~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Memorial" Day 2008:
Almost drowning out of the roar of the NASCAR engines, the screams of the orphaned children watching their parents and brothers and sisters being dragged off by the American SS, the I.C.E., the outraged desperate pleas of parents begging government not to poison spray their homes and backyards, and darn near overriding the cacaphonous pitchmen selling hot newly repossessed houses on the Repochannel (available at auction this weekend for a mere fraction of their worth) -- come all the loud impassioned eulogies for Our Troops
Lies, all of it.
I do not support our troops.
I do not support anyone's troops.
It is emblematic that throughout the USA we dedicate an official holiday to the deification and glorification of "our" warriors.
All across America today people of every kind, hawks and doves, peaceniks and sabre rattlers, pro war and anti war, are stepping up proudly to proclaim that whether they support war or not, they "support our troops".
I do not support our troops.
They are not mine.
They are not admirable brave men and women, nor are they fighting for our country. They are certainly not fighting for me. And you better get it through your head- they ain't fighting for you either.
They are murderers and killers, and some of them torturers and rapists, who have willingly committed inhuman and unconscionable acts on uncountable victims.
Many of them may also themselves be victims but all of them are perpetrators. As are we.
Many of them may be reluctant warriors, but all of them have the moral obligation to refuse to kill, and choose instead to follow orders.
They are not fighting for freedom or democracy. They are not murdering to make us safe.
They may have been sent to do the filthy work of insane power mongers and incomprehensibly greedy pigs, but that filthy work they do, and often, as can be seen on countless video clips, with gusto and guffawing glee.
I support the troops and veterans (and their families) who have renounced the killing and I support their great courage -- to look the truth of their actions in the eye, and take full responsibility for what they have done, and to then dedicate their lives to reparation and amends.
America looks out into the world, and sees not the 100’s of thousands of humans we have killed, wounded, starved to smithereens, or burned beyond recognition, but sees only its own brave soldiers, as if they were the victims.
And this of course is why we go so easily into war. THEY are the victims. WE are not the victims.
For Us, the Others don’t exist. It is all about Us, and Our sons and Our mothers and Our children and husbands and wives.
Supporting our Troops means we support ourselves, and lets us rationalize what we have done.
For each of us has made the same moral choice as each of the soldiers. Each of us has, in one way or another, followed orders, and death and destruction have been the result.
We must find the courage to NOT support the troops, and NOT support what we all have committed. We must blame the troops, and blame ourselves, take full responsibility for what we and our soldiers have done, and dedicate our lives to making amends.
Today should be called Victims’ Day.
A day for the nation to stop everything and contemplate and examine in extreme detail, everything we have brought on humanity. For centuries.
A day when we individually and collectively face the truth.
Today let us mark the beginning of redemption by memorializing and humanizing and glorifying the victims of our crimes. Let us march and sadly display the tragic photos of those we have killed, and not of Us, their killers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more!!
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
DRANT #298: JOHN and JOE in 08
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more!!
You saw it here foist.
John and Joe
in 2008.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John and Joe
in 2008.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more!!
Saturday, May 17, 2008
DRANT #297: IVAW DC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more!!
Winter Soldier on the Hill: Vets Testify, Then Resist
By Erin Thompson
May 17, 2008 | Posted in IndyBlog | Email this article
Capitol Hill—In the final moments of an unofficial hearing held in a small chamber of the House of Representatives on May 15, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-Texas] asked members of the Iraq Veterans Against the War, who had just finished testifying about atrocities committed by the U.S. military in Iraq, if they would be willing to help organize a mass mobilization in Washington, D.C., in an effort to end the war.
“Would you work with us and join us and help us bring 100,000 people to the [Washington] mall?”
The question, perhaps meant as a gesture of good faith from a progressive Democratic who had empathetically listened to nine testifiers describe the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians, racism toward “everything that wasn’t us”, abuse of detainees, the mutilation of the Iraqi dead and high-level cover-ups and corruption, among other unsavory facets of the U.S. occupation, was met with an unexpectedly tepid response from the veterans.
“Beyond amassing hundreds of thousands of people, which has been done before, there have to be clear objectives,” said Army Officer Luis Montalvan, who served two tours in Iraq with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and who had testified earlier about corruption and lack of accountability at the highest levels of command in the U.S. military.
Jackson-Lee queried the other testifiers and got similar answers. Adam Kokesh, a former Marine who served in 2003 with the 3rd Civil Affairs Group in Fallujah, explained that he was less interested in mobilizing thousands of people for a mass demonstration than in organizing direct resistance to the war within the military.
James Gilligan, a former Marine who served in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, minced no words. “I fly this flag upside down because my nation is in distress. I do not see why we need to wait a day, a week, a month for impeachment.” Gilligan’s response was met with enthusiastic clapping from the audience.
The moment was a telling one, underscoring the disconnect between the political will of elected officials, who only narrowly defeated a $163 billion war-funding bill yesterday, and the resolve of a group of highly organized and determined veterans who are tired of marching and are not waiting for congress to take action to end the war in Iraq.
At the end of the hearing, Geoff Millard, the D.C. Chapter President of the Iraq Veterans Against the War, gave a closing statement. Like the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which “was the leading force that led to the end of that occupation” in 1970s, Millard said that the resistance from veterans today would be key to ending the war.
“The only question is will Congress be there to help us?” said Millard.
A GROWING MOVEMENT
Since it was founded with only seven members in 2004, the Iraq Veterans Against the War has grown to a national organization with 1200 members, half of which have joined in the last year. Its members include veterans and active-duty personnel, who are working to bring about an immediate withdrawal of troops, full benefits and care for military personnel and reparations for the Iraqi people.
While in its first years the organization generally played a supportive role in the antiwar movement, with members speaking at antiwar events and marching at the head of antiwar mobilizations, the last year has seen the group come into its own. The group has focused its energies on organizing soldiers within the military and veterans, in order to foment direct resistance to the war.
Most recently, they organized Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan, a four-day event, hosted at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, MD. Dozens of veterans and active-duty personnel testified about atrocities that they had seen or committed in Iraq. Panels covered issues such as racism and sexism in the military, dehumanization of Iraqis, abuse of detainees, how the rules of engagement provided by the U.S. military lead to the indiscriminate killing of civilians, the role of corruption and military contractors, and the breakdown of the military.
Inspired by the 1971 hearings of the same name, which was held in a Detroit hotel room and received virtually no media coverage at the time, the 2008 Winter Soldier hearings garnered a significant amount of press attention from progressive, independent and international media, and even got attention from the right-wing blogosphere. Though it was broadcast in full on Pacifica’s KPFA, the hearings barely made a dent in the corporate press.
‘WELCOME TO THE SECOND VIETNAM’
Two months later, the unofficial hearing hosted by the 72-member Congressional Progressive Caucus was a smaller affair, with only nine panelists testifying for nine minutes each. The press, however, showed up in force, with CNN and Fox News promising to attend and C-SPAN recording the event.
All of the testifiers had provided testimony at the March Winter Soldier hearings, and much of their testimony echoed their previous statements.
Jason Lemieux, a Marine who served three tours in Iraq, in Karbala, Husaybah and Ramadi, testified on how the rules of engagement used by U.S. forces “lead to widespread destruction for all life and property in Iraq.”
Lemieux described an incident in which a Marine platoon, after receiving four rounds of sniper fire, fired battery of weapons, including tank rounds, at an Iraqi village where there were known civilians. He explained how his commanding officer falsified the number of incoming round received from four to the “double digits” to cover-up the excessive use of force employed in the incident and testified about being ordered to shoot at unarmed civilians, and characterized such cover-ups of civilian casualties as “routine.”
“In my unit the primary loyalty is not to democracy or the flag or to America or the Iraqi people or to the rule of law, it is to each other’s safety at the expense of everything else,” said Lemieux.
One of the most disturbing charges of systematic cover-ups was brought by Sergio Kochergin, who served two tours in Iraq with the U.S. Marine Corps, and explained that soldiers were given “drop weapons.”
“Drop weapons are the weapons that are given to us by the command – so if the person [is] shot, an AK 47 will be dropped on the body,” said Kochergin, who added that commanding officers had to be aware of the practice. “These weapons could not come from anywhere else but the hard chain of command.”
Scott Ewing, a cavalry scout who deployed to Iraq in March of 2005, testified that civilians were routinely the victim of American fire, “I personally witnessed more innocent civilians injured or killed by American forces than by the enemy,” said Ewing. He described coming upon two Iraqi women who were bleeding after being shot by American forces, one of whom died from a shrapnel injury to her head.
“This incident illustrates that there has been virtually no reporting by the mainstream media about civilian casualties in Iraq,” said Ewing.
Ewing also described the arbitrary detainment of Iraqi civilians. “In one case we detained three men just because they were running,” said Ewing. “There was no evidence they had done anything wrong, we detained them anyway.”
On the topic of house raids, Ewing showed photos of ransacked Iraqi houses, including one photo showing the words “Fuck u Iraq” written in chalk on the wall of an Iraqi citizen’s home.
Geoff Millard, a former Army National Guardsman who spent 13 months in Operation Iraqi Freedom, testified that racism toward Arabs and Muslims was endemic among soldiers in Iraq. “Everything that wasn’t us, became ‘hajis’,” said Millard, citing an Arabic term of endearment that is often by U.S. military personnel to denigrate Arabs and Muslims. “If it’s the Pakistanis who did our laundry, or KBR employees who served us food, they became ‘hajis’.”
According to Millard, this racism was not just common among enlisted men, but at the highest levels of office. Millard described a traffic control shooting, in which “a young private made a split second decision, and put more than 200 rounds into a car” containing an Iraqi family. After being briefed on the incident, Millard testified to hearing a general tell a room full of soldiers that, “If these fucking ‘hajis’ learn to drive, this shit wouldn’t happen.”
“I expected a lot more,” said Millard of his fellow soldiers. “I found no dissenting facial expressions or body language, just nodding the head, ‘yep, if these f-ing ‘hajis’ learn to drive, this wouldn’t happen.’”
Other soldiers echoed the charges of racism and dehumanization of the Iraqi people. When dealing with detainees, “Our unit engaged in punching, kicking, butt stroking, at times throwing [detainees] out of the back of our Humvees… throwing soft-ball sized rocks at their backs as they ran away,” said Vincent Emanuele who was deployed in 2004 to Iraq with the U.S. Marine Corps.
Emanuele described how the bodies of Iraqi dead were routinely mishandled and mutilated. When dead bodies were found by soldiers, “standard operation procedure was to run over these bodies with Humvees and sometimes take pictures.”
Kris Goldsmith, a former Army Sergeant, spoke first-hand about at his own racism when he entered the military. “I joined the army to kill people. I joined the army to kill Iraqis, to kill Muslim, to kill people [with] a skin tone that was other than mine.” He then apologized, “I’m no longer a racist, no longer filled with hatred like that.”
The 22-year-old, who now sports a Mohawk, served in Sadr City, Baghdad in 2005. He described a city missing even the most basic infrastructure, with citizens lacking access to water, power and living daily in garbage and raw sewage.
“It was bad with Saddam was in control; it is now worse than 2005,” said Goldsmith of conditions in the U.S.-occupied slum. He showed slides of raw sewage in the streets, describing how any clean-up of it was done perfunctorily by U.S. forces once a week, at best, with no real attempt to improve living conditions for Iraqis.
“This is a school which is flooded,” said Goldsmith showing a slide. “That’s a kid being exposed to massive amounts of sewage; that is sewage outside of the Red Crescent hospital.”
Contrary to what he had been led to believe, Goldsmith explained that the people he met in Sadr City were not grateful for the U.S. occupation, but resentful and angry, encouraging children to throw bricks at soldiers. He presented images of graffiti written on the sides of buildings in Sadr City. One, spray-painted in blue Arabic script on the side of a school read, “Welcome America to the second Vietnam.”
Another written in broken English said, “The U.S. and Allawi are terror men,” referring to the former Iraqi Prime Minister. “That is the feeling of the people of Sadr City,” said Goldsmith. “They feel they have been let down by America and their own government.”
Goldsmith’s testimony also hinted at the deep psychological trauma that many veterans of the Iraq war are struggling with and the lack of support provided by the U.S. military. “Since I returned, I attempted suicide; I never redeployed. I lost my college benefits,” said Goldsmith, who is prevented from collecting education benefits due to the nature of discharge from the Army.
ENCOURAGING RESISTANCE
Moments after the hearing concluded, members of the IVAW gathered in the neighboring Cannon building of the House, just above the heads of dozens of tourists streaming through the metal detectors, to show just what they mean by direct resistance. Army Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, a 24-year-old photojournalist who served nearly five years in the military, read a short statement to members of the press, announcing his refusal to deploy to Iraq.
“As an army journalist whose job it was to college and filter service members’ stories, I heard many a stomach-churning testimony of the horrors and crimes taking place in Iraq. For fear of retaliation from the military, I failed to report these crimes,” said Chiroux. “Never again will I allow fear to silence me. Never again will I fail to stand. In February, I received a letter from the Army, ordering my return to active duty, with the purpose of mobilization in Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
“Thanks in great part to the truths of war being fearlessly spoken by my fellow IVAW members, I stand before you today with the strength and clarity and resolve to declare the military and my government and the world that this soldier will not be deploying to Iraq.”
Chiroux, a Brooklyn College student in his first semester, came to the decision to refuse to deploy only after hearing the testimony of soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Winter Soldier hearings organized by the IVAW last March.
Chiroux’s statement was followed by comments by the IVAW Executive Director Kelly Dougherty. “I would like to let Matthis and everyone here know that IVAW stands in support and solidarity with your decision, which I know is very difficult and very personal,” said Dougherty.
“IVAW’s strategy to end the occupation in Iraq is to encourage and organize resistance and opposition to this occupation from within the ranks and from the recent veterans.”
Subscribe to the Indypendent!
Copyright © 2006 The Indypendent All Rights Reserved
By Erin Thompson
May 17, 2008 | Posted in IndyBlog | Email this article
Capitol Hill—In the final moments of an unofficial hearing held in a small chamber of the House of Representatives on May 15, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-Texas] asked members of the Iraq Veterans Against the War, who had just finished testifying about atrocities committed by the U.S. military in Iraq, if they would be willing to help organize a mass mobilization in Washington, D.C., in an effort to end the war.
“Would you work with us and join us and help us bring 100,000 people to the [Washington] mall?”
The question, perhaps meant as a gesture of good faith from a progressive Democratic who had empathetically listened to nine testifiers describe the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians, racism toward “everything that wasn’t us”, abuse of detainees, the mutilation of the Iraqi dead and high-level cover-ups and corruption, among other unsavory facets of the U.S. occupation, was met with an unexpectedly tepid response from the veterans.
“Beyond amassing hundreds of thousands of people, which has been done before, there have to be clear objectives,” said Army Officer Luis Montalvan, who served two tours in Iraq with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and who had testified earlier about corruption and lack of accountability at the highest levels of command in the U.S. military.
Jackson-Lee queried the other testifiers and got similar answers. Adam Kokesh, a former Marine who served in 2003 with the 3rd Civil Affairs Group in Fallujah, explained that he was less interested in mobilizing thousands of people for a mass demonstration than in organizing direct resistance to the war within the military.
James Gilligan, a former Marine who served in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, minced no words. “I fly this flag upside down because my nation is in distress. I do not see why we need to wait a day, a week, a month for impeachment.” Gilligan’s response was met with enthusiastic clapping from the audience.
The moment was a telling one, underscoring the disconnect between the political will of elected officials, who only narrowly defeated a $163 billion war-funding bill yesterday, and the resolve of a group of highly organized and determined veterans who are tired of marching and are not waiting for congress to take action to end the war in Iraq.
At the end of the hearing, Geoff Millard, the D.C. Chapter President of the Iraq Veterans Against the War, gave a closing statement. Like the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which “was the leading force that led to the end of that occupation” in 1970s, Millard said that the resistance from veterans today would be key to ending the war.
“The only question is will Congress be there to help us?” said Millard.
A GROWING MOVEMENT
Since it was founded with only seven members in 2004, the Iraq Veterans Against the War has grown to a national organization with 1200 members, half of which have joined in the last year. Its members include veterans and active-duty personnel, who are working to bring about an immediate withdrawal of troops, full benefits and care for military personnel and reparations for the Iraqi people.
While in its first years the organization generally played a supportive role in the antiwar movement, with members speaking at antiwar events and marching at the head of antiwar mobilizations, the last year has seen the group come into its own. The group has focused its energies on organizing soldiers within the military and veterans, in order to foment direct resistance to the war.
Most recently, they organized Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan, a four-day event, hosted at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, MD. Dozens of veterans and active-duty personnel testified about atrocities that they had seen or committed in Iraq. Panels covered issues such as racism and sexism in the military, dehumanization of Iraqis, abuse of detainees, how the rules of engagement provided by the U.S. military lead to the indiscriminate killing of civilians, the role of corruption and military contractors, and the breakdown of the military.
Inspired by the 1971 hearings of the same name, which was held in a Detroit hotel room and received virtually no media coverage at the time, the 2008 Winter Soldier hearings garnered a significant amount of press attention from progressive, independent and international media, and even got attention from the right-wing blogosphere. Though it was broadcast in full on Pacifica’s KPFA, the hearings barely made a dent in the corporate press.
‘WELCOME TO THE SECOND VIETNAM’
Two months later, the unofficial hearing hosted by the 72-member Congressional Progressive Caucus was a smaller affair, with only nine panelists testifying for nine minutes each. The press, however, showed up in force, with CNN and Fox News promising to attend and C-SPAN recording the event.
All of the testifiers had provided testimony at the March Winter Soldier hearings, and much of their testimony echoed their previous statements.
Jason Lemieux, a Marine who served three tours in Iraq, in Karbala, Husaybah and Ramadi, testified on how the rules of engagement used by U.S. forces “lead to widespread destruction for all life and property in Iraq.”
Lemieux described an incident in which a Marine platoon, after receiving four rounds of sniper fire, fired battery of weapons, including tank rounds, at an Iraqi village where there were known civilians. He explained how his commanding officer falsified the number of incoming round received from four to the “double digits” to cover-up the excessive use of force employed in the incident and testified about being ordered to shoot at unarmed civilians, and characterized such cover-ups of civilian casualties as “routine.”
“In my unit the primary loyalty is not to democracy or the flag or to America or the Iraqi people or to the rule of law, it is to each other’s safety at the expense of everything else,” said Lemieux.
One of the most disturbing charges of systematic cover-ups was brought by Sergio Kochergin, who served two tours in Iraq with the U.S. Marine Corps, and explained that soldiers were given “drop weapons.”
“Drop weapons are the weapons that are given to us by the command – so if the person [is] shot, an AK 47 will be dropped on the body,” said Kochergin, who added that commanding officers had to be aware of the practice. “These weapons could not come from anywhere else but the hard chain of command.”
Scott Ewing, a cavalry scout who deployed to Iraq in March of 2005, testified that civilians were routinely the victim of American fire, “I personally witnessed more innocent civilians injured or killed by American forces than by the enemy,” said Ewing. He described coming upon two Iraqi women who were bleeding after being shot by American forces, one of whom died from a shrapnel injury to her head.
“This incident illustrates that there has been virtually no reporting by the mainstream media about civilian casualties in Iraq,” said Ewing.
Ewing also described the arbitrary detainment of Iraqi civilians. “In one case we detained three men just because they were running,” said Ewing. “There was no evidence they had done anything wrong, we detained them anyway.”
On the topic of house raids, Ewing showed photos of ransacked Iraqi houses, including one photo showing the words “Fuck u Iraq” written in chalk on the wall of an Iraqi citizen’s home.
Geoff Millard, a former Army National Guardsman who spent 13 months in Operation Iraqi Freedom, testified that racism toward Arabs and Muslims was endemic among soldiers in Iraq. “Everything that wasn’t us, became ‘hajis’,” said Millard, citing an Arabic term of endearment that is often by U.S. military personnel to denigrate Arabs and Muslims. “If it’s the Pakistanis who did our laundry, or KBR employees who served us food, they became ‘hajis’.”
According to Millard, this racism was not just common among enlisted men, but at the highest levels of office. Millard described a traffic control shooting, in which “a young private made a split second decision, and put more than 200 rounds into a car” containing an Iraqi family. After being briefed on the incident, Millard testified to hearing a general tell a room full of soldiers that, “If these fucking ‘hajis’ learn to drive, this shit wouldn’t happen.”
“I expected a lot more,” said Millard of his fellow soldiers. “I found no dissenting facial expressions or body language, just nodding the head, ‘yep, if these f-ing ‘hajis’ learn to drive, this wouldn’t happen.’”
Other soldiers echoed the charges of racism and dehumanization of the Iraqi people. When dealing with detainees, “Our unit engaged in punching, kicking, butt stroking, at times throwing [detainees] out of the back of our Humvees… throwing soft-ball sized rocks at their backs as they ran away,” said Vincent Emanuele who was deployed in 2004 to Iraq with the U.S. Marine Corps.
Emanuele described how the bodies of Iraqi dead were routinely mishandled and mutilated. When dead bodies were found by soldiers, “standard operation procedure was to run over these bodies with Humvees and sometimes take pictures.”
Kris Goldsmith, a former Army Sergeant, spoke first-hand about at his own racism when he entered the military. “I joined the army to kill people. I joined the army to kill Iraqis, to kill Muslim, to kill people [with] a skin tone that was other than mine.” He then apologized, “I’m no longer a racist, no longer filled with hatred like that.”
The 22-year-old, who now sports a Mohawk, served in Sadr City, Baghdad in 2005. He described a city missing even the most basic infrastructure, with citizens lacking access to water, power and living daily in garbage and raw sewage.
“It was bad with Saddam was in control; it is now worse than 2005,” said Goldsmith of conditions in the U.S.-occupied slum. He showed slides of raw sewage in the streets, describing how any clean-up of it was done perfunctorily by U.S. forces once a week, at best, with no real attempt to improve living conditions for Iraqis.
“This is a school which is flooded,” said Goldsmith showing a slide. “That’s a kid being exposed to massive amounts of sewage; that is sewage outside of the Red Crescent hospital.”
Contrary to what he had been led to believe, Goldsmith explained that the people he met in Sadr City were not grateful for the U.S. occupation, but resentful and angry, encouraging children to throw bricks at soldiers. He presented images of graffiti written on the sides of buildings in Sadr City. One, spray-painted in blue Arabic script on the side of a school read, “Welcome America to the second Vietnam.”
Another written in broken English said, “The U.S. and Allawi are terror men,” referring to the former Iraqi Prime Minister. “That is the feeling of the people of Sadr City,” said Goldsmith. “They feel they have been let down by America and their own government.”
Goldsmith’s testimony also hinted at the deep psychological trauma that many veterans of the Iraq war are struggling with and the lack of support provided by the U.S. military. “Since I returned, I attempted suicide; I never redeployed. I lost my college benefits,” said Goldsmith, who is prevented from collecting education benefits due to the nature of discharge from the Army.
ENCOURAGING RESISTANCE
Moments after the hearing concluded, members of the IVAW gathered in the neighboring Cannon building of the House, just above the heads of dozens of tourists streaming through the metal detectors, to show just what they mean by direct resistance. Army Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, a 24-year-old photojournalist who served nearly five years in the military, read a short statement to members of the press, announcing his refusal to deploy to Iraq.
“As an army journalist whose job it was to college and filter service members’ stories, I heard many a stomach-churning testimony of the horrors and crimes taking place in Iraq. For fear of retaliation from the military, I failed to report these crimes,” said Chiroux. “Never again will I allow fear to silence me. Never again will I fail to stand. In February, I received a letter from the Army, ordering my return to active duty, with the purpose of mobilization in Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
“Thanks in great part to the truths of war being fearlessly spoken by my fellow IVAW members, I stand before you today with the strength and clarity and resolve to declare the military and my government and the world that this soldier will not be deploying to Iraq.”
Chiroux, a Brooklyn College student in his first semester, came to the decision to refuse to deploy only after hearing the testimony of soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Winter Soldier hearings organized by the IVAW last March.
Chiroux’s statement was followed by comments by the IVAW Executive Director Kelly Dougherty. “I would like to let Matthis and everyone here know that IVAW stands in support and solidarity with your decision, which I know is very difficult and very personal,” said Dougherty.
“IVAW’s strategy to end the occupation in Iraq is to encourage and organize resistance and opposition to this occupation from within the ranks and from the recent veterans.”
Subscribe to the Indypendent!
Copyright © 2006 The Indypendent All Rights Reserved
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more!!
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
DRANT #296: SERVANTS OF THE LEECHOPOLY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just take a minute to think about this.
We expect our Congressmembers and governmental representatives to be on the take. Natch.
We barely grunt when a scummy pimp like Senator Richard Shelby is up to his corrupt cojones in real estate financed with Federal Loans, then acts to destroy legislation that might save the homes of millions of people, but might conceivably scratch the fenders on his limousine of rapacious accumulation.
But this time- its the goddam SUPREMEs that are the goddam BRIBEES.
So many of them are in bed with fleas, they can't walk the dog. And not the first time neither.
These people are supposed to be, are constitutionally required to be- unimpeachable.
That's the job description. These ain't the cops who take a twenny and forget the ticket.
JUDGES.
Supreme Court.
Yah know what I mean ?
Conflict of interest ?
Yeah, between what they own and what the law says.
Between what's good for their IRAs and what serves Justice.
Between what is right and what makes them a buck or two.
Victims of Apartheid get no Justice because the Judges' brokers called ?
What this does is pull back the covers on what really goes on in ALL the Courts, including the Supreme one.
Just remember this when you go to court or expect We (The Group formerly known as) The People, to be EQUAL UNDER THE LAW-
They ALL have untold huge personal vested interests in the capitalist wall street hedgefundfuckem war profiteering subprimesucking Leechopoly.
Diogenes my ass.
We need a goddam mile long roto rooter, and NO lube.
These people must be Impeached immediately.
But of course, that would require Democrats to get vertebrae implants, and we know whassup with that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Supreme Court Conflicts Stop Apartheid Case
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/washington/13scotus.html?_r=1&hp&oref
The New York Times
May 13, 2008
Justices’ Conflicts Halt Apartheid Appeal
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON — Financial and personal conflicts of interest affecting four Supreme Court justices left the court without a quorum last week and unable to decide whether to hear an appeal brought by more than 50 companies that did business in apartheid-era South Africa.
As a result, the Supreme Court announced on Monday that a lower court’s judgment allowing the high-profile lawsuit against the companies to move forward was automatically affirmed.
A quorum of six of the nine justices is necessary for the court to conduct business. While the recusal of four justices is unusual, so was the case that provoked it, a consolidation of 10 lawsuits filed in the name of everyone who lived in South Africa from 1948 to 1994 and who was injured by the official system of racial separation. The dozens of corporate defendants represented a who’s who of American business.
The outcome calls attention to the occasionally uncomfortable consequences of the justices’ ownership of stock in individual companies. With solitary recusals being much more frequent, a 4-to-4 deadlock is a more common outcome than an inability to proceed with the case at all.
That happened on March 3, when nonparticipation by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. resulted in a 4-to-4 tie in a case on the permissibility of damage suits against the makers of federally approved pharmaceuticals. According to his most recent financial disclosure form, the chief justice owns stock in Pfizer Inc., the corporate parent of the defendant in that case, Warner-Lambert Company v. Kent, No. 06-1498.
It remains to be seen whether the absence of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. from the Exxon Valdez punitive damages case, argued on Feb. 27, will result in a tie vote. His ownership of Exxon Mobil stock led to his recusal from that case, Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker, No. 07-219. In a tie vote, the lower court’s decision is upheld but it has no effect as precedent in other cases.
Federal law makes it mandatory for judges to remove themselves from cases if they own even a single share of stock in a company that is a party in a case. Judges, unlike some executive branch officials, are not required to divest themselves of their stock holdings. Nonetheless, Congress acted in 2006 to deal with the recusal problem by making divestiture more appealing. It extended to the federal judiciary the relief from capital gains tax liability that it had already granted to executive branch officials who sell individual stocks and reinvest the proceeds in government securities or approved mutual funds.
Whether the apartheid case, which seeks $400 billion in damages from the corporate defendants, ever gets to trial remains highly uncertain, despite the Supreme Court’s inability to act on the companies’ request to dismiss it. The government of South Africa strongly opposes the litigation, and the Bush administration supported the companies’ appeal on the ground that the case “is causing present injury to important interests of the United States and the Republic of South Africa.”
The Supreme Court’s order in the case, American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza, No. 07-919, listed Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito along with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer as having taken “no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.”
“Since a majority of the qualified justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next term of the court, the judgment is affirmed,” the order said.
The outcome has the same effect as a tie vote — it makes no law and does not set any precedent. As is usual, the court did not give reasons for the justices’ recusals. Exxon Mobil is a defendant, as is another company in which Justice Alito owns stock, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Justice Breyer owns stock in several of the companies. Chief Justice Roberts owns the stock of another defendant, Hewlett-Packard. Justice Kennedy’s reason for recusal does not appear to be stock, but rather a son’s employment with another defendant, Credit Suisse, a situation that has previously led the justice to disqualify himself.
The plaintiffs have invoked one of the oldest federal laws, the Alien Tort Statute, which was enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. It is a jurisdictional statute that does not by itself convey any substantive rights. Rather, it authorizes the federal courts to decide “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”
The Alien Tort Statute, sometimes called the Alien Tort Claims Act, lay dormant for most of two centuries until it was rediscovered as a way to seek redress in United States courts for human rights violations committed overseas.
The Supreme Court, while not foreclosing the use of the statute for that purpose, has been notably skeptical. A footnote in a 2004 Supreme Court decision on an unrelated Alien Tort Statute case referred specifically to the South African lawsuit, noting that there was “a strong argument that federal courts should give serious weight to the executive branch’s view of the case’s impact on foreign policy.”
In its ruling last October allowing the case to proceed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, ordered the district court to consider defenses it had not previously addressed. These include whether the suit presents a “political question” that is beyond the institutional capacity of a federal court to resolve.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more!!
Just take a minute to think about this.
We expect our Congressmembers and governmental representatives to be on the take. Natch.
We barely grunt when a scummy pimp like Senator Richard Shelby is up to his corrupt cojones in real estate financed with Federal Loans, then acts to destroy legislation that might save the homes of millions of people, but might conceivably scratch the fenders on his limousine of rapacious accumulation.
But this time- its the goddam SUPREMEs that are the goddam BRIBEES.
So many of them are in bed with fleas, they can't walk the dog. And not the first time neither.
These people are supposed to be, are constitutionally required to be- unimpeachable.
That's the job description. These ain't the cops who take a twenny and forget the ticket.
JUDGES.
Supreme Court.
Yah know what I mean ?
Conflict of interest ?
Yeah, between what they own and what the law says.
Between what's good for their IRAs and what serves Justice.
Between what is right and what makes them a buck or two.
Victims of Apartheid get no Justice because the Judges' brokers called ?
What this does is pull back the covers on what really goes on in ALL the Courts, including the Supreme one.
Just remember this when you go to court or expect We (The Group formerly known as) The People, to be EQUAL UNDER THE LAW-
They ALL have untold huge personal vested interests in the capitalist wall street hedgefundfuckem war profiteering subprimesucking Leechopoly.
Diogenes my ass.
We need a goddam mile long roto rooter, and NO lube.
These people must be Impeached immediately.
But of course, that would require Democrats to get vertebrae implants, and we know whassup with that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Supreme Court Conflicts Stop Apartheid Case
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/washington/13scotus.html?_r=1&hp&oref
The New York Times
May 13, 2008
Justices’ Conflicts Halt Apartheid Appeal
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON — Financial and personal conflicts of interest affecting four Supreme Court justices left the court without a quorum last week and unable to decide whether to hear an appeal brought by more than 50 companies that did business in apartheid-era South Africa.
As a result, the Supreme Court announced on Monday that a lower court’s judgment allowing the high-profile lawsuit against the companies to move forward was automatically affirmed.
A quorum of six of the nine justices is necessary for the court to conduct business. While the recusal of four justices is unusual, so was the case that provoked it, a consolidation of 10 lawsuits filed in the name of everyone who lived in South Africa from 1948 to 1994 and who was injured by the official system of racial separation. The dozens of corporate defendants represented a who’s who of American business.
The outcome calls attention to the occasionally uncomfortable consequences of the justices’ ownership of stock in individual companies. With solitary recusals being much more frequent, a 4-to-4 deadlock is a more common outcome than an inability to proceed with the case at all.
That happened on March 3, when nonparticipation by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. resulted in a 4-to-4 tie in a case on the permissibility of damage suits against the makers of federally approved pharmaceuticals. According to his most recent financial disclosure form, the chief justice owns stock in Pfizer Inc., the corporate parent of the defendant in that case, Warner-Lambert Company v. Kent, No. 06-1498.
It remains to be seen whether the absence of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. from the Exxon Valdez punitive damages case, argued on Feb. 27, will result in a tie vote. His ownership of Exxon Mobil stock led to his recusal from that case, Exxon Shipping Company v. Baker, No. 07-219. In a tie vote, the lower court’s decision is upheld but it has no effect as precedent in other cases.
Federal law makes it mandatory for judges to remove themselves from cases if they own even a single share of stock in a company that is a party in a case. Judges, unlike some executive branch officials, are not required to divest themselves of their stock holdings. Nonetheless, Congress acted in 2006 to deal with the recusal problem by making divestiture more appealing. It extended to the federal judiciary the relief from capital gains tax liability that it had already granted to executive branch officials who sell individual stocks and reinvest the proceeds in government securities or approved mutual funds.
Whether the apartheid case, which seeks $400 billion in damages from the corporate defendants, ever gets to trial remains highly uncertain, despite the Supreme Court’s inability to act on the companies’ request to dismiss it. The government of South Africa strongly opposes the litigation, and the Bush administration supported the companies’ appeal on the ground that the case “is causing present injury to important interests of the United States and the Republic of South Africa.”
The Supreme Court’s order in the case, American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. Ntsebeza, No. 07-919, listed Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito along with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer as having taken “no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.”
“Since a majority of the qualified justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next term of the court, the judgment is affirmed,” the order said.
The outcome has the same effect as a tie vote — it makes no law and does not set any precedent. As is usual, the court did not give reasons for the justices’ recusals. Exxon Mobil is a defendant, as is another company in which Justice Alito owns stock, Bristol-Myers Squibb. Justice Breyer owns stock in several of the companies. Chief Justice Roberts owns the stock of another defendant, Hewlett-Packard. Justice Kennedy’s reason for recusal does not appear to be stock, but rather a son’s employment with another defendant, Credit Suisse, a situation that has previously led the justice to disqualify himself.
The plaintiffs have invoked one of the oldest federal laws, the Alien Tort Statute, which was enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. It is a jurisdictional statute that does not by itself convey any substantive rights. Rather, it authorizes the federal courts to decide “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”
The Alien Tort Statute, sometimes called the Alien Tort Claims Act, lay dormant for most of two centuries until it was rediscovered as a way to seek redress in United States courts for human rights violations committed overseas.
The Supreme Court, while not foreclosing the use of the statute for that purpose, has been notably skeptical. A footnote in a 2004 Supreme Court decision on an unrelated Alien Tort Statute case referred specifically to the South African lawsuit, noting that there was “a strong argument that federal courts should give serious weight to the executive branch’s view of the case’s impact on foreign policy.”
In its ruling last October allowing the case to proceed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, ordered the district court to consider defenses it had not previously addressed. These include whether the suit presents a “political question” that is beyond the institutional capacity of a federal court to resolve.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more!!
Sunday, May 11, 2008
DRANT #295: HAMBURGERS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Further to my previous DRANT (294) -
Please read this.
The cancer that is American Culture metastasizes- not the least of which are globally insatiable agribusiness, devastatingly rapacious wall street speculation, and - not at all the least destructive- pet food and hamburgers.
Read more!!
Further to my previous DRANT (294) -
Please read this.
The cancer that is American Culture metastasizes- not the least of which are globally insatiable agribusiness, devastatingly rapacious wall street speculation, and - not at all the least destructive- pet food and hamburgers.
"...If it weren't for the little dog in the picture, and if it weren't a
Purina ad, you might think this was an ad for human food. Just look at
that lucious heaping plate -- a white dinner plate -- of red
meat and vegetables. Who would turn that down?
Personally, I feel certain that this Purina ad is aiming to sell dog
food not only to Fido's master, but also to those impoverished U.S.
citizens who must seek food aid each year to alleviate their hunger --
25 million people in 2006 and rising. So maybe we're not spending
$16.9 billion merely to feed our pets. Maybe we're actually spending
part of $16.9 billion providing dog food to some of the tens of
millions of U.S. citizens who otherwise could not afford a meal.
Perhaps this is a thinly-veiled free-market answer to hunger in
America."
From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #958, May 8, 2008
THE GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS
By Peter Montague
Global food prices have risen 83% in the last 3 years. This spring,
as prices rose steeply, food riots broke out in Haiti, Egypt,
Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Ethiopia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, the
Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Italy, among other places.
Because U.S. energy policy subsidizes farmers to grow corn to make
ethanol (alcohol that can supplement gasoline), the U.S. is being
accused of feeding its sport utility vehicles (SUVs) instead of
feeding people. There is some truth to this charge, but it's more
complicated than that.[1]
The global food crisis has been created by a combination of things,
among them:
** Climate changes, perhaps related to global warming, such as the
recent large tornado in Myanmar, the epic drought going on now in
Australia, floods last year in North Korea, and years of low rainfall
in the western U.S., among other costly weather changes. Australia
used to export enough rice to feed 20 million people, but six years of
drought have cut their rice yield by 98%. Australia used to be the
world's second-largest exporter of wheat, but the drought has changed
that, too. "A big reason for higher wheat prices... is the multi-year
drought in Australia, something scientists say may become persistent
because of global warming," according to the Washington Post.
** U.S. farmers have been growing less wheat since the mid-1990s in
favor of more-reliable soybeans and better-subsidized corn. "Wheat's
biggest problem is its susceptibility to disease, which has turned
many farmers against it," explains Dan Morgan in the Washington
Post.
** Rising oil prices, caused partly by rising demand for oil in
China and India (and in U.S. SUVs), and partly by diminished supply
caused by the Iraq war. Because of rising oil prices, the cost of
transporting food has doubled in the last year alone. Furthermore,
the price of fertilizer is tightly linked to the price of oil and
has been rising for about five years. Use of fertilizer in the third
world increased 56% between 1996 and 2008.
Increasingly it is looking as though the "peak oil" moment has arrived
-- the moment when half the Earth's available oil has been extracted.
After that "peak oil" moment, oil prices are expected to zig-zag
upward more or less steadily.
** The demand for meat is growing in the third world as our own
meat-heavy diet is increasingly adopted world-wide. It takes about 700
calories of animal feed to produce a 100-calorie piece of red meat, so
a shift to a meat-rich diet requires large increases in grains, which
in turn requires greater use of expensive fertilizers, which in turn
raises the demand for oil.
** As the soaring price of oil has increased the cost of tansporting
food, economies as diverse as Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, Vietnam
and the Ukraine (among others) have been feeling inflationary
pressures, and have restricted food exports in an attempt to hold
down domestic food prices. This has reduced food available on the
global market.
** So-called "free trade" policies have caused some previously
self-sufficient nations to become food importers. This occurs in
several ways. First, the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund require loan recipients to make "structural adjustments" in the
way they do business. For example, they must open their grain markets
to competition from U.S. farmers, who are subsidized by Uncle Sam to
the tune of $300 billion per year). Competition from cheap,
subsidized U.S. crops tends to drive small local farmers out of
business and off their land. Second, "structural adjustment" often
demands a reduction of social safety nets, so when a food crisis hits
the remaining infrastructure can't manage. Third, stockpiling food is
officially discouraged (a mountain of available food interferes with
the "free market"). Thus an important cushion against hunger has been
eliminated. A classic case is Haiti, which used to be
self-sufficient for its main staple crop -- rice -- but now is a rice
importer, increasingly subject to the whims of commodity speculators
and agribusiness corporations.
** Commodity speculators. Food has become "the new gold." "Investors
fleeing Wall Street's mortgage-related strife plowed hundreds of
millions of dollars into grain futures, driving prices up even more,"
the Washington Post reported April 27. Rising food prices have
attracted hedge fund speculators, who have helped create a "bubble" in
food prices. "As financial markets have tumbled, food prices have
soared," acknowledges Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank.
** The U.S. Department of Agriculture's land conservation program pays
farmers to not grow crops on some of their land. About 8% of U.S.
cropland -- some 37 million acres, larger than the state of New York
-- lies fallow as a result of this program. This is good for ducks and
pheasant and it reduces soil srosion, but it also reduces available
crops, holding crop prices higher than they might otherwise be (which
is one purpose of the program).
** And lastly, in the U.S. at least, we spend huge amounts of money
feeding our pets. I know I am touching the third rail here, but
someone has got to mention this 900-pound gorilla in the room.
The American Pet Products Manufacturers Association expects Americans
to spend about $43.4 billion on their pets in 2008, up from $41.2
billion in 2007. About $16.9 billion of that will be spent on pet
food.
Meanwhile President Bush has proposed that Congress should dedicate
$770 million for food aid to a hungry world. "The American people
are generous people, and they're compassionate people," Mr. Bush said,
announcing his new food aid plan. "We believe in a timeless truth: to
whom much is given, much is expected."
The President's gift of $770 million to the world's 100 million
hungriest people represents 4.6% of what we spend each year feeding
Fido and Kitty. (And, by the way, we are spending $770 million every
42 hours in Iraq.)
But maybe our pet food priorities are not as skewed as they may first
appear. Take a look at the ad (above), which I noticed recently in a local
Supermarket.
If it weren't for the little dog in the picture, and if it weren't a
Purina ad, you might think this was an ad for human food. Just look at
that lucious heaping plate -- a white dinner plate -- of red
meat and vegetables. Who would turn that down?
Personally, I feel certain that this Purina ad is aiming to sell dog
food not only to Fido's master, but also to those impoverished U.S.
citizens who must seek food aid each year to alleviate their hunger --
25 million people in 2006 and rising. So maybe we're not spending
$16.9 billion merely to feed our pets. Maybe we're actually spending
part of $16.9 billion providing dog food to some of the tens of
millions of U.S. citizens who otherwise could not afford a meal.
Perhaps this is a thinly-veiled free-market answer to hunger in
America.
==============
[1] The U.S. is currently putting 20 to 25% of its corn acreage into
ethanol production, producing roughly 8 billion gallons of ethanol
in 2007, but the entire U.S. ethanol industry is still small, valued
at only $40 billion total -- equivalent to one years's net profits
of a large oil company like Exxon, which reported netting $40.6
billion in 2007. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
estimates that ethanol from corn (in the U.S. and Europe) is
responsible for 10 to 15% of the rise in global commodity prices. The
International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C.
says 25% to 33% of the rise in global food prices can be explained
by ethanol production from corn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Purina ad, you might think this was an ad for human food. Just look at
that lucious heaping plate -- a white dinner plate -- of red
meat and vegetables. Who would turn that down?
Personally, I feel certain that this Purina ad is aiming to sell dog
food not only to Fido's master, but also to those impoverished U.S.
citizens who must seek food aid each year to alleviate their hunger --
25 million people in 2006 and rising. So maybe we're not spending
$16.9 billion merely to feed our pets. Maybe we're actually spending
part of $16.9 billion providing dog food to some of the tens of
millions of U.S. citizens who otherwise could not afford a meal.
Perhaps this is a thinly-veiled free-market answer to hunger in
America."
From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #958, May 8, 2008
THE GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS
By Peter Montague
Global food prices have risen 83% in the last 3 years. This spring,
as prices rose steeply, food riots broke out in Haiti, Egypt,
Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Ethiopia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, the
Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Italy, among other places.
Because U.S. energy policy subsidizes farmers to grow corn to make
ethanol (alcohol that can supplement gasoline), the U.S. is being
accused of feeding its sport utility vehicles (SUVs) instead of
feeding people. There is some truth to this charge, but it's more
complicated than that.[1]
The global food crisis has been created by a combination of things,
among them:
** Climate changes, perhaps related to global warming, such as the
recent large tornado in Myanmar, the epic drought going on now in
Australia, floods last year in North Korea, and years of low rainfall
in the western U.S., among other costly weather changes. Australia
used to export enough rice to feed 20 million people, but six years of
drought have cut their rice yield by 98%. Australia used to be the
world's second-largest exporter of wheat, but the drought has changed
that, too. "A big reason for higher wheat prices... is the multi-year
drought in Australia, something scientists say may become persistent
because of global warming," according to the Washington Post.
** U.S. farmers have been growing less wheat since the mid-1990s in
favor of more-reliable soybeans and better-subsidized corn. "Wheat's
biggest problem is its susceptibility to disease, which has turned
many farmers against it," explains Dan Morgan in the Washington
Post.
** Rising oil prices, caused partly by rising demand for oil in
China and India (and in U.S. SUVs), and partly by diminished supply
caused by the Iraq war. Because of rising oil prices, the cost of
transporting food has doubled in the last year alone. Furthermore,
the price of fertilizer is tightly linked to the price of oil and
has been rising for about five years. Use of fertilizer in the third
world increased 56% between 1996 and 2008.
Increasingly it is looking as though the "peak oil" moment has arrived
-- the moment when half the Earth's available oil has been extracted.
After that "peak oil" moment, oil prices are expected to zig-zag
upward more or less steadily.
** The demand for meat is growing in the third world as our own
meat-heavy diet is increasingly adopted world-wide. It takes about 700
calories of animal feed to produce a 100-calorie piece of red meat, so
a shift to a meat-rich diet requires large increases in grains, which
in turn requires greater use of expensive fertilizers, which in turn
raises the demand for oil.
** As the soaring price of oil has increased the cost of tansporting
food, economies as diverse as Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, Vietnam
and the Ukraine (among others) have been feeling inflationary
pressures, and have restricted food exports in an attempt to hold
down domestic food prices. This has reduced food available on the
global market.
** So-called "free trade" policies have caused some previously
self-sufficient nations to become food importers. This occurs in
several ways. First, the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund require loan recipients to make "structural adjustments" in the
way they do business. For example, they must open their grain markets
to competition from U.S. farmers, who are subsidized by Uncle Sam to
the tune of $300 billion per year). Competition from cheap,
subsidized U.S. crops tends to drive small local farmers out of
business and off their land. Second, "structural adjustment" often
demands a reduction of social safety nets, so when a food crisis hits
the remaining infrastructure can't manage. Third, stockpiling food is
officially discouraged (a mountain of available food interferes with
the "free market"). Thus an important cushion against hunger has been
eliminated. A classic case is Haiti, which used to be
self-sufficient for its main staple crop -- rice -- but now is a rice
importer, increasingly subject to the whims of commodity speculators
and agribusiness corporations.
** Commodity speculators. Food has become "the new gold." "Investors
fleeing Wall Street's mortgage-related strife plowed hundreds of
millions of dollars into grain futures, driving prices up even more,"
the Washington Post reported April 27. Rising food prices have
attracted hedge fund speculators, who have helped create a "bubble" in
food prices. "As financial markets have tumbled, food prices have
soared," acknowledges Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank.
** The U.S. Department of Agriculture's land conservation program pays
farmers to not grow crops on some of their land. About 8% of U.S.
cropland -- some 37 million acres, larger than the state of New York
-- lies fallow as a result of this program. This is good for ducks and
pheasant and it reduces soil srosion, but it also reduces available
crops, holding crop prices higher than they might otherwise be (which
is one purpose of the program).
** And lastly, in the U.S. at least, we spend huge amounts of money
feeding our pets. I know I am touching the third rail here, but
someone has got to mention this 900-pound gorilla in the room.
The American Pet Products Manufacturers Association expects Americans
to spend about $43.4 billion on their pets in 2008, up from $41.2
billion in 2007. About $16.9 billion of that will be spent on pet
food.
Meanwhile President Bush has proposed that Congress should dedicate
$770 million for food aid to a hungry world. "The American people
are generous people, and they're compassionate people," Mr. Bush said,
announcing his new food aid plan. "We believe in a timeless truth: to
whom much is given, much is expected."
The President's gift of $770 million to the world's 100 million
hungriest people represents 4.6% of what we spend each year feeding
Fido and Kitty. (And, by the way, we are spending $770 million every
42 hours in Iraq.)
But maybe our pet food priorities are not as skewed as they may first
appear. Take a look at the ad (above), which I noticed recently in a local
Supermarket.
If it weren't for the little dog in the picture, and if it weren't a
Purina ad, you might think this was an ad for human food. Just look at
that lucious heaping plate -- a white dinner plate -- of red
meat and vegetables. Who would turn that down?
Personally, I feel certain that this Purina ad is aiming to sell dog
food not only to Fido's master, but also to those impoverished U.S.
citizens who must seek food aid each year to alleviate their hunger --
25 million people in 2006 and rising. So maybe we're not spending
$16.9 billion merely to feed our pets. Maybe we're actually spending
part of $16.9 billion providing dog food to some of the tens of
millions of U.S. citizens who otherwise could not afford a meal.
Perhaps this is a thinly-veiled free-market answer to hunger in
America.
==============
[1] The U.S. is currently putting 20 to 25% of its corn acreage into
ethanol production, producing roughly 8 billion gallons of ethanol
in 2007, but the entire U.S. ethanol industry is still small, valued
at only $40 billion total -- equivalent to one years's net profits
of a large oil company like Exxon, which reported netting $40.6
billion in 2007. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
estimates that ethanol from corn (in the U.S. and Europe) is
responsible for 10 to 15% of the rise in global commodity prices. The
International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C.
says 25% to 33% of the rise in global food prices can be explained
by ethanol production from corn.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
