Left Notes

U.S. to end funding for UNESCO

2011-11-01T00:48:00.008-04:00

The Obama administration said it would end funding for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (see UNESCO Palestine decision sets off U.S.-U.N. confrontation, Los Angeles Times, October 31, 2011).

Admittedly I have not been keeping up with politics very much these days but this item saddened me. So I am sending the following to my U.S. Representative and Senators:

I do not often write politicians and this message was not sent as a response to some organizational email blast. However, I was troubled to learn in the news that the United States will be withdrawing financial support for UNESCO as a result of the admission of Palestine to the organization. I understand that this withdrawal of financial support was triggered by U.S. law forbidding such payments to organizations that recognize Palestine as a state. First and foremost, I find any such law to be anti-democratic and archaic. If most of the world would like to recognize Palestine and include the Palestine people in the workings of an international organization whose mission is to "contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture," then it is wrong for the United States to pull support for this mission. This is even more misguided when you consider that UNESCO helps promote American values under an international umbrella in places where an American one might be resented or unwelcome. It is morally indefensible to undermine the good work of UNESCO all over the world and to use our funding of it as political leverage in the regional affairs of the middle east. Second, I believe that the United States should be supporting the rights of the disenfranchised people of Palestine and their right to participate in organizations such as UNESCO.

Please work to repeal the laws that prevent the United States from fulfilling our moral and financial obligations to UNESCO and then support Palestine's entry into UNESCO.

The Election

2008-11-02T17:48:00.008-05:00

"I don’t think there’s many of us that are under any sort of delusion that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are going to take us all the way to the promised land, but they are going to stop—they’re the tourniquet that’s going to stop the bleeding."

—Michael Moore on Democracy Now!, October 31, 2008

"Obama has been a moderate government interventionist... His advisers are smart and intellectually flexible so he is able to respond quickly to what is going on."

—Paul Krugman on NPR's Fresh Air, October 21, 2008

This year I will be voting for the Democrat Barack Obama, but I will be voting for him as I have voted for Democrats in the past, as a 'lesser evil.' There is no question in my mind that Obama and the Democrats will be much better than the Republicans. The Democrats' policies on the economy, the environment, health care and the role of government are clearly more progressive. I believe Obama will also be an improvement in an area of international relations where the U.S. has lost its credibility and sympathy after the attacks of September 2001.

Yet when I vote I will vote with a certain amount of disquietude because I believe our electoral system is profoundly anti-democratic and I worry that my voting, even for a lesser evil, is a vote that helps legitimize this political system. I realize that we do live in a democracy — but it is only a democracy to a certain point. Yes we are able to vote and speak critically and favorably of any politician or policy. That is a necessary ingredient for democracy but that alone does not make our system democratic. I know that there are places where people can't vote in a meaningful way and they can't speak out against their government and we are better off than people who live under such conditions.

But in order to be truly democratic, all political constituencies need to be fairly represented. Unfortunately that does not happen in our system primarily because of two reasons: money and the two-party system. In order to be considered a 'serious' candidate, one needs to be well funded. The mainstream media won't even discuss a candidate's policy proposals, no matter how well thought out, if they don't have access to large sums of money. This clearly puts the interests of poor in the back seat. Shortening the election time-frame and requiring public airwaves to be used to provide free access to political discourse would be a couple ways to reduce or remove the influence of money. I'm sure there are others. An even more dramatic reform that could transform our system into one that is more democratic is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). This would allow people to vote for the candidate that they believe in with out worrying about the "spoiler" effect. I believe this would embiggen the political discourse and improve the representation of various political viewpoints. Here is a video that explains Instant Runoff Voting:

The practices of the unscrupulous money changers

2008-09-29T20:54:00.005-04:00

Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True, they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

... in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order: there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments, so that there will be an end to speculation with other people's money; and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

--Franklin D. Roosevelt, inaugural address, March 4, 1933

Perhaps some historical reflection is needed during this time of turbulent financial markets in which politicians hastily try to shore up the economy with government funds. Listening to this speech today is inspiring yet alarming at how history is repeating itself. I am not saying that the economy is now in the same state as it was in 1933, but it seems clear that those confronting the current crisis of capitalism lack a vision. Republicans rejected the $700 billion bailout as a "slippery slope to socialism," but if it is, it is the wrong kind of socialism because it doesn't go far enough.

What are we reading? Amazon tracks America's political book buying

2008-09-14T18:42:00.004-04:00

Amazon.com has a page where you can see a color-coded map showing which states are buying "red" or "blue" books. You can then click on a state to see their favorite political books. Currently, with all the interest in Sarah Palin, Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down is at the top of the list. They have realized that not all books fall into such simple categories so there is also a list of purple books. Maybe the should start a list of books that Palin wanted banned.

Sarah Palin: an agent of change?

2008-09-14T16:31:00.005-04:00

Although the McCain campaign presents her as an agent of change, I am beginning to see similarities between VP nominee Sarah Palin and George W. Bush. The New York Times reports, "Throughout her career, Ms. Palin has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and blurred the line between government and personal grievance" (Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes , 9/13/2008). Like Bush she has replaced professionals with friends and she fired people she has personal issues with (including her ex-brother-in-law).

The Times also reports that Governor Palin and her top officials have used personal e-mail accounts for state business and that her staff discussed whether this could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records. Congress has uncovered that early in Bush's first term millions of messages in the White House went missing while using a private Republican Party e-mail system.

Despite posturing as an advocate for an open government, Palin's administration has effectively prevented a marine biologist at the University of Alaska from access to e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. Palin has stated that global warming is not man-made and has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered. The Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science.

And in a couple of other similarities to Bush, The Times reports, "Many lawmakers contend that Ms. Palin is overly reliant on a small inner circle that leaves her isolated. Democrats and Republicans alike describe her as often missing in action. Since taking office in 2007, Ms. Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, some 600 miles to the north of the governor’s mansion in Juneau, records show." Not unlike Bush who prefers his residence in Crawford, Texas.

It should be noted that George W. Bush also presented himself as an agent of change and, to the degree that he has changed things, it has been for the worse. The Daily Show did a nice piece juxtaposing Bush in 2000 and McCain in 2008 which you can watch here (the best part is at the end of the video).

The dishonesty of a 'maverick'

2008-09-13T12:04:00.006-04:00

The New York Times has an excellent article (McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry as Distortions) about the many lies and distortions of the McCain campaign and people starting to question it. While I don't believe the media has called McCain on it enough, at least there are some who are starting to question it and maybe McCain's dishonesty will become a campaign issue. The Times article quotes Don Sipple, a Republican strategist, who voiced concern that John McCain’s approach could backfire:

“Any campaign that is taking liberty with the truth and does it in a serial manner will end up paying for it in the end,” he said. “But it’s very unbecoming to a political figure like John McCain whose flag was planted long ago in ground that was about ‘straight talk’ and integrity.”

Ideally the election campaign should focus on policy issues such as peace, health care, and the economy and not be reduced to moral character, but I think honesty can and should become an issue in this election. We already have a president that got us into a war with Iraq based on lies and deception. We don't need another one.

John McCain's election strategy: lie

2008-09-08T18:12:00.004-04:00

How do you present yourself as an agent of change in an election when your policies are to continue the same economic policies that have damaged the economy and made most economic situation worse? You lie. And Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania has called John McCain on it. Hopefully people will listen and not fall for "the big lie strategy."

Update: Paul Krugman's summarizes the McCain's campaign's Blizzard of Lies.

Samantha Bee on John McCain's Vice Presidential pick

2008-08-31T14:53:00.006-04:00

It seems to me that John McCain's VP pick of Sarah Palin is a crude attempt to appeal to Hillary Clinton supporters who are unhappy with Clinton being passed over by Barack Obama. But if that is the case, I don't think it will work. Politics is often reduced to character over policy, but in this case it would be absurd (as is the Samantha Bee character in the clip below from Friday's The Daily Show) to ignore policies. Unlike The Daily Show character Samantha Bee, most Clinton supporters are not going to be persuaded to vote for McCain-Palin simply because Palin is female.

Note: I've updated the embedded video to the official Comedy Central video. The Samantha Bee segment starts around the 3 minute point.

Anthrax and the case for the invasion of Iraq

2008-08-04T22:08:00.010-04:00

The recent disclosure that an Army biodefense scientist, Dr. Bruce Ivins, who committed suicide last week was a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks has renewed attention on the government's response to the attacks. Instead of conducting a thorough criminal investigation, government officials used the incident as an opportunity to frighten the American people into supporting an invasion of Iraq. Some examples of these scare tactics include Senator John McCain in an October 18, 2001 television appearance stating that the anthrax may have come from Iraq (see video below) and false reports by ABC news in late October 2001 that a chemical additive known as bentonite was found in the anthrax which was supposed evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attack. President Bush then stated in the 2002 State of the Union address that "the Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade." None of these claims turned out to be true.

It is, then, no suprise that the investigation was botched and that it is now being reported that the evidence against Dr. Ivins is mostly circumstantial and that the investigation was poorly done:

“What has bothered me is the unscientific, bumbling approach of our investigators,” said Representative Rush D. Holt, a Democrat and physicist whose New Jersey district includes the contaminated Princeton mailbox.

Mr. Holt said in a recent interview that his first doubts came after anthrax was found in his Congressional office in October 2001 but investigators never returned to conduct systematic testing to trace the path of the anthrax spores.

After that, he said, when contamination at a New Jersey postal processing center indicated that the letters had been mailed on one of a limited number of routes, it took investigators seven months to test several hundred mailboxes and identify the source.

“Within two days they could have dispatched 50 people to wipe all those mailboxes,” Mr. Holt said. ("Anthrax Evidence Called Mostly Circumstantial," New York Times, 8/4/2008)

Looking back to the days after September 11, 2001 it is apparent that government was more intent on building public support for an illegal war than finding and bringing to justice the person(s) that committed these crimes.

Bush on Economy: Wall Street “Got Drunk”

2008-07-27T20:48:00.004-04:00

President Bush made the following comments after asking people to turn off their recording devices:

There’s no question about it. Wall Street got drunk—that’s one of the reasons I asked you to turn off the TV cameras. It got drunk, and now it’s got a hangover. The question is how long will it sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments. And then we got a housing issue, not in Houston, and evidently not in Dallas, because Laura’s over there trying to buy a house. I like Crawford, but unfortunately after eight years of asking her to sacrifice, I’m now no longer the decision maker.

The White House says Bush’s comments were in line with previous statements he’s made about the economy.

Fortunately someone recorded the arrogant remarks and the video has been posted on YouTube:

CBS revises history about Iraq's WMD

2008-02-02T16:19:00.000-05:00

On February 26, 2003, CBS aired an interview with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in which he told Dan Rather "There are no missiles that are contrary to the prescription of the United Nations in Iraq. They are no longer there." (Saddam Hussein Interview transcript, 60 Minutes II, February 26, 2003)

On January 27, 2008, CBS aired an interview of FBI agent George Piro, the lead interrogator of President Hussein for the FBI and CIA, by correspondent Scott Pelley. The following exchange is from the interview:

PELLEY: And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?

PIRO: He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s, and those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

PELLEY: He had ordered them destroyed?

PIRO: Yes.

PELLEY: So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk? Why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?

(Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions, 60 Minutes, Jan. 27, 2008)

It is a perverse reversal of narrative to suggest, as Pelley does, that Hussein was the one lying by keeping the fact that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction a secret, and to suggest that Hussein wanted his country to be invaded when it was President Bush that pulled the U.N. inspectors from Iraq and made the decision to go to war. It was the U.S. government that mislead the public about Iraq having WMDs.

Related Link:

The "Great Mystery" of Iraq's (FAIR, 2/1/2008)

John Edwards suspends campaign

2008-01-30T21:08:00.000-05:00

Today John Edwards ended his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president. A Time.com analysis entitled "Why Edwards Never Caught On" argues that the reason Edwards campaign did not catch on despite the fact that he "arguably won a majority of the debates" was because Senator Obama filled the outsider, anti-establishment role: "Suddenly Edwards was running against a version of himself in 2004: the young, fresh, optimistic face, the Washington outsider with a thin resume but lots of charm."

It may be true that Obama's success is the reason for Edwards withdrawal. But I believe the underlying reason that Edwards campaign did not catch on has more to do with how the media plays a large role in determining which candidates should be taken seriously. I supported Edwards because I believe he stood for progressive values and policies that could be supported by the American public. If the media reported more on the issues and where the candidates stood, then maybe Edwards would still be in the race. Instead, the media circus treats the election as a sporting contest by focusing on which candidate raised how much money, got which celebrity endorsement and how many points in a poll.

Despite the distraction away from substantive issues, I hope the focus that Edwards brought on issues such as poverty, health care and withdrawal from Iraq will have an impact that lasts longer than his campaign.

Update: I hope there is a "Edwards Effect" as Krugman puts it.

Economic Stimulus For the Rich

2008-01-29T20:49:00.000-05:00

Due to its payment structure, the economic stimulus plan passed by the U.S. House of Representatives fails to either help those who need it most or to effectively stimulate the economy. It is well acknowledged that the people who will most quickly spend the money are the people who have the least of it. Yet this plan effectively phases out payments to those on the bottom end of the income spectrum and excludes those, such as many low-income seniors, who do not file income tax returns. Although this plan is better than the Bush Administration's proposal in which only 11% of the rebates would go to households with incomes below $30,000, the 23% of the value of the rebates that would go to households with incomes below $30,000 is not enough. Instead of giving rebates to those who earn more, the U.S. government should increase food stamp benefits, unemployment benefits, and funding of social programs that will be facing cut-backs due to state spending cuts.

Related Articles:

"An Analysis of the Rebate Proposal in the Announce Stimulus Deal" (Aviva Aron-Dine, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)
"Who gets stimulated?" (Paul Krugman, New York Times Blog)

Left Notes announcement: blogging again!

2008-01-29T20:00:00.000-05:00

If you are reading this, then you have noticed that I started blogging again. I have abandoned my earlier intentions of building LeftNotes.org as a left-wing blogging/news portal. Instead, I will pick up where I left off, by writing about my opinions on current events. I will continue to have this hosted by Blogger. I've given it a new design and will be working to clean up the formatting of old entries.

U.S. Election: Electronic Voting Machines

2004-11-22T10:10:00.001-05:00

The first scientific analysis of voting machine irregularities has now been published by the University of California. Here are the summary of findings:

Irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000 excess votes or more to President George W. Bush in Florida.
Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004. This effect cannot be explained by differences between counties in income, number of voters, change in voter turnout, or size of Hispanic/Latino population.
In Broward County alone, President Bush appears to have received approximately 72,000 excess votes.
We can be 99.9% sure that these effects are not attributable to chance./li>

Related articles:

The Effect of Electronic Voting Machines on Change in Support for Bush in the 2004 Florida Elections (UC DATA, November 2004)

Letter to Bush-Cheney '04 Chairman

2004-10-27T14:38:00.000-04:00

The following letter is my response to an email sent from Marc Racicot, the Chairman of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, about the possiblity of litigating the election results. Note that his email is quoted in full at the end.

Dear Chairman Marc,

Thank you for sending me your note about the
presidential election.  I find your note encouraging
because I too believe that voters should be the ones
who choose our elected officials -- especially for the
office of President of the United States of America.
After all, they are supposed to be our "elected"
officials and our country is one of the greatest
democracies in the history of the world.  It only
makes sense, then, that the will of the people
determine who our next president will be and not some
"shadowy" group.

I am heartened by your sentiment that "We do not want
to go through another election where the outcome is
held hostage by the courts and those who were defeated
at the polls try to reverse the outcome through legal
wrangling and endless litigation."  Perhaps it is too
late to rectify the mistake where the majority of
Americans clearly chose Al Gore to  be our president
and yet George W. Bush was inaugurated.  It is too bad
we can not go back in time and make right what we both
clearly can see is wrong -- that the outcome of the
election was "held hostage by the courts" and the
those that were "defeated at the polls" "stopped at
nothing" and used the courts to ensure the outcome.

As I am sure you are aware, independent investigations
by the media revealed that if the votes in Florida had
been counted by non-partisan election officials in
compliance with the law, Gore would have won Florida
(see http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181) and
that he should have won not just the "popular vote,"
which he won by 538,948 votes, but the "electoral
vote" as well.  Although it is perhaps expecting too
much of our President, who as his selection Chairman I
assume you speak for, to step down in favor of our
rightfully elected President, I hope that this time we
can all agree to respect the wishes of the voters.

I must point out a minor error I found in your message
regarding how the judicial system works.  As you may
recall from the last presidential selection, it is not
the lawyers who make the legally binding
interpretations of the law -- they merely present
arguments in a court in favor or against various
interpretations of the law.  It is the judges -- in
this case the Supreme Court Justices -- who make the
determination of how laws are interpretated and
implemented.

I hope that you and the President agree with me that
if there is a "repeat" of the last election's Florida
debacle, whether it occur in Florida or another
"battleground" state, that the right thing to do is to
not use the Supreme Court to legalize what is
otherwise an illegitmate presidency, but to follow the
wishes of the majority votors and, in the spirit of
democracy, concede victory to the people's choice.

Sincerely,

Alex Lindgren

--- Chairman Marc Racicot
 wrote:

> Dear Alex,
>
> Just a few short days stand between us and the
> election. If the activities taking place in
> battleground states are any indication, our
> opponents plan a long, bitter, and vicious fight.
> Let me share just a sample of what is going on
> across the country today, 6 days before you vote.
> And let me tell you what else you may expect to see.
>
> We have already seen 35 lawsuits filed in 17 states
> - some before the first ballot was even cast. So
> far, the Democrats have failed in their attempts to
> win this election in the courts, rather than the
> ballot box.
>
> The shadowy groups aligned against us will stop at
> nothing, and I mean nothing, to win. That is why we
> must prepare for every possible outcome next
> Tuesday. That is why we must have the resources
> necessary to fight any legal battle. Will you ensure
> we're prepared?
>
> www.GeorgeWBush.com/Recount
>
> Our offices have been broken into, vandalized, and
> robbed. Gun shots have pierced the doors and windows
> of several offices. Fortunately, no one was hurt in
> those attacks, but unfortunately, when union members
> stormed an office in Florida, a volunteer's arm was
> broken.
>
> Our GELAC account (our legal fund, really) can be
> used to pay for some of the damage done to offices
> we occupy. More importantly, though, it allows us to
> pay the costs of a recount. It allows us to guard
> against the kind of lawsuits we have seen, and which
> we expect to see in the days after the election.
>
> Those allied against us will not go quietly when the
> voters speak. They have already made clear they
> consider the election to be only the opening battle
> in a much larger war - a war we must also be
> prepared to fight. Will you make sure we're ready?
>
> www.GeorgeWBush.com/Recount
>
> We do not want to go through another election where
> the outcome is held hostage by the courts and those
> who were defeated at the polls try to reverse the
> outcome through legal wrangling and endless
> litigation.
>
> We want the people's will, not the will of
> high-powered trial lawyers, to determine the
> President. To make that happen, we need you. We need
> you to make one last contribution to our GELAC fund
> and help us secure the outcome of this election
> against those who would use violence, theft and
> assault as tactics - and those who would use the
> courts to claim a victory they did not earn.
>
> Please give all you can.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Marc Racicot
> Chairman
>
> P.S.  Those who oppose us have already used theft,
> vandalism and assault as weapons to win this
> election. Their next stop will be the courts. Will
> you make a contribution to our legal fund and ensure
> we have the resources to uphold the vote when the
> people speak next Tuesday? Please give all you can.
> www.GeorgeWBush.com/Recount
>
>
******************************************************
>
> Was this Message Forwarded to you?
> If you received this email from a friend and would
> like to add yourself to our mailing list, Click
> below.
>
http://email.georgewbush.com/t/1235478/21774647/34/7/
>
>
> Unsubscribe
> If you no longer wish to receive your mailings at
> this email address, or have received this email in
> error please click below to unsubscribe.
>
http://email.georgewbush.com/t/1235478/21774647/35/7/
>
>
******************************************************
> Not Sent at Taxpayers' Expense
> +---------------------------------------------+
> | Paid for by BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc.           |
> +---------------------------------------------+
>
> Copyright 2003, BUSH-CHENEY '04, Inc.
>
> Privacy Policy:
> http://www.georgewbush.com/privacypolicy.aspx
>
>
>
> bushcheney04@georgewbush.com

Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 released on DVD today

2004-10-05T07:58:00.001-04:00

Today, exactly 4 weeks before the U.S. Presidential elections, Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore's documentary film about America's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, comes out on DVD. While Fahrenheit 9/11 does not provide a detailed analysis of the roots of the terrorist attacks and the Bush regime's heavy handed response, it raises a lot of questions, brings to a wider audience facts that the American mainstream media gloss over, and questions the purpose of the war in Iraq. Most importantly, it provides a reminder — especially for those of us isolated to the events — about the human costs on both sides of fighting a war.

Related articles:

An open letter to Michael Moore (World Socialist Website, September 28, 2004)
Liberal philistinism and Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 (World Socialist Website, July 9, 2004)
Michael Moore’s contribution (World Socialist Website, June 30, 2004)
Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 sets box-office records (World Socialist Website, June 29, 2004)
Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 comes under right-wing attack (World Socialist Website, June 21, 2004)

The case for the Iraq war: lies and deception

2004-10-04T13:20:00.002-04:00

As previously reported, the war in Iraq was based on various lies, particularly the claim that Iraq was an imminent threat and had or was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. President Bush scared Americans into supporting the war with imagery of a "smoking gun." Vice President Dick Cheney said that there was irrefutable evidence that Iraq had reconstituted their nuclear weapons program. Yesterday The New York Times published an article detailing how the Bush regime embraced disputed arms intelligence when making their case for war.

Update: The New York Times is reporting that Charles A. Duelfer, the top American inspector in Iraq, says in a report being made public today that Iraq appears to have destroyed its stockpiles of illicit weapons within months of the first war on Iraq. According to the Times, "Mr. Duelfer concluded that Mr. Hussein made fundamental decisions, beginning in 1991, to get rid of Iraq's illicit weapons and accept the destruction of its weapons-producing facilities as part of an effort to win an end to United Nations sanctions." The Bush administration was clearly grasping at straws when it made the case that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States.

Related articles:

Iraq WMD report proves Bush, Democrats lied to justify Iraq war (World Socialist Web Site, October 8, 2004)
U.S. Report Finds Iraq Was Minimal Weapons Threat in '03 (The New York Times, October 6, 2004)
How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence (The New York Times, October 3, 2004)

Related posts:

Former adviser charges Bush manufactured case for Iraq war (March 23, 2004)
Iraq: One year later (March 19, 2004)
U.S. Weapons Inspector: "We have not yet found stocks of weapons" (October 3, 2003)
Bush's lies about Iraq (March 25, 2003)
Is the war legal? (March 21, 2003)
The invasion of Iraq: an unjust war (March 20, 2003)
Bush's Smoking Gun Hypocrisy (December 10, 2002)

The Take: Class struggle in Argentina

2004-09-24T11:43:00.000-04:00

The Take is a documentary by Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein about Argentine workers who take over abandoned factories and start operating them as cooperatives. "The Forja auto plant, the Zanon ceramics factory and the Brukman garment factory are three companies that were abandoned by their owners after the economic collapse" (New York Times review). In 2001 the Argentine economy was in trouble -- with inflation rising, the government defaulting on debt and investment fleeing the country. This led to the closing of many businesses and increased unemployment. The result was an example of the "irrationality" of capitalism -- many factories laid dormant and workers idle. But some workers had a suprisingly sensible, rational reaction.

Why should workers not work, why should a factory not be used just because the owners decided to abandon it during the country's economic upheaval? The Zanon Ceramics factory in Patagonia and the Brukman garment factory in Buenos Aires among others were occupied by their former workers who organized the factory into a cooperative business. In 2003 the Forja Auto Parts factory also occupied. But the factories "owners" did not approve and have sought to evict the workers. In order to prevent this the workers and their supporters have been fighting against the evictions and to make their claims legal.

These struggles are ongoing. Several days ago a delegation of Zanon workers and their supporters went to Buenos Aires to fight for the legal expropriation of worker occupied factories and businesses (Argentina Indymedia).

The Take is playing at The Film Forum in New York City until October 5th.

Related sites:

Workers Without Bosses

Obreros de Zanon (spanish)

Related articles:

On the Take (AlterNet, October 5, 2004)

Fixing Argentina: One Grass-Roots but Uphill Approach (The New York Times, September 22, 2004)

The Take: A Review by Daniel Morduchowicz (ZNet, September 20, 2004)

March in defense of Zanon (Argentina Indymedia, September 15, 2004)

Riot Outside Brukman Factory in Argentina (Argentina Indymedia, April 21, 2003)

UN secretary-general: war in Iraq illegal

2004-09-16T22:45:00.000-04:00

In a BBC News interview, UN secretary-general Kofi Annan said, "I am one of those that to beleive that there should have been a second resolution because the security council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the security council to approve or determine what those consequences should be."

When asked, "So you don't think there was legal authority for the war" he said "I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Secuirty Counceil -- with the UN Charter." When the interviewer pressed asking "It was illegal?," his answer was "Yes, if you wish." When pressed further, he said, "Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."

Furthormore, he states that there could not be "credible elections if the security conditions continue as they are now."

Related articles:

U.N. Chief Ignites Firestorm by Calling Iraq War 'Illegal' (The New York Times, September 17, 2004)

Iraq war illegal, says Annan (BBC News, September 16, 2004)

Related posts:

Former adviser charges Bush manufactured case for Iraq war (March 23, 2004)

Where are the WMD? (June 2, 2003)

Is the war legal? (March 21, 2003)

The invasion of Iraq: an unjust war (March 20, 2003)

RNC protests

2004-08-30T13:46:00.000-04:00

Thousands to protest the Republican National Convention this week in New York City where the Bush plans to exploit the memory of September 11 terrorist attacks for political gain.

Related articles:

Republican convention opens: panic-mongering in the service of war and reaction (World Socialist Web Site, September 1, 2004)

Massive anti-Bush march in New York (World Socialist Web Site, August 30, 2004)

In run-up to Republican convention: 24-hour surveillance of protest organizers (World Socialist Web Site, August 25, 2004)

U.S. Economy: Employment benefits running out

2004-03-29T13:05:00.001-05:00

Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) benefits are ending because Congress failed to extend them. Already 781,000 people have exhausted their benefits since December 20, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The program provided up to 13 weeks of federally funded unemployment benefits to jobless workers who have run out of regular, state-funded unemployment benefits but have not found a job. Individuals who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits since December 20 have not been eligible for TEUC aid.

Related articles:

More Than One Million of the Unemployed have now been denied aid due to end of Federal Program (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, March 25, 2004)
Jobless Coffer Shrinks as Payouts Grow (Los Angelos Times, March 22, 2004)
Democrats push to extend jobless benefits In Bay Area, 53,500 to lose checks by June (San Francisco Chronicle, March 17, 2004)
Long-term Unemployment rose again in 2003 (National Employment Law Council, March 4, 2004)

Related websites:

Unemployedworkers.org
Unemployment Insurance FAQ (Economic Policy Institute)

Former adviser charges Bush manufactured case for Iraq war

2004-03-23T13:39:00.000-05:00

Former Bush counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke has denounced Bush for ignoring terrorism before and after September 11, 2001 and using the attacks to justify the invasion of Iraq. Here are some of the statements he made on the CBS program 60 Minutes:

Frankly I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know.

I think he's [Bush has] done a terrible job on the war against terrorism.

I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda and the September 11 terrorist attacks], but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection.

Update: Wednesday, March 24, Richard Clarke was questioned at the pubic hearings conducted by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States where he reiterated his concern about the invasion of Iraq when he stated, "The reason that I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is that by invading Iraq — something I was not asked by the commission — but by invading Iraq, the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."

Related articles:

The Bush administration and September 11: the implications of Richard Clarke’s revelations (World Socialist Web Site, March 29, 2004)

9/11 hearings ignore political, historical issues behind terrorist attacks (World Socialist Web Site, March 25, 2004)

Former US terror chief slams Bush (BBC News, March 25, 2004)

Ex-Bush Aide Says Threat of Qaeda Was Not Priority (The New York Times, March 25, 2004)

Former terrorism aide charges Bush manufactured case for Iraq war (World Socialist Web Site, March 23, 2004)

Lifting the Shroud (The New York Times, March 23, 2004)

Clarke's Take On Terror (CBS News, March 21, 2004)

Sept. 11: Before And After (CBS News, March 20, 2004)

Book:

Against All Enemies : Inside the White House's War on Terror--What Really Happened
By Richard Clarke
Free Press, 304 pp., $27.00

Buy this book from Powell's Books or Amazon.com

Save the Date: On August 29 the world says no to Bush

2004-03-23T13:33:00.000-05:00

Last year Republicans announced that they will hold the 2004 Republican National Convention in NYC at Madison Square Garden. The setting of the convention -- which starts August 29th, less than two weeks before the second anniversary of September 11 -- is part of the Bush re-election campaign's effort to use the terrorists attack for political gain. In response to this, United for Peace and Justice, Counter Convention, and RNC Not Welcome have been planning and organizing to protest the convention.

Related articles:

Protest Groups Planning for Republican Convention (The New York Times, August 10th, 2003)

See You in New York: Over Our Dead Bodies (CounberPunch, May 3, 2003)

Iraq: One year later

2004-03-19T12:20:00.000-05:00

The Center for American Progress has an excellent summary of problems with the invasion of Iraq in their Progress Report The World Socialist Web Site and Socialist Equality Party also has a statement on the anniversary.