FIRST INSTALLMENT CAN BE READ HERE:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
SECOND INSTALLMENT CAN BE READ HERE:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
"… the US government is not prepared to support a 'real' inspection effort in which the team members can feel authorized to ask directly pertinent questions and/or insist on being allowed to look at records, logs, materials and the like. The team has in many subtle ways been cautioned to avoid controversy, 'be gentlemen' and not take issue with the obvious will of the hosts.”
- U.S. State Department memo on the United States “inspection team” sent to Israel to inspect the Israeli nuclear plant in Dimona , August 1969
Part 9: THE "DEMOCRACY" OF ISRAEL
But what of our “democratic” friend Israel? What of their security? After all, they are the only true democracy in the region, right?
First of all, it's not a democracy. A democracy values freedom and equality to all of its citizens regardless of their race, creed or religion.
Bruce Dixon explains: “Imagine, if you will, a modern apartheid state with first, second and eleventh class citizens, all required to carry identification specifying their ethnic origin. First class citizens (Israeli Jews) are obliged to serve in the armed forces, kept on ready reserve status until in their forties, and accorded an impressive array of housing, medical, social security, educational and related benefits denied all others.
Second class citizens (Israeli Arabs) are exempted from military service and from a number of the benefits accorded citizens of the first class. They are issued identity documents and license plates that allow them to be profiled by police at a distance. Second class citizens may not own land in much of the country and marriages between them and first class citizens are not recognized by the state. Second class citizens are sometimes arrested without trial and police torture, while frowned upon and occasionally apologized for, commonly occurs.
Citizens of the eleventh class (Palestinians), really not citizens at all, have no rights citizens of the first class or their government are bound to respect. Their residence is forbidden in nearly nine-tenths of the country, all of which they used to own. The areas left to them are cut up into smaller and smaller portions weekly, by high walls, free fire zones and hundreds of checkpoints manned by the army of the first class citizens, so that none can travel a dozen miles in any direction to work, school, shopping, a job, a farm, a business or a hospital without several long waits, humiliating searches and often arbitrary denials of the right to pass or to return. Posh residential settlements for the first class citizens with protecting gun towers and military bases are built with government funds and foreign aid on what used to be the villages and farms and pastures of the eleventh class citizens. The settlers are allotted generous additional housing and other subsidies, allowed to carry weapons and use deadly force with impunity against the former inhabitants, and are connected with the rest of first class territory by a network of first-class citizen only roads.
Citizens of the eleventh class are routinely arrested, tortured, and held indefinitely without trial. Political activism among them is equated to “terrorism” and the state discourages such activity by means including but not limited to the kidnapping of suspects and relatives of suspects, demolition of their family homes, and extralegal assassination, sometimes at the hands of a death squad, or at others times by lobbing missiles or five hundred pound bombs into sleeping apartment blocks or noonday traffic. Passports are not issued to these citizens, and those who take advantage of scarce opportunities to study or work abroad are denied re-entry.”
We've all seen the United Nations roll call on the issue. It usually reads 110+ votes condemning Israel for numerous atrocities in the region and ordering them to cede the illegally occupied territories and 2 votes against, the U.S. (with a veto) and Israel. Sometimes some banana republic joins the U.S and Israel...perhaps Micronesia or the Marshall Islands, but you get the idea.
Much like the previous list of United States vetoes of U.N. initiatives geared toward curbing proliferation of WMD’s, the United States has virtually stood alone in supporting the continuing crimes of the nation of Israel:
1972 - The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution condemning Israeli air raids by Phantoms and Skyhawks on Lebanon and Syria. In al-Hama, a suburb of Damascus, houses are bombed indiscriminately and people are machine gunned as they run for cover. Up to 500 Lebanese and Syrian civilians are killed in the air attacks.
1973 - The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution affirming the rights of Palestinians and calling on Israel to withdraw from occupied territories.
1976 - The USA vetoes four separate United Nations resolutions. The first condemns Israeli attacks against Lebanese civilians. The second condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories. The third calls for self-determination for the Palestinians. The fourth affirms Palestinian rights.
1978 - The USA vetoes two United Nations resolutions. The first criticizing the living conditions of the Palestinians (110 to 2 with Israel). The second condemning the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories (97 to 3 Israel & UK).
1979 - The USA vetoes five United Nations resolutions concerning Israel. The first calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel (121 to 3: the three are USA, Israel and Australia). The second demands that Israel desist from human rights violations (111 to 2 w/Israel). The third is a request for a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries (120 to 2 w/Israel). The fourth offers assistance to the Palestinian people (112 to 3: the three are USA, Israel and Canada). The fifth discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories (118 to 2 w/Israel).
1980 - The USA vetoes six United Nations resolutions concerning Israel and the Palestinians: The first requests Israel to return displaced persons (the vote is 96 to 3 with Canada being the third country). The second condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people (118 to 2). Three resolutions condemn Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories (votes: 118 to 2; 119 to 2; 117 to 2). The sixth endorses self-determination for the Palestinians (120 to 3 with Israel and Australia).
1981 - the USA vetoes an astonishing 18 United Nations resolutions concerning Israel, including a demand that Israel cease excavations in areas of East Jerusalem considered by the United Nations to be part of the occupied territories. The vote is 114 to 2. Condemns Israel for bombing Iraqi nuclear installations (108 to 2). Two resolutions condemning Israeli policy regarding living conditions of the Palestinian people (109 to 2 and 111 to 2). To establish a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East (107 to 2). Demanding that Israel renounce possession of nuclear weapons (101 to 2). Two resolutions attempting to establish rights for the Palestinian people. The votes are 121 to 2, 119 to 3 (with Canada). To clarify the status of Jerusalem (139 to 2). Discusses Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip (141 to 2). Rights of displaced Palestinians to return to their homes (121 to 3 with Canada). Concerning revenues from Palestinian refugees’ properties (117 to 2). Establishment of the University of Jerusalem for Palestinian refugees (119 to 2). Concerning Israeli human rights violations in occupied territories (111 to 2). Condemning Israel closing of universities in occupied territories (114 to 2) Opposes Israel’s decision to build a canal linking the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Concerning sovereignty over national resources in occupied Palestine and other Arab territories (115 to 2). Affirming the non-applicability of Israeli law over the occupied Golan Heights (121 to 2).
1982/1983 – Israel illegally invades the nation of Lebanon, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, as well as the total destruction of the civilian infrastructure. The United Nations General Assembly condemns the massacre and declares it to be an act of genocide. The vote is 147 to 2 (Israel and the USA). An Israeli soldier shoots 11 Muslims worshipping on the Haram-Al-Sharif in East Jerusalem. The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution condemning the shooting. Another resolution calling for Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights (occupied in 1967) is also vetoed by the USA. Between 1982 and 1983, six separate United Nations resolutions condemning the Israeli invasion of Lebanon are vetoed by the USA. In addition, the USA refuses to invoke its own laws prohibiting Israeli use of American weapons except in self-defense.
1984 - The USA vetoes numerous United Nations resolutions: Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States (voted by 134 to 2 with Israel); Condemns Israeli attack against Iraqi nuclear installation (106 to 2); On the elimination of racial discrimination (145 to 1); Affirming the rights of the Palestinian people (127 to 2); Convening a Middle East peace conference (121 to 3 including Canada); Prohibition of new types of weapons of mass destruction (125 to 1); Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons (84 to 1); Law of the sea (138 to 2); Israeli human rights violations in occupied territories (120 to 2); Condemns assassination attempts against Palestinian mayors (143 to 2).
1985 - The USA vetoes two separate United Nations resolutions condemning Israeli actions in Lebanon and the use of excessive force in the occupied territories.
1987 - The USA vetoes two United Nations resolutions. One condemning Israeli actions against civilians in Lebanon and the other calling on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1988 - the USA vetoes three United Nations resolutions condemning Israeli actions in Lebanon and urging a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Between 1983 and 1987, Israeli forces have killed over 50,000 people in Lebanon.
1988 - The USA vetoes two separate United Nations resolutions condemning Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories.
1989 - three more similar resolutions are vetoed by the USA. The PLO wishes to appeal to the General Assembly of the United Nations but the leader, Yasser Arafat is refused a visa by the USA despite being recognized by over 60 countries. The Assembly meeting is moved to Geneva (Switzerland).
1990 - In Israel, troops open fire on Palestinian demonstrators in Jerusalem killing 21 and injuring 150. An Israeli soldier shoots and kills 7 laborers at Oyon Qara; 13 Palestinians are killed while demonstrating against the killings. The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution to send three Security Council observers into the area.
1995 - The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution confirming that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of United Nations resolutions and the Geneva Convention.
1997 - The USA vetoes two United Nations resolutions that call on Israel to cease construction of settlements in East Jerusalem and the other occupied territories. One of the votes was by 130 to 2 (USA and Israel).
2001 - On 28th March the USA vetoes a United Nations resolution calling for the deployment of unarmed monitors to the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.
This is the 73rd use of the veto in the United Nations by the USA since 1945. The vast majority of USA vetos were cast in support of Israel and South Africa during the apartheid era, and defending USA actions in Central America. Most of the vetos violate the spirit of United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and other documents describing basic human rights and humanitarian standards. In December the USA vetoes a United Nations Security Council Resolution condemning Israel for acts of terror against civilians in the occupied territories.
2002 - Iain Hook, a 54-year-old United Nations relief worker is shot by an Israeli soldier in a clearly marked United Nations compound in Jenin. Israeli soldiers stop the ambulance sent to attend to the injured worker. The USA vetoes a United Nations resolution condemning the killing and the destruction of a warehouse belonging to the World Food Programme.
2003 - the USA vetos a United Nations resolution condemning the continued building of a fence by Israel on Palestinian land.
The voting record of the United States in regard to Israel stands in stark contrast, not only to the overwhelming majority of the world community, but more importantly in contradiction to the will of the American people, who have consistently called for an “even-handed” approach to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
So, why DOES the U.S. support Israel? Please don’t pretend it has anything to do with supporting another "beacon of freedom and democracy". To quote an Israeli friend of mine, who served in the Israeli Special Forces, "Israel is nothing more than an enormous U.S. Military Base in the middle of the largest oil-producing region on the planet". That's it, folks.
The idea that Israel and the United States want a fair and peaceful solution to the “Palestinian problem” is a myth, which can be easily dismissed by a mere cursory glance at the list of U.N. vetos as well as the “peace talks” at Taba and Camp David.
Norman Finklestein explains:
“There were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Let's start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it's illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.
Borders. The principle is clear. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, "occupied Palestinian territories." Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders.
Jerusalem. Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one iota of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.
And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, it's not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch issued statements on the question of the right of return, believing categorically, under international law, every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return; not to some little parcels, but to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. That's the law. Now, the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. Estimates range from tens of thousands to upwards of 400,000; well short of six million.
On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is, EVERYONE BEGINS WITH WHAT ISRAEL WANTS and how much of its wants it's willing to give up. But that's not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework it's a very, very different picture. So Arafat gets lambasted for walking away from the table, but every single concession came from his side of the table and not a single concession from Israel. “
Additionally, the most recent Arab Peace Plan, also known as the “Saudi Plan,” calls for a two state solution, based on the pre-war 1967 borders. The plan would respect “Israel’s Right to Exist” as a sovereign nation. The plan has been endorsed by virtually the entire planet, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian people, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordon, Lebanon and even the American people. Which entities don't agree to this fair and just plan for peace? Israel and the U.S. government, who have no interest in peace. Peace would mean they could no longer occupy coveted lands. Peace would mean they would have to respect international law. Peace would mean they could no longer steal natural resources. Peace would ultimately be bad for business. How can you make billions in war profits if peace were to break out? How could our oil companies make massive profits from Iraq and soon-to-be Iranian oil reserves if peace were to break out?
Meanwhile, the ethnic cleansing continues in the Apartheid state of Israel.
The United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestine recently submitted a 24-page report condemning the state of Israel for numerous Human Rights atrocities and equated them to the Apartheid in South Africa. The report accused the Israeli government of being "“inimical to human rights — colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation”.
People often point at the anti-Israeli hostilities without fully acknowledging the history behind such anger and resentment.
Israeli historian Ilan Pappe explains:
“The 1948 Palestinian-Israeli war is known to Israeli's as "The War for Independence," but for Palestinians, it will forever be the Nakba, the 'catastrophe'. The end of the war led to one of the largest forced migrations in modern history. Around a million people were illegally expelled from their homes at gunpoint, civilians were brutally massacred and hundreds of Palestinian villages, many having survived thousands of years, were deliberately burned to the ground. The truth of this massive crime has been systematically distorted and suppressed, had it taken place in the twenty-first century, it could only have been called 'ethnic cleansing'. It has been proven, through recently declassified Israeli materials, that 'transfer' (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) was from the start an integral part of a carefully planned strategy to remove massive numbers of the native population from their rightful homes and steal their land and resources.”
It was a massive war crime.
Later, in 1967, Israel could arguably claim self-defense for the first 3 days of the conflict (even though Israel fired the first shots in a surprise attack that effectively decimated the airpower of it's enemies in a few minutes time), at which point, having already won the war handily, they ignored the United Nations directives for a cease-fire and continued what amounted to an enormous "land-grab" and deportation campaign. They were knowingly and willingly deceiving the world community as to the status "on the ground" in order to delay sanctions against them, while they committed these crimes. They even sank a U.S. Navy ship in the gulf that they thought was intercepting their radio transmissions, which would have revealed the true Israeli intentions to the Americans, who at that time wanted the war to end. Thirty-four American soldiers were killed in the attack. Yet another egregious war crime.
In any case, ethnic Cleansing is considered a "Crime Against Humanity" and the people who perpetrate it today are considered criminals who are brought before special tribunals. But not in Israel's case. Why? Because the United States government would never allow it. We support these crimes.
But what about Hezbollah and Lebanon?
Hezbollah, as the de facto defender of Lebanon, was born in defense of Lebanese territory from the illegal aggression of the Israeli army. Why does Israel have imperialist leanings in Lebanon? It’s all part of the plan to ethnically cleanse the occupied territories. The massive land-grab in 1948 and 1967 created an enormous refugee “problem”. What to do with all of those displaced Palestinian civilians? Six million and counting? They need a place to go, and it’s not going to be their legal homeland any longer. So Israel has taken a page from the United States foreign policy handbook. They want to install a puppet government in Lebanon that will cater to Israeli needs by taking in the bulk of the Palestinian refugees, making the ethnic cleansing process much easier to achieve. The rise of Hezbollah as the main arm of Lebanese defense came about as a result of Israel’s illegal 1982 invasion of Lebanon and have proven to be a formidable foe in combating Israeli aggression ever since. Israel has illegally invaded Lebanon five times since the 1978 war, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians, while destroying the vital infrastructure and decimating the economy, all under a cynical “self-defense” posture that falls apart upon modest inspection. They have also illegally occupied Lebanese territory for 22 years, in spite of repeated world condemnation, as evidenced in the United Nations votes.
How is it that we rarely hear about Israel’s crimes?
Unfortunately, the U.S. corporate media is in bed with the enormously powerful Israeli lobby (as is Congress and the White House), and they go to great pains to hide the truth from the American people. Additionally, a truly “unholy alliance” has been reached between ultra-right wing Christian fundamentalists and the Zionist Israelis. The Christian zealots, while admittedly anti-Semites, nevertheless believe the “end of days” can only be achieved through a cleansed Jewish State in the Holy Land. Only then will the apocalypse begin, bringing God’s final judgment. The teaming of the right wing Christians and Israeli Zionists form an enormously influential lobby in Washington and throughout the corporate media.
For example, NY Times posted a 2006 article by Isabel Kirshner on Olmert’s waning hold on Power in Israel. In usual pro-Israeli fashion, you’ll notice the following assertion in regards to the June 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, “The war followed the June 12, 2006, kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah in a cross-border raid.”
Chomsky: “In the U.S. corporate media, the timeline leading to the assault on Lebanon always begins with this kidnapping. The rest of the world gets the rest of the story, which includes perhaps the most critical information, summarily ignored by the U.S. media. The day before, Israeli forces kidnapped two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother, and sent them to the Israeli prison system where they can join innumerable other Palestinians, many held without charges -- hence kidnapped. Kidnapping of civilians, which Israel has done in both Lebanon and the Palestinian territories repeatedly and with virtual impunity, is a far worse crime than capture of soldiers. The Western response was quite revealing: a few casual comments, otherwise silence. The major media did not even bother reporting it. That fact alone demonstrates, with brutal clarity, that there is no moral justification for the sharp escalation of attacks in Gaza or the destruction of Lebanon, and that the Western show of outrage about kidnapping is cynical fraud.”
Thousands of Palestinians are currently being held by Israel along with a few hundred Lebanese, many without official charges. Eighty-five percent of Lebanese civilians support kidnapping of Israeli soldiers for prisoner exchange programs. It was later revealed that Israel was hoping to illicit a response from Hezbollah, in order to justify a full-scale invasion geared towards annihilation of Hezbollah and eventually toppling the democratically elected government of Lebanon.
The fact that all of these Israeli crimes would not be happening were it not for full backing by the U.S. government is well known among the Middle Eastern Muslim community.
Part 10: BEACON TO THE WORLD
“Mr. President, we are going to meet this test of our generation. We are going to protect the freedom and the way of life that the beacon to the world of the way life should be. We can do no less.”
Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison spoke these utterly inane words, which must be read at least twice, during President Bush’s 2nd inauguration celebration. It was the climax of numerous speeches by our plutocratic “leadership,” waxing poetic about our noble goals in Iraq and the world in general, in direct contradiction to the historical record.
If we keep insisting that the U.S. is a “beacon” of goodness in the world and that everything we do is for messianic reasons, then we will be fighting significant terror for the rest of our lives. The overwhelming majority of the world’s citizens now view the United States as an imperialist bully and the leading rogue nation on the planet. Of course, we can ignore this or write it off as mere jealousy of our success and inherent “goodness.”
Or, perhaps we could dare to look in the mirror and see what role we have in creating the circumstances that cause mass resentment of our Nation. Then maybe we can take steps to root out the causes that we are responsible for and thus alleviate much of the recruiting power for terrorist organizations.
The idea that this is a war of good vs. evil or right vs. wrong is childishly naive in its simplicity. It’s the same jejune ideology that was put forth by the German “brown shirts,” who stormed into the numerous beer halls to berate and condemn their fellow Germans who were discussing and seriously debating the political dangers looming in the corporatism and fascism of the Nazi party.
Part 11: THE END OF DEMOCRACY
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him a spinal cord would surely suffice.”
- Albert Einstein
The biggest mistake Americans make is arrogantly believing that they can't be fooled by imperialist propaganda, much like the German population in the 1930's as well as countless other ""righteous" nations in the past. We must not fall into the same trap that consumed the “good Germans” of the early 1930’s.
Chomsky:
“The democracy of Germany in the early 1930s was the most advanced country in Europe, taking the lead in art, science, technology, literature and philosophy. Then, in no time at all, it suffered a complete reversal of fortune and became the most barbaric, murderous state in human history. All that was achieved by using fear: fear of the Bolsheviks, the Jews, the Americans, the Gypsies - everyone who, according to the Nazis, was threatening the core values of European culture and the direct descendants of Greek civilization.”
Sound familiar? Do you think the German people thought they were wrong when they unleashed WWII on the rest of the world? Or were they filled with the same arrogant do-no-wrong, Nationalistic self-righteousness you see from the war-mongerers in this country?
Political Scientist Chalmers Johnson wrote of the "sorrow of empire," arguing that, "militarism, the arrogance of power and the euphemisms required to justify imperialism inevitably conflict with America's democratic structure of government and distort it's basic culture and values." Secrecy surrounding covert actions undermines democratic control. If present trends continue, Johnson said, "we will face a state of perpetual war," and the loss of democracy and constitutional rights; "propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war" will replace truthfulness; and economic "bankruptcy" will undermine the education, health, and safety of our fellow citizens."
How do we avoid this Orwellian outcome? It begins with campaign finance reform.
The U.S. electoral process, National Voting Rights Institute notes, is “subject to a de facto ‘Wealth Primary’ that effectively excludes non-wealthy voters and candidates from meaningful participation in the political process. The Wealth Primary, is the process by which the person who collects the most money — the ‘winner’ of the Wealth Primary — almost always goes on to capture his or her party's nomination. It also means that those campaign contributors with the most money or access to money, choose the candidate who almost invariably goes on to win...Our current system of financing electoral campaigns now stands where the poll tax and the high candidate filing fee systems once stood,” NVRI adds, arguing that the Wealth Primary marginalizes non-wealthy voters like the old Southern “white primary” (the restriction of voting to whites only in the former slave states of the U.S. South) used to politically marginalize blacks.
Additionally, one of the biggest obstacles to a true American democracy is the myth of the “liberal media” conspiracy. Right wing billionaires own the majority of the mainstream corporate media outlets, including the NY Times. They get their funding, through advertising, from billion dollar corporations owned by similar right-wingers. They hire right wing editors and producers who control content. Then they hire "liberal" reporters who are emasculated as soon as they walk through the door and have no real power as to what their assignments are or what gets published.
Predictably, conservative think tanks (of which there are many) and right wing pundits (of which there are even more) like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, to name but a few, love to point out the "liberal" reporters as their "proof" of a "liberal media" conspiracy; completely ignoring the right wing ideologues who ultimately pull the strings (and pay their exorbitant salaries).
To Whom It May Concern:
As a 60 yr. old woman who remembers the Vietnam War very clearly, including nightly reports from the field and front-page headlines regarding anti-war demonstrations, I was particularly disheartened at the lack of media coverage regarding the March for Peace on Oct. 27th in Manhattan. This march, in which I’m proud to say I participated with my son, his wife, my two daughters and my spouse, was a remarkable display of dissatisfaction by a wide stratum of society. All races, socio-economic levels, and ages were represented by the thousands, walking down Broadway in the pouring rain to protest the tragedies being compounded daily by the Bush administration, now in Iraq and, potentially, in Iran. I’m surprised a news reporter wouldn’t have been interested in speaking with a man walking in the downpour with his seeing-eye dog; or the numerous elderly walking with canes or arm-in-arm. While boomers like myself were over-represented, the younger generation was, tragically, under-represented. Where were the students; and where was the press? If we still have a free press in this country, why was there literally no mention of these thousands of people in the New York Times, The Daily News or the New York Post? Locally, only 1010 WINS reported the event. Is the press in New York controlled or is it still free? Absent evidence to the contrary, it appears to be controlled. Without a free and unbiased press, our country is in trouble, more so than I realized before this march. Nationwide, tens of thousands of people marched for peace on Oct. 27th; if you read any of the newspapers listed above, you remain ignorant of that fact. What it makes me wonder is: what else is occurring about which we are being kept in the dark; and who is deciding what information we may have? And does such deliberate misinformation contribute to the obliviousness of today’s students?
- Anne Fatone, Ph.D., letter to the Public Editor of the NY Times, October 29, 2007 (Letter was not published by the NY Times)
Dear Public Editor:
How can it not be news that last Friday, three senior, respected members of the House Judiciary Committee, six-termer Robert Wexler (D-FL), leading hispanic member Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and floor leader Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), publicly called on the House Judiciary Committee to begin immediate hearings on Dennis Kucinich's bill to impeach VP Dick Cheney? On Friday, Wexler announced that he was setting up a webside, asking for 50,000 people to sign on in support of his call for impeachment hearings. By the end of the first day, he had 53,000 signatures and as of today, just three days after the site was established, there were 77,300 signatures, rising by the second. There has been no report on this development in the impeachment story in the NY times, which is nothing short of astonishing. I also hear from Wexler's office that the Times rejected an op-ed submission written by the three congressmembers explaining their decision. While of course the opinion page editors have the right to make what choices they like about what runs, they have elected to run rather obscure opinion pieces by politicians, often on positions that the editors don't even disagree with. Here is a case of a perspective that is not shared by the editors, by three real players in the debate, and they don't deem it worthy of seeing print? As author of the book The Case for Impeachment, which was published by the mainstream publisher St. Martin's Press in 2006, and which, after selling a respectable 20,000 copies, went to paperback, all without receiving a review or mention in the NY Times, or for that matter in any mainstream newspaper in the country, I am well aware that the impeachment movement, which has seen over 100 cities and towns and one state senate (VT) vote out resolutions calling for impeachment, and which is a key demand voiced at every major anti-war demonstration, is being completely blacked out by the major media, including the Times. As a 34-year veteran, award-winning journalist, a former Times contributor, a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, a two-time Journalism Fulbright Scholar, and the author of a well-regarded book on impeachment, I find the whole thing unconscionable, especially considering the incredible amount of ink--and high-dudgeon editorials--that were expended on the ridiculous Clinton impeachment less than a decade ago. Your paper should do a better job of covering the news, and should stop covering up the news.
– Dave Lindorff, to the NY Times, December 19th, 2007 (Letter was not published by the NY Times)
Edward Herman, one of the foremost experts on media propaganda adds:
"The electoral process would not work in this highly undemocratic fashion without the full cooperation of the mainstream media in allowing financial support to define credibility and determine coverage, as the New York Times does in contradiction with its editorial admonitions on the importance of have competition based on substance other than money support. The media do this because they are part of the same corporate community as the election investor-funders: their owners are rich, their advertisers have strong pro-business political interests, their leading sources are members of the government, the flak they worry about is from powerful people and the right wing, and they work on the basis of establishment ideology. They accept or are frightened into cooperation with the pro-Israel donors and organizations. Their editors, having internalized all of these considerations, gravitate to allowing money flows to dominate, with a focus on the horse-race, and, importantly eschewing tendencies toward 'populism,' which is generally anathema to the investor community."
This farce is clearly seen in the "Democrat" vs. "Republican" debates, which implies that the two are not in fact the same business party, with common goals (imperialist power and corporate control for profit for the wealthy elite) and only slightly varying strategies and tactics for achieving those goals. The Democrats believe it's a smarter move to let some crumbs fall to the masses to keep them complacent, while the GOP believes you don't have to give any crumbs away when a truly strong propaganda campaign can fool the "bewildered herd" easily enough.
"There is a lot of talk right now," Noam Chomsky told David Barsamian in January 2007, "about how the United States is a divided country. We have to bring it together, 'red states' and 'blue states.' In fact, it is a divided country, but not in the way that's being discussed. It's divided between the public and the power systems, the government and the corporate system."
One need only look at a “liberal” candidate for president, Barack Obama, to see how distorted and right-wing based our “center” has become.
Political activist and author Paul Street explains:
“{Obama} repeatedly votes to fund the criminal invasion and backs "mainstream" (pro-war) Democratic candidates against progressive antiwar candidates in the 2006 congressional primaries. After their attainment of a majority in the Congress in November of 2006, he warns Democrats against being seen as working against the remarkably unpopular and arch-criminal Cheney-Bush administration. He insists on claiming that the monumentally illegal, brazenly petro-imperialist and inherently mass-murderous invasion of Iraq was launched and has been fought with the ‘best of [democratic] intentions.’ He votes for a business-driven federal "tort reform" bill that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress from misbehaving corporations. He joins Republicans in advancing the patently false claim of Wall Street and the Bush administration that Social Security is facing an imminent crisis that must be fixed through drastic measures. He sounds like Mitt Romney or Rudy Guliani in criticizing his fellow Democrats' determination to ‘impose’ universal health care through supposedly oppressive ‘government mandates.’ He joins the more reactionary of the two business parties in supporting the expansion of the regressive North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA) to Peru . He goes to NASDAQ to absurdly tell the lords of global finance that ‘your work [is] part of building a stronger, more vibrant, and more just America . I think the problem is that no one has asked you to play a part in the project of American renewal.’ He criticizes efforts to muster support for filibusters against the appointment of reactionary Supreme Court justices certain to assault civil rights and liberties. He speaks on friendly terms to far-right Evangelical "Christian" audiences and tours in the South with an openly gay-bashing preacher.”
Street also notes that according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), the 2008 Obama presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama's top contributor is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama '08), identified by CRP investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry." Of his top twenty election investors, fully eight are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300).
Only in an Orwellian nightmare world would Obama be considered “liberal,” let alone a "leftist,” as the modern-day propagandists like Rush Limbaugh relentlessly describe him. The same can be said for another ludicrously labeled “liberal” candidate, Hillary Clinton. Clinton supports policies to the right of Obama (she has the dubious honor of receiving more campaign contributions from the “defense” industry than any other presidential candidate, regardless of political party), yet she has been called “liberal,” “socialist” and even “communist” repeatedly. Hillary even called Obama “too far left” in November of 2007!
Until we put a system in place that doesn't rely on massive amounts of money to be "donated" by an overwhelmingly small percentage of the population (1% of the population donates 80% of the campaign funds over $200), then we will never have the opportunity to truly elect a candidate "for the people".
Let’s not forget that the effects of this imperialist system aren’t merely felt abroad. Here in the United States, our elected officials or their corporate media lapdogs rarely comment upon the fact that we spend more on “defense” than the rest of the world combined; but the effect on the populous is enormous. The American Dream is becoming the American Pipedream for the majority of the population.
Part 12: FOLLOW THE MONEY
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” - President Dwight D. Eisenhower
“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”
- Martin Luther King Jr.
In order to see where neo-liberal economic policies are taking us here in the United States, it may be helpful to look at what effect these policies have had abroad. Take Central and South America, for instance. The United States has long instituted neo-liberal economics in the southern hemisphere through imperial economic institutions like the IMF and the World Bank along with cynically titled “free-trade” agreements, all basically being offshoots of the U.S. Treasury Department and therefore de facto arms of the U.S. government. Born of massive repression, usually at the hands of U.S.-backed dictators, these policies entered into an environment replete with an abundance of natural resources as well as a strong labor force, but also in a vacuum of overwhelming poverty leftover from the centuries of colonial exploitation. Certainly neo-liberal policies, which were sold under the banner of “alleviating poverty,” would show some favorable results toward reducing poverty and hunger. The reality, however, is the polar opposite. Those countries that followed the economic “rules” imposed by the IMF and World Bank (a.k.a the Treasury Department), found themselves with an enormous increase in poverty and national debt, lower wages, longer work days, less benefits (if any benefits at all) and a complete lack of organized labor representation. These nations fell so deeply into debt that many had to “cheat” on the IMF and World Bank “rules” in order to merely pay the interest on their ever-growing debts. It wasn’t all bad, however, as the small wealthy elite within these societies made out like bandits, while production and profit for U.S. multinational corporations went through the roof. Dissent against the tenets of pro-U.S. neo-liberal economic policies was often met with severe violence and repression. Conversely, economies that had thrown off the shackles of neo-liberalism have shown more growth than at any time while under the wing of the United States. Venezuela is a prime example of this.
What can this teach us about where we are headed here in the states? Well, first we have to look at where these neo-liberal policies began. Post WWII was the golden era for overall economic growth in the United States. Real income grew equally between the different class levels, resulting in the largest and most financially healthy middle class in the history of the world. The labor movement was largely responsible for this, as well as the obvious advantages afforded the United States by being relatively unscathed by the ravages of WWII. Neo-liberal economic policy began in earnest with the “Reagan Revolution,” but was preceded, importantly, by the systematic undermining of the organized labor movement, which reached a critical point-of-no-return in the early 1970’s. Reagan quickly enacted economic policies based on “trickle-down” neo-liberal economic policies that were supposed to “raise all boats” through elevated corporate growth. Because the United States began the experiment with neo-liberalism from a much healthier economic place than our friends in the southern hemisphere, it has taken much longer to see the brutal, polarizing effects of the policy; but they are clearly present. The divide between the haves and have-nots has widened to such a degree, as we haven’t seen since the gilded ages of the late 19th century. The middle class, once enormously widespread and prosperous, has all but vanished. Our government has become the best democracy money can buy and has gotten to the point where our “representatives” regularly and egregiously put the welfare of the corporate world ahead of the needs of the overwhelming majority of the population. Where has our experiment with neo-liberal economics led us over the past 25 years? Keep in mind that corporate growth has reached all-time highs during this period, but to what end?
• The US is by far the most unequal of all industrialized societies, with the richest 10 percent of the population owning more than 70 percent of the nation’s wealth and the richest 5 percent of families receiving as much income as the bottom 50 percent.
• These numbers are prior to George W. Bush’s tax cut, which gave the top 1 percent of taxpayers nearly 40 percent of a tax reduction that will cost the US Treasury at least $1.8 trillion.
• The top 1 percent of households — average income $1.5 million — will save a collective $79.5 billion on their 2008 taxes, reports Citizens for Tax Justice. That’s more than the combined budgets of the Transportation Department, Small Business Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and Consumer Product Safety Commission.
• Tax cuts will save the top 1 percent a projected $715 billion between 2001 and 2010. And cost us $715 billion in mounting national debt plus interest.
• We have a record 482 billionaires — and record foreclosures.
• Since 2000, we have added 184 billionaires — and 5 million more people living below the poverty line (The official poverty threshold for one person was a ridiculously low $10,294 in 2006).
• Between 1983 and 2004, the average wealth of the top 1 percent of households grew by 78 percent, reports Edward Wolff, professor of economics at New York University. The bottom 40 percent lost 59 percent.
• In 2004, one out of six households had zero or negative net worth. Nearly one out of three households had less than $10,000 in net worth, including home equity. That’s before the mortgage crisis hit.
• In 1982, when the Forbes 400 had just 13 billionaires, the highest paid CEO made $108 million and the average full-time worker made $34,199, adjusted for inflation in $2006. Last year, the highest paid hedge fund manager hauled in $1.7 billion, the highest paid CEO made $647 million, and the average worker made $34,861, with vanishing health and pension coverage.
• The 400 richest Americans have a conservatively estimated $1.54 trillion in combined wealth. That amount is more than 11 percent of our $13.8 trillion Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — the total annual value of goods and services produced by our nation of 303 million people. In 1982, Forbes 400 wealth measured less than 3 percent of U.S. GDP.
• And the rich, notes fortune magazine, “give away a smaller share of their income than the rest of us.”
• In 2000, at the peak of the heralded Clinton (an economic imperialist) economic “boom,” 11 million households (10.5 percent of all US households) were food insecure; black and Hispanic households had hunger and food insecurity rates three times greater than those of whites.
• More than 13 million or 17 percent of US children live in poverty, including more than 4 million under the age of six and the US child poverty rate is substantially higher than that of other industrialized nations.
• More than one in three US children live in or near poverty and more than 8 million people, including 3 million children live in homes that frequently skip meals or eat too little
• America’s Second Harvest, the nation’s leading network of food banks, reports that 23 million Americans relied on their agencies in 2001; 40 percent of those came from working families.
• One in eight US households has recently reduced the quality of their diet to utilize financial resources in other essential areas (rent, day care, clothing, medical care, transportation and utilities).
• American have the longest working hours and commuting times in the industrial world, exacerbating widespread job dissatisfaction and further degrading capacities for civic engagement that are already gravely challenged by corporate media and the wildly disproportionate political and ideological influence exercise by the wealthy owners and managers of giant corporations.
• Less than 1 percent of the U.S. population contributes more than of 80 percent of all money in federal elections in amounts of $200 or more. The vast majority of such wealthy contributors are wealthy white men with annual family incomes higher than $100,000.
• The winners of the political finance race (the “wealth primary” in the words of American campaign finance reformers) win 92 percent of the races for the US House of Representatives and 88 percent of the races for the US Senate.
One need only look at the contrast between where we were in the 1950’s and 1960’s (virtual equality of growth across all income levels) and where we are today to see the neo-liberal economic experiment as an unmitigated disaster for the overwhelming majority of the U.S. citizenry. We are headed down the same road that destroyed the economic well being of virtually the entire southern hemisphere. U.S. manufacturing jobs leave the homeland after the U.S. government, with massive tax dollars paid for by the masses, impose imperialistic economic and militaristic strangulation on third world nations forcing them to cater to U.S. corporations who then exploit the land and population of those nations for their own gain. Where does this lead? Slave labor. Corruption. Stolen land and resources. Sweetheart deals made behind closed doors with dictators. We need to break this cycle before the wealth and power are consolidated to such an extreme level that only a revolution could turn back the clock and restore a fair and truly democratic society, where the word “economy” represents the financial growth of the entire population and not merely those at the top of the corporate ladder. The current system recalls George Orwell’s prophetic “Animal Farm”:
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”
Nowhere can imperialism’s negative effect on the U.S. population be seen more than in the health care system.
There are currently 47+ million American citizens without health insurance, which is more than the combined population of Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming--with every single person facing financial destitution if they or a family member get sick or injured.
That is twenty-four of the 50 states.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, almost one-third of Latinos are uninsured, along with about one-fifth of African Americans. Fifteen percent of children aren’t covered, nor are 17.7 percent--or one in six--of full-time workers, nor even 11.2 percent of families classified as middle income, with household earnings between $50,000 and $75,000 a year.
These numbers will only get worse under the current system. Health Affairs, a policy journal, estimates that the number of uninsured Americans will grow to 56 million by 2013.
Meanwhile, the corporate giants of the health care industry are the big winners. The pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson made profits of $10 billion in 2005, followed closely by Pfizer at $8 billion in earnings, according to Fortune magazine. The drug companies Proctor and Gamble, Merck, Amgen, Abbot and the insurer United Health Group are all among the 50 most profitable of U.S. Fortune 500 companies.
Naturally, that means a big paycheck for health care executives. Johnson and Johnson’s CEO received salary and bonuses worth $28 million last year. When former Pfizer CEO Henry McKinnell left the company, he got benefits worth $180 million, according to the AFL-CIO.
Tellingly, the mainstream candidates from both parties continue to cater to this disastrous health care policy, in deference to their corporate backers in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Our subservience to these industries is why we have the worst medical system among industrial nations. The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. system 37th in the world. France, with it's universal, not for profit, single payer system is ranked number one. Followed by Italy, with a similar plan. Meanwhile, we are looking up at Costa Rica, Dominica, Columbia, Singapore, Malta and virtually all of Europe.
An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that over 2/3 of all Americans thought the government should guarantee "everyone the best and most advanced health care that technology can supply;" a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 80 percent regard universal health care as “more important than holding down taxes”; polls reported in Business Week found that 67% of Americans think it is a good idea to guarantee health care for all U.S. citizens, as Canada and Britain do, with just 27 5 dissenting; the Pew Research Center found that 64 percent of Americans favor the “U.S. government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes” (30 percent opposed). By the late 1980s, more than 70 percent of Americans “thought health care should be a constitutional guarantee,” while 40 percent “thought it already was.” Despite the overwhelming public opinion in favor of a universal, single payer government run health care program, the issue is not even on the table in mainstream political discourse. As John Kerry described it prior to the 2004 elections, a true universal health care system is “not politically viable,” (read: not acceptable to corporate America).
The only candidate who supports a single payer universal health care system, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, has been relegated to also-ran status by the corporate money filter. Apparently, Kucinich wasn’t sufficiently subservient to the corporate overlords who currently rule the planet. The “mainstream” Democratic candidates (Obama, Clinton and Edwards), have put forth sufficiently power-worshipping mutant forms of “universal” health care plans, which cater to big pharmaceutical and Insurance companies, while GOP candidates continue the tradition of putting forth fear-based “privatization” plans geared toward filling the coffers of wall street, and all but ignoring the harsh and deadly realities of such profit-driven systems.
Besides health care, other domestic examples of these neo-liberal policies are becoming more abundant with each passing day. Some examples:
Government taxes population. Uses tax money to "install" imperialist economic entities like the World Bank, IMF and "free trade" agreements onto the populations of south and Central America. Multi-National corporations move into those countries. Hire workers on pennies a day with no benefits, to jobs formerly done on U.S. soil by American citizens. Rape and pillage the land. Sell goods to U.S. taxpayers for "cheaper". Make billions in profits. U.S. taxpayer sees very little return on their tax investment. CEO's give themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for their "hard work".
Government borrows money. The debt is now a shared debt for the population at large. Borrowed money is used to "fund" invasion of Iraq. Defense and re-construction corporations make billions in profits from this taxpayer funding in what amounts to tax-subsidized war profiteering. Population gets a ZERO return on their borrowed money. Iraqi Oil fields opened to “investment” by Multi-National corporations. Oil industry makes tens of billions in profits. U.S. taxpayer pays record high gas prices. CEO's of these corporations get huge bonuses for their "hard work".
Government taxes population. Uses taxes to fund government agencies like FEMA. Government sabotages FEMA through rampant corruption and cronyism. FEMA fails in its duties when a disaster strikes. Poor people lose their homes and jobs. Government says “see, the government can’t do anything right!” Government then pushes forth initiatives to “privatize” the jobs formerly done by FEMA. Multi-national corporations get huge no-bid contracts. Make billions in taxpayer dollars. No oversight. Land formerly inhabited by the poor and lower middle classes are “sold” for pennies on the dollar to corporate developers, who build large-scale for-profit condominiums and work spaces for the upper classes to enjoy. Republican Congressman Richard Baker was overheard telling lobbyists: “We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn’t do it, but God did.” CEO's give themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for their "hard work".
I’ll close with a quote found on a NY Times political blog by someone calling himself ‘concerned citizen’:
“It is well and good to understand realpolitik. It is also well and good, however, to insist that one’s nation live up to its own stated principles. It is the hypocrisy of our nation to which any real patriot ought to vociferously object. We Americans ought to be holding our leadership to the highest possible standards that our own culture and political history have enshrined in our most cherished documents — the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
When our “leadership” has blatantly violated these standards of behavior both domestically and internationally, it is our duty as citizens to object, to protest, to take political action, to vote, to educate, to lift the veil of ignorance and obfuscation, to criticize, to raise the uncomfortable issues that no one wants to discuss.
Yes, we have much that is admirable in this nation. Those who genuinely love these principles must never quietly acquiesce in their destruction. Those who see democracy under corporate assault must say so. Those who see families being destroyed by an economic system that requires two parents to work fulltime while their children become “latchkey kids” are less likely to fall in love with corporate economics.
When our nation commits dastardly acts against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in other nations it is the American citizen’s duty and responsibility to dissent, to criticize, to deplore, to protest against the defilement of our most sacred principles. It is our duty as citizens to upbraid those who perpetrate these offenses.
It is not patriotic to wrap oneself in the flag and trumpet “America, Love it or Leave it”. It is not patriotic to stick one’s head in the sand when our country does morally and legally indefensible deeds at home or abroad. True citizens must always dissent and object to these things. The price of liberty is constant vigilance.”
Amen, brother.