Why?

By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Columnist

Five years in Iraq.

That’s 1,825 days since “Shock and Awe” lit up the skies above Baghdad, all of which was captured live and in living color by unblinking CNN cameras with unobstructed views of the carnage.

3,991 United States soldiers have died in Iraq since then. That’s a little more than two United States soldiers killed per day. Every day. For five years.

More than 40,000 United States soldiers have been wounded in Iraq since then. That’s more than twenty-one United States soldiers wounded per day. Every day. For five years.

The last Congressional Budget Office report on the monetary cost for Iraq dates back to October of last year, and tabulates that cost at $421 billion. The CBO cannot be censured should that number prove lower than what has actually been spent, as it is understood that all the other millions pilfered by profiteers and passed on in bribes were not duly recorded in the books, and thus cannot be accounted for.

The CBO’s number must be considered inaccurately low on spec, thanks in part to a nifty little cash-and-carry hootenanny from three years ago in July of 2005. A report from the UK Guardian tells the tale: “The auditors have so far referred more than a hundred contracts, involving billions of dollars paid to American personnel and corporations, for investigation and possible criminal prosecution. They have also discovered that $8.8 billion that passed through the new Iraqi government ministries in Baghdad while Bremer was in charge is unaccounted for, with little prospect of finding out where it has gone. A further $3.4 billion appropriated by Congress for Iraqi development has since been siphoned off to finance ‘security’.”

But wait, there’s more: “Pilfering was rife,” continues the Guardian report. “Millions of dollars in cash went missing from the Iraqi Central Bank. Between $11 million and $26 million worth of Iraqi property sequestered by the Coalition Provisional Authority was unaccounted for. The payroll was padded with hundreds of ghost employees. Millions of dollars were paid to contractors for phantom work. Some $3,379,505 was billed, for example, for ‘personnel not in the field performing work’ and ‘other improper charges’ on just one oil pipeline repair contract.”

This one example, just one among the multitudes, makes the existence of significant gaps in the accuracy of the information supporting the CBO’s conclusions a safe assumption. As for the money not present on the official balance sheets, well … to paraphrase John Kenneth Galbraith, that cash went to the same place your lap goes when you stand up. Even the guys who stole it probably don’t know what happened to it all, not completely, not for certain. If the Federal Reserve had stuffed those bills into the belly of a ballistic missile and launched the thing into deep space, they’d know exactly as much about where it is as they now know about what happened to the cash literally dumped into Iraq. It’s somewhere, and nowhere, and all the way gone.

$421 billion spent over 1,825 days in Iraq comes to $230,684,931 plus change per day. Every day. For five years.

And that number is low.

Continue reading

Human rights activist to “Walk 4 Life” to abolish death penalty

Andre Latallade, hip-hop artist and prison rights activist also known as Capital-“X”, will walk from New Jersey to Texas to advocate for the abolishment of capital punishment in the United States.
Latallade will begin his “Walk 4 Life” on March 31, 2008 at 5AM at the state house in Trenton, NJ, the first state to abolish the death penalty in the last 40 years. He will walk 1700 miles through 10 of the highest executing states and arrive at Governors mansion in Austin, Texas, “the busiest killing state in the country,” to await the Supreme Courts’ ruling on the constitutionality of capital punishment.

Latallade estimates it will take 54 days walking eight hours a day at 3.5 mph. He will take a break to participate on a panel at the Hip Hop Association’s HHEAL Festival in the Bronx, New York April 18-20.

Latallade wants to “build bridges between two groups; the families of murder victims and the families of the condemned. Separated we call for life or death, I say we unite and call for resolution.” Latallade promotes life sentences without parole as opposed to death sentences. Currently there is a moratorium on state-sanctioned executions while the Supreme Court rules whether lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment.

“I want to unite everybody fighting injustice and mobilize the international community to put pressure on the USA to abolish the death penalty. I have Italy, England, France, Denmark and Croatia behind me and am also reaching out to Puerto Rico.” Non-profit organizations, human rights groups, and abolitionists from around the world are supportive of Andre on his “Walk 4 Life.”

Anyone interested in supporting “X” can e-mail him at projectrevolution2010@gmail.com. Donate online here. Funds raised during the walk will go to victims’ families and abolitionist groups.

View X’s “Walk 4 Life” promotional clip and daily video blog documenting his journey at www.ONLOQ.com, a hip hop network that will be covering his expedition. There you can also view his profile and online show, “From the Frontlines.”

Thousands of new jobs threatened by old politics and bad judgment

Today’s The State ran a letter from Ken Riley, president of the International Longshoremen Association in Charleston (not vice-president; The State got it wrong) and longtime member of the SC Progressive Network. The letter is a response to the guest editorial the paper ran last month by Carroll Campbell III, in which he fans fear of unions.

*******

In his Feb. 29 column, Carroll Campbell III made it clear that he is dead-set against economic growth in South Carolina.

Some of the world’s most important maritime companies seek to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in our state to develop private shipping terminals. They believe that a huge investment of private capital (and not of taxpayers’ dollars) is needed to keep South Carolina competitive. And they want to employ more South Carolinians to man these ports. Private investment is indispensable, and without it, our state’s maritime industry will founder.

Mr. Campbell believes that private shipping terminals are dangerous to our state. Why is he against private enterprise, job creation, keeping pace with our neighboring states and loosening government restrictions on industry? His excuse: Private ports mean more union jobs.

Mr. Campbell’s counter-productive reasoning is based on “What if?” scenarios. But the businesses that operate in the port on a daily basis rely on “What is?” These businesses know our track record, and they see it projected on their profit statements, year after year.

The longshoremen have operated as a union in Charleston since 1869. Over these 139 years, the union has worked tirelessly to attract and keep business in South Carolina. The companies that actually employ union longshoremen want to employ more of us.

Whether one likes union labor or not, it is a fact of life in the global maritime industry. Virtually all major ports and virtually all major shipping companies and maritime employers rely on organized labor. The arrangement between labor and management is extremely efficient and cooperative, in large part because workers are hired on an as-needed basis.

It is Mr. Campbell’s hysteria that is the real danger to our economy. Hundreds of millions of dollars of private capital are being redirected to neighboring states (that use union workers). Workers want privatization, the businesses that employ them want privatization, the shippers want privatization, and only a few special-interest consultants such as Mr. Campbell want to hold our state back. While Mr. Campbell relies on his consulting fees for his income, longshoremen, shipping lines, stevedoring companies and so many other businesses rely on ships at the dock. No ships, no dollars. Who has a greater interest in keeping our ports busy?

The state should allow private companies to invest in and operate their own terminals, just like they do all over the country and all over the world. If they build them, the ships will come, in fleets.

Ken Riley,
Vice-president, [sic] International Longshoremen Association
Charleston

Conservatism is dying

By Eric Lotke
Campaign for America’s Future

Modern conservatism is dying. There’s still an election to be held, but conservatism as we’ve known it since Ronald Reagan is failing – ground down in the desert of Iraq, drowned in the floods of Hurricane Katrina, foreclosed by the housing crisis and poisoned by toys imported from China.

The American people are figuring this out. While conservatives repeat their time-worn slogans – “small government, low taxes, high security” – the American people are living the consequences.

We’ve seen eight years of a conservative presidency, six years overlapping with a conservative Congress, and 30 years of broadly conservative ideology. Now reality is showing how the values embodied in those slogans have been betrayed.

Conservatives say “shrink government.” We get inadequate levees, exploding steam pipes and schools without textbooks. Conservatives say “deregulate,” and now Thomas the Tank Engine is painted with toxic lead. Conservatives say “low taxes,” but it primarily applies to millionaires, billionaires and crony corporations.

What follows is a history of these problems, and the direction people want to go instead.

Appealing Slogans, Disastrous Results

The conservative shibboleth – “small government, low taxes, high security” – has timeless appeal, founded on genuine moral and constitutional values. But the application of those values by today’s conservatives is frightening.

Shrinking Government

“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
– Ronald Reagan, First inaugural address, January 1981.

“My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
– Grover Norquist, Executive Director, Americans for Tax Reform.

The modern conservative movement is united less by belief in small government – a traditional constitutional value – than by disdain for government. They don’t just want to shrink it. They want to drown it in a bathtub. Such disdain courts exactly the kind of disasters we got.

Hurricane Katrina. A shrunken government failed in fundamental responsibilities when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Crucial levees had been left to rot and the Federal Emergency Management Agency had been “systematically downgraded and all but dismantled.” Reconstruction remains a forgotten promise.

Continue reading

Remembering the ladies

iwd_logo2.gif

How and Why We Celebrate
By Sue Katz

On Saturday, women around the world will celebrate our progress and plans for the future. Where will you be?

It’s annoying that International Women’s Day gets a mere whisper compared to the retail shout-out that Mothers’ Day receives in this country. Although I’m not a big holiday/ritual/ceremony kinda girl (no, you can’t ignore my birthdays), I do think this particular annual event is special, so I try to celebrate each year.

Let’s start with some history.

In February, 1909, following a march for labor rights by many thousands of women workers the year before, the Socialist Party of America declared International Women’s Day (IWD) in the United States. The next year, at the Second International, in Copenhagen, women from 11 countries adopted the day in the hopes of furthering women’s suffrage.

In 1911, over a million women and men marked the day around the world, but only a week later the crime known as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire took the lives of over 140 women in the rag trade – mostly Jewish and Italian immigrants – and the struggle against sweatshop conditions became forever associated with IWD.

Russian women imprinted their own radicalism on IWD in 1917 when their strike for “bread and peace” over the death of two million Russian soldiers led to the abdication of the Czar and governmental embrace of women’s voting rights.

Soon the UN adopted International Women’s Day and in 1975, in recognition of the second wave of feminism, held a global International Women’s Year. This meant that, just like the men, we could gather from around the world, compromise bitterly after difficult debate (say, over the inclusion of queers or abortion rights), make resolutions that no one is entirely happy with and be unable to get our governments to put any resources into meeting the goals, anyway. Wow, finally we’ve got a seat at the table of world-level frustration.

While there’s hardly even an official murmur in the States over IWD, there is a website that lists an exhilarating range of world locations and activities – giving the sense that International Women’s Day is not as moribund elsewhere as it seems to be here. This website keeps a tally of events, including the following.

In Saudi Arabia, they’re holding a two-day workshop on integrating women into the economy. A domestic violence group in Albania offers an event they call a Manifestation. Likewise, Tanzania’s having a mother-daughter fundraiser for their domestic violence organization, while the funder in Fiji goes towards building a scholarship fund for “young women studying Automotive and Electrical Engineering at the Fiji Institute of Technology” – the event has the charming name of Women in Celebration of You. In Lebanon they’ll be looking at women’s health. Icelanders are planning to talk about women’s world-wide friendships and about children’s rights, while the Kenyan’s are having a musical festival and handing out prestigious awards.

So what are you doing? I’m going to an annual tea with 90 other women in the afternoon and in the evening to a screening of the as-yet-unfinished film, “Left on Pearl”, about the 1971 takeover that started on IWD of a Harvard University building by the vibrant Boston women’s movement. I was there, so I was interviewed for the film. I’m going to celebrate old victories, because lately it feels like those are the only ones we have.

Sue Katz has published journalism on the three continents where she has lived; her topics range from Middle East peace movements to the impact of ageing on sexuality. Visit her blog, Consenting Adult, at www.suekatz.com.

AIDS fight requires more than politics as usual

By Scott Blaine Swenson

Americans need look no farther than the reauthorization of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to understand why fundamental change is needed in Washington. The good intentions of American taxpayers extending a helping hand to Africans ravaged by AIDS are caught between Republican ideologues and complicit Democrats avoiding a fight on issues at the center of efforts to combat AIDS; sexual and reproductive health.

PEPFAR’s mission was compromised by the House Foreign Affairs Committee because they cannot honestly discuss sexual reproductive health. Once Republican ideologues invoke abortion, which has nothing to do with PEPFAR, problem solving is lost to politics.
For 25 years social conservatives ignored AIDS, using it to marginalize people and allowing the disease to run rampant. Now rigid ideology prevents them from allowing public health experts to use proven scientific methods to educate, prevent and treat. Democrats who compromise are politically complicit.

Ignoring objective analyses and recommendations based on PEPFAR’s first five years from the Institute of Medicine, General Accounting Office, Center for Public Integrity and others, the current proposal fails to ensure the increased funds are spent wisely. Congress will spend more without listening to proven public health strategies.

The good news is the White House has agreed to Congress’ request for $50 billion, over five-years, up from $30 billion President Bush requested. More money is good, but more money spent wisely, based on reality is better.

The new proposal includes efforts to address unique circumstances that women, girls and youth face, including efforts to confront violence against women, promoting property and inheritance rights, expanding economic opportunity to promote financial independence, and efforts to work with men and boys to reinforce positive attitudes and the rights of women. Women in Africa have less ability to negotiate sex, are often married young, and exposed to HIV often through marriage.

Other positive changes include increased training of health care professionals and support for nutrition programs.

Now for the bad news:

Republicans continue to push abstinence-only policies that major studies on PEPFAR indicate impede program effectiveness. An earmark insisting 33 percent of funds be spent on abstinence is gone. But in its place is a requirement that 50 percent of funds for preventing sexual transmission be spent on “behavior change,” defined as abstinence, delay of sexual debut, monogamy and fidelity. The tone of the new requirement suggests that abstinence-only programming is preferred. The proposal requires local public health officials to report noncompliance. Congressional micro-management like this perpetuates failed abstinence-only policies and politicizes a program that should be based on scientific evidence, not ideology.

Continue reading

A 15-year-old’s take on the Democratic race

I’m so proud of my granddaugher Laura’s (age 15) writing that I had to pass this along. I think she has nailed what’s at issue in our time: hope vs. fear.
Peace,
Dwight Fee

(Dwight is the Progressive Network’s representative for the Low Country Peace Network.)

***************

Hillary Clinton’s switch from dialogue to diatribe
By Laura Schneck, NYC

According to the media, America’s fighter, Hillary Clinton, has made a comeback. The March 4th primaries awarded Senator Clinton only six more pledged delegates than Barack Obama, but proved that she could survive being “victimized” by a misogynistic media.

To me, though, Hillary’s comeback couldn’t have been more of a letdown. 

A year ago, I was just another high school freshman completely oblivious to anything political. And if you had asked me to describe my parents’ political tendencies I’d have to say that they were, at best, apathetic democrats. 

Last January, something changed. My mom would come over and sit with me as I waited to see the results of the night’s primaries. We’d play tag team, watching for when Obama would come out to make his speech. We’d listen together, and, yes, we began to hope together. Night after night, we talked politics at the dinner table with my dad and 10-year-old sister and then sat side-by-side, glued to CNN. I became a fan of top political analysts rather than pop-culture icons, ate lunch with page A18 instead of the “in” crowd, and stayed up to watch the democratic debates instead of the latest reality show. Our family was interested. We were inspired. We were almost ready to ask what we could do for our country.

Then Hillary decided to try a new tactic: making fun of us. She tried to make it sound like we were being duped by Obama, that we were somehow deluded in feeling passionate about a candidate who could bring integrity back to the White House. She poked fun not only at his optimism, but also at ours.  The Clinton people claimed that my family had fallen for a fairy tale, soundtrack courtesy of a celestial choir.

I think I speak for many Obama supporters when I say our enthusiasm is not based on imagination or illusions. I don’t support Obama because he’s “cool,” uses big words, or because I love the way he blows his nose. I support Obama because I agree with his policies on the issues-from healthcare to energy-that affect my family. I support him because he can make it to the White House with dignity. And once he’s in the White House, he will make sensible and substantial changes to improve relations between parties in this country and between countries in the world. Sorry, Hillary, but your patronizing attempt at a wake-up call only motivated me to donate to Obama’s campaign.

Some people wonder why I became so interested in politics, but mainly they ask why I am not supporting a woman for president. I tell them that, although I’ve always favored Obama, I can’t help but admire Hillary’s intelligence and tenacity. Until a few weeks ago, I might have even taken some pointers from her climb to power. 

But then she disappointed me; she began playing dirty. Ironically, her “fighter” mentality made me doubt her strength and my own. As a woman, can I only become successful by putting up a fight? Will people only listen to me if I shout? Will people only take notice of me if I scare them?

Senator Obama welcomed me into this race and Senator Clinton pushed me out. Until recently, the Democratic race convinced me that powerful people can be decent, and one doesn’t need to tear others down to come out on top. I even began to wonder what my apathetic parents had seen so wrong with politics. But the recent switch from dialogue to diatribe has turned my parents back into cynics and may convert me as well.

In the coming weeks, my optimism is on the line. I’ll be looking to see, as Bob Herbert put it, how Obama will confront the kitchen sink.

Oregonians exercise democracy through ‘Voter Owned Elections’ (or Clean Elections)

10,000 Maniacs
by Jeff Malachowsky

CommonDreams.org

Some political scientists argue that voting is irrational, that the act of political participation doesn’t bring enough benefits to the individual to make it worth the effort.

This might be so in many places, but Oregonians don’t think so. Recently, 10,000 have declared, ‘things are different here.’

That’s how many voters coughed up $5 and gave their signatures to candidates running for mayor and city council in Portland, under the city’s new ‘Voter Owned Elections’ system. Moreover, the election is still months away, in May, and it’s only a primary, to boot. What is going on?

Yogi Berra, one of baseball’s most famous orators, once observed – “If the people don’t want to come, nobody’s gonna stop ‘em.” And there-in lies the problem with elections, and with democratic government more broadly. You can’t compel participation; you can’t stop people from sitting out the vote.

But what if you could attract people, make it more fun, more popular – and, more rewarding to participate?

Continue reading