Saturday, March 19, 2016
Donald "Hitler" Trump
PLEASE wake up America! We are becoming a joke world wide! This man is the most dangerous person for America that I've encountered in my 66 years on this planet!!!!!!!!!!
Sunday, August 27, 2006
In 1850 John C. Calhoun argued that a written constitution would never be sufficient to contain the plundering proclivities of a central government. Some mechanisms for assuring consensus among the citizens of the states regarding "federal" laws would be necessary. Calhoun proposed giving citizens of the states veto power over federal laws that they believed were unconstitutional (the "concurrent majority"). He also championed the Jeffersonian idea of nullification. To Calhoun (and Jefferson), states’ rights meant that the citizens of the states were sovereign over the central government that they created as their agent, and could only be so if such mechanisms – including the right of secession – existed.
Without these political mechanisms the forces of nationalism, mercantilism, and political plunder would relentlessly reshape the Constitution with their rhetoric, and their efforts would eventually overwhelm the strict constructionists. At that point the Constitution would become a dead letter. The biggest special-interest group of all – the federal government itself – has seized power by rewriting the supreme law of the land. How did we get to the point where the federal government defines for us the drinking age for alcohol, how much wheat farmers can grow, the ability of terminally ill cancer patients to medicate themselves with marijuana, the amount of sugar that can be used in ketchup, and even the size of toilets?
Liberty lost, federalism trampled, and Big Government run amok.
Who woulda thunk that we would see this happen?
Without these political mechanisms the forces of nationalism, mercantilism, and political plunder would relentlessly reshape the Constitution with their rhetoric, and their efforts would eventually overwhelm the strict constructionists. At that point the Constitution would become a dead letter. The biggest special-interest group of all – the federal government itself – has seized power by rewriting the supreme law of the land. How did we get to the point where the federal government defines for us the drinking age for alcohol, how much wheat farmers can grow, the ability of terminally ill cancer patients to medicate themselves with marijuana, the amount of sugar that can be used in ketchup, and even the size of toilets?
Liberty lost, federalism trampled, and Big Government run amok.
Who woulda thunk that we would see this happen?
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Can $100 buy your vote??
As gas prices rose to above $3 a gallon last week, President Bush, his Administration officials, and their Senate allies came out in full force to do damage control. They know their jobs and their far-right agenda are at stake this November. In a hasty attempt to appease voters, Senator Frist proposed a $100 rebate financed by changing an accounting loophole that allows the oil and gas industry to pay lower taxes. His own party members balked at the overt pandering to voters, with Senator Conrad of Montana saying, "there're some dumb ideas in this." [Houston Chronicle, 4/29/06] But it was heavy pressure from Big Oil that ultimately drove Senator Frist to retreat from the plan.
While Washington Republicans flip flop, waste time, and coddle their Big Oil friends, Senate Democrats are fighting for direct and immediate relief to working families. Last week, Senator Menendez proposed an amendment that would eliminate the federal gas tax for 60 days, providing $6 billion in direct relief to consumers.
Senator Frist's latest move shows that once again, every time Washington Republicans claim to be taking action on gas prices, they are really taking action to protect oil industry profits. Election Day is just six months away and the Republicans are counting on their old oil industry friends to raise money for their candidates and keep their control over the Washington agenda -- an agenda that has taken power away from the people, made America less secure, and driven up profits for Big Oil at the expense of middle class families.
While Washington Republicans flip flop, waste time, and coddle their Big Oil friends, Senate Democrats are fighting for direct and immediate relief to working families. Last week, Senator Menendez proposed an amendment that would eliminate the federal gas tax for 60 days, providing $6 billion in direct relief to consumers.
Senator Frist's latest move shows that once again, every time Washington Republicans claim to be taking action on gas prices, they are really taking action to protect oil industry profits. Election Day is just six months away and the Republicans are counting on their old oil industry friends to raise money for their candidates and keep their control over the Washington agenda -- an agenda that has taken power away from the people, made America less secure, and driven up profits for Big Oil at the expense of middle class families.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
IRRESPONSIBLE President...
Let the next White House worry.
On May 1st, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual depressing report. On Tuesday, congressional negotiators handed President Bush a "victory" -- his assessment -- in agreeing to extend his capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Mr. Bush and his fellow tax-cuts-above-all proponents would like you to believe that the two events are unrelated. But taken together they underscore the terrible fiscal predicament that Mr. Bush has chosen to bequeath to his successor.According to the new estimates, the Social Security trust fund will be depleted in 2040, one year closer than last year's projection, while Medicare's will run out in 2018 -- two years sooner than last year's projection and 12 years earlier than estimated when Mr. Bush took office. These dates may still sound remote, but the problem is more imminent than the customary focus on insolvency suggests. Far earlier than the insolvency date, the programs will be spending more than they take in, in payroll taxes in the case of Social Security, in payroll taxes and premiums in the case of some parts of Medicare. Because of higher-than-anticipated hospital costs, the price of Medicare hospital benefits will exceed tax collections and other dedicated revenue this year -- a situation that will persist and worsen rapidly after 2010. And every year of procrastination makes the eventual solution more painful.But the best Mr. Bush can come up with is a bipartisan commission -- yes, another one -- to study the problem. And even that seems to be only make-believe. He mentioned a commission in his State of the Union address but hasn't bothered to appoint members. He proposed minimal Medicare cuts in his latest budget and then emitted nary a peep of protest when Congress proceeded to ignore him.When it comes to ensuring the permanence of his tax cuts, though, Mr. Bush is a lot more energetic. Last After he summoned Republican leaders to the White House, they agreed to extend Mr. Bush's cuts on capital gains and dividends, now set to expire in 2008, through the end of 2010. This means that all the tax cuts Mr. Bush has presided over are now set to expire on the same date, Jan. 1, 2011 -- draining the treasury of needed revenue until then and setting the stage for a difficult decision at that time. Allowing all the tax cuts to expire simultaneously is politically unthinkable and economically unwise. Yet this is also the time when strains on the budget from the retirement of the baby boomers will begin their unsustainable upward path.
The breathtaking irresponsibility of this won't become totally clear until Mr. Bush is back on the ranch. But history's verdict is predictable: bad enough to squander a chance to improve the nation's health while there was still time; unforgivable to make it so much worse.
On May 1st, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual depressing report. On Tuesday, congressional negotiators handed President Bush a "victory" -- his assessment -- in agreeing to extend his capital gains and dividend tax cuts. Mr. Bush and his fellow tax-cuts-above-all proponents would like you to believe that the two events are unrelated. But taken together they underscore the terrible fiscal predicament that Mr. Bush has chosen to bequeath to his successor.According to the new estimates, the Social Security trust fund will be depleted in 2040, one year closer than last year's projection, while Medicare's will run out in 2018 -- two years sooner than last year's projection and 12 years earlier than estimated when Mr. Bush took office. These dates may still sound remote, but the problem is more imminent than the customary focus on insolvency suggests. Far earlier than the insolvency date, the programs will be spending more than they take in, in payroll taxes in the case of Social Security, in payroll taxes and premiums in the case of some parts of Medicare. Because of higher-than-anticipated hospital costs, the price of Medicare hospital benefits will exceed tax collections and other dedicated revenue this year -- a situation that will persist and worsen rapidly after 2010. And every year of procrastination makes the eventual solution more painful.But the best Mr. Bush can come up with is a bipartisan commission -- yes, another one -- to study the problem. And even that seems to be only make-believe. He mentioned a commission in his State of the Union address but hasn't bothered to appoint members. He proposed minimal Medicare cuts in his latest budget and then emitted nary a peep of protest when Congress proceeded to ignore him.When it comes to ensuring the permanence of his tax cuts, though, Mr. Bush is a lot more energetic. Last After he summoned Republican leaders to the White House, they agreed to extend Mr. Bush's cuts on capital gains and dividends, now set to expire in 2008, through the end of 2010. This means that all the tax cuts Mr. Bush has presided over are now set to expire on the same date, Jan. 1, 2011 -- draining the treasury of needed revenue until then and setting the stage for a difficult decision at that time. Allowing all the tax cuts to expire simultaneously is politically unthinkable and economically unwise. Yet this is also the time when strains on the budget from the retirement of the baby boomers will begin their unsustainable upward path.
The breathtaking irresponsibility of this won't become totally clear until Mr. Bush is back on the ranch. But history's verdict is predictable: bad enough to squander a chance to improve the nation's health while there was still time; unforgivable to make it so much worse.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
The Oil Crunch & Iraq??
Jim Krane of the Associated Press quotes analysts who seem to blame the high price of petroleum on the shambles in Iraq. Iraq could be exporting nearly 3 million barrels a day (bbd) if the guerrilla war was not resulting in massive sabotage. In 2005, Iraq did only 1.4 million bbd on average, down from 2.8 mn. bbd before the war. Not only is Iraqi production way off but Iraq actually imports over $4 billion a year in petroleum products taking them off the market for other consumers.I can't imagine that Iraq really is much of a factor here. The world petroleum production is on the order of 86 million barrels a day so the lost 1.4 million bbd of Iraq is about 1.6% of the total. Even if you factor in Iraq's imports (and remember it doesn't have much of an economy at the moment), I can't imagine that Iraq production issues account for very much of the current price spike. Some economists argue that there is a lot of speculation, including a security premium, built into the current price, because you have war and rumors of war going on in the Gulf. A ten percent security premium is the difference between paying $3.00 a gallon for gas and $2.70.The main problem in supply isn't raw petroleum production but a shortfall in world refining capacity. The rise in demand is partially seasonal with Americans hitting the road in the summer.Some economists seem to be arguing that over five to ten years, Iraq could have had an impact, if there hadn't been all that sabotage and if $30 bn. had been invested in the industry. The fact is that if Americans did some serious conservation they could reduce consumption by 1/3. Since they use about 20 million barrels a day of petroleum, they could replace the production of both Iraq and Iran all by themselves.But the last politician who dared tell you that was Jimmy Carter and no one will ever go on television and talk that way again who wants to hold public office.
__________________
__________________
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Hieroglyphic Stairway
it’s 3:23 in the morningand I’m awakebecause my great great grandchildrenwon’t let me sleepmy great great grandchildrenask me in dreamswhat did you do while the planet was plundered?what did you do when the earth was unraveling?surely you did somethingwhen the seasons started failing?as the mammals, reptiles, and birds were all dying?did you fill the streets with protestwhen democracy was stolen?what did you doonce you knew?I’m riding home on the Colma trainI’ve got the voice of the milky way in my dreamsI have teams of scientistsfeeding me data dailyand pleading I immediatelyturn it into poetryI want just this consciousness reachedby people in range of secret frequenciescontained in my speechI am the desirous earthequidistant to the underworldand the flesh of the starsI am everything already lostthe moment the universe turns transparentand all the light shoots through the cosmosI use words to instigate silenceI’m a hieroglyphic stairwayin a buried Mayan citysuddenly exposed by a hurricanea satellite circling earthfinding dinosaur bonesin the Gobi desertI am telescopes that see back in timeI am the precession of the equinoxes,the magnetism of the spiraling seaI’m riding home on the Colma trainwith the voice of the milky way in my dreamsI am myths where violets blossom from bloodlike dying and rising godsI’m the boundary of timesoul encountering souland tongues of fireit’s 3:23 in the morningand I can’t sleepbecause my great great grandchildrenask me in dreamswhat did you do while the earth was unraveling?I want just this consciousness reachedby people in range of secret frequenciescontained in my speech
drew dellinger©2003
drew dellinger©2003
Friday, January 27, 2006
Hypothetical President
This is of course an entirely hypothetical question, but what would happen if, in some future administration, a President of the United States lost his marbles?
Charles Manson could look Presidential, if you sprang him from prison, bought him a nice suit, gave him a shave, and taught him to smile for the cameras. A President is human like anyone else, so in theory, any President could go over the edge.
What if the power of the Presidency went to a hypothetical President's head, and he became psychotic or otherwise mentally unstable? If a hypothetical President went bananas, but maintained the ability to smile smoothly for the cameras, and spoke in a soft tone of voice whenever he was in public, how would we know he was nuts?
What if, in the privacy of the Oval Office, The President ordered his political opponents spied upon, swore vengeance on imagined enemies, and commanded attacks on nations that posed no threat to America?
What if the people who surrounded this madman wanted to keep his craziness a secret? What if his political cronies decided -- perhaps in good conscience, or perhaps for nefarious purpose -- to simply cut the deranged president "out of the loop," make decisions without him, and use him only as a camera-friendly figurehead?
These are tough questions, and aren't you glad they're only hypothetical? It would be a real dilemma if it ever really happened, because no matter how stale a fruitcake in the White House became, he would still be The President.
It would make no difference whether he was a Democrat, a Republican, or a Whig. Whatever his politics, the people in his own party would naturally want to overlook his shortcomings, and any outspoken opposition from another party would be portrayed as shrill politics from hypothetical-President-haters.
Why, even if The President sent hundreds of thousands of American troops into wars against a nation or two which presented no danger at all to America, he would still be The President. Even if his needless wars killed thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, The President could just shrug and claim that anyone who wanted to end the wars didn't "support the troops."
And even if his wars without reason left hundreds of thousands of foreigners dead, still, if The President rattled sabers and threatened war against a third nation that couldn't harm America, or maybe even a fourth nation, many Americans would stand behind him.
After all, they would say, we're at war. We have to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief.
Perhaps this imaginary, unhinged President would try to keep more and more of his policies and actions secret, and refuse to allow serious investigations into any aspect of his administration. Perhaps he would sidestep any question by simply saying "national security" is at stake, and refusing to answer.
And many Americans would say, we're at war. We have to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief.
Perhaps this un-named, completely hypothetical but completely insane President would make chilling speeches, explaining that public debate remains acceptable, but harsh criticism is now over the line. It's treasonous to disagree, he could say -- it's aiding and abetting the enemy, and it's lowering the morale of US troops.
And many Americans would agree, enthusiastically. We're at war, they would echo, so we have to stand behind our Commander-in-Chief.
Perhaps a President, hypothetically out of his hypothetical mind, might ignore the Constitution, break laws left and right, and openly claim the power to rewrite or ignore any law. It might be worrisome to imagine it, but hypothetically, a bonkers administration might seize and hold thousands of people in secret prisons, without ever charging them with a crime. The President could even make torture an official US policy, while unblinkingly telling Americans that our nation would never torture.
No matter what an administration of maniacs might do, millions of Americans would still say it's downright un-American to speak against The President while we're at multiple wars. And so the wars would keep coming, wars without any sane purpose, but wars without end.
That's one hell of a catch, that Catch 22. The President gains special powers while we're at war, and it's un-American to question the validity of any war underway, and it's unpatriotic to criticize The President while we're at war ... but the wars never end.
In such a speculative setting, where would you stand? Could you see past your own politics, and recognize a madman when he gives the State of the Union address? Would you remain loyal to your political party's man no matter what -- or would you be loyal to your nation, its laws, its Constitution, its troops, and the freedoms they fought to establish and defend?
Thursday, January 12, 2006
BACK PAGE HERO
Honors for My Lai Hero Came Much Too Late
by Mike Boehm
Lost among the headlines about Iraq and secret detentions was the story of the death last week of a hero and a patriot: Hugh Thompson.
In 1998, Thompson was awarded the Soldier's Medal, for heroism not involving conflict with an enemy, for his actions to save civilians in My Lai, Vietnam, on March 16, 1968. Thompson died of cancer Friday morning in Alexandria, La., at the age of 62.
Reading the press coverage of the presentation of the Soldier's Medal to Army pilot Thompson and his two helicopter crewmen, Larry Colburn and Glenn Andreotta, could leave the impression that the award was the culmination of a natural and just process.
These three heroes, led by Thompson, rescued 10 Vietnamese villagers who were about to be killed by American soldiers, and they were responsible for stopping the My Lai massacre, led by Lt. William Calley Jr.
It took 30 years for Thompson to receive proper recognition for his actions that day, 30 years before it became safe to honor him for standing up to fellow American soldiers.
Hugh Thompson believed deeply that the military was an honorable profession and that in time of war it was important to behave in an honorable way. He paid a heavy price for his beliefs.
Flying a reconnaissance mission over My Lai that March day, Thompson looked down to see carnage. Bodies of Vietnamese villagers were strewn over the ground, and he could see 10 villagers huddled in a bunker as Calley's soldiers approached them. Thompson landed his helicopter and ordered Colburn, his gunner, to train his machine gun on the American GIs. He told Colburn to "open up" on them if they began firing on the Vietnamese. Then Thompson coaxed out the terrified villagers using hand signals and radioed for another helicopter to come rescue them.
When it became known what Thompson and his crew did to stop the My Lai massacre, his life became a living hell. He was nearly court-martialed for his actions. He was shunned by fellow pilots, dead animals were thrown on his doorstep, and he received death threats.
Contrast this behavior with the treatment of Calley. When he was finally sentenced to life in prison, the outcry by the American people against the sentence persuaded President Nixon eventually to pardon Calley. The lieutenant served only three years under house arrest, with organizations such as the American Legion raising funds for his defense.
Judging by the treatment of these two men, who did the American people really see as a hero?
The betrayal Thompson felt was so profound he never recovered from it and spent the rest of his life committing suicide by alcohol.
This feeling of betrayal is something most veterans have in common. All of us were taught to know right from wrong, to know good from evil. We trusted our institutions our government and our schools. We listened to so many of our churches promoting war and bowed our heads as our chaplains prayed over us to be successful in killing other human beings. We trusted our parents, who told us we were doing the right thing, and then we went to war in Vietnam (and now Iraq) and found we had been duped. We had been tricked into committing evil.
It comes as no surprise, after having the very foundations of life betrayed, that so many veterans have committed suicide. Or that so many veterans end up in jail or homeless or addicted to drugs.
Referring to the men who took part in the massacre at My Lai, Ron Ridenhour wrote in "Four Hours in My Lai": "Only a few people in those circumstances had the presence of mind and the strength of their own character that would see them through. ... Only an extraordinary few could withstand the pressures and maintain their moral beings in that awful place, in those terrible conditions. ... But we shouldn't our society shouldn't be structured ... so that only the extraordinary few can conduct themselves in a moral fashion."
Think about this. We are horrified when we hear about the massacres perpetrated in Vietnam and Iraq, and yet our society created the conditions for these atrocities to happen.
These atrocities will not end until we Americans, all of us, whether we were soldiers or not, recognize our own culpability. Like most Americans, I lived with the myth that as an American I could not possibly commit evil and that those Americans who did were deviants. It took me years to realize that the only difference between me and those who committed the massacre at My Lai (or Auschwitz or Nanking or Rwanda) was that I was lucky; I wasn't there. I had to face the deeper truth that the capacity for evil exists in all of us.
As long as there is war there will be atrocities and the need for the courage of men like Hugh Thompson. Only through the abolition of war will there finally be an end to atrocities.
by Mike Boehm
Lost among the headlines about Iraq and secret detentions was the story of the death last week of a hero and a patriot: Hugh Thompson.
In 1998, Thompson was awarded the Soldier's Medal, for heroism not involving conflict with an enemy, for his actions to save civilians in My Lai, Vietnam, on March 16, 1968. Thompson died of cancer Friday morning in Alexandria, La., at the age of 62.
Reading the press coverage of the presentation of the Soldier's Medal to Army pilot Thompson and his two helicopter crewmen, Larry Colburn and Glenn Andreotta, could leave the impression that the award was the culmination of a natural and just process.
These three heroes, led by Thompson, rescued 10 Vietnamese villagers who were about to be killed by American soldiers, and they were responsible for stopping the My Lai massacre, led by Lt. William Calley Jr.
It took 30 years for Thompson to receive proper recognition for his actions that day, 30 years before it became safe to honor him for standing up to fellow American soldiers.
Hugh Thompson believed deeply that the military was an honorable profession and that in time of war it was important to behave in an honorable way. He paid a heavy price for his beliefs.
Flying a reconnaissance mission over My Lai that March day, Thompson looked down to see carnage. Bodies of Vietnamese villagers were strewn over the ground, and he could see 10 villagers huddled in a bunker as Calley's soldiers approached them. Thompson landed his helicopter and ordered Colburn, his gunner, to train his machine gun on the American GIs. He told Colburn to "open up" on them if they began firing on the Vietnamese. Then Thompson coaxed out the terrified villagers using hand signals and radioed for another helicopter to come rescue them.
When it became known what Thompson and his crew did to stop the My Lai massacre, his life became a living hell. He was nearly court-martialed for his actions. He was shunned by fellow pilots, dead animals were thrown on his doorstep, and he received death threats.
Contrast this behavior with the treatment of Calley. When he was finally sentenced to life in prison, the outcry by the American people against the sentence persuaded President Nixon eventually to pardon Calley. The lieutenant served only three years under house arrest, with organizations such as the American Legion raising funds for his defense.
Judging by the treatment of these two men, who did the American people really see as a hero?
The betrayal Thompson felt was so profound he never recovered from it and spent the rest of his life committing suicide by alcohol.
This feeling of betrayal is something most veterans have in common. All of us were taught to know right from wrong, to know good from evil. We trusted our institutions our government and our schools. We listened to so many of our churches promoting war and bowed our heads as our chaplains prayed over us to be successful in killing other human beings. We trusted our parents, who told us we were doing the right thing, and then we went to war in Vietnam (and now Iraq) and found we had been duped. We had been tricked into committing evil.
It comes as no surprise, after having the very foundations of life betrayed, that so many veterans have committed suicide. Or that so many veterans end up in jail or homeless or addicted to drugs.
Referring to the men who took part in the massacre at My Lai, Ron Ridenhour wrote in "Four Hours in My Lai": "Only a few people in those circumstances had the presence of mind and the strength of their own character that would see them through. ... Only an extraordinary few could withstand the pressures and maintain their moral beings in that awful place, in those terrible conditions. ... But we shouldn't our society shouldn't be structured ... so that only the extraordinary few can conduct themselves in a moral fashion."
Think about this. We are horrified when we hear about the massacres perpetrated in Vietnam and Iraq, and yet our society created the conditions for these atrocities to happen.
These atrocities will not end until we Americans, all of us, whether we were soldiers or not, recognize our own culpability. Like most Americans, I lived with the myth that as an American I could not possibly commit evil and that those Americans who did were deviants. It took me years to realize that the only difference between me and those who committed the massacre at My Lai (or Auschwitz or Nanking or Rwanda) was that I was lucky; I wasn't there. I had to face the deeper truth that the capacity for evil exists in all of us.
As long as there is war there will be atrocities and the need for the courage of men like Hugh Thompson. Only through the abolition of war will there finally be an end to atrocities.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Looks Likes Vets will get the shaft again!
A Political Debate On Stress Disorder...
As Claims Rise, VA Takes Stock
The spiraling cost of post-traumatic stress disorder among war veterans has triggered a politically charged debate and ignited fears that the government is trying to limit expensive benefits for emotionally scarred troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the past five years, the number of veterans receiving compensation for the disorder commonly called PTSD has grown nearly seven times as fast as the number receiving benefits for disabilities in general, according to a report this year by the inspector general of the Department of Veterans Affairs. A total of 215,871 veterans received PTSD benefit payments last year at a cost of $4.3 billion, up from $1.7 billion in 1999 -- a jump of more than 150 percent.
Experts say the sharp increase does not begin to factor in the potential impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the increase is largely the result of Vietnam War vets seeking treatment decades after their combat experiences. Facing a budget crunch, experts within and outside the Veterans Affairs Department are raising concerns about fraudulent claims, wondering whether the structure of government benefits discourages healing, and even questioning the utility and objectivity of the diagnosis itself.
"On the one hand, it is good that people are reaching out for help," said Jeff Schrade, communications director for the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. "At the same time, as more people reach out for help, it squeezes the budget further."
Among the issues being discussed, he said, was whether veterans who show signs of recovery should continue to receive disability compensation: "Whether anyone has the political courage to cut them off -- I don't know that Congress has that will, but we'll see."
Much of the debate is taking place out of public sight, including an internal VA meeting in Philadelphia this month. The department has also been in negotiations with the Institute of Medicine over a review of the "utility and objectiveness" of PTSD diagnostic criteria and the validity of screening techniques, a process that could have profound implications for returning soldiers.
The growing national debate over the Iraq war has changed the nature of the discussion over PTSD, some participants said. "It has become a pro-war-versus-antiwar issue," said one VA official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because politics is not supposed to enter the debate. "If we show that PTSD is prevalent and severe, that becomes one more little reason we should stop waging war. If, on the other hand, PTSD rates are low . . . that is convenient for the Bush administration."
As to whether budget issues and politics are playing a role in the agency's review of PTSD diagnosis and treatment, VA spokesman Scott Hogenson said: "The debate is over how to provide the best medical services possible for veterans."
People with PTSD have paralyzing memories of traumatic episodes they experienced or witnessed, a range of emotional problems, and significant impairments in day-to-day functioning. Underlying the political and budget issues, many experts acknowledged, is a broader scientific debate over how best to diagnose trauma-related pathology, what the goal of treatment should be -- even what constitutes trauma.
Harvard psychologist Richard J. McNally argues that the diagnosis equates sexual abuse, car accidents and concentration camps, when they are entirely different experiences: A PTSD diagnosis has become "a way of moral claims-making," he said. "To underscore the reprehensibility of the perpetrator, we say someone has been through a traumatic event."
Chris Frueh, director of the VA clinic in Charleston, S.C., said the department's disability system encourages some veterans to exaggerate symptoms and prolong problems in order to maintain eligibility for benefits.
"We have young men and women coming back from Iraq who are having PTSD and getting the message that this is a disorder they can't be treated for, and they will have to be on disability for the rest of their lives," said Frueh, a professor of public psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina. "My concern about the policies is that they create perverse incentives to stay ill. It is very tough to get better when you are trying to demonstrate how ill you are."
Most veterans whom Frueh treats for PTSD are seeking disability compensation, he said. Veterans Affairs uses a sliding scale; veterans who are granted 100 percent disability status receive payments starting at around $2,300 a month. The VA inspector general's report found that benefit payments varied widely in states and said that was because VA centers in some states are more likely to grant veterans 100 percent disability.
Psychiatrist Sally Satel, who is affiliated with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said an underground network advises veterans where to go for the best chance of being declared disabled. The institute organized a recent meeting to discuss PTSD among veterans.
Once veterans are declared disabled, they retain that status indefinitely, Frueh and Satel said. The system creates an adversarial relationship between doctors and patients, in which veterans sometimes take legal action if doctors decline to diagnose PTSD, Frueh said. The clinician added that some patients who really need help never get it because they are unwilling to undergo the lengthy process of qualifying for disability benefits, which often requires them to repeatedly revisit the painful episodes they experienced.
The concern by Frueh and Satel about overdiagnosis and fraud -- what researchers call "false positives" -- has drawn the ire of veterans groups and many other mental health experts.
A far bigger problem is the many veterans who seek help but do not get it or who never seek help, a number of experts said. Studies have shown that large numbers of veterans with PTSD never seek treatment, possibly because of the stigma surrounding mental illness.
"There are periodic false positives, but there are also a lot of false negatives out there," said Terence M. Keane, one of the nation's best-known PTSD researchers, who cited a 1988 study on the numbers of veterans who do not get treatment. "Less than one-fourth of people with combat-related PTSD have used VA-related services."
Larry Scott, who runs the clearinghouse http://www.vawatchdog.org/ , said conservative groups are trying to cut VA disability programs by unfairly comparing them to welfare.
Compensating people for disabilities is a cost of war, he said: "Veterans benefits are like workmen's comp. You went to war. You were injured. Either your body or your mind was injured, and that prevents you from doing certain duties and you are compensated for that."
Scott said Veterans Affairs' objectives were made clear in the department's request to the Institute of Medicine for a $1.3 million study to review how PTSD is diagnosed and treated. Among other things, the department asked the institute -- a branch of the National Academies chartered by Congress to advise the government on science policy -- to review the American Psychiatric Association's criteria for diagnosing PTSD. Effectively, Scott said, Veterans Affairs was trying to get one scientific organization to second-guess another.
PTSD experts summoned to Philadelphia for the two-day internal "expert panel" meeting were asked to discuss "evidence regarding validity, reliability, and feasibility" of the department's PTSD assessment and treatment practices, according to an e-mail invitation obtained by The Washington Post. The goal, the e-mail added, is "to improve clinical exams used to help determine benefit payments for veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder."
"What they are trying to do is figure out a way not to diagnose vets with PTSD," said Steve Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, a veterans advocacy group. "It's like telling a patient with cancer, 'if we tell you, you don't have cancer, then you won't suffer from cancer.' "
Hogenson, the VA spokesman, said the department is not seeking to overturn the established psychiatric criteria for diagnosing PTSD.
"We are reviewing the utility and the objectivity of the criteria . . . and are commenting on the screening instruments used by VA," he said. "We want to make sure what we do for screening comports with the latest information out there."
===========================
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer-Tuesday, December 27, 2005
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
As Claims Rise, VA Takes Stock
The spiraling cost of post-traumatic stress disorder among war veterans has triggered a politically charged debate and ignited fears that the government is trying to limit expensive benefits for emotionally scarred troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the past five years, the number of veterans receiving compensation for the disorder commonly called PTSD has grown nearly seven times as fast as the number receiving benefits for disabilities in general, according to a report this year by the inspector general of the Department of Veterans Affairs. A total of 215,871 veterans received PTSD benefit payments last year at a cost of $4.3 billion, up from $1.7 billion in 1999 -- a jump of more than 150 percent.
Experts say the sharp increase does not begin to factor in the potential impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the increase is largely the result of Vietnam War vets seeking treatment decades after their combat experiences. Facing a budget crunch, experts within and outside the Veterans Affairs Department are raising concerns about fraudulent claims, wondering whether the structure of government benefits discourages healing, and even questioning the utility and objectivity of the diagnosis itself.
"On the one hand, it is good that people are reaching out for help," said Jeff Schrade, communications director for the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. "At the same time, as more people reach out for help, it squeezes the budget further."
Among the issues being discussed, he said, was whether veterans who show signs of recovery should continue to receive disability compensation: "Whether anyone has the political courage to cut them off -- I don't know that Congress has that will, but we'll see."
Much of the debate is taking place out of public sight, including an internal VA meeting in Philadelphia this month. The department has also been in negotiations with the Institute of Medicine over a review of the "utility and objectiveness" of PTSD diagnostic criteria and the validity of screening techniques, a process that could have profound implications for returning soldiers.
The growing national debate over the Iraq war has changed the nature of the discussion over PTSD, some participants said. "It has become a pro-war-versus-antiwar issue," said one VA official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because politics is not supposed to enter the debate. "If we show that PTSD is prevalent and severe, that becomes one more little reason we should stop waging war. If, on the other hand, PTSD rates are low . . . that is convenient for the Bush administration."
As to whether budget issues and politics are playing a role in the agency's review of PTSD diagnosis and treatment, VA spokesman Scott Hogenson said: "The debate is over how to provide the best medical services possible for veterans."
People with PTSD have paralyzing memories of traumatic episodes they experienced or witnessed, a range of emotional problems, and significant impairments in day-to-day functioning. Underlying the political and budget issues, many experts acknowledged, is a broader scientific debate over how best to diagnose trauma-related pathology, what the goal of treatment should be -- even what constitutes trauma.
Harvard psychologist Richard J. McNally argues that the diagnosis equates sexual abuse, car accidents and concentration camps, when they are entirely different experiences: A PTSD diagnosis has become "a way of moral claims-making," he said. "To underscore the reprehensibility of the perpetrator, we say someone has been through a traumatic event."
Chris Frueh, director of the VA clinic in Charleston, S.C., said the department's disability system encourages some veterans to exaggerate symptoms and prolong problems in order to maintain eligibility for benefits.
"We have young men and women coming back from Iraq who are having PTSD and getting the message that this is a disorder they can't be treated for, and they will have to be on disability for the rest of their lives," said Frueh, a professor of public psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina. "My concern about the policies is that they create perverse incentives to stay ill. It is very tough to get better when you are trying to demonstrate how ill you are."
Most veterans whom Frueh treats for PTSD are seeking disability compensation, he said. Veterans Affairs uses a sliding scale; veterans who are granted 100 percent disability status receive payments starting at around $2,300 a month. The VA inspector general's report found that benefit payments varied widely in states and said that was because VA centers in some states are more likely to grant veterans 100 percent disability.
Psychiatrist Sally Satel, who is affiliated with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said an underground network advises veterans where to go for the best chance of being declared disabled. The institute organized a recent meeting to discuss PTSD among veterans.
Once veterans are declared disabled, they retain that status indefinitely, Frueh and Satel said. The system creates an adversarial relationship between doctors and patients, in which veterans sometimes take legal action if doctors decline to diagnose PTSD, Frueh said. The clinician added that some patients who really need help never get it because they are unwilling to undergo the lengthy process of qualifying for disability benefits, which often requires them to repeatedly revisit the painful episodes they experienced.
The concern by Frueh and Satel about overdiagnosis and fraud -- what researchers call "false positives" -- has drawn the ire of veterans groups and many other mental health experts.
A far bigger problem is the many veterans who seek help but do not get it or who never seek help, a number of experts said. Studies have shown that large numbers of veterans with PTSD never seek treatment, possibly because of the stigma surrounding mental illness.
"There are periodic false positives, but there are also a lot of false negatives out there," said Terence M. Keane, one of the nation's best-known PTSD researchers, who cited a 1988 study on the numbers of veterans who do not get treatment. "Less than one-fourth of people with combat-related PTSD have used VA-related services."
Larry Scott, who runs the clearinghouse http://www.vawatchdog.org/ , said conservative groups are trying to cut VA disability programs by unfairly comparing them to welfare.
Compensating people for disabilities is a cost of war, he said: "Veterans benefits are like workmen's comp. You went to war. You were injured. Either your body or your mind was injured, and that prevents you from doing certain duties and you are compensated for that."
Scott said Veterans Affairs' objectives were made clear in the department's request to the Institute of Medicine for a $1.3 million study to review how PTSD is diagnosed and treated. Among other things, the department asked the institute -- a branch of the National Academies chartered by Congress to advise the government on science policy -- to review the American Psychiatric Association's criteria for diagnosing PTSD. Effectively, Scott said, Veterans Affairs was trying to get one scientific organization to second-guess another.
PTSD experts summoned to Philadelphia for the two-day internal "expert panel" meeting were asked to discuss "evidence regarding validity, reliability, and feasibility" of the department's PTSD assessment and treatment practices, according to an e-mail invitation obtained by The Washington Post. The goal, the e-mail added, is "to improve clinical exams used to help determine benefit payments for veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder."
"What they are trying to do is figure out a way not to diagnose vets with PTSD," said Steve Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, a veterans advocacy group. "It's like telling a patient with cancer, 'if we tell you, you don't have cancer, then you won't suffer from cancer.' "
Hogenson, the VA spokesman, said the department is not seeking to overturn the established psychiatric criteria for diagnosing PTSD.
"We are reviewing the utility and the objectivity of the criteria . . . and are commenting on the screening instruments used by VA," he said. "We want to make sure what we do for screening comports with the latest information out there."
===========================
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer-Tuesday, December 27, 2005
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Oppose any leader that would make himself a god.
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him." When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
– Matthew 2:1–3
The above passage of Scripture will be read countless times to the faithful over the next week as Christians celebrate the ultimate miracle of the coming of God made man, but no doubt the great majority of listeners will not give this passage even a cursory hearing. However, the wisdom contained therein proves salutary for even those not of the Christian faith. The subtext of the passage show how fundamentally radical the very concept of the Christ is and how one of the shrewdest of ancient political minds, Herod, understood this before the person of Jesus had ever uttered a word.
The historian James Henry Breasted (America’s first Egyptologist) wrote a useful textbook of ancient history in the early part of the 20th century. Breasted’s basic premise is that every culture of the East eventually had a ruler who assumed the mantle of the divine, a man-made-god. With the divine ruler came an oppressive bureaucracy (because the "man-god" king knew best how to run everyone’s life) which eventually sabotaged the cultural and economic advantages which the civilization had struggled to gain. The democracy of the Greek city-states was the alternative model (Greek culture’s fall eventually coming at the hands of a Macedonian "man-god," Alexander). In Breasted’s historical survey, "The East" is synonymous with a culture of absolute despotism, be it Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian or Persian. Only in the West did the idea of the worth of the individual take root.
How disheartening it must have been for Herod, the non-Jewish usurper of the throne at Jerusalem and puppet of the empire of Rome, to learn that men who knew about god-making where not looking for him but an infant. Years of crafty political maneuvers, skillfully applied terror, and an immense pork barrel public works program must have seemed all for naught. Herod, who seemed well on his way to achieving the status of a "man-god" king, had lost out not to a rival politico or foreign power but a child. The fact that it was a child, who had done nothing to achieve notoriety or aggrandize himself with worldly power, is precisely what must have had him "troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." An infant worthy of worship was not one who had won the title of "man-god" but was one who was a God-man, ruling by his very nature.
Such a concept "troubled" not only Herod but the entire establishment of political hangers-on. They realized all too well the consequences of the coming of a God-man – the legitimacy of "divine" kings could no longer even be feigned. Naturally, such an innovation in the minds of men had to be stopped and the slaughter of all male children under the age of two seemed a reasonable enough price to the power-drunk. (A few short decades later Caiaphas gave counsel that it was expedient that one man be executed in what he hoped was a political powerplay.)
For the Christian, the coming of the Christ child had a myriad of eternal spiritual repercussions. Quite simply, all has changed. One of those changes, perhaps incidental in the eyes of believers, is that "man-god" kings are obsolete. Since God has condescended to become a man, it is preposterous (and sinful) for a man to set himself up as a god. It is in the light of this radical change that we are to interpret what it is that belongs to God and what to Caesar.
The Caesars continued down the path of deifying themselves. Breasted notes in his history that by the time of Diocletian, three centuries after the radical message of Christmas had been delivered, the counter-Christmas political program was complete.
The emperor thus became for the whole Roman world what he had been in Egypt – an absolute monarch with none to limit his power. The State had been completely militarized and orientalized. With the unlimited power of the oriental despot the emperor now assumed its outward symbols . . . all who came into his presence must bow down to the dust.
As a divinity, the emperor had now become the oriental Sun-god and he was officially called the "Invincible Sun." His birthday was the twenty-fifth of December . . . The inhabitants of each province might revere their particular gods, undisturbed by the government, but all were obliged as good citizens to join in the official sacrifices to the head of State as a god. With the incoming of this oriental attitude toward the emperor, the long struggle for democracy, which we have traced through so many centuries of the history of early man, ended in the triumph of oriental despotism.
The Church’s establishment the feast of the Nativity on December 25th was an outright subversion of Caesar’s claims as to who was worthy of worship. (If this truth gets out, you can forget about any more crèche scenes in public.) My prayer for all who all who hold the Christian faith this Christmas season is that they may recover the radical truth that terrified the tyrants of antiquity and that people of all faiths may join to oppose any leader who would make himself a god.
December 22, 2005
C.T. Rossi is an attorney who lives in Washington, D.C.
© 2005 LewRockwell.com
– Matthew 2:1–3
The above passage of Scripture will be read countless times to the faithful over the next week as Christians celebrate the ultimate miracle of the coming of God made man, but no doubt the great majority of listeners will not give this passage even a cursory hearing. However, the wisdom contained therein proves salutary for even those not of the Christian faith. The subtext of the passage show how fundamentally radical the very concept of the Christ is and how one of the shrewdest of ancient political minds, Herod, understood this before the person of Jesus had ever uttered a word.
The historian James Henry Breasted (America’s first Egyptologist) wrote a useful textbook of ancient history in the early part of the 20th century. Breasted’s basic premise is that every culture of the East eventually had a ruler who assumed the mantle of the divine, a man-made-god. With the divine ruler came an oppressive bureaucracy (because the "man-god" king knew best how to run everyone’s life) which eventually sabotaged the cultural and economic advantages which the civilization had struggled to gain. The democracy of the Greek city-states was the alternative model (Greek culture’s fall eventually coming at the hands of a Macedonian "man-god," Alexander). In Breasted’s historical survey, "The East" is synonymous with a culture of absolute despotism, be it Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian or Persian. Only in the West did the idea of the worth of the individual take root.
How disheartening it must have been for Herod, the non-Jewish usurper of the throne at Jerusalem and puppet of the empire of Rome, to learn that men who knew about god-making where not looking for him but an infant. Years of crafty political maneuvers, skillfully applied terror, and an immense pork barrel public works program must have seemed all for naught. Herod, who seemed well on his way to achieving the status of a "man-god" king, had lost out not to a rival politico or foreign power but a child. The fact that it was a child, who had done nothing to achieve notoriety or aggrandize himself with worldly power, is precisely what must have had him "troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." An infant worthy of worship was not one who had won the title of "man-god" but was one who was a God-man, ruling by his very nature.
Such a concept "troubled" not only Herod but the entire establishment of political hangers-on. They realized all too well the consequences of the coming of a God-man – the legitimacy of "divine" kings could no longer even be feigned. Naturally, such an innovation in the minds of men had to be stopped and the slaughter of all male children under the age of two seemed a reasonable enough price to the power-drunk. (A few short decades later Caiaphas gave counsel that it was expedient that one man be executed in what he hoped was a political powerplay.)
For the Christian, the coming of the Christ child had a myriad of eternal spiritual repercussions. Quite simply, all has changed. One of those changes, perhaps incidental in the eyes of believers, is that "man-god" kings are obsolete. Since God has condescended to become a man, it is preposterous (and sinful) for a man to set himself up as a god. It is in the light of this radical change that we are to interpret what it is that belongs to God and what to Caesar.
The Caesars continued down the path of deifying themselves. Breasted notes in his history that by the time of Diocletian, three centuries after the radical message of Christmas had been delivered, the counter-Christmas political program was complete.
The emperor thus became for the whole Roman world what he had been in Egypt – an absolute monarch with none to limit his power. The State had been completely militarized and orientalized. With the unlimited power of the oriental despot the emperor now assumed its outward symbols . . . all who came into his presence must bow down to the dust.
As a divinity, the emperor had now become the oriental Sun-god and he was officially called the "Invincible Sun." His birthday was the twenty-fifth of December . . . The inhabitants of each province might revere their particular gods, undisturbed by the government, but all were obliged as good citizens to join in the official sacrifices to the head of State as a god. With the incoming of this oriental attitude toward the emperor, the long struggle for democracy, which we have traced through so many centuries of the history of early man, ended in the triumph of oriental despotism.
The Church’s establishment the feast of the Nativity on December 25th was an outright subversion of Caesar’s claims as to who was worthy of worship. (If this truth gets out, you can forget about any more crèche scenes in public.) My prayer for all who all who hold the Christian faith this Christmas season is that they may recover the radical truth that terrified the tyrants of antiquity and that people of all faiths may join to oppose any leader who would make himself a god.
December 22, 2005
C.T. Rossi is an attorney who lives in Washington, D.C.
© 2005 LewRockwell.com
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Insurgency In Waiting:
Iraq may be the jihad Superbowl, but Saudi Arabia is still al Qaeda’s top prize. Watch closely, because the quiet in the kingdom today may be the calm before the storm.
With all eyes on Iraq’s bloody insurgency and last week’s hotel bombings in Amman, Jordan, it’s easy to forget that al Qaeda’s ultimate goal is to snatch the reins of power from the House of Saud. Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has argued that the militant Islamic movement cannot win without a base at the heart of the Arab Middle East. And though Iraq or Egypt might fit the bill, neither can claim to be the world’s top oil producer or the site of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
Al Qaeda went underground after bombing a Saudi National Guard compound in 1995, killing five Americans. But in May 2003, it reopened the Saudi front by bombing foreign housing compounds in Riyadh, killing 35. Emboldened by that attack, the insurgents launched audacious assaults on petrochemical sites and even the Riyadh headquarters of the Saudi security forces. In the last two years, approximately 140 people have died in battles between security forces and insurgents.
Riyadh spends billions on defense and internal security forces every year, but it may not have what it takes to defeat a determined insurgency. Al Qaeda’s kinship with the Wahhabi religious establishment makes it popular within the kingdom and provides fertile ground for recruitment and operations. The Wahhabis also have a longstanding relationship with the royal family, through which they accept oil largesse in exchange for providing political and religious legitimacy to the regime.
The Saudi government would like to see the lull in insurgent activity in 2005 as evidence that they have a firm handle on matters. Unfortunately, the recent quiet may be the calm before the storm. When bin Laden called in December 2004 for a new phase in his campaign to oust the regime in Saudi Arabia, he urged his followers to mount a revolution in the kingdom. But he also told them not to miss a “golden and unique opportunity” to kill Americans in Iraq. Today, many young Saudi men are too busy with endeavors in Iraq to make trouble back home. But those who survive will eventually come home trained and battle-hardened.
While the al Qaeda insurgency in Saudi Arabia is likely to grow, the reliability of Saudi internal security is in doubt. Anecdotal evidence suggests that al Qaeda already has a strong presence within the Saudi security forces. An al Qaeda computer recovered during the 2001 U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan contained classified Saudi government documents apparently stolen by al Qaeda sympathizers within the government, according to Michael Scheuer, a former chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit. The May 2003 bombings of residential compounds in Riyadh required insider knowledge that was almost certainly provided by the Saudi security detail at the compound, according to Saudi Arabia expert John Bradley. In a November 2003 attack on another Riyadh housing compound, the terrorists were dressed in police uniforms. In June 2004, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula announced that elements in the Saudi police provided official uniforms and police vehicles to the group that carried out the execution of the American worker Paul Johnson, and set up false roadblocks as well. There is also precedent for mutiny in the ranks. In 1979, troops from the Saudi National Guard took part in an extremist uprising. Unfortunately for Riyadh, vetting the security forces is extremely difficult because militant ideology has deep roots in Saudi society, especially in the lower socioeconomic rungs of society that provide most personnel for the kingdom’s fighting forces.
Coming Home to Roost
The problem will only get worse as Saudi insurgents begin returning from Iraq, ready to employ their on-the-job training. Saudi nationals comprise a large percentage of the foreign insurgents in Iraq, and are heavily represented in lists of suicide bombers posted on extremist Web sites. It doesn’t help that much of the Saudi religious establishment advocates jihad in Iraq. Last year, 26 Saudi imams signed a statement urging Muslims to join the insurgency against U.S. forces in Iraq. In the 1980s, the Saudi government generally knew which Saudis were fighting in Afghanistan and who the trouble makers might be. This time, it doesn’t.
Tackling this entrenched problem will require political skill, grit, and determination. So far, it’s not clear that the aging and conservative Saudi leadership is up to the task. King Abdullah, touted by many as a reformer, is 82 years old and unlikely to implement significant political reforms or challenge the Saudi religious establishment any more than his predecessor, King Fahd, did. Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef declared in 2002 that there were no al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia and repeated the allegation that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks. Coming from the head of Saudi internal security, these comments suggest that the keen analysis necessary to an effective counterinsurgency campaign may be lacking. Some Saudi watchers suspect that Riyadh may have even paid al Qaeda to keep the insurgency outside of the kingdom.
There is hope that younger princes more clearly see the dangers posed by al Qaeda and militant Islamist ideology. In the summer of 2004, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, wrote an unusual article in the Saudi government newspaper Al Watan, in which he called for Saudi public support for a jihad against al Qaeda in the kingdom and warned against hesitation. Hoping that terrorists will “come to their senses,” he wrote, is a recipe for defeat. Riyadh needs to dedicate more resources to collecting and analyzing intelligence to target al Qaeda cells inside the kingdom. They also have to skillfully delegitimize the militant Islamist ideology in Saudi society and reign in the religious establishment that stokes it. The danger for the Saudi regime is that bold efforts on these fronts could spark a popular backlash by the many Saudi citizens who feel alienated by the regime’s reputation for corruption and isolation.
It is uncertain how many younger princes share Bandar’s assessment or even how much influence they could have in shaping the regime’s counterinsurgency campaign. It’s not even certain that Bandar himself will have much influence in his role as secretary-general of the newly created National Security Council. Many apparently grand political moves in Saudi Arabia—such as counterterrorism conferences and municipal elections—have been more show than substance. Given a choice, the aging Saudi leadership is more likely to opt for a conciliatory approach to al Qaeda and the path of hesitation that Bandar fears.
In Iraq, U.S. commanders are rightly doing everything in their power to defeat the insurgents. If they succeed, and an Iraqi government can handle security on its own, Washington’s list of headaches won’t necessarily be any smaller. The insurgency may simply move south.
With all eyes on Iraq’s bloody insurgency and last week’s hotel bombings in Amman, Jordan, it’s easy to forget that al Qaeda’s ultimate goal is to snatch the reins of power from the House of Saud. Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has argued that the militant Islamic movement cannot win without a base at the heart of the Arab Middle East. And though Iraq or Egypt might fit the bill, neither can claim to be the world’s top oil producer or the site of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
Al Qaeda went underground after bombing a Saudi National Guard compound in 1995, killing five Americans. But in May 2003, it reopened the Saudi front by bombing foreign housing compounds in Riyadh, killing 35. Emboldened by that attack, the insurgents launched audacious assaults on petrochemical sites and even the Riyadh headquarters of the Saudi security forces. In the last two years, approximately 140 people have died in battles between security forces and insurgents.
Riyadh spends billions on defense and internal security forces every year, but it may not have what it takes to defeat a determined insurgency. Al Qaeda’s kinship with the Wahhabi religious establishment makes it popular within the kingdom and provides fertile ground for recruitment and operations. The Wahhabis also have a longstanding relationship with the royal family, through which they accept oil largesse in exchange for providing political and religious legitimacy to the regime.
The Saudi government would like to see the lull in insurgent activity in 2005 as evidence that they have a firm handle on matters. Unfortunately, the recent quiet may be the calm before the storm. When bin Laden called in December 2004 for a new phase in his campaign to oust the regime in Saudi Arabia, he urged his followers to mount a revolution in the kingdom. But he also told them not to miss a “golden and unique opportunity” to kill Americans in Iraq. Today, many young Saudi men are too busy with endeavors in Iraq to make trouble back home. But those who survive will eventually come home trained and battle-hardened.
While the al Qaeda insurgency in Saudi Arabia is likely to grow, the reliability of Saudi internal security is in doubt. Anecdotal evidence suggests that al Qaeda already has a strong presence within the Saudi security forces. An al Qaeda computer recovered during the 2001 U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan contained classified Saudi government documents apparently stolen by al Qaeda sympathizers within the government, according to Michael Scheuer, a former chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit. The May 2003 bombings of residential compounds in Riyadh required insider knowledge that was almost certainly provided by the Saudi security detail at the compound, according to Saudi Arabia expert John Bradley. In a November 2003 attack on another Riyadh housing compound, the terrorists were dressed in police uniforms. In June 2004, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula announced that elements in the Saudi police provided official uniforms and police vehicles to the group that carried out the execution of the American worker Paul Johnson, and set up false roadblocks as well. There is also precedent for mutiny in the ranks. In 1979, troops from the Saudi National Guard took part in an extremist uprising. Unfortunately for Riyadh, vetting the security forces is extremely difficult because militant ideology has deep roots in Saudi society, especially in the lower socioeconomic rungs of society that provide most personnel for the kingdom’s fighting forces.
Coming Home to Roost
The problem will only get worse as Saudi insurgents begin returning from Iraq, ready to employ their on-the-job training. Saudi nationals comprise a large percentage of the foreign insurgents in Iraq, and are heavily represented in lists of suicide bombers posted on extremist Web sites. It doesn’t help that much of the Saudi religious establishment advocates jihad in Iraq. Last year, 26 Saudi imams signed a statement urging Muslims to join the insurgency against U.S. forces in Iraq. In the 1980s, the Saudi government generally knew which Saudis were fighting in Afghanistan and who the trouble makers might be. This time, it doesn’t.
Tackling this entrenched problem will require political skill, grit, and determination. So far, it’s not clear that the aging and conservative Saudi leadership is up to the task. King Abdullah, touted by many as a reformer, is 82 years old and unlikely to implement significant political reforms or challenge the Saudi religious establishment any more than his predecessor, King Fahd, did. Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef declared in 2002 that there were no al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia and repeated the allegation that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks. Coming from the head of Saudi internal security, these comments suggest that the keen analysis necessary to an effective counterinsurgency campaign may be lacking. Some Saudi watchers suspect that Riyadh may have even paid al Qaeda to keep the insurgency outside of the kingdom.
There is hope that younger princes more clearly see the dangers posed by al Qaeda and militant Islamist ideology. In the summer of 2004, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, wrote an unusual article in the Saudi government newspaper Al Watan, in which he called for Saudi public support for a jihad against al Qaeda in the kingdom and warned against hesitation. Hoping that terrorists will “come to their senses,” he wrote, is a recipe for defeat. Riyadh needs to dedicate more resources to collecting and analyzing intelligence to target al Qaeda cells inside the kingdom. They also have to skillfully delegitimize the militant Islamist ideology in Saudi society and reign in the religious establishment that stokes it. The danger for the Saudi regime is that bold efforts on these fronts could spark a popular backlash by the many Saudi citizens who feel alienated by the regime’s reputation for corruption and isolation.
It is uncertain how many younger princes share Bandar’s assessment or even how much influence they could have in shaping the regime’s counterinsurgency campaign. It’s not even certain that Bandar himself will have much influence in his role as secretary-general of the newly created National Security Council. Many apparently grand political moves in Saudi Arabia—such as counterterrorism conferences and municipal elections—have been more show than substance. Given a choice, the aging Saudi leadership is more likely to opt for a conciliatory approach to al Qaeda and the path of hesitation that Bandar fears.
In Iraq, U.S. commanders are rightly doing everything in their power to defeat the insurgents. If they succeed, and an Iraqi government can handle security on its own, Washington’s list of headaches won’t necessarily be any smaller. The insurgency may simply move south.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
What is Iraq REALLY like now??
Despite what we are being told, most of Iraq is a disaster and in complete chaos.
The security situation is more accurately described as a guerrilla war which has been out of control for over a year. Attacks on US forces average over 70 per day, and are expected to increase.
The US military having control over any portion of Iraq is a myth. Even the "Green Zone" is mortared on a regular basis.Like in Vietnam, planes will be shot down if they don't use the spiral method of taking off & landing due to the miliary's inability to provide adequate security. The infrastructure is in shambles. For the western companies who were awarded the no-bid contracts in Iraq, it's their dream contract. Companies like Bechtel have been paid out in full for their initial contract worth $680 million and awarded contracts totaling over $3.8 Billion. Many of their projects in their initial contract were not even begun. Iraqis suffer and die from waterborne diseases. Child malnutrition is worse than during the sanctions. Unemployment is over 70%.
According to a recent poll commissioned by the British military, 82% of Iraqis want all occupation forces removed from their country. Less than 1% feel occupation forces have improved security. 45% admitted to feeling that attacks against US forces are justified.
There is now a huge number of missing persons in Iraq. Over 100,000 according to two Iraq non-government organizations. Many are believed to be detained by the US. Doctors for Iraq Society estimates that there are 60,000 Iraqis in US military detention facilities in Iraq.
During the November 2004 siege of Fallujah 60% of the city was completely destroyed. Most of the rest of it had severe damage . Iraqi NGO's and medical workers in Fallujah estimate over 4000 are dead, mostly civilians. Over 50,000 residents of Fallujah remain displaced. The US military used cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions, and white phosphorous (a new form of napalm) during the siege, and appear to have used forms of chemical weapons as well. Fallujah was a massacre rather than a siege. Fallujah is the model of Bush's foreign policy. There has been next to no reconstruction completed inside Fallujah as was promised by occupation authorities. Many of us in the US may not have even heard that Al-Qa'im, Kerabla, Najaf, Haditha, Hit and parts of Baquba, Baghdad, Ramadi and Samarra have suffered large scale destruction by US military operations.
Iraq is already in state sponsored civil war. The puppet Iraqi government is using the Badr Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga militia to battle a primarily Sunni resistance.
The Iraqi people have little hope for a future. Most who can afford it are leaving Iraq. Those who have no choice but to stay can look forward to continued and increasing violence, no reconstruction, a fundamentalist state and an endless US occupation which was failed before it began. The American people are obliged to help the Iraqi people because it is the fault of the American people that Bush was allowed to invade Iraq. Anyone who is not doing everything in their power to end this illegal and immoral occupation is complicit with the war crimes being committed in Iraq.
Many will say that this is anti-American & will argue that they are only supporting the troops by standing behind Bush and his gang of cut-throats. Supporting an unjust & immoral war based in part on lies perpetrated by an immoral administration IS anti-American and goes against everything America was based on. The troops are doing what they are told which is the mark of a good soldier. They are following orders and doing thier job very well. Once they were placed in their current position, they have no choice in the matter. Thier survival depends on the ability to follow orders without question. Supporting our troops is not the question here. Supporting a corrupt administration is!
The security situation is more accurately described as a guerrilla war which has been out of control for over a year. Attacks on US forces average over 70 per day, and are expected to increase.
The US military having control over any portion of Iraq is a myth. Even the "Green Zone" is mortared on a regular basis.Like in Vietnam, planes will be shot down if they don't use the spiral method of taking off & landing due to the miliary's inability to provide adequate security. The infrastructure is in shambles. For the western companies who were awarded the no-bid contracts in Iraq, it's their dream contract. Companies like Bechtel have been paid out in full for their initial contract worth $680 million and awarded contracts totaling over $3.8 Billion. Many of their projects in their initial contract were not even begun. Iraqis suffer and die from waterborne diseases. Child malnutrition is worse than during the sanctions. Unemployment is over 70%.
According to a recent poll commissioned by the British military, 82% of Iraqis want all occupation forces removed from their country. Less than 1% feel occupation forces have improved security. 45% admitted to feeling that attacks against US forces are justified.
There is now a huge number of missing persons in Iraq. Over 100,000 according to two Iraq non-government organizations. Many are believed to be detained by the US. Doctors for Iraq Society estimates that there are 60,000 Iraqis in US military detention facilities in Iraq.
During the November 2004 siege of Fallujah 60% of the city was completely destroyed. Most of the rest of it had severe damage . Iraqi NGO's and medical workers in Fallujah estimate over 4000 are dead, mostly civilians. Over 50,000 residents of Fallujah remain displaced. The US military used cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions, and white phosphorous (a new form of napalm) during the siege, and appear to have used forms of chemical weapons as well. Fallujah was a massacre rather than a siege. Fallujah is the model of Bush's foreign policy. There has been next to no reconstruction completed inside Fallujah as was promised by occupation authorities. Many of us in the US may not have even heard that Al-Qa'im, Kerabla, Najaf, Haditha, Hit and parts of Baquba, Baghdad, Ramadi and Samarra have suffered large scale destruction by US military operations.
Iraq is already in state sponsored civil war. The puppet Iraqi government is using the Badr Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga militia to battle a primarily Sunni resistance.
The Iraqi people have little hope for a future. Most who can afford it are leaving Iraq. Those who have no choice but to stay can look forward to continued and increasing violence, no reconstruction, a fundamentalist state and an endless US occupation which was failed before it began. The American people are obliged to help the Iraqi people because it is the fault of the American people that Bush was allowed to invade Iraq. Anyone who is not doing everything in their power to end this illegal and immoral occupation is complicit with the war crimes being committed in Iraq.
Many will say that this is anti-American & will argue that they are only supporting the troops by standing behind Bush and his gang of cut-throats. Supporting an unjust & immoral war based in part on lies perpetrated by an immoral administration IS anti-American and goes against everything America was based on. The troops are doing what they are told which is the mark of a good soldier. They are following orders and doing thier job very well. Once they were placed in their current position, they have no choice in the matter. Thier survival depends on the ability to follow orders without question. Supporting our troops is not the question here. Supporting a corrupt administration is!
Friday, October 28, 2005
"SCOOTER" Facts
Pre-emptive refutation of conservative information concerning Libby's indictment that is most likely to appear in the media:
>MYTH 1: Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is an overzealous prosecutor who was out to get the Bush administration.
FACT: Fitzgerald was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois by President Bush after he was recommended for the post by conservative Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL, no relation). He was hand-picked by the Bush Justice Department to investigate the Plame matter.
>MYTH 2: Fitzgerald overstepped his authority and went beyond his original mandate to investigate possible violations of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA).
FACT: Fitzgerald's official delegation as special counsel did not mention the IIPA, or any other specific statute. Rather, it granted him "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity."
>MYTH 3: The indictment marks a troubling move towards the criminalization of politics.
FACT: The outing of Valerie Plame wasn't "politics," it was a leak of classified information that put U.S. national security at risk. Lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice to block an investigation and possible prosecution of the leak, if in fact Libby is found guilty of those crimes, isn't "politics"; it's a crime.
>MYTH 4: Leaks happen every day in Washington; there was no reason to launch an investigation in the first place.
FACT: Leaks about an upcoming press conference or the administration's legislative strategy happen every day. Leaks of classified information that blow the cover of CIA agents and jeopardize national security are far different from the comparably trivial leaks that occur daily.
>MYTH 5: It was commonly known among Plame's neighbors and in her social circles that she works at the CIA.
FACT: Libby's indictment reads: "At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie [Plame] Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."
>MYTH 1: Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is an overzealous prosecutor who was out to get the Bush administration.
FACT: Fitzgerald was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois by President Bush after he was recommended for the post by conservative Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL, no relation). He was hand-picked by the Bush Justice Department to investigate the Plame matter.
>MYTH 2: Fitzgerald overstepped his authority and went beyond his original mandate to investigate possible violations of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA).
FACT: Fitzgerald's official delegation as special counsel did not mention the IIPA, or any other specific statute. Rather, it granted him "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity."
>MYTH 3: The indictment marks a troubling move towards the criminalization of politics.
FACT: The outing of Valerie Plame wasn't "politics," it was a leak of classified information that put U.S. national security at risk. Lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice to block an investigation and possible prosecution of the leak, if in fact Libby is found guilty of those crimes, isn't "politics"; it's a crime.
>MYTH 4: Leaks happen every day in Washington; there was no reason to launch an investigation in the first place.
FACT: Leaks about an upcoming press conference or the administration's legislative strategy happen every day. Leaks of classified information that blow the cover of CIA agents and jeopardize national security are far different from the comparably trivial leaks that occur daily.
>MYTH 5: It was commonly known among Plame's neighbors and in her social circles that she works at the CIA.
FACT: Libby's indictment reads: "At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie [Plame] Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Military Censorship
Soldier-bloggers have provided journalists, families, and the public firsthand, uncensored accounts of what’s happening in Iraq—until now. A new policy, handed down by U.S. commanders in April but only recently reported, requires service members in Iraq who blog to notify their chain of command, or face punishment. Under the policy, commanders must read subordinates’ blogs. Some soldiers are going offline, rather than reveal their identity to higher-ups. Others say they’ll break the rule. “I’m taking a risk,” says one soldier, “but I [can’t] be objective if the Army knows who I am.”
I wonder what they are afraid of? The truth perhaps?
I wonder what they are afraid of? The truth perhaps?
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
President Cogratulates Iraqis on Successful Elections
(The South Grounds)
President's Remarks
12:47 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:
Quote:
"On behalf of the American people, I'd like to congratulate the people of Iraq for the successful completion of a vote on their draft constitution. By all indications, the turnout was greater than the turnout from the last January election, which is good news. By all indications, the Sunnis participated in greater numbers in this election than last time. And that's good news. After all, the purpose of a democracy is to make sure everybody is -- participates in the process. I'm also pleased, from the initial indications, that the level of violence was considerably less than the last election. That's a tribute to the Iraqis -- forces who we've trained, as well as coalition forces that worked hard to make sure that democracy could move forward in Iraq. This is a very positive day for the Iraqis and, as well, for world peace. Democracies are peaceful countries. The vote today in Iraq stands in stark contrast to the attitudes and philosophy and strategy of al Qaeda and its terrorist friends and killers. We believe, and the Iraqis believe, the best way forward is through the democratic process. Al Qaeda wants to use their violent ways to stop the march of democracy because democracy is the exact opposite of what they believe is right. We're making progress toward peace. We're making progress toward an ally that will join us in the war on terror, that will prevent al Qaeda from establishing safe haven in Iraq, and a country that will serve as an example for others who aspire to live in freedom. So, again, I congratulate the Iraqi people. I thank you for meeting this milestone. Thank you for doing what is right, to set the foundations for peace for future generations to come. Appreciate it."
END 12:51 P.M. EDT
___________
(The back yard)
L-Mans Remarks
11:45 central
Funny how some don't realize this is a statement of opinion by the President and his advisors. At the time that the President made this statement there had not even been any actual vote count. I hope that the voting goes the way we "need" it to go so we can get our troops out sooner but I'm not willing to accept any opinion from the President since his opinions and miss-guided principles may be what got us into this war for who-knows-what.......I prefer to wait until I know how the voting really went. It may well be that more Sunnis voted but did not vote the way we need them to vote so that we may start to pull out troops. It also may be that more Sunnis turned up to vote due to the increased security and lull in insurgency activities partially due to the ban on automobile during this event. (I don't understand why this isn't made permanent while we are in occupation there. It's not like the Iraqis need to drive to thier Sunday picnics. Most are terrified to even leave shelter except to scrounge what they need to survive).Believe it or not , I'd truly like to be able to trust President Bush. It really doesn't feel very good to feel betrayed as many of us do. I usually just distance myself from those I do not trust but it is next to impossible when that person has as much control over the lives of myself and others as President Bush has. This is a statement of opinion by myself.......not necessarily fact.
END: 11:51 central
__________________
President's Remarks
12:47 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:
Quote:
"On behalf of the American people, I'd like to congratulate the people of Iraq for the successful completion of a vote on their draft constitution. By all indications, the turnout was greater than the turnout from the last January election, which is good news. By all indications, the Sunnis participated in greater numbers in this election than last time. And that's good news. After all, the purpose of a democracy is to make sure everybody is -- participates in the process. I'm also pleased, from the initial indications, that the level of violence was considerably less than the last election. That's a tribute to the Iraqis -- forces who we've trained, as well as coalition forces that worked hard to make sure that democracy could move forward in Iraq. This is a very positive day for the Iraqis and, as well, for world peace. Democracies are peaceful countries. The vote today in Iraq stands in stark contrast to the attitudes and philosophy and strategy of al Qaeda and its terrorist friends and killers. We believe, and the Iraqis believe, the best way forward is through the democratic process. Al Qaeda wants to use their violent ways to stop the march of democracy because democracy is the exact opposite of what they believe is right. We're making progress toward peace. We're making progress toward an ally that will join us in the war on terror, that will prevent al Qaeda from establishing safe haven in Iraq, and a country that will serve as an example for others who aspire to live in freedom. So, again, I congratulate the Iraqi people. I thank you for meeting this milestone. Thank you for doing what is right, to set the foundations for peace for future generations to come. Appreciate it."
END 12:51 P.M. EDT
___________
(The back yard)
L-Mans Remarks
11:45 central
Funny how some don't realize this is a statement of opinion by the President and his advisors. At the time that the President made this statement there had not even been any actual vote count. I hope that the voting goes the way we "need" it to go so we can get our troops out sooner but I'm not willing to accept any opinion from the President since his opinions and miss-guided principles may be what got us into this war for who-knows-what.......I prefer to wait until I know how the voting really went. It may well be that more Sunnis voted but did not vote the way we need them to vote so that we may start to pull out troops. It also may be that more Sunnis turned up to vote due to the increased security and lull in insurgency activities partially due to the ban on automobile during this event. (I don't understand why this isn't made permanent while we are in occupation there. It's not like the Iraqis need to drive to thier Sunday picnics. Most are terrified to even leave shelter except to scrounge what they need to survive).Believe it or not , I'd truly like to be able to trust President Bush. It really doesn't feel very good to feel betrayed as many of us do. I usually just distance myself from those I do not trust but it is next to impossible when that person has as much control over the lives of myself and others as President Bush has. This is a statement of opinion by myself.......not necessarily fact.
END: 11:51 central
__________________
Saturday, October 01, 2005
The Human Brain. ..a mistake?
The problem with attempting to argue religion is that any religion has it's own set of rules dealing with right and wrong just as every form of government has its own set of rules. If it were possible for every human being on this planet to accept the rules of a single religion or even a single world government as many would like to see, individuals would still find a conflict because there would still be one thing getting in the way.....A complex organ called the brain. 100% mind control will always be impossible. All forms of government and all forms of religion attempt to control individuals by mind control daily. This has been true since the beginning of time. Even the perfect democracy that we strive for in this country is nothing but a form of mind control. To believe in God or any Creator of mankind , you must accept that the human mind with all its flaws must have been designed as it is for a purpose. No religion will allow for the idea that the Creator chosen by thier particular religion made a mistake. So if this Creator embraced by any religion gave the human race a brain capable of forming individual ideas this must not be a mistake. Their ideas, even if they also do not prove their own views, force those on the other side to defend theirs. Life’s events are what they are, no more and no less. We have opinions of them, and opinions vary among individuals. No one can tell another what is right or wrong, just or unjust. Each individual decides that for his/herself. They’ll call it right or wrong as they see fit. The words just and unjust have no real meaning, or if they do the meaning cannot be established. That will make it impossible for everyone to ever agree 100% on anything. For this reason thier will never be a possibility of world peace any more than thier will be a possibility of a single religion accepted worldwide. In my own mind, I think it is a very big mistake to interfere in the decisions made by any particular religion or form of government. It is ridiculous in my opinion to believe that terrorism can ever be defeated because of this one little thing that we can never control 100%......The Human Brain.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
WSJ reported erroneous tax cut figures
In a September 29 Wall Street Journal (subscription required) article, staff writers David Rogers, Brody Mullins, and Jeanne Cummings erroneously reported that the Republican proposal to extend capital gains and dividend tax cuts would cost "$12.5 billion from 2008 to 2010." Not only does this statistic underestimate the cost of the proposed cut, it also contradicts the figure Mullins cited in a previous article on Republican tax cut proposals. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that extending the capital gains and dividend tax cuts (currently set to expire in 2008) through 2010 would cost $2 billion in 2008, $13 billion in 2009, and $8 billion in 2010, for a total of $23 billion. In a September 13 Journal article (subscription required), Mullins presented a chart in which these same cuts were estimated to cost $20 billion if extended through 2010, far more than the $12.5 billion purported in his latest piece.
Join Not in Our Name on Nov. 2 for a National Day of Die-Ins and Resistance to Endless War and Repression
Join Not in Our Name on Nov. 2 for a National Day of Die-Ins and Resistance to Endless War and Repression We believe that as people living in the United States it is our responsibility to resist the injustices done by our government in our names. Let's unite to drive out the Bush Regime!
A die-in is a symbolic act of resistance. We will die-in to cross a line and to symbolically put our bodies on the machinery of war, hatred, lies and greed. We will die-in because the business of this government as usual must stop, and it must stop on our school campuses at lunch, in downtown city centers at rush hour, and wherever people are gathered. We die-in to show that from New Orleans to Baghdad, from AIDS ravaged Africa to the Border of Mexico -- life is precious.
When we gather in groups of thousands, hundreds, or just of few, and at the appointed time lay ourselves on the ground, we join with people of conscience all around the country to become a living monument to the unspeakable tragedy of the senseless death that our government is committing, and simply allowing to let happen.
We will die-in so that others can see your message and find the courage and the voice to speak out and take action. Our collective actions, both large and small, can inspire, motivate, and yes, even change the world.
A die-in is a symbolic act of resistance. We will die-in to cross a line and to symbolically put our bodies on the machinery of war, hatred, lies and greed. We will die-in because the business of this government as usual must stop, and it must stop on our school campuses at lunch, in downtown city centers at rush hour, and wherever people are gathered. We die-in to show that from New Orleans to Baghdad, from AIDS ravaged Africa to the Border of Mexico -- life is precious.
When we gather in groups of thousands, hundreds, or just of few, and at the appointed time lay ourselves on the ground, we join with people of conscience all around the country to become a living monument to the unspeakable tragedy of the senseless death that our government is committing, and simply allowing to let happen.
We will die-in so that others can see your message and find the courage and the voice to speak out and take action. Our collective actions, both large and small, can inspire, motivate, and yes, even change the world.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Thursday, September 22, 2005
1.1 Million Ordered To Evacuate Homes
1.1 Million Ordered To Evacuate Homes By Ceci Connolly and Sylvia Moreno Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, September 22, 2005; A01 NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 21 -- Hurricane Rita, a massive storm packing 165-mph winds and destructive force equal to the might of Hurricane Katrina, tracked through the Gulf of Mexico on Wednesday, prompting evacuation orders for more than 1.1 million Texans and the few remaining holdouts in storm-ravaged New Orleans. After nicking the Florida Keys as a Category 2 storm, Rita intensified to Category 5 status, the highest ranking used by the National Hurricane Center. Authorities in Galveston, Tex., a coastal city of 60,000, ordered mandatory evacuations. By midday, a 20-mile line of cars snaked up Interstate 45 out of Galveston -- scene of the deadliest hurricane in U.S. history when an unnamed storm killed 8,000 to 10,000 people in 1900. Thousands of cars crammed roads around Houston, the nation's fourth-largest city, where authorities also ordered residents in low-lying areas to evacuate. About 1,000 state troopers were staged near the Gulf Coast, while dozens of shelters prepared for evacuees in Austin, Lufkin, College Station-Bryan, San Antonio and Huntsville. In Austin, which just three weeks ago took in 4,000 Katrina evacuees, 50 shelters were being opened to house as many as 15,000 Texas Gulf Coast evacuees. President Bush declared states of emergency in Texas and Louisiana. Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) urged residents along a 250-mile swath, from Beaumont to Corpus Christi, to leave. "I urge the citizens to listen carefully to the instructions provided by state and local authorities, and follow them," Bush said during a speech in Washington. "We hope and pray that Hurricane Rita will not be a devastating storm, but we've got to be ready for the worst." In recent days, Rita has grown into a giant storm with hurricane-force winds stretching 45 miles from its center and tropical storm force winds extending 140 miles. Forecasters project Rita will make landfall early Saturday along the central Texas coast. However, even a slight shift north would put New Orleans back in the bull's-eye, prompting fears the city's already-fragile levee system could be breached again, flooding neighborhoods that remain coated in a crusty layer of muck. Painful memories of Katrina -- with a death toll that reached 1,000 Wednesday -- drove thousands of private citizens and elected officials to act fast rather than take the wait-and-see approach that greeted some coastal storms in recent years. "If Katrina did anything, it woke people up to the power of Mother Nature," said Anthony Griffin, 51, who spent Wednesday boarding up his Galveston law office before heading to his brother's home in Fort Worth. "When Katrina hit this country, it was in a city that everyone knew and those folks looking at the TV camera looked like folks we knew." In Texas, Perry urged those in the path of the storm to evacuate. "Homes can be rebuilt; lives cannot," he said from the governor's mansion in Austin. "If you're on the coast between Beaumont and Corpus Christi, now's the time to leave." The Department of Defense, taking lessons from Katrina, intends to send surveillance aircraft soon after Rita strikes land to "determine the magnitude of the relief required and, secondly, where it would be required," said Paul McHale, assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense. "We want to ensure as a matter of policy we have better eyes on target." Already, about 5,000 Texas National Guard troops have been mobilized and another 1,300 who had been assisting in New Orleans are returning from Louisiana. The Pentagon is drawing up plans to assist local law enforcement "in the event that the first responders become the first victims," as happened in Katrina, he said. "The National Guard MP [military police] response to Katrina was nothing short of extraordinary, but it was a response that was formulated on the fly as we recognized an emerging law enforcement requirement," he said. The Federal Emergency Management Agency positioned 45 truckloads of water and ice and 25 truckloads of Meals Ready to Eat at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio. More than 400 medical workers and 14 urban search-and-rescue teams, comprising 744 people, have been stationed in Houston, San Antonio and Fort Worth. "The most important thing that we're doing is work with the Department of Defense to use their assets up front before the storm instead of waiting until after the storm lands," said acting FEMA Director R. David Paulison. Earlier this week, a military satellite communications system was shipped to New Orleans. FEMA also asked the Pentagon to provide 26 helicopters to ferry people and supplies, five two-person communications teams for first responders, temporary hospital beds for 2,500 patients and field kitchens capable of serving 500,000 meals a day. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta assembled four teams of 20 to deploy after Rita makes landfall, Tom Skinner, an agency spokesman, said. The CDC has three dozen staffers in Texas as part of its Katrina recovery effort, providing care at shelters, hospitals and local health departments. After suffering sizable losses in Katrina, several oil refineries shut down Wednesday, pulling hundreds of workers from rigs off the Texas shore. The Texas area accounts for about one-quarter of the nation's total crude oil production. In New Orleans, pockets of rescue workers and cleanup crews kept watch on the weather map even as they struggled to restore critical services in a metropolitan area that just one month ago bustled with 1.3 million residents and thousands of revenue-generating tourists. A team of seven Public Health Service doctors and nurses planned to stay in New Orleans through Rita, but about 45 CDC employees relocated to Baton Rouge. Louisiana state officials were moving about 75 homebound patients from "special needs" shelters in Lafayette and Thibodaux to centers in Monroe and Shreveport, said Bob Johannessen, spokesman for the state Department of Health and Hospitals. Still, even going more than weeks without power, water or sewer service were not enough to uproot some here. After surviving the Mariel boatlift from Cuba in 1980 and Katrina on Aug. 29, Jose Mendez, 66, said he was not frightened by Rita. Speaking in Spanish in his mildewed apartment near the New Orleans Fairgrounds horse-racing track, Mendez smiled: "I know how to deal with water." Moreno reported from Austin. Staff writers Manuel Roig-Franzia in New Orleans, Blaine Harden in Houston and Christopher Lee, Spencer S. Hsu and Ann Scott Tyson in Washington also contributed to this report._________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
