next year.

In Congress, even a more modest agreement with the Iraqis over the American military presence still faces opposition.

Representative Bill Delahunt, a Democrat from Massachusetts who has held hearings on the legality of the agreement the administration is seeking, said that “a timetable with specific dates is critical,” calling the White House’s time horizon “very vague and nebulous.”

He welcomed the pending agreement as “far less grandiose than what was initially articulated,” but said he remained concerned about the legal authority allowing American military operations in Iraq once the United Nations mandate expired on Dec. 31 of this year.

Well... Not the way that I expected us to withdraw, but happy news none the less.

They're our brothers, they're our sisters, we support the war resisters.

During Vietnam 50,000 US draft dodgers and deserters fled to Canada, making it the largest upwards immigration of the US since the Revolutionary war. During the war Canada had one of the most open immigration policies in the world. Showing up with a job offer in Canada would grant a landed immigrant status on the spot. In addition people could also apply for immigrant status after arriving. In 1969, Pierre Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, instructed immigration authorities were not to discriminate against applicants who may not have fulfilled their military obligations in other countries, allowing both US war resisters and Czechoslovakian deserters to find refuge.

Over time the job market tightened and immigration is much more restricted. Immigrants need to apply and wait outside of Canada, encumbering those running from military service.

Refugee status, the other alternative, is unlikely to be granted to US residents because Canada considers it a democracy and closest ally. That said, war objectors who come to Canada will automatically receive protection, and will be allowed to stay until the claim is heard (months to years).

Canada was crucial in the effort to resist the war during Vietnam, and has never sent back a war resister until now. This case changes that.

The lawsuit filed calls into question the legality of the war, the crimes committed by the administration in charge, and the lies that lead the US into war.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080714.wwardeserter0714/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20080714.wwardeserter0714&67

Why McCain Won't Know How to Win Wars

Yesterday, in Albuquerque, NM, McCain addressed a large crowd claiming that "I know how to win wars"[1].

Now, let's just take a step back and dissect this comment a bit. How can an individual actually know, without a doubt how to "win wars". We don't even need to delve into the number of operators that managed to make the first Gulf War or the Kosovo War successes to see the hubris in such a statement. The idea that wars themselves are so homogeneous that a single strategy can even be applied in all cases is laughable at best. History tells us differently, as not even the strategy used to fight the first Gulf War was sufficient to succeed in the second. Additionally, this comment really smells of Eau d'War-mongering. It brings up recollections of George W. Bush's Feb. 8 2004 proclamation:

I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.[2]

So, following the stump speech by McCain even further, he reveals that the strategy for winning in Afghanistan is the strategy we just used in Iraq. He is making the failed assumption that Bush made when leading us into Iraq: that these two wars are relatively homogeneous. Additionally, all credit does not deserve to go squarely to "The Surge". Rather, the Iraqis themselves deserve quite a bit of credit for making this happen. Faced with the prospect of a tri-sected Iraqi nation, they did eventually come together and work internally to end much of the sectarian infighting that exploded following the toppling of the Baath regime. Make no mistake about it: Iraq was in a state of civil war, with all three major groups warring over who gets what, leadership of each group saw that it was in their interests to cooperate against sectarian fringe militias for the common good.

Iraq, also, is quite an urbanized and westernized society. It has a considerable amount in common with Europe and the USA in regards to population distribution and developed infrastructure. Iraq is a country consisting of numerous compact cities, with population concentrated in cities and along roadways[3]. In Iraq, we were fighting to maintain control of the cities and the roadways. It was constantly a weighing of which places to focus the greatest number of troops in, and where to take new troops from. One of the reasons for the surge appearing to work is that, with more soldiers on the ground and more money we were able to secure more roadways and cities for the majority of Iraqis to safely run their daily lives. When fighting breaks out in Basra, the forces on the ground can know about it through electronic communications, and can reach it, typically, by driving there.

In Afghanistan, these population and development models are completely turned upside-down. There are two "big cities" in Afghanistan, and then huge swaths of land with medium-density population[4]. A majority of the Afghan population don't live lives that revolve around urban areas and urban economies. This is especially true in the north of the country, where there are a considerable amount of smaller cities and towns surrounded by large, distributed settlements of Afghans. The "secure the roads and cities" approach is not going to work here. It is less likely that forces will be able to be moved across the country freely as they are in Iraq. Any forces we deploy for the purpose of securing an area will likely have to remain long after major fighting is complete, and spend considerable time combing the countryside. Considerable other forces will need to be deployed to secure other large sections of the country. To achieve the same sort of "security" that we get in Iraq, we'll likely need to deploy many more forces per-capita in Afghanistan than we did in Iraq.

But the more chilling conclusion that I read into McCain's speech is the same I've got from Bush's "War President" policy. Both have taken the attitude that winning constitutes "killing all the Bad Guys". This oversimplification seriously undermines what we (and the UN) have really set out to accomplish with these war missions. In addition, it reinforces the approach that we'll win the war by fighting, and solely by fighting. True, if we can get enough soldiers on the ground and enough money and arms into the country we can probably militarily defeat just about any enemy. But the social and economic costs of this approach are so high that we rarely exercise it in practice, we just can't afford to do it. The concept missed by McCain, Bush, and other Surge-Mongers is that you need an exit plan and you really need a reconstruction plan. There needs to be much less talk about how we'll "defeat our enemies" and "hunt down bin Ladin", and more planning for what a rebuilt Afghanistan looks like, and how it fits into the world in general. One of the reasons that Afghanistan has not really progressed is that the population there hasn't been provided with very many new opportunities, aside from expanded personal liberties. The Afghan people need a new deal in social and economic revolution, not in military occupation. Winning the gun-battles is a meager portion of the work that needs to be done to fix this country.

Unfortunately, while McCain continues to argue that a draw-down of combat troops is a "losing strategy", he doesn't provide many answers to how combat troops serve a "winning strategy". He is much more focused on killing off al-Quaeda networks and Taliban insurgents, while being coldly silent on a solution for the non-military part of the war. This is the same policy blunder that evolved into the Iraqi civil war that has lasted for 5 years now. What McCain neglects to tell the people is that Obama solely advocates a withdrawl of "combat troops" and "combat operations", while leaving an international presence for policing and rebuilding (non-combat) purposes. This would still involve soldiers who still can fight insurgency when necessary, but also reallocates many combat soldiers to Afghanistan while replacing them with many more aid and engineering workers in Iraq, to rebuild the country. You can read this now, it is on his website. A visit to McCain's website focuses on our goal being primarily militaristic, and discusses nothing about allocation of our forces for rebuilding purposes. In fact, McCain even goes on to say that one of our key mission objectives is "to secure our interests there." Sadly, it doesn't appear that McCain or the Republican Party at large has learned much about what went wrong in Iraq, and they promote a stillborn plan for the war in Afghanistan.

The problem is that Bush and McCain don't see a war that has gone on much longer than proposed and at a much greater cost of money and life than was planned upon as being a failure. To both of them, as long as we're still there fighting, "it hasn't been lost yet". Unfortunately, for them, a success is defined by a successful execution of a plan. Since 2005, we've only had two potential outcomes to the war in Iraq:

• Fail, but remain to clean up our mess
  
• Fail, then leave it for the Iraqis to clean up
  

The moment that the original invasion plan failed miserably was when the war was lost. If we had never entered Iraq, we might be celebrating the anniversary of a liberated Afghanistan, and even the capture of Osama bin Laden. Saddam Hussein would still be ruling Iraq, and still be under sanctions. Just like Castro in Cuba, just like Ahmadinejad in Iran, just like the military junta in Myanmar, and on, and on, and on....

The simplifications and generalizations made by McCain on this matter are dis-informative, at best, and harmful, at worst. Either one of these candidates will inherit a war, it is how they plan to close it that is of utmost importance.

---

1. McCain: 'I Know How to Win Wars'
   
2. Bush Interview Transcript: Feb 8, 2004
3. Population Density Map of Iraq
   
4. Population Density Map of Afghanistan
   

Who DOES Support the Occupation of Iraq?

-60% of Americans want to withdraw troops from Iraq

-70% of the Iraqi people oppose the occupation

-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has demanded the United States offer a time line for withdrawal

Yes, that's right. Even the puppet government is opposed to the occupation.

Headlines for July.14.08

* Kucinich introduced the impeachment bill as one article on Thursday. Pelosi suggested that the House Judiciary Committee may hold some hearings on the resolution, more then they have done before.

* The Red Cross stated that the conditions at Gitmo are in fact torture.

This is important because the Red cross is the international standard for prison conditions - they inspect all of the international prisons and their judgment on what is and is not acceptable is the international baseline. If they say that we are torturing, it doesn't matter what screwed up logic that we make here at home, in the eyes of the world what we are doing is a War Crime, and it brings the possibility of charges and a tribunal.

* Karl Rove continues to ignore a subpoena from the Congress citing executive privileges. This was already turned down once during the Nixon Administration. - Executive power does not trump the Congress' role of oversight. Because the courts are packed with loyal appointees the only road for redress in this matter - the courts - are effectively blocked.

* Iran tested missiles. The United States wants to build a radar base in Prague as part of U.S. missile defense system in eastern Europe. If The Czech Republic allows this then Russia has threatened force.

* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stocks have continued to slump, which is feeding speculation that the government will bail them out.

* Homeland security looking at a new measure for security: requiring everyone on planes to wear bracelets that will effectively taser you if activated.

* The Green Party convention was in Illinois.

* The Ron Paul Revolution march was this weekend in DC.

* Anti-gay Alabama Republican Attorney General was caught in bed by his wife with another man.

John McCain, Please Stop Lying About Oil

Today, President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling. This has no immediate effect, as Congress also has to act. However, I feel that this charade has gone on long enough. Offshore drilling will not affect gas prices today, or in the future for that matter.

John McCain has been spouting nonsense about offshore drilling for some time. In response to Bush's move today, he said that "if we can show that we have significant oil reserves off our coasts, that will clearly affect the futures market and affect the price of oil."

This statement is technically true. IF we did have significant oil reserves, it might be worth having a conversation about offshore drilling. However, McCain neglects to mention the fact that we don't have significant oil reserves off our coasts. According to the Energy Information Agency, even twenty years from now at peak production, offshore drilling will represent 0.2% of world oil production. These few extra drops in the bucket will leave the price of oil, and thus gasoline, virtually unchanged.

Honestly, I hope that McCain isn't lying, and that his advisers have simply kept this information from him. The poor guy just found out how Social Security works; I don't think his system could take another shock.

Biofuels and Related Consequences Responsible for 75% of Food Price Increases

The World Bank produced a report in April 2008 that analyzed the causes of rising food prices that have resulted in widespread suffering in developing countries. For whatever reason (I'll let you guys come up with the conspiracy theories), the World Bank did not release the report. So I will :)

If you click on the pictures of the pages of the report, you can enlarge them and read it.

Troops with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder used as Guinea Pigs

Testing drugs on military personnel or prisoners without their knowledge or consent is nothing new by the United States, or really most governments. There's just something too alluring about having thousands of healthy individuals in peak physical condition between the ages of 18 and 30 that makes certain individuals in either power or influence weak in the knees at the prospect of shooting them full of untested drugs.

They were told it was an anti smoking drug - but the military sought out PDSD survivors because it acts as an inhibitor and they wanted to test it as an anti depressant. The troops who volunteered were not informed of this.

Veterans with Post traumatic Stress Disorder are being used as guinea pigs for untested neural inhibitors, which, like all anti depressants carry the increased risk of suicide and psychosis (the reason that more people don't kill themselves when depressed is because they lack motivation, which is what a neural inhibitor brings back first).

This is supporting our troops?

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/va-testing-drugs-on-war-veterans/?page=1

Love your country always and your government when it deserves it

War has a price, one that is paid for in lives. Lives taken, lives mangled, lives displaced, lives destroyed. War's price is too high to be taken into because of lies.

This was originally displayed by someone re posting and crediting the original contributor as someone with the screen name "The Ukrainian."

When I found it on Fark it had already lost connection with it's original poster, although my heart goes out to their friend's family.

CODEPINK Blockades Rep. Ackerman

CODEPINK Press release:

WASHINGTON, D.C.-- With whistles, banners, and megaphones, in kayaks and canoes, CODEPINK Women for Peace activists formed a symbolic peace blockade around Rep. Gary's Ackerman's houseboat at 7 a.m. today inside the Capital Yacht Club marina. They demanded an end to Ackerman's recently introduced resolution that would create more sanctions on the Iranian people and a potential blockade of Iranian ports.

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Queens/L.I), who was sleeping inside the boat, emerged around 8 a.m. to the dock. With a glance down at the activists in their boats on the water, called the action "the most creative protest I've ever seen" and engaged the group in a lively discussion for 30 minutes.

Ackerman promised he would do whatever he could to prevent war with Iran and advocated direct talks Iranian officials, without preconditions.

"Let the talks begin," Ackerman said, on his way to a 10 a.m. Congressional hearing on Iran. He refused, however, to withdraw his H.Con. Resolution 362.

The unusual, vibrant action seemed particularly crucial this morning, when the Iranian government announced it had tested several missiles.

"Iran's missile tests give all the more reason to start direct talks right away," said Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK co-founder. "We are now on a dangerous path towards war. We must stop the next war now."

The activists called on Congressman Ackerman to drop his resolution, which calls for stricter sanctions and aggressive inspections of all ships. They worry the sanctions, as in the case of Iraq, will harm civilians rather than officials.

They also worry the resolution, in blocking the travel of Iranian officials, will cut off much-needed dialogue.

Code Pink called on Cong. Ackerman to commit to diplomacy. Americans agree: a May 19 Gallup Poll found 6 in 10 Americans (59%) consider it "a good idea" for the United States president to meet with the president of Iran for peace talks.

"Our peace blockade showed the Congressman how it feels to be blockaded in your own home," said Gael Murphy of Code Pink. "When we shouted 'talks, not sanctions or war' from our boats, he was definitely given a wake-up call."

The action received nearly 5 minutes of coverage on Fox News yesterday evening. It was one of their top videos online today. You can see the footage here.

While the spot on Fox provided great publicity for CODEPINK, it was very misleading about the issue itself. As usual, sanctions were framed as an alternative to war, rather than as another step down the path toward war. Asserting control over another country's borders is an aggressive move that will only increase tension in a region that is already very hostile to the United States.

FISA Bill Passes: How To Maintain Your Privacy

So many of us are familiar with the passage of the bill yesterday that revamped the 30 year old FISA legislation. Much of it is indeed scary, especially if we are to anticipate that our congressional representatives will not be very pro-active.

The proponents of the bill say that it does go a long way to protecting our rights as citizens. In some ways, they are correct, it does. However, the act's oversight hinges exclusively on the power and will of congress to pro-actively request information and review such information from the Executive or Judicial branches, mainly the DOJ. At its bare minimum, the act allows a 30-day window in which surveillance may occur without full oversight, and even a 7-day window where no notification needs to be given. If congress elects, they can limit the reports given to the Intelligence and Judiciary committees to a whopping 6 month maximum interval. Congress can, however, increase the frequency to whatever they wish (every week, every month, etc...). The Judicial Branch, represented by the FISA court as well as reports to the Chief Justice, are given a 30 day period to review authorizations on acts which may already be in progress, before concluding that the surveillance violates any part of FISA. Surveillance actions that are determined to violate protocol are either required to cease, or are amended, allowing the review period to be extended further.

In our old system, if evidence was brought to our attention that such surveillance was happening to us, we could challenge the action in civil courts. We could even hold those accountable as conspirators. This is the justice system that many conservatives have celebrated as being the "stick" of deterrence to law breaking which is supposed to protect our rights and our freedom. The new FISA legislation effectively guts this process. We no longer have the authority to challenge acts such as this when they are occurring as actions by the Justice Department and other Executive Branch offices. Rather, we must petition our congress to do act on our behalf. In the event that the Executive Branch and a majority of the Legislative Branch are in collusion, we are really left hanging. The bill actually does unfortunately provide an indemnity clause to protect private telecommunications entities from judgement should their activity become public knowledge.

What is even worse is that the bill also allows the government to pay "at the prevailing rate" the telecoms for their time developing and enacting these programs. This is like subsidizing their interests in the data stockpiling business, which has become a growing concern for victims of identity theft and fraud in recent years, while becoming a highly lucrative business for advertisers and mass-marketing industries.

So what are we to do? Well, in all of the bill's focus on interactions and building a system of disclosure within the three branches of government, they do not once discuss any restrictions of the so-called "target" (you). If you are an avid user of the Internet for communication, then you are already involved in a communications model that is highly unregulated. In fact, your reading this article right now has probably been catalogued by any number of private or government servers on networks between your home computer and the server that this is published from. There's sort of an anonymity there, but not really. So many of us in the IT and security fields generally act online as if everything we do is being logged and/or monitored. We should all start acting the same way for telephone communication too. This isn't an endorsement, it is just an observation that now that this has passed, we have to live with it.

So, about a decade ago a project came out for computers named Pretty Good Privacy. The idea was to encourage everyone on the Internet to adopt a means for peer-to-peer, individual, private encryption of communication. The basic idea: You encrypt a message to your recipient in a manner that only they can decrypt, you cannot even decrypt your own messages to others after you encrypt them. The other party uses the same method (with a different encryption "key") to reply in a message from them to you. In order for this to work, you two need to get together and exchange your "encryption keys" with one another. There are all sorts of systems on the Internet for making this really easy so that just about anyone can perform this exchange, without having to be troubled by keeping long numbers written down. When you receive a message encrypted to you, you use a different "decryption key" that you always keep very private, to read the message. Due to this mathematical feat, you are safely able to publish your own encryption key anywhere, and it can't be used to read your messages. It can only be used to talk to you securely.

Well, another project that I recently followed has been gaining momentum lately: The Openmoko Project. This is a project to create a 100% open phone+pda platform. Basically, it is just like someone's Palm Treo or iPhone, but the software and hardware are completely open to see, modify, and contribute. This allows anybody with the capability to build their own communications hardware from the current design. You can also purchase existing hardware for a bit less than an iPhone, and then install whatever software you wish. The project even has a database of user-contributed software that you can install.

So, why not push to marry the two? Using bluetooth or wifi, you could allow to people to exchange their encryption keys while keeping their decryption keys securely hidden in the device. It is already popular for a number of people to secure their cell phone with a PIN, so relying upon that concept for keypad locking is not far-fetched. When you receive an incoming call, if it is from someone who you have their encryption key, then all your digitized voice data sent to them is automatically encrypted. When you make an outgoing call, the same rule can apply. If both parties have each others' encryption information, they will automatically have a two-way encrypted call. A popular fad is the wireless exchange of "business e-cards" between people at meetings. The exchange of this encryption information can be performed in the same manner. It could even safely be done semi-automatically (click or press a key to confirm or decline the exchange).

The beauty of this is that the use of encryption like this makes using electronic surveillance just a waste of time and resources for the entity that is doing it (whether governmental or commercial). They'll collect no useful data. This system basically empowers us to take back our privacy not only from FISA, but also from overzealous commercial entities as well.

Land of the Bound and Home of the Scared... Oh How Lucky We Are to Have Homeland Security...

http://www.gadling.com/2008/07/07/update-dept-of-homeland-security-weighs-forcing-passengers-to/

If ever there was an article that could show the average American that they shouldn't view Orwellian literature as "tinfoil hatish", this would be it...

Update: Dept. of Homeland Security weighs forcing passengers to wear stun gun bracelets on airplanes

by Jeffrey White Jul 7th 2008 @ 3:00PM

Back in March, Gadling blogged about a firearm training system, Lamperd, which had patented a bracelet that worked like a stun gun when activated.

At the time, Lamperd was lobbying the Transportation Security Administration to make it mandatory for all airline passengers to wear one, with the thinking that it was the best way to thwart a terrorist.

Well, here's an update.

The Department of Homeland Security, ever the shepherds watching over their flocks, appears to be seriously weighing making this bracelet mandatory and has sent a letter to Lamperd encouraging the company to draft a formal proposal for integrating its bracelet into flight security.

That's right. Your tax dollars are funding the R&D arm of DHS, which wants to develop technology that acts essentially as a GPS attached to your wrist, allowing the government to track pretty much everywhere you go once you check in for your flight, and giving the flight crew the ability to waylay you if you get out of hand.

O.K., that might be overstating it: Officials say the bracelet would only be activated in the event of a terrorist attack. But still....

Here is a promotional video for the bracelet that piqued DHS's interest.

The Washington Times today quotes a letter from DHS's Paul S. Ruwaldt, of the Science and Technology Directorate, in which he writes to Lamperd saying, "To make it clear, we are interested in...the immobilizing security bracelet and look forward to receiving a written proposal."

The Times says the letter was written on Federal Aviation Administration letterhead.

The Times goes on to detail what the bracelet could do. It would:

• Eliminate the need to carry a boarding pass
• Contain personal data about you, including your travel history
  
• Monitor the whereabouts of both you and your luggage after check-in
  
• Employ Electro-Musclar Disruption technology that could immobilize a passenger for nearly 10 minutes

Now, with all the idiotic things passengers have been doing on planes of late, I could maybe get behind employing some kind of bracelet stun gun.

But seriously, I consider all this with some foreboding. I mean, slipping a bracelet on a little kid that could deliver a shock powerful enough to make an electronic dog fence zap seem like a pinprick is a scary thought. What if a flight attendant accidently activates one of them?

What do you think? Would mandatory bracelets like these make air travel safer, or is this just another way for the government to look over our shoulders?

Holy Crap... Is this really the kind of people who are ruining, I mean running our nation? Are they really considering treating us like animals? If this happens, I am really considering learning the Canadian National anthem and moving north...

Dennis Kucinich Not Backing Down on Impeachment

RAW STORY: Kucinich to bring single article of impeachment for misleading US into War by Nick Juliano :

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is sticking to his drive to impeach President Bush.

Few in the House of Representatives have any intention of doing anything with the last 35 articles of impeachment Kucinich set before them last month, so the former presidential candidate appears to be lightening the load. Kucinich sent a letter to colleagues Tuesday asking them to support a single article of impeachment, to be introduced Thursday, which accuses President Bush of leading the country to war based on lies.

"There can be no greater offense of a Commander in Chief than to misrepresent a cause of war and to send our brave men and women into harm's way based on those misrepresentations," Kucinich wrote in the "Dear Colleague" letter.

"There has been a breach of faith between the Commander in Chief and the troops. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Al Qaeda's role in 9/11. Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States," he continued. "Iraq did not have weapons of Mass of Destruction. Yet George W. Bush took our troops to war under all of these false assumptions. Given the profound and irreversible consequences to our troops, if his decision was the result of a mistake, he must be impeached. Since his decision was based on lies, impeachment as a remedy falls short, but represents at least some effort on our part to demonstrate our concern about the sacrifices our troops have made."

Last month, Kucinich presented 35 articles of impeachment. Those have since been referred to the Judiciary Committee, where they are expected to die. Kucinich threatened to double the number of impeachment articles if the Judiciary Committee did not act.

In a video message, Kucinich thanked supporters for responding to his Independence Day call for Bush's impeachment. In the video, Kucinich said his threat for more articles was still operative and promised an update later this week

It's not surprising to me that Dennis Kucinich isn't backing down on impeachment. He's playing wiffle ball now throwing the easiest impeachment article (misleading the US into war) back on the table. Will the Democratic Congress bite this time? Probably not. Would have been fun to see Dennis and others reading 60 articles of impeachment (as he promised he would), but I guess things have to be broken down to simple impeachment articles for Pelosi and Co.

Oh, Karl Rove, you adorable little ragamuffin you!

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/conyers-threatens-contempt-charges-for-rove-2008-07-03.html
This article by The Hill, Washington DC's political rag, is a nice change of pace. Hopefully Congress will have the balls to go forward with it.


---

Conyers threatens contempt charges for Rove
By Jared Allen
Posted: 07/03/08 03:21 PM [ET]

The standoff between the House and the Bush administration over the congressional testimony of top White House aides continued on Thursday when House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) threatened to hold Karl Rove in contempt if he follows through on his refusal to respond to a committee subpoena.

Conyers and Administrative Law subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) were responding to a July 1 letter they received from Rove’s attorney, Robert D. Luskin, in which Luskin said his client would be unable to appear before Sanchez’s subcommittee. The panel is investigating the politicization within the Justice Department and had subpoenaed Rove to testify before the subcommittee next Thursday.

In his letter, Luskin said Rove would not appear “on the grounds that Executive Privilege confers upon him immunity from process in response to a subpoena directed to this subject.”

In a letter released Thursday, Conyers and Sanchez rejected that claim, and warned that they could move to hold Rove in contempt of Congress if he fails to respond to the subpoena.

“We want to make clear that the subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Mr. Rove to appear, and that a refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives," Conyers and Sanchez

If both sides follow through on their threats, Rove would become the third member of Bush’s innermost circle to be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify after being subpoenaed. The House in February voted to hold White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before the same panel.

Conyers and Sanchez also again rejected Rove’s offer to appear for an off-the-record interview.

It's like these people have no concept that they are accountable to the law. Wait... with impeachment taken off the table, they aren't.

Ben Franklin on Liberty

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
-Benjamin Franklin

Those who take no interest in politics will forever be ruled by those who do.

Each issue that our country faces today is influenced by it's connection with other issues. Abortion is directly effected by the issue of education, which is influenced by the lack of "separation of church and state" and the introduction of "abstinence only education" which came in part because of "faith based initiatives." It is also effected by family violence which is part of the larger problem of violence in society --from gang violence to state violence, which is there because of the concept of acceptable levels /of/ violence.

Whew!

Additionally, the failing infrastructure of our country is in part because of job loss, which is directly effected by the influx of immigrants, which is also caused in part by NAFTA which caused a wage collapse in Mexico. Plus infrastructure fails in part because of the lack of taxes being directed towards fixing our bridges and levees.

The problem is that the issues that our country want to put into legislation are interconnected and therefor complex. Simplistic solutions or answers to complex problems only spur confusion and strife. The world is not simple, and should not be handled as such. Sweeping laws that legislate morality do not take into account the different aspects /of/ morality. This is why we have three branches of government - one of which is the Supreme Court, which handles things on a case by case basis to interpret the laws and their meanings/ effects on such complexities.

The concept of freedom is also one that is inherently complex because it's very definition is /the ability to choose./ Within that ability is the /freedom to make mistakes./ Without that quintessential freedom, individual choice means nothing. Freedom takes work and it takes education. We cannot be free if we do not have the ability to analyze the different and complex things that impact our lives.

Freedom is also concept that can only be cared for by the affluent. You cannot worry about your abilities to choose or even redress your government if you cannot afford to eat, or have a place to sleep, or care for your health, or provide for your family. As such, in a functioning society everyone needs to have their basic needs met. A system that does not provide for that inherently unhealthy and cannot sustain itself as 'Free' because people need to be able to /think/ about freedom in order to be able to /achieve/ it.

So long as our poor get poorer, our rich richer, and the gears of corporations are oiled by the blood of Americans the concepts of freedom and what they mean for a society will slowly be perverted or eliminated.

Each of these concepts are connected to each other, and that is what makes them complex. Society, which is made up of individuals, is a thousand layers deep and has billions of connections. The whole system has to be guided into submission gently so as not to upset the delicate balance that allows those who are living under it to thrive. When the system is out of balance we see more injustice, more strife, and ultimately less control over it.

Jefferson on Freedom of the Press

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.