USA Pipes

Occupy D.C. Braces for Camping Ban

Jotman — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:00:00 +0000

The two sites that comprise Occupy DC -- McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza have remained long after many high-profile occupations across the country have been disbanded -- sometimes violently -- by police in riot gear wielding clubs, pepper spray, tear gas, and even flash grenades.

In January, Congressman Issa, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Interior demanding to know why the National Parks Service had allowed D.C. protesters to violate a no-camping rule.* The letter explained that the McPherson Square had been recently restored, and the campers were damaging the grass.

Issa also called for a congressional hearing. After the hearing, National Parks (that is, the Obama administration) agreed to enforce the no overnight camping ban, but tolerate tents that were symbolic of speech and not used for sleeping. Any sleepers would be evicted from McPherson Square Park. (Incidentally, city laws don't prevent sleeping on the sidewalks as long as the sleeper doesn't pose an obstruction.)

Why was sleeping tolerated long after other Occupy campsites were disbanded? With the approach of an election year, the White House did not want to alienate a politically conscious group comprising many who voted for Obama in 2008.

It can also be observed that keeping Occupy DC alive, even as the administration gave nodding approval to the destruction of other Occupy sites, enhanced the prominence of Occupy DC. You can imagine how this might have served the interest of the administration.

"Occupy Wall Street" is as much a problem as an opportunity for the Obama administration. Wall Street has given more money to Barack Obama than any other politician -- Republican or Democrat. In 2008 Wall Street accounted for 1 in 5 dollars spent by the Obama campaign.

The genius of Occupy Wall Street was targeting the parasitic financial institutions that brought ruin to the economy and continue to suck the oxygen out of the American political system. OWS drew attention to grotesque income inequality; to the fact that an industry that provides few social benefits dominates politics and the economy. The Obama administration would surely have liked to have focused the energy of the Occupy movement into support for the Democratic Party, directing anger away from their Wall Street benefactors and towards the obstructionist politicians of the Republican Party (also in the pocket of Wall Street).

However, Occupy DC had been careful to target the tentacles of the corporate dominance. Protesters targeted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, banks, lobbyists (McPherson Square is on K-Street). In spite of its proximity to the political establishment, Occupy DC remained true to the founding principle of the movement.

__
* One wonders how Congressman Issa's committee found time to investigate damaged grass, but not the financial industry.

Parks Police raid Occupy DC

Jotman — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:58:00 +0000

OWS Protesters Occupy Congress

Jotman — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:41:00 +0000

Jan. 17th marked the first day of a new session of Congress. The Occupy or OWS movement scheduled a rally to coincide with the opening.

The decision was not without controversy. Occupy began as a movement directed against Wall Street, against the too-powerful institutions that have come to have enormous influence over Congress. To shoot at mere political representatives could be seen to miss the target. But then again, it is argued that in today's corporate state it's hard to say where business ends and politics begins; if Congress is viewed as an extension of Wall Street, bringing Occupy Wall Street to Congress seems like a sensible idea.

One fact besides the weather made it convenient for demonstrators to come to D.C. in the middle of January: two "Occupy" encampments have remained in the city.

Tax dollars at work. As usual, security was excessive.

Protesters outside Rayburn Office Building. Other protesters went inside to meet with their representatives.

Occupy General Assembly at Washington Monument

Jotman — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:00:00 +0000

Police helicopter shines its spotlight on the General Assembly.

Protesters gathered near the Washington Monument for General Assembly (GA) the evening prior to Occupy Congress.

From the monument you could count four helicopters hovering over the city below. President Obama had been moving around town. One helicopter approached the monument every ten minutes only to back off before it got really close. After the passing of the motorcade along 17th Street adjacent to the World War II memorial below, only this helicopter remained in the sky. Suddenly it flew over the protesters and shone its spotlight directly on the gathering. Protesters turned to face the light.

The banner proclaims the right of protesters to hold their meeting.

General Assembly at the Washington Monument.

The White House (not visible) is to the far right. The GA was streamed on live video to the world.

Undercover Police Infiltrate Occupy Supreme Court Protest

Jotman — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:00:00 +0000

January 21st marked the second anniversary of the Citizens United Vs Federal Election Commission ruling that has made it easier than ever for corporations to fund political campaigns.

Occupy DC staged a demonstration in front of the Supreme Court challenging decisions such a Citizens United that have served to further entrench political power in the hands of corporations.

Mass arrests as Occupy DC takes on K-Street

Jotman — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 11:47:00 +0000

Photos of the Occupy DC demonstration Tuesday on K-Street.

Over 70 protesters were arrested in Washington D.C. Tuesday when Occupy DC took over a section of K-Street around noon. Protesters blocked intersections with tables, newspaper vending boxes, and their own bodies. Mass arrests took place in the early afternoon.

Traffic was snarled in the capital both on account of the protest on K-Street and the fact many roads had been blocked of as a security measure for a political event at a nearby hotel.

The police had the decency not to show up in riot gear or send any military trucks.

"I'll be out in time for the General Assembly tonight. I'm not going to miss that," a protester said.

I asked onlookers how many protesters lay on the street. Estimates ranged from thirty to forty.

Video of Obama speech in Osawatomie, Kansas

Jotman — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:31:00 +0000

I had the hardest time finding the video so thought someone should post it.

Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2011, President Barack Obama called for a renewal of the "New Nationalism" at the core of the Progressive agenda outlined by former president Theodore Roosevelt in 1910. Obama, like Roosevelt, gave the speech (transcript) in the small town of Osawatomie, Kansas.

Photos: Parks police pull Occupy DC winter shelter

Jotman — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:56:00 +0000

U.S. Parks police arrested 31 people Sunday at Occupy D.C. in McPherson Park after some members of Occupy D.C. raised a barn. Washington Post:

Occupy D.C. participants said Sunday that the structure’s only purpose was to provide a warm gathering place for protesters as winter weather sets in and that it had been designed by volunteer architects to comply with federal park regulations, which require any structure to be temporary and easy to move. It was built on stilts with no foundation.

Jotman took some pictures:

NYPD kills journalism and that's not news

Jotman — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:20:00 +0000

UPDATED

There's a story missing here:

Where's the story about how they weren't allowed to report the story?

But throughout the day Tuesday mainstream media reports had nothing much to say about this development.

UPDATE #1
In the early hours of Tuesday morning, New York City reporters described 1) feeling too intimidated to report what the police were doing; and 2) incidents in which police physically prevented the press from doing its job--two characteristics of a police state. A third characteristic of a police state is when news organizations conceal the fact that their reporters are not free to report stories.

In a police state, news editors direct their scribes to collect quotations from official government sources. The journalist is but a cog in the state propaganda machine. There's no place for reporters in a police state.

Increasingly, journalism in the U.S. amounts to distributing excerpts of interviews with public officials or members of Washington's "revolving door class." Think CNN correspondent Barbara Starr telling viewers what the Pentagon and its corporate partners wants them to hear. Or a retired general tasked by CNN to explain the true meaning of a video the Pentagon has been covering-up. In important respects, U.S. media coverage of police campaigns against citizen protesters has come to resemble the media's coverage of military operations abroad. Nine times out of ten, Americans hear only their own government's perspective on a drone campaign against "terrorists." Needless to say, the militarization of domestic journalism is happening at the precise historical moment when Americans are waking up to the militarization of their local police.

On more than one occasion I have noticed national broadcast media is conspicuously late to the scene after word of an impending crackdown on an Occupation has been announced. Concerning coverage of the dispersal of Occupy Portland, I tweeted:

In the case of the police operation against OWS, CNN did not go live until three and a half hours after the paramilitary operation against OWS was underway. This was New York City, not a remote and inaccessible frontier settlement like Portland, Oregon. And it is not as if OWS wasn't already one of the big political stories of the year in the U.S..

The OWS movement is ostensibly leaderless. But this fact provides no justification for the media to behave as if there is only one authoritative side to an OWS story. Given that seeking out OWS friendly viewpoints is actually not that difficult, it appears the news media is finding it convenient not to make the effort. For example, a CNN story about the Occupy Wall Street movement --the top story on the CNN homepage for some time Monday--quoted thirteen sources, only two (2) which were not government officials (one was a broadcaster, the other an official who had recently resigned).

Tuesday, the New York Times and the Washington Post both published accounts of how city officials masterfully orchestrated raids on Occupy Wall Street camps from coast to coast. A story titled "Mayors, police chiefs talk about ways to deal with Occupy Wall Street protests, tent camps," published in the Washington Post, quotes seven government officials. However, only one supporter of the OWS movement is given a voice in the article:

One protester says he was injured when he fell and police dragged him from the scene.

Under the new paradigm of American journalism, mistreatment of citizens by police is not witnessed, it something alleged by a supposed victim, if it is mentioned at all. The same story also refers to "badly injured" Iraq War vet Scott Olsen, yet the paper does not attempt to describe how he was struck in the head. The reader is led to assume Olsen was merely a victim of "a protest turned violent."

In the WaPo article, increased violence at Occupy Portland is substantiated by this paragraph:

In Portland, for example, protests were initially peaceful gatherings. Then the city’s large number of homeless people moved in, transforming the camp into an open-air treatment center for drug addiction and mental illness.

Since when was the establishment of "a treatment center" an example of a project turned against peace?

Equally deplorable is a story published in the NY Times entitled, "After an Earlier Misstep, a Minutely Planned Raid." This article quotes only four sources, all of which are government or police (one of which is kept anonymous). The 12th paragraph of the story is both an example of "burying the lede" and lazy fact-checking:

Reporters in the park were forced to leave. Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman, said it was for their safety. But many journalists said that they had been prevented from seeing the police take action in the park, and that they had been roughly handled by officers. Mr. Browne said television camera trucks on Church Street, along the park’s western border, were able to capture images.

The authority quoted by the NY Times on the subject of television camera placement is a "a police spokesman." One would think the "newspaper of record" would have sought the opinion of a television cameraman.

It's clear the New York Times cannot tell us what happened in parts of Lower Manhattan during and for some time after the crackdown. Even devoting half of the front page to an event does not change the fact the NYPD prevented the paper's own reporters from covering the story. This paragraph sums up the problem with the newspaper's reporting of the whole event:

No arrests were made in the park until about 3:30 a.m., Mr. Kelly said. The clearing operation was complete about 75 minutes later, the police said.

That's it. The police told the NY Times what happened in the park, the newspaper printed it.

Reading these stories, the diligent reader asks: to what extent might the FBI and Homeland Security have been involved in coordinating moves against the protesters? Yet this reasonable question is not raised in mainstream news stories chalk full of quotes from every variety of police and government official. These questions--the answers to which could have disastrous consequences for the Obama administration--are left for tweeps and bloggers to explore.

UPDATE #2
It is an amazing commentary on the times that for aggressive broadcast journalism, Americans have few alternative apart from Russia's RT:

OccupyDC in photos

Jotman — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 05:23:00 +0000

Some photos of OccupyDC at McPherson Square (15th and K Streets) in Washington D.C..

The permit.

The tents.

The kitchen.

The fountain.

The flag.

The General Assembly.

Tweeps react to Twitter's creepy new "Activities" feature

Jotman — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:26:00 +0000

After the jump you can see what my Twitter "Activities" feed was showing two minutes ago.

My apologies to Moya and Josh. However, it's public information. Twitter's new "Activities" feature provides every user with such detailed real-time information about every person they are following--whether or not these people happen to follow you.

What do tweeps think about this?

Protesters to Obama: Stop the Keystone XL Pipeline!

Jotman — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:41:00 +0000

On Sunday afternoon Washington D.C. saw a remarkably large turnout for a protest against the planned Keystone XL Pipeline. The pipeline would carry crude oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta to a refinery in Texas. President Obama was expected to make a decision on the pipeline by December of 2011.

However, it is becoming apparent that any decision by the president to go forward with the pipeline will be perceived as poke in the eye by important constituencies of the Democratic Party. Obama sided against environmentalists on smog regulation in September. In order to understand the depth of outrage environmentalists feel about the planned pipeline, it helps to consider the issue within the context of the overall track record of the Obama administration on climate change and environmental issues. There is growing speculation that Obama will delay disappointing environmentalists until after the 2012 election.

Little noted in the mainstream media, twelve hundred pipeline protesters were arrested outside the White House over the course of two weeks in early September. Although there were no arrests Sunday, attendance far exceeded that of any previous demonstration against the pipeline.

The recent protest got some mainstream media coverage. Wikipedia has background on Keystone XL Pipeline controversy.

Photos of "Occupy DC" protest of Sat. Oct. 8

Jotman — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 13:25:00 +0000

OWS takes on the US Chamber of Commerce

Jotman — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:25:00 +0000

Protesters brought their own letters.

A large number of anti-war protesters and Occupy Wall Street (OWS) supporters joined forces in a march through downtown Washington D.C. Thursday. The event kicked off "Occupy Washington D.C."

The protesters marched from Freedom Plaza (HQ for Occupy Washington) past the US Treasury building to the White House. They then made their way across Lafayette Park to the United States Chamber of Commerce building.

There they stopped.

The Chamber of Commerce lobbies hard for deregulation on behalf of the country's largest corporations. On the front side of the building facing the White House are massive signs that spell out the word "JOBS."

US Chamber, meet Anonymous.

Packed together tightly on the street, the protesters shouted: "Where are the jobs?"

The sign had been up there two years. It was a very good question.

Members of the US Chamber of Commerce have plenty of cash, but they aren't hiring American workers.

For years, the US Chamber of Commerce has lobbied hard for laws that make it easy for companies to outsource American jobs and bring in low-paid temporary workers from overseas.

President Obama's easiest betrayal was his worst

Jotman — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 06:10:00 +0000

Melissa Harris-Perry, a Princeton professor and MSNBC commentator, recently proposed a hypothesis to explain Obama's declining poll numbers. Even though the professor's explanation is familiar, it may come as a surprise:

President Obama has experienced a swift and steep decline in support among white Americans—from 61 percent in 2009 to 33 percent now. I believe much of that decline can be attributed to their disappointment that choosing a black man for president did not prove to be salvific for them or the nation. His record is, at the very least, comparable to that of President Clinton, who was enthusiastically re-elected. The 2012 election is a test of whether Obama will be held to standards never before imposed on an incumbent. If he is, it may be possible to read that result as the triumph of a more subtle form of racism.

She writes, "His re-election bid, however, may indicate that a more insidious form of racism has come to replace it." Harris-Perry claims Obama's poll numbers are falling on account of white racism. By way of evidence, the professor suggests Obama is doing no worse job than Bill Clinton.   Needless to say, the evidence on this score is not at all convincing.    More people are unemployed and more suffer civil rights abuses under Obama than Clinton. As a blogger wrote in response to the Harris-Perry article, "Saying that Barack Obama is 'just as competent' as Clinton is like saying that an ostrich can fly just as well as an eagle." The new Obama biography by Ron Suskind comes to the same conclusion in more words.

As for the explanation for Obama's declining poll numbers, I'm not impressed when someone hangs their credentials on an untested hypothesis.   People should be less interested in Harris-Perry explanation's for the Obama poll numbers than the larger tragedy her whole argument overlooks.

President Obama hasn't done enough improve the economic situation for poor and middle class Americans generally, and the African American community in particular. The numbers tell us so. Blacks face astoundingly high unemployment, and the demographic was dealt a serious blow by a housing crisis for which there has been scant relief at the bottom.

The Obama administration has acted as if it can take black voters for granted. Of course, other groups in the Democratic Party "base" have likewise been ignored: unionized workers, environmentalists, civil libertarians, etc.   To the extent it fills the hearts of many African Americans with pride to see a black man in the White House, Obama may enjoy considerable leeway with the demographic. That's simply human nature and the politics of identity. For example, to some extent JFK could take the Irish-Catholic vote for granted.

But just because a particular leader can take a particular demographic for granted doesn't make the practice acceptable. Absolutely, it should be condemned whenever the demographic in question faces greatly diminished prospects, as has been the case with blacks under President Obama.

Rather than making excuses, I think Harris-Perry would be doing many African Americans--along with the vast majority of Americans--a far greater service if she focused on holding the Obama administration accountable for its spectacular ideological capitulation to the right.

UPDATE
African-American support for the president appears to be slipping. WaPo reports:

New cracks have begun to show in President Obama’s support amongst African Americans, who have been his strongest supporters. Five months ago, 83 percent of African Americans held “strongly favorable” views of Obama, but in a new Washington Post-ABC news poll that number has dropped to 58 percent. That drop is similar to slipping support for Obama among all groups.

Assuming the poll is correct, and blacks are losing confidence in Obama at the same rate as whites, this fact would seem to destroy Harris-Perry's hypothesis that white racism explains the drop in support for Obama among white voters. Support for Obama among blacks has long been higher. It seems Obama is increasingly perceived as a failed leader across all demographic groups.

In one act, Obama could yet prove himself the world-historical leader we need him to be. And he could fulfill his 2008 campaign promises of "hope and change." Obama need only withdraw from the 2012 presidential contest. That would restore our hope -- at least for a time.

Hope. Anybody remember what that felt like?

US Embassy asked Vatican about Iraq in Sept. 2011

Jotman — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 22:52:00 +0000

This WikiLeaks cable is interesting for two reasons.

First, as Will Shields (@sliceouttaluck) pointed out on Twitter, the cable indicates how some members of the Vatican responded to the question of military retaliation in the wake of 9/11. The cable suggests that it wasn't religious ethics, but "geo-political concerns" that weighed most heavily in the Vatican's deliberations.

Second, as I later tweeted, I think the most interesting thing about the cable is that it strongly suggests the Vatican had been asked to give an opinion on retaliation against Iraq for the attacks of 9/11 as early as 9/26/11. This cable is evidence that the Bush administration seriously contemplated the invasion of Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Here the key passage from the cable:

C O N F I D E N T I A L VATICAN 005095
SIPDIS
DEPT. FOR EUR/WE (MENNUTI), S FOR CRAIG KELLY
FROM EMBASSY VATICAN/MESSAGE NO. 164/01
E.O. 12958: DECL: 9/26/11
TAGS: PREF PREL VT

SUBJECT: TFUS01: VATICAN POSITION ON RETALIATION AGAINST TERRORISTS

REF: (99) ROME 2196

CONFIDENTIAL

PAGE 02 VATICA 05095 281347Z
(U) CLASSIFIED BY DCM MERANTE FOR REASONS 1.5 (B) AND (D).

Â¶4. (C) HOWEVER, UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR POSSIBLE U.S. MILITARY ACTION IS NOT UNANIMOUS IN THE VATICAN AND WOULD NOT BE. EMBASSY HAS LEARNED THAT DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER (WHO IS NOTED FOR HIS PRO AMERICAN POSITIONS) HAS SAID PRIVATELY THAT NAVARRO-VALLES WENT ""TOO FAR"" IN HIS STATEMENTS. YET, FOREIGN MINISTER TAURAN IN PRIVATE CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR RECENTLY HAS IMPLIED A RESIGNATION THAT HE BELIEVES THE U.S. WILL BE TAKING MILITARY ACTION SOON. ALTHOUGH MOST MEMBERS OF THE VATICAN FOREIGN MINISTRY WOULD BE PERSONALLY SUPPORTIVE OF AGGRESSIVE RETALIATION, OFFICIAL VATICAN POSITIONS WILL BE BASED ON VATICAN GEO-POLITICAL CONCERNS. IN THIS SPECIFIC CONFLICT, IRAQ IS FOREMOST IN THEIR CALCULATIONS. ANY RETALIATION WHICH MIGHT INCLUDE IRAQ WOULD LESSEN THE VATICAN'S POSITIVE NEUTRALITY. THE VATICAN IS FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT ANY REGIME WHICH REPLACES THE CURRENT ONE WILL NOT BE AS SUPPORTIVE OF THE LARGE IRAQI CATHOLIC POPULATION. IN ADDITION, EVEN IF POSSIBLE MILITARY ACTION IS DIRECTED ONLY AGAINST AFGHANISTAN, THE VATICAN IS GREATLY CONCERNED WITH A BACKLASH AGAINST CATHOLICS (AND OTHER CHRISTIANS) LIVING IN EGYPT, SYRIA, IRAQ, PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES, AND LEBANON.

The phrasing, "even if possible military action is directed only against Afghanistan," suggests that the possibility of a broad program of retaliation for the attacks of 9/11 -- most likely to include Iraq -- was foremost in the minds of some US diplomats in September 2011.

Earthquake Damage to Washington Monument?

Jotman — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:15:00 +0000

They closed the Lincoln Memorial. Photo by Jotman. Aug 23/11 Standing 169 meters, the Washington Monument is the tallest stone structure in the world. The scariest place in the world on Tuesday Aug 23 at 1:51pm was the undoubtedly the...

Leaning Tower of Washington?

Jotman — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:45:00 +0000

Jotman's photo of the Washington Monument taken 4pm Tue.

I've posted a brief report on the health of the Washington Monument in the aftermath of the earthquake.

Mystery of S&P downgrade of US explained?

Jotman — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:43:00 +0000

"The US downgrade by S&P is so bizarre and unwarranted" - Robert Reich

The S&P downgrade of the United States never made sense to me. I wasn't the only one confused. Usually when something is downgraded, investors don't rush to by it. But that was how international investors responded to the downgrade. Demand for US debt actually rose. As if deaf to S&P, investors worldwide continued to regard US treasury bonds as safe -- extremely safe.

We had a mystery on our hands: Why the unwarranted downgrade? It seemed as if S&P was behaving politically. But why would any corporation enter the political arena at the invariable cost of further degrading its already tarnished reputation? It just didn't add up.

However, there could be another explanation. Today the NY Times reports:

The Justice Department is investigating whether Standard & Poor’s rated mortgage securities improperly leading up to the financial crisis...

Our natural reaction to reading this news is to question the timing of the investigation. It sure looks like a retaliatory move by the Obama Administration against S&P. Many commenting on the story agree.

But one sentence in the article seemed to dispel that theory (whilst planting the seed of another):

The people with knowledge of the investigation said it had picked up steam early this summer, well before the debt rating issue reached a high pitch in Washington.

S&P and other ratings agencies deserve to be investigated by the Justice Department for their key role in propping up worthless mortgage-backed securities. What really cannot be easily explained is not the timing of any investigation of S&P, but one rating agency's decision to downgrade of the world's biggest economy.

Why did S&P downgrade Uncle Sam? Might its intent have been to politicize a looming Justice Department investigation?

Bleary eyed sense

Jotman — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 22:37:00 +0000

One morning this week I opened the Washington Post to its op-ed page and as I read, to my astonishment, it all made sense. A columnist had written:

[T]he country is ruled by a cabal... democracy is a sham... politicians and the... newspapers are tools of... financial interests.... The entire system deserves to be overthrown...

American newspapers seldom present this perspective. I was still only half awake though. I rubbed my eyes, took another sip of coffee and examined the passage more carefully:

In contemporary America, we also have people who are — and I am inventing this word here — illegitimists: They believe that the president of the United States is illegitimately elected, or that the country is ruled by a cabal that is in turn controlled by some other sinister force or forces. In the past, left-wing illegitimists were quite common, and in fact Marxism is a classic, paranoid version of this creed. The illegitimist Marxist argument goes like this: Bourgeois democracy is a sham; bourgeois politicians and the bourgeois newspapers are tools of shadowy financial interests. The entire system deserves to be overthrown — and if a few people die in the course of the revolution, it’s all for a good cause.

I had overlooked considerable verbiage, words and phrases such as: "sinister force or forces," "Marxist," "bourgeois" this and "bourgeois" that, "die" and "revolution." I saw that the idea that had first jumped off the page at me was, in fact, almost completely buried under prolixitous grandiloquence.

I saw that in the next paragraph, the columnist proceeded to compare the original argument to the toxic fruits of America's right-wing lunatic asylum:

There is also a right-wing version of this argument, one that has been honed to perfection by novelist Charles McCarry (in Lucky Bastard, he imagines that the Bill Clinton-like American president is a Communist agent and his Hillary-like wife is his controller). More recently, right-wing illegitimism has taken the form of birtherism. The attempt to prove that Barack Obama isn’t American-born was, at base, an attempt to prove that he is illegitimate and that he therefore deserves to be removed from power — somehow. Birtherism is also linked to other forms of illegitimism, such as the belief that Obama is a Muslim,...

Straightforward hypothesis: America is not in the hands of its people, but powerful financial interests. That hardly seems like an outrageous claim to make in late July 2011.

But if your boss is the corporate media, first you cloak reasonable suspicion in the jargon of Karl Marx. Second, you juxtapose it with the insane rants and racist conspiracy theories of the far right. Some days I wonder why I still buy newspapers.

UPDATE: Last week a columnist for the Independent had a crisis of faith.

A short visit to the heart of the beast

Jotman — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:36:00 +0000

I paid a visit to the gallery of the US House of Representatives Wednesday evening. Congress was debating a GOP-tabled bill to defund the Endangered Species Act. You're probably wondering what wild animals have to do with the debt ceiling crisis.

Breaking protocol to address the CSPAN television audience, a Democratic Congresswoman asked: "Why are the Republicans forcing us to spend the next 140 hours to debate a pointless and very destructive interior bill at this time? The country is at imminent risk of default on the debt because of the intransigence of Republicans."

The debate that followed was quite astounding. The Republicans were looking for ways to defund parks, forests, and clean water. A Democratic Congresswomen said, "Republicans want to destroy the program that has protected the bald eagle -- the symbol of our great country!" At first it appeared as if the Republicans were willing to cut anything at any long-term cost to reduce the deficit. That's what I thought until the last twenty minutes of my visit. The truth is more disturbing.

The Republicans tabled amendment after amendment intended to rescind funding from federal programs intended to protect species, municipal water supplies, and ecosystems. Anything that wasn’t about fighting forest-fires was fair game. The Democrats were fighting back.

A GOP instigated House rule stipulates that any increase in the budget in one area requires a specified budget cut somewhere else. Members of Congress trying to fund clean water for towns in Oregon or support wetland preservation in Florida have to propose an equal cut in funding for another program. In reply to a Congresswoman from Hawaii, a Congressman from Idaho said, “As much as I would like to fund preservation of your beautiful tropical ecosystem in Kawaii [annual rainfall 180 inches], I believe the best way to save forests is to preserve the budget for fighting forest-fires.”

After a long while, a Republican Congressman from Kansas stood up to propose an amendment to increase spending. I leaned forward in my gallery seat. I wanted to catch every word of this.

The GOP Congressman's argument was the best way to fight forest fires is to reduce opportunities for them to happen. He said that taxpayers can save having to pay for fighting forest fires by reducing the size of the forests. The phrase he used to describe his proposal was “forest restoration” (i.e. logging). This Republican congressman wanted to increase spending to pay corporations to cut down the forests.

Republicans claim the United States is going broke. Yet they are not content to sell-off America's assets for peanuts, they use tax dollars to pay their friends to take them.

It doubt the ridiculous bill they were debating has any chance of become law during this Congress. But the spectacle suggested to me that the difference between Republicans and Democrats has never been starker. A widening gap of sensibility between parties coincides with a presidency that downplays differences in the never-ending pursuit of “bipartisanship." Something is deeply amiss.

Loyal servants of oligarchs

Jotman — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:57:00 +0000

Economist Jeffrey Sachs writes:

Who runs America today? The rich and the multinational corporations. Who runs the White House? David Plouffe, whose job it is to make sure that ever word, every action of the president is calculated for electoral gain rather than the country's needs. Who runs the Congress, on both sides of the aisle? The lobbyists, who win in every negotiation. And who loses? The American people, who have said repeatedly that they want a budget that sharply cuts the military, ends the wars, raises taxes on the rich, protects the poor and the middle class, and invests in America's future not just in Obama's speeches but in fact.

Sach's short essay is worth reading. It sums up my overall reaction to listening to President Obama and Speaker Boehner on national television last night.

Update: To fully appreciate the mentality of the Republican House caucus members who hold the world economy in their hands, this story is must-read.

Obama speech written by GOP, S&P, FoxNews?

Jotman — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:12:00 +0000

I just watched Obama's "speech to the nation" on the debit ceiling impasse. He said very little I had not heard him say before.

However, I was particularly disappointed by something I couldn't recall having heard Obama say before. I tweeted my reaction:

Had I heard Obama correctly? Reuters has posted the text of the speech and I've highlighted the part of the speech I mention in the tweet:

Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn't solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there's no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

Originally, it was Republicans who came up with this argument. The unemployed be damned, the GOP claimed that any failure to significantly reduce the federal debt in short order would lead to economic catastrophe. According to the right-wingers, if nothing was done about the debt then so-called "bond vigilantes" would start dumping Treasury bills, wreaking havoc on the economy. The GOP threatened only to lift the debt ceiling if the White House negotiated a deal to reduce the debt.

Obama has since taken the Republicans up on the idea of using the debt-ceiling deadline as an opportunity to negotiate major cuts to the national debt. However, until tonight, I had never heard Obama echo the Republican assertion that America's Triple-A credit rating was at imminent risk if an agreement was not reached to slash the debt.* The assertion struck me as spurious and corrupt when the Republicans made it, and hearing Obama say it does not make it any less so.

In mid-April the GOP found support for its prediction from Standard & Poors. S&P, of course, is one of the Wall Street ratings agencies that falsely accredited worthless home mortgages; it was instrumental in blowing up the economy in 2008.

Tonight we had President Barack Obama echoing a GOP talking point that was later affirmed by S&P and championed by FoxNews. Something to think about.

__
* The notion that the credit rating of the US is in jeopardy if the government fails to lift the debt ceiling goes without saying. But Obama wasn't making that point in the above passage.

As I blogged the other day, I find the entire trajectory of Obama's economic policy disappointing.

Obama's fateful choice

Jotman — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 03:52:00 +0000

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
- Robert Frost

No sooner did the economy show signs of starting to recover from the Great Recession than President Obama came to a fork in the woods where two roads diverged. The sign by the well-trodden path to his right read "Austerity." The sign by the overgrown trail to his left read, "Invest in Our Future." Obama chose the path on the right. The choice was made months ago, and it was a fateful decision.

The path Obama selected had been hacked out of the forest by Herbert Hoover's administration; it's the path that led to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Recently the path has been popularized by conservatives and their allies in the corporate media. It's the path championed by Sarah Palin, Wall Street banks, FoxNews, network news commentators and newspaper columnists, and every presidential contender in the Republican Party. The path leads to continued high unemployment and low wages as far as anyone who understands the basic principles of economics can see. Obama chose the path of continued high unemployment.

At least 7% of America's assets is up for grabs

But the path on the right is not bad for everyone. The catch is that you have to have a lot of money saved up to make the journey worthwhile. The super rich are crazy about the path, because it's deflationary. By further reducing demand, it makes things cheaper to buy. The effect of traveling it makes investment dollars go farther. The path makes it more affordable for the rich to buy up the property, meager stock portfolios, and other assets of the unemployed and struggling worker. As you can see by the red slice in the chart at right, at least seven percent of the country's total wealth will be up for grabs.

Republicans may have built the road, but Obama claims he's a better driver. In the interest of "fairness," the president tells us he will close some loopholes in the tax code, raise some taxes. It's true this will help to pay for the journey. But as long as Obama leads the country down Austerity Road, raising taxes on the rich won't change the destination. At best, an overall decrease in government spending that includes a tax increase will spare some jobs.   It means Obama won't need to travel so far down Austerity Road to achieve a given level of deficit reduction. It doesn't mean the unemployment level will subside.

In a year, some brilliant pundit will look at Obama's dismal poll numbers and say "it's the high unemployment stupid." Because by 2012 the jobs situation is unlikely to have improved. It could be worse -- even a lot worse.   Obama won't be able to claim to have been dragged kicking and screaming down the wrong road. The crux of Obama's problem is that no matter how far Obama travels down the "slash spending" road, he'll be blamed for not having traveled it far enough. However far he agrees to go, they'll say he didn't go the distance.    For example, supposing Obama negotiates a tax increase, this fact will later be used against him. "Your tax increases slowed our journey down Austerity Road," his Republican opponent will say. To the typical under-informed voter, the attack will seem reasonable, as Obama approved the destination and route.

Obama took the road well-traveled. By election time, that will have made all the difference.

Are the banks urging Thailand to drink the Kool-Aid?

Jotman — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 21:01:00 +0000

Somebody call a physician. Economists at some of Asia's leading financial institutions are suffering amnesia. Or worse.

First, some background. For a long time, economists have been urging leaders of emerging countries in Asia to shift from export-led growth strategies to domestic investment. They have preached spending on infrastructure and the stimulation of local demand. Here's an article dated May 2009:

ASEAN: ADB urges Asia to increase domestic spending

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) President Haruhiko Kuroda told ASEAN, East Asian and South Asian officials at the ADB’s annual meeting in Bali, Indonesia that Asia must boost domestic consumption and end its dependence on exports as external demand plunges in the world economic slump....

Although Asian governments have embarked on economic stimulus packages, Kuroda said such measures would not be enough without structural reform to end the region's dependency on demand from rich countries.

Over the longer term, developing Asia is starting the process of rebalancing growth from excessive dependence on external demand to greater resilience on both consumption and investment," he said.

What was good advice in 2009 ought to be good advice in 2011. This year, nobody expects consumer demand in the US or Europe--regions plagued by unemployment--to rebound anytime soon. The insatiable appetite of Western leaders for draconian fiscal austerity is reducing consumer demand, and may push the world's richest economies back into recession soon. Thus, if Asian economies are to prosper, their leaders have never had more reason to focus on stimulating local demand.

Or so one would think. Today the Wall Street Journal reports that the Bank of Thailand and various international banks are warning that if the incoming government of Yingluck Shinawatra follows through on its plans to increase domestic spending, this will have harmful consequences. They are sounding alarm bells about a rise in Thailand's national debt and an increase in the rate of inflation:

New Populist Policies Could Harm Thai Economy

BANGKOK—A sweeping electoral victory for Yingluck Shinawatra has allowed Thailand to avoid the immediate risk of social unrest or military intervention, but the incoming government's populist policies may threaten the vibrancy of Southeast Asia's second-largest economy.

The sister of exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra wooed voters not only with her charisma, but with an array of vote-grabbing promises: an increase of 36%-89% in the minimum wage, guaranteed rice prices for farmers, starting salaries of at least 15,000 baht ($492) for university graduates, tablet PCs for students, and high-speed trains across the country.

"Even if they only deliver a fraction of what they promise (on wages), the impact will be significant" on inflation, said Santitarn Sathirathai, an economist with Credit Suisse in Singapore.

A few days before the election—with both parties promising to raise the minimum wage—Mr. Santitarn raised his average inflation target for 2012 to 3.7% from 3.5%.

The way the government implements any minimum-wage increase will be crucial: An across-the-board increase "will be very inflationary," Mr. Santitarn said, but a varied introduction across sectors would limit the impact on inflation, which rose 4.06% in June from a year earlier.

The Bank of Thailand has warned that inflation poses the biggest threat to economic growth this year. Gov. Prasarn Trairatvorakul said during the election campaign that the next government needs to maintain fiscal discipline and that increasing the budget deficit could threaten fiscal stability.

Standard Chartered Bank wrote in a research note that the For Thais party had indicated its economic policies would cost around 1.85 trillion baht over the next five years, a level of spending that could push back plans to achieve a balanced budget by two years, to fiscal 2018.

Although Thailand's public debt of about 45% of GDP "is not yet at alarming levels, the big-ticket investment could imply larger demand for public borrowing over the coming years than markets had expected," Standard Chartered said.

Despite the calls for fiscal discipline, the new government will face enormous pressure to make good on its promises...

Let's hope that Thailand's new government ignores the fear-mongering of international bankers and the Bank of Thailand governor. Even a substantial increase in a national debt that, as a percentage of GDP, is only half that of the United States, will not spell ruin for Thailand. Moreover, modest inflation can discourage hoarding and stimulate productive investment.

Thailand may well be on the verge of pursuing an economic growth strategy that would not only be advantageous for poor and middle class Thais, but good for the world economy. Thailand might set an example for other countries.

I would tend to chalk up the Wall Street Journal article as a reflection of the present global hysteria for "fiscal discipline now at any price." This economic dogma has been demonstrated to serve bond-holders at the expense of workers.

Incidentally, I found another version of the comments made by Gov. Prasarn Trairatvorakul, cited above, at MSNBC:

Thailand risks slipping into a fiscal crisis as in Western economies, eroding consumer power if the new government substantially expands fiscal spending as many parties are promising, warns Bank of Thailand governor Prasarn Trairatvorakul.

If Gov. Trairatvorakul actually believes that Western economies are suffering from "a fiscal crisis" as opposed to crisis of consumer demand and unemployment, then we can be quite certain he's drinking the Kool-Aid.

Why Obama's offer to Egypt isn't good enough

Jotman — Fri, 20 May 2011 00:54:00 +0000

What did Obama say about Egypt in his Middle East speech? Here's an excerpt from the full text of Obama's speech:

After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.

The greatest untapped resource in the Middle East and North Africa is the talent of its people. In the recent protests, we see that talent on display, as people harness technology to move the world. It’s no coincidence that one of the leaders of Tahrir Square was an executive for Google. That energy now needs to be channeled, in country after country, so that economic growth can solidify the accomplishments of the street. Just as democratic revolutions can be triggered by a lack of individual opportunity, successful democratic transitions depend upon an expansion of growth and broad-based prosperity.

This is all true, and Obama has said it well. But the big question is how the outside world can help these economies. How can these countries put millions of unemployed youth to work? What is Obama offering to do for them? And can it work? Obama continued:

Drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance. The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young. America’s support for democracy will therefore be based on ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy – starting with Tunisia and Egypt.

Obama talks about the need for Egypt to end "protectionism," yet does not offer to eliminate US cotton subsidies. Obama does not mention that under Hosni Mubarak, Egypt liberalized its markets substantially (see this post) yet widespread economic misery persists. Obama continued:

First, we have asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week’s G-8 summit for what needs to be done to stabilize and modernize the economies of Tunisia and Egypt. Together, we must help them recover from the disruption of their democratic upheaval, and support the governments that will be elected later this year. And we are urging other countries to help Egypt and Tunisia meet its near-term financial needs.

Second, we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

Third, we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. These will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment across the region. And we will work with allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.

Fourth, the United States will launch a comprehensive Trade and Investment Partnership Initiative in the Middle East and North Africa. If you take out oil exports, this region of over 400 million people exports roughly the same amount as Switzerland. So we will work with the EU to facilitate more trade within the region, build on existing agreements to promote integration with U.S. and European markets, and open the door for those countries who adopt high standards of reform and trade liberalization to construct a regional trade arrangement. Just as EU membership served as an incentive for reform in Europe, so should the vision of a modern and prosperous economy create a powerful force for reform in the Middle East and North Africa.

Spoken like a Republican: Obama speaks of "trade liberalization" as if it is the tried and proven panacea for economies of the developing world. Yet how well has that worked out for Iraq so far? Many of the most successful industries in today's economic powerhouses were nurtured on protectionist trade policies. Think South Korea or Japan. Obama continued:

Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress – the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. We will help governments meet international obligations, and invest efforts anti-corruption; by working with parliamentarians who are developing reforms, and activists who use technology to hold government accountable.

Egytians need to examine the details before accepting any foreign offers of economic assistance. Are they sincere? Or are they just a ploy to get Egypt to open-up its market to foreign-branded goods and services? What's good for US-based multinationals (Monsanto, Pfizer, GE, etc.) or Apple Computer and its Chinese factory workers is not necessarily what's best for the people of Egypt.

Governments in the Middle East face the same problem that confronts Barack Obama at home: how to create jobs for millions of people -- especially young people. Given that the economic system of the United States, its political leadership, its most vocal ideologues, and even its media have failed to address America's own unemployment crisis, Egyptians should be careful about taking economic advice from Americans.

* * * * *

In post-Mubarak Egypt, protesters are often beaten by thugs.

There's another thing Obama ought to have said but did not. Obama should have promised that the US would hold the leadership of the Egyptian Army accountable for their actions during Egypt's transition to democracy. Obama should have said that attacks against peaceful protesters by thugs working in conjunction with soldiers are reprehensible, and that torturing protesters, virginity-testing them, and subjecting them to military trials is unacceptable. Obama should have made clear that future US military assistance to Egypt's army will contingent upon its adherence to basic principles of human rights and the rule of law.

Torture of Bradley Manning

Jotman — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:14:00 +0000

Is 23-year old Bradley Manning, who has not been convicted of any crime, being tortured by the US government? It would appear so.

How to find a WikiLeaks Mirror?

Jotman — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 22:31:00 +0000

Information about how to access a WikiLeaks Mirror is posted here.

WikiLeaks Mirrors

Jotman — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 21:55:00 +0000

Updated links to WikiLeaks Mirrors here.

Russia's Forest Mafia (via WikiLeaks)

Jotman — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 22:39:00 +0000

Viewing cable 09VLADIVOSTOK5, FOREST MAFIA ADAPTS TO THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

UNCLASSIFIED Consulate Vladivostok
Appears in these articles:
http://www.spiegel.de
VZCZCXRO7682
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHCHI RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHDT RUEHFL RUEHHM RUEHIK
RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHNH RUEHNP RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK
RUEHSR RUEHYG
DE RUEHVK #0005/01 0290834
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 290834Z JAN 09
FM AMCONSUL VLADIVOSTOK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1066
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE
RUEHVK/AMCONSUL VLADIVOSTOK 1165
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 VLADIVOSTOK 000005

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD PREL ECON EAGR RS
SUBJECT: FOREST MAFIA ADAPTS TO THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

VLADIVOSTO 00000005 001.2 OF 003

Introduction
------------

¶1. Despite lower demand for wood products due to the global
economic crisis and implementation of the Lacey Act Amendment,
illegal logging in Russia continues at critical levels.
Approximately 70 percent of Russia's forests are concentrated in
the Russian Far East and Siberia in close proximity to China and
other main timber markets in the Asia Pacific Region. Logging
activity and exports increased significantly in 1990s due to the
high demand for timber in those countries. According to the
World Wildlife Fund, official customs documents show that the
volume of timber officially declared and exported from Russia to
China and Japan is at least 20 percent lower than the volume
officially imported by those countries. That difference
accounts for just some of the illegal timber leaving Russia.
Enormous illegal harvests of cedar and other valuable or rare
species have been occurring throughout the region, including
within supposedly protected nature preserves with far reaching
ecological and social impacts.

Increased Tariffs Lead to Greater Illegal Exports
--------------------------------------------- ----

¶2. Legal exports remained high until 2007, when, in order to
encourage domestic reprocessing of Russian timber, the Kremlin
increased export tariffs for round wood to 20 per cent of its
delivery price. The tariff was again increased by 25 per cent
in April 2008. China and Japan remained the main consumers of
wood, though volumes of timber export decreased slightly. As a
result, wood export via Grodekovo, the main railroad customs
point in Primorye, decreased from 7.3 million tons in 2007 to
6.2 million tons of timber in 2008. Moscow had planned to
further increase the tariff to 80 per cent in January 2009 -- a
level that in effect serves as a timber export ban -- but has
postponed its implementation for a year. An environmental
contact of the Consulate stated that though the current
financial crisis has lowered overall demand for wood products,
the proportion of illegally-harvested wood will increase because
of increased export tariffs and declining profitability for
larger, legal logging firms. Demand for hard wood is down, but
demand for soft wood, like pine, is up. Pine nuts are a source
of sustenance for wild boar, which are in turn a food source for
predators like leopards and tigers.

Poaching Occurs Throughout the Russian Far East
--------------------------------------------- --

¶3. Illegal logging is generally concentrated in border areas,
where it is less expensive to ship wood to processing facilities
in China. The largest illegal cutting operations in Russia are
located in the areas of the Russian Far East and Siberia
neighboring China. Primorye is a leading area for illicit
cutting, but numerous illegal operations have been discovered in
Khabarovsk Krai, and Amur and Jewish Autonomous Oblasts in 2008.
In summer 2008 authorities discovered a poaching operation in
the Dalnerechensk district north of Vladivostok that had
illegally clear cut over 2,300 cubic meters of timber including
1,500 cubic meters of Korean Cedar. That endangered species is
very popular in China for furniture and the pine nuts provide
important sustenance for regional fauna.

¶4. In 2008, Oleg Mitvol, former Director of Rosprirodnadzor
(Russia's Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources)
reported numerous timber industry violations in Amur Oblast.
Investigators found documentation stating that 6,000 cubic
meters of timber was officially harvested in the oblast's
Shimanovsk district, but railroad documents recorded 56,000
cubic meters of timber shipped from the district over the same
period.

How It's Done
-------------

¶5. Smugglers use various ways to illicitly export illegal
timber, most of which are able to pass through customs
inspections and established border crossings using fake
documents and fraudulent declarations. Often companies mix
illegally harvested wood into shipments of legally procured
product. They also make customs declarations passing off
valuable and prohibited species as low-value, legal timber.
Smugglers of course also resort to clandestine export without
documents and through unguarded areas of the border. In early
January, authorities caught a Chinese company attempting to
export 4,000 cubic meters of oak and ash valued at 2 million
dollars from Primorye using fake export documents.

¶6. Illegal export often involves corruption and complicity by
the authorities. Two officers from the Khabarovsk Regional
Service for Economic Crimes who were detained in spring 2007
were eventually found guilty of abuse of office while aiding
Chinese and Russian logging companies in illegally harvesting

Vladivosto 00000005 002.2 of 003

and exporting Russian timber. Though it is a positive sign that
officials were found guilty of corruption, their penalty was
light -- in early 2008, their sentences were suspended and they
were released, though guidelines allowed for prison terms of up
to ten years.

Rangers and Citizens Demand Help to Fight Poachers
--------------------------------------------- -----

¶7. Last year, a group of 38 Primorye park rangers and
environmentalists sent a petition to Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin asking him to transfer management the region's forests
from Primorye authorities to the Federal Forestry Agency. The
signatories asserted that the regional government is
consistently failing to fulfill its responsibility to prevent
illegal logging. Although a new Federal Forest Code came into
effect in January 2007 requiring regional authorities to protect
woodlands, Primorye officials have yet to create and adequately
fund an effective forest management system. Residents
frustrated by inaction have staged protests to attract attention
to illegal logging and have even tried to take forest protection
into their own hands. The World Wildlife Fund's (WWF) Russian
Far East branch and other environmental organizations often lend
support.

¶8. In summer 2008, residents of a village north of Vladivostok
staged a protest against officially-approved "sanitary cutting,"
when logging companies harvest dead trees and clean woodlands
after wildfires. According to villagers, loggers instead clear
cut everything, including healthy trees and left behind
wastelands in place of viable forests. Loggers have taken
advantage of the fact that forest rangers, suffering from a lack
of regional funding, have drastically reduced staff and
curtailed patrols.

¶9. Loggers are reportedly now setting their sights on 22,000
hectares of premium restricted forest in Pozharskiy Rayon.
Setting a dangerous precedent, authorities issued three permits
in 2007 to cut 5,600 cubic meters of timber after a seasonal
wildfire had occurred. In the wake of this year's spring
wildfires authorities increased the quota to 20,000 cubic meters
in order to "clean up" the area. Local villagers suspect that
most of that quota will come from perfectly healthy trees
unaffected by fire. xxxxx, told the Consulate
Econ section that he suspected loggers may set fire to woodlands
in order to obtain permission to log the areas afterward. He
affirmed that environmentalists are ready to support villagers
in protecting the forests.

Retribution Against Environmentalists
-------------------------------------

¶10. This past winter, unknown perpetrators set ablaze the house
of Yuriy Bersenev, a WWF project coordinator who works to
safeguard protected nature reserves. Two earlier attempts to
threaten or endanger WWF staff, including another case of arson,
occurred last month in the village of Novaya Moskva in
southeastern Primorye. According to WWF and nature preserve
workers, the local "Forest Mafia" -- a band of people engaged in
illegal timber cutting -- has openly declared war on those
working to preserve forests and enforce environmental laws.
Bersenev said the escalation is a result of the weakness of
national forest legislation and rampant corruption in the
Russian Far East. The perpetrators of both cases remain
unknown.

Villagers Suffer in More Ways than One
--------------------------------------

¶11. Along with dealing with the effects of illegal logging,
honest villagers also face trouble following local laws
themselves. For example, when large logging companies own the
rights to forests nearby, villagers are often forced to travel
twenty kilometers or more to legally gather firewood for their
own subsistence. Such a story was confirmed by the Consul
General during his visit to the remote town of Krasny Yar, an
eleven hour drive from Vladivostok. The town is surrounded by
birch, cedar, and pine forest, but residents are prohibited from
gathering wood nearby.

Lack of Jobs Leads to Poaching
------------------------------

¶12. Many villages throughout the region were originally
established as logging towns during the Soviet era. Legitimate
job opportunities have dwindled since then, and the current
global financial crisis has made life there even more difficult.
Many of the jobless former-loggers have resorted to
smaller-scale, ad-hoc -- and illegal -- harvesting of wood.
Providing their services to the "Forest Mafia" is often their
only source of income. With the drop in industrial production

Vladivosto 00000005 003.2 of 003

over the border in China, the price of a cubic meter of spruce
has dropped from 120 USD to 60. Established companies are often
finding it more profitable to use the services of these
out-of-work villagers cutting down trees in unauthorized areas
than to use legal, established channels.

Conclusion
----------

¶13. According to xxxxx expert xxxxx 50 percent of soft wood
and 90 percent of hardwood harvested in the Russian Far East and
Siberia eventually ends up in the US as finished goods after
being processed in China. The Lacey Act Amendment, which
requires documentation that wood products sold in the U.S. were
obtained legally and sustainably, may help stem the flow of
illegal timber coming from the Russian Far East. Post would
welcome and be happy to assist NGO's or USG experts who could
provide timber companies with briefings on the Lacey Act
Amendment and the implications for wood products originating in
Russia.
Armbruster

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew outs ASEAN leakers (via WikiLeaks)

Jotman — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:56:00 +0000

On May 30, 2009 US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg had an off-the-record conversation in Singapore's Presidential Palace with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. The conversation touched on the question of China's influence over ASEAN countries, a topic we have been discussing on this blog. For example, Jotman recently asserted that "China will surely attempt to use its influence over weak regimes like Cambodia or Burma to divide and control (ASEAN)."

A secret June 4, 2009 US State Department cable from the US Embassy in Singapore (released by WikiLeaks on Nov. 30, 2010) reported on the senior State Department official's conversation with MM Lee Kuan Yew:

MM Lee said China is following an approach consistent with ideas in the Chinese television series “The Rise of Great Powers.” The mistake of Germany and Japan had been their effort to challenge the existing order. The Chinese are not stupid; they have avoided this mistake. China’s economy has surpassed other countries, with the exceptions of Japan and the United States. Even with those two countries, the gap is closing, with China growing at seven-nine percent annually, versus two-three percent in the United States and Japan. Overall GDP, not GDP per capita, is what matters in terms of power. China has four times the population of the United States. China is active in Latin America, Africa, and in the Gulf. Within hours, everything that is discussed in ASEAN meetings is known in Beijing, given China’s close ties with Laos, Cambodia, and Burma, he stated.

Can there be any doubt as to the identity of ASEAN's biggest leakers?

China's buying Cambodia

Jotman — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:34:00 +0000

A development I noted previously, was a front-page story in last week's Washington Post: China's growing influence over Cambodia.

Instead of exporting revolution and bloodshed to its neighbors, China is now sending its cash and its people.

At this clangorous hydropower dam site hard along Cambodia's border with Thailand, and in Burma, Laos and even Vietnam, China is engaged in a massive push to extend its economic and political influence into Southeast Asia. Spreading investment and aid along with political pressure, China is transforming a huge swath of territory along its southern border. Call it the Monroe Doctrine, Chinese style.

Ignored by successive U.S. administrations, China's rise in this region is now causing alarm in Washington, which is aggressively courting the countries of Southeast Asia. The Obama administration has cultivated closer ties with its old foe Vietnam. It has tried to open doors to Burma, also known as Myanmar, which U.S. officials believe is in danger of becoming a Chinese vassal state. Relations have been renewed with Laos, whose northern half is dominated by Chinese businesses. In a speech about U.S. policy in Asia on Oct. 28, before she embarked on her sixth trip to Asia in two years, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton used military terminology to refer to U.S. efforts: "forward-deployed diplomacy."

I'm not sure a comparison to the Monroe Doctrine conveys the potential intensity of China's growing ties to the economies of mainland Southeast Asia. China is much closer in geographic proximity to northern Southeast Asian countries than the United States is to most of Latin America. Also, in the case of Burma, there are reports of mass migration of Chinese across the border. With the possible exception of Costa Rica and the Panama Canal Zone, citizens of the United States have never migrated to Latin America in significant numbers.

The story provides some details of the inroads China is making in Cambodia:

China has concluded a free-trade deal with all 10 countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, while a similar U.S. pact is only in its infancy. It is cementing ties with Thailand - a U.S. ally - despite recent political unrest there. Guards at the gates to two of them - a gold mine and a hemp plantation - shoo travelers away unless they are able to pay a toll. "It's like a country within a country," quipped Cambodia's minister of interior, Sar Kheng, at a law enforcement conference earlier this year, according to participants at the meeting.

China's real estate development firms have barged into Cambodia with all the ambition, bumptiousness and verve that American fruit and tire firms employed in Latin America or Africa in decades past. One company, Union Development Group, of Tianjin in northern China, won a 99-year concession for 120 square miles - twice the size of Washington - of beachfront property on the Gulf of Thailand. There Chinese work teams are cutting a road and mapping out plans for hotels, villas and golf courses. The estimated investment? $3.8 billion. The target market? The nouveau riche from Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.

Last month, China pledged to support the construction of a $600 million stretch of railway between Phnom Penh and Vietnam that will bring China a major step closer to incorporating all of Southeast Asia, as far south as Singapore, into its rail network.

Across Cambodia, dozens of state-run Chinese companies are building eight hydropower dams, including the 246-megawatt behemoth on the Tatay River in Koh Kong. The total price tag for those dams will exceed $1 billion. Altogether, Cambodia owes China $4 billion, said Cheam Yeap, a member of the central committee of the ruling Cambodia People's Party.

TSA body search video

Jotman — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:17:00 +0000

John Tyner, a California man who elected not to be subjected to either an Backscatter X-ray scan or a full-body search (that would have included allowing an official to touch his crotch), was detained by TSA officials at San Diego International Airport.

Continued.

Is the 2010 MacBook Air just an overpriced netbook?

Jotman — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 02:59:00 +0000

Having tested Apple's new ultralight MacBook Air for over a week, one and only one thing tempers Jotman’s enthusiasm for this beautiful new travel laptop. This 13" MacBook Air shows Lance Armstrong on the custom Stages bicycle designed by...

Spectacular view flying out of America's best airport

Jotman — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:06:00 +0000

I took this photo from the window of my United Airlines 757 as it took off from Reagan National Airport in Washington DC. The airport has a well-deserved reputation as being one of the most efficient airports in the country. In fact, it was...

How important is ASEAN to the United States?

Jotman — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:13:00 +0000

President Obama, writing in a NY Times op-ed on Nov 6:

Indonesia is a member of the G-20. Next year, it will assume the chairmanship o the Association of Southeast Asian Nations — a group whose members make up a market of more than 600 million people that is increasingly integrating into a free trade area, and to which the United States exports $80 billion in goods and services each year. My administration has deepened out engagement in ASEAN, and for the first eight months of 2010, exports of American goods to Indonesia increased by 47 percent from the same period in 2009. This is momentum that we will build on as we pursue a new comprehensive partnership between the United States and Indonesia.

A strong ASEAN is in the interest of the United States. ASEAN offers a way to keep the states of the region somewhat independent of China.   In the absence of ASEAN, the United States, Japan, India, and the European Union will find it harder and harder play a meaningful role in China’s backyard.

On the other hand, for the export-dependent economies of Southeast Asia, the growth of an ASEAN economic community could act as a hedge against over-dependence on the Chinese market.    If ASEAN countries develop strong internal political and trade ties, then states of the region will retain a stronger bargaining position with respect to China.    The countries of Southeast Asia need to retain the ability to walk away from a Chinese demand.    The heavy-handed approach of China towards Japan with respect to rare earth elements demonstrates that China is not above using its economic power as a hammer (the Chinese recently cut off Japan’s access to these resources over a fishing-related incident).   The incident proved that China is not above using its economic clout to coerce a weaker neighbor.

But there’s only so much outside powers like the United States can do to help Southeast Asian countries retain their independence, their ability to play one major power against another.    More important than outside encouragement will be for the ASEAN nations to pull together.     Yet this will be more difficult than it sounds.   China will surely attempt to use its influence over weak regimes like Cambodia or Burma to divide and control the organization.

ASEAN needs the support not only of Obama, but governments on every continent.

Photos of Stephen Colbert Rally to Keep Fear Alive

Jotman — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:26:00 +0000

Photos of Stephen Colbert's rally with Jon Stewart in Washington D.C.

Photos of Jon Stewart Rally

Jotman — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:25:00 +0000

Photos of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's rally in Washington D.C.

Thailand world's 2nd deadliest roads for US travelers

Jotman — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:50:00 +0000

USA Today:

Road accidents — not terrorism, plane crashes or crime — are the No. 1 killer of healthy Americans traveling abroad, a USA TODAY analysis of the past 7½ years of State Department data shows.

About 1,820 Americans, almost a third of all Americans who died of non-natural causes while abroad, have been reported killed in road accidents in foreign countries from Jan. 1, 2003, through June 2010. On average, one American traveler dies on a foreign road every 36 hours.

Almost 40% of the deaths occurred in Mexico, the analysis shows. The second-highest number of road fatalities occurred in Thailand, where relatively few Americans visit. The Dominican Republic, a popular resort destination, ranked No. 3 in fatalities, followed by Germany and Spain.

An accompanying chart shows that between 2003 and June 2010, 56 Americans were killed in road accidents in Thailand.

During that period 16,240 Thais lost their lives on the kingdom's deadly roads. To put this figure in context, nearly half as many Thais lose their lives on the roads as Brazilians, even though Brazil's population is nearly three times larger. Turkey's population is slightly larger than Thailand's, but Turkey had only two-thirds as many traffic fatalities as Thailand. Accounting for the population, Thailand's roads are only marginally more deadly than Malaysia's, which is surprising as Malaysians are far more prosperous than Thais (on the same level as the Turks and Brazilians)*. As more affluent countries tend to have safer roads, Malaysia's roads are far more dangerous than should be expected.

If Thais want to think of their roads as safe, they have to compare their country to Iran. Iran has about the same population and GDP per capita as Thailand, but its roads are two-thirds more deadly.

* GDP per capita of Turkey, Brazil and Malaysia is twice that of Thailand.

One Nation Coming Together March on Washington

Jotman — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 01:56:00 +0000

Jotman live-blogged the demonstration.

How many attended the Sharpton rally and march?

Jotman — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:59:00 +0000

Jotman live-blogged the march to the Martin Luther King Memorial, and provides his estimate.

How many attended Martin Luther King speech rally?

Jotman — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:03:00 +0000

Jotman live-blogged both the Genn Beck and the Al Sharpton rallies, and provides his estimates.

Julian Assange: "WikiLeaks may be under attack"

Jotman — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:11:00 +0000

"...One of our alleged sources, a young US intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, has been detained and shipped to a US military prison in Kuwait, where he is being held without trail. Mr. Manning is alleged to have acted according to his conscious and leaked to us the Collateral Murder video and the video of a massacre that took place in Afghanistan last year at Garani.

The Garani massacre, which we are still working on, killed over 100 people, mostly children.

Mr. Manning allegedly also sent us 260,000 classified US Department cables, reporting on the actions of US Embassy's engaging in abusive actions all over the world. We have denied the allegation, but the US government is acting as if the allegation is true and we do have a lot of other material that exposes human rights abuses by the United States government.

Mr. Manning was allegedly exposed after talking to an unrelated "journalist" who then worked with the US government to detain him.

Some background on the Manning case:

http://fdlaction.firedoglake. com/2010/06/11/transcript- daniel-ellsberg-says-he-fears- us-might-assasinate-wikileaks- founder/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Bradley_Manning
http://www.wired.com/ threatlevel/2010/06/leak/
http://www.wired.com/ threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks- chat/
http://www.wired.com/ threatlevel/2010/06/state- department-anxious/
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ dpb/2010/06/143011.htm

[ note that there are some questions about the Wired reportage, see: http://www.boingboing.net/ 2010/06/13/video-wikileaks- foun.html#comment-809677 ]

WikiLeaks a small organization going through enormous growth and operating in an adverserial, high-security environment which can make communication time consuming and the acquisition of new staff and volunteers, also difficult since they require high levels of trust.

To try and deal with our growth and the current difficult situation, we want to get you to work together with our other supporters to set up a "Friends of WikiLeaks" group in your area. We have multiple supporters in most countries and would like to see them be a strong and independent force.

Please write to friends@sunshinepress.org if you are interested in helping with Friends of WikiLeaks in your area. You will receive further instructions.

We also have significant unexpected legal costs (for example flying a legal team to Kuwait, video production. Collateral Murder production costs were $50,000 all up).

Any financial contributions will be of IMMEDIATE assistance.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/ Special:Support

Please donate and tell the world that you have done so. Encourage all your friends to follow the example you set, after all, courage is contagious.

Julian Assange
Editor in Chief
WIKILEAKS

Bangkok Fires

Jotman — Wed, 19 May 2010 17:00:00 +0000

France 24 reports that

"Along with the province of Ubon Ratchathani (its capital is of the same name), 21 other provinces (out of the country's 76) have been placed under a state of emergency. Most of them are in the northeast of the country, the heartland of the Red Shirts."

See Jotman and ThereLive for reports and links.

Is Thailand in May 2010 just like China in April 2008?

Jotman — Tue, 18 May 2010 00:07:00 +0000

Based on what happened between March and April of 2008 in China, does a much talked about "letter" suggest Thailand is headed the same way? Perhaps.

In just 40 years oceans could be empty of fish

Jotman — Mon, 17 May 2010 15:19:00 +0000

RawStory (h/t tenpercent)

The world faces the nightmare possibility of fishless oceans by 2050 without fundamental restructuring of the fishing industry, UN experts said Monday.

"If the various estimates we have received... come true, then we are in the situation where 40 years down the line we, effectively, are out of fish," Pavan Sukhdev, head of the UN Environment Program's green economy initiative, told journalists in New York.

A Green Economy report due later this year by UNEP and outside experts argues this disaster can be avoided if subsidies to fishing fleets are slashed and fish are given protected zones -- ultimately resulting in a thriving industry.

The unbelievable madness of it all is that a lot of the overfishing is subsidized by governments and would not otherwise be economical. That's certainly been the case with Japanese whaling.

BP Vice President: Offshore Drilling Safe

Jotman — Tue, 04 May 2010 12:29:00 +0000

On Nov. 19, 2009, BP's David Rainey assured everybody that offshore drilling is safe. See JOTMAN.COM for a timeline of the oil spill disaster.

David Rainey is testifying that "offshore drilling" is safe because it has been "going on for fifty years."

Rainey's statement is misleading. "Fifty year's experience" applies to shallow-water offshore drilling. Offshore drilling at extreme depths is a new development that involves the use of relatively untested and experimental technologies. As one scientist puts it:

And "everything is bigger and more difficult the deeper you go," said Andy Bowen, a research specialist who works with undersea robotics at the Woods Hole center. "Fighting gravity is tough. It increases loads. You need bigger winches, bigger cables, bigger ships."

An analogy, he said, is the difference between construction work on the ground versus at the top of a mile-high skyscraper.

BP does not have fifty years experience extremely deep wells in very deep water. To assume the challenges of safely undertaking such work were surmounted in the previous fifty years is presumptuous to say the least.

Timeline of Gulf of Mexico offshore oil drilling disaster

Jotman — Tue, 04 May 2010 16:37:00 +0000

The timeline is a work-in-progress. All events are color-coded according to whether an item relates to industry, government, media, etc.

The foresight of Arizona Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva

Jotman — Tue, 04 May 2010 13:32:00 +0000

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill reveals few heroes in government. But in researching my timeline, I came across one: Arizona Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva.

FEB 24 - Food & Water Watch contacted Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Arizona), a member of the Committee on Natural Resources and chairman of the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. in a Feb. 24 letter, Grijalva and 18 other House Democrats say MMS (Minerals Management Service), which regulates offshore drilling practices, has not done enough so far to ensure worker and environmental safety at the BP Atlantis offshore oil platform, in part because it has interpreted the relevant laws too loosely.(Grijalva)

MARCH 02 - As a result of evidence supplied by a whistle-blower, Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva and other lawmakers asked Minerals Management Service (MMS) to thoroughly investigate operation of BP Atlantis offshore oil platform – the largest in the world – without professionally approved safety documents, and to report its findings to Congress. Grijalva ... said the issue requires “a thorough review at the agency level, the legal level and the corporate level. The world’s largest oil rig cannot continue to operate without safety documentation. The situation is unacceptable and deserves immediate scrutiny.” Grijalva said a long record of previous oil spills highlights the need for continued environmental safeguards, however sophisticated drilling technology becomes.... “I look forward to working with MMS promptly to resolve any doubts about Atlantis, because we cannot afford another billion-gallon spill on our watch.”(Grijalva)

It's good to know there is at least one good politician in Washington DC. And his name is Raúl M. Grijalva.

Sec. of Interior Ken Salazar favored offshore drilling

Jotman — Tue, 04 May 2010 13:20:00 +0000

While researching my timeline of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, this is what I learned about Ken Salazar, Obama's Secretary of the Interior. Salazar's department oversees the MMS. Throughout 2009 MMS not only failed to respond to whistle-blower complaints regarding the safety BP's largest deepwater rig in the Gulf of Mexico, it blocked the release of evidence (see timeline for details):

JAN 2009: President Obama appoints Ken Salazar (photo) Secretary of the Interior, overseeing MMS, the federal government oil industry regulator. Previously, Salazar supported the nomination of Gale Norton to Secretary of the Interior, President George W. Bush's controversial first appointee who preceded Salazar as Colorado Attorney General. Soon after arriving in the Senate, Salazar generated controversy within his party by introducing Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales and sitting by his side during Gonzales' confirmation hearings. In August 2006, Ken Salazar supported Joe Lieberman in his primary race. In 2006, Salazar voted to end protections that limit offshore oil drilling in Florida's Gulf Coast. In 2007, Salazar was one of only a handful of Democrats to vote against a bill that would require the United States Army Corps of Engineers to consider global warming when planning water projects.

Why hasn't Ken Salazar resigned already?

Photos: Saturday May 1 immigration rally at the White House

Jotman — Sun, 02 May 2010 20:52:00 +0000

My main post on the demonstration is here. These photos give you an indication of the kind of signs people brought to the demonstration.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez arrested outside White House

Jotman — Sat, 01 May 2010 21:48:00 +0000

I took some photos of Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez Saturday. The Congressman was one of 40 protesters arrested outside the White House Saturday protesting the passage of the Arizona immigration bill.

Gutiérrez was first Latino to be elected to Congress from the Midwest. He presently serves as chair of the immigration task force, and is outspoken about defending the rights of immigrants.

Read my entire live-blog from Saturday outside the White House here.

1 May immigration protests and arrests ouside White House

Jotman — Sat, 01 May 2010 22:59:00 +0000

Here's a video I took Saturday in Washington DC. My full story is posted here.

40 arrested at Saturday May 1 immagration rally in Washington DC

Jotman — Sat, 01 May 2010 20:24:00 +0000

Outside the White House 40 people were arrested today.

When did Fox News first "prove" that Obama is a socialist?

Jotman — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:51:00 +0000

An American blogger, Kelly of the VSJ, recently explored the origin of a persistent, widely accepted myth about Obama shared by many Americans on the right. Namely, the assertion that Obama is a "socialist".

Kelly went in search of an actual tipping point, a moment in American life when the 'opinion' that Obama was a socialist became an accepted 'fact' among right-wingers:

... I found an interesting ‘beginning’. Yes, the seeds were already there.. one only had to follow the 2008 campaign trail to see it, but something about this struck me like an “AHA! Here is where it really started to become true!” Because I think that up until that point, even with those at the town-meetings believing the rhetoric, it was still mainly a rumor. Until this broadcast sealed the rumor as truth forever. I found it on a blog called JOTMAN.COM. On this, his site ‘Jotman’ has 3 videos shot the night of President Obama’s election win.

One video is actually from Fox News the following morning showing a crowd of people at the gates of the White House, the broadcaster comments that they are probably drunk, her opinion of course, and then she draws your attention to the flag someone in the crowd raises, it is the Russian Communist flag. The Broadcaster is of course curious and wants this watched because ‘what does it mean?”, is it a sign?, do we need to fear this newly elected President or something just as ridiculous.
The second video is reportedly shot from inside the White House that same night, it’s the same crowd cheering at the gates, the man in the video sees the cheering and the flag and he is scared. As he says these are people coming out for Obama and cheering the fact that this country is going to change.. he just can’t believe what he is seeing. There is pushing and shoving, look there is the communist flag again, and torches! they’re all over the place it’s so ominous … it’s chaos!

Until you watch the video from the street. The third video shows the crowd laughing,cheering,smiling and yes.. Chanting. For the land of the free….. and the home of the… Braaaaavvveeee!!! Not to mention USA!USA!USA!USA!USA! The horror!

Yes, there is the commie flag.. but instead of asking what the flag meant Fox News decided it meant communism was here and they must fight it every step of the way. Fox news knew that morning, like the mornings after every election there was bound to be some pretty pissed off people and they were going to stir up that emotion and bank it. That story was the perfect one to drop the ‘Hearst’ seed and watch it grow. It was visual proof and with just the right question put to, maybe another mention of it later until it’s finally reported on as a fact. There was no need for anyone to hear the crowd, the silent view of it, with the added speculation would serve quit nicely. Those watching Fox that segment wouldn’t hear the glee and love of their country coming from that crowd instead they would see a possibly drunken presence cheering the fact that communism has now come to America when she elected an Communist, Marxist, Socialist the night before. Before long Glen Beck would confirm their other fear...

Time Magazine promo for Sarah Palin

Jotman — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:08:00 +0000

Ted Nugent, "author, activist and rock-'n'-roll legend" (pictured right) was asked to describe Sarah Palin for Time Magazine's "2010 Top 100" list.

Let's break down his statement in support of Sarah Palin:

If Sarah Palin played a loud, grinding instrument, she would be in my band. The independent patriotic spirit, attitude and soul of our forefathers are alive and well in Sarah. In the way she lives, what she says and how she dedicates herself to make America better in these interesting times, she represents the good, while exposing the bad and ugly.

Translation: It's not so much anything Sarah Palin has done that makes her good (after all, she can't even play an instrument), she's good because she successfully projects the qualities many Americans wish to see in themselves.

She embraces the critical duty of we the people by participating in this glorious experiment in self-government.

Translation: Sarah Palin is a politician.

The tsunami of support proves that Sarah, 46, represents what many Americans know to be common and sensible.

Translation: Sarah Palin is popular with many (true) Americans. Whatever many (true) Americans like must be good. Therefore, Sarah Palin is good.

Her rugged individualism, self-reliance and a herculean work ethic resonate now more than ever in a country spinning away from these basics that made the U.S.A. the last best place.

Translation: Sarah Palin is a successful projection of the qualities many Americans fear losing.

We who are driven to be assets to our families, communities and our beloved country connect with the principles that Sarah Palin embodies.

Translation: True Americans admire Sarah Palin for having successfully projected a positive image of themselves.

We know that bureaucrats and, even more, Fedzilla, are not the solution; they are the problem.

Translation: The world may appear complex, but our problem is singular and simple. And Sarah Palin, just like every other Fox News viewer, knows the answer to it.

I'd be proud to share a moose-barbecue campfire with the Palin family anytime, so long as I can shoot the moose.

Translation: By the way, real Americans like Sarah Palin and me love to kill defenseless wild animals with guns.

Conclusion: Once you get beyond the colorful verbiage, it's evident that Ted Nugent has pretty much summed up the essence of the Sarah Palin phenomenon. Here's my translation in full:

It's not so much anything Sarah Palin has done that makes her good (after all, she can't even play an instrument), she's good because she successfully projects the qualities many Americans wish to see in themselves. Sarah Palin plays an active role in politics and is popular with many real Americans. Whatever real Americans happen like must be good, so if we like Sarah Palin, she must be good. Sarah Palin is a successful projection of the qualities many real Americans fear losing; Real Americans admire Sarah Palin for having successfully projected a positive image of themselves. The world may appear complex, but our problem is singular and simple. And Sarah Palin, just like every other Fox News viewer, knows that cutting government is the answer. By the way, real Americans like Sarah Palin and me love to kill defenseless wild animals with guns.

What corporations stand to profit from new Arizona immigration law?

Jotman — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:16:00 +0000

JOTMAN.COM:

... CCA facilities in Arizona contracting with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement include the Eloy and Florence correctional centers -- two of nearly one thousand immigration detention facilities nationwide (map). According to CCA, its facilities bring economic benefits: "... communities in which CCA facilities are located realize many benefits, including new, career-driven employment opportunities, increased demand for local goods and services, and additional tax revenue."

Arizona immigration bill promises more detentions, higher profits for corporations

Jotman — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:12:00 +0000

Companies based in the State of Arizona are about to be blacklisted. And that's appropriate because the state's business culture likely bears as much responsibility for a racist new law as any anti-immigrant crusaders.

Continued...

America's meek environmental groups

Jotman — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 23:15:00 +0000

Happy Earth Day! Some thoughts about the American environmental movement.

Bloggers keeping CNN honest

Jotman — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:23:00 +0000

The moto for CNN host Anderson Cooper's show AC360 is "keeping them honest."

Last week, this blogger was among hundreds of CNN viewers who appropriated and acted upon this principle. Salon's Glenn Greenwald raised several concerns of his own about CNN coverage:

The blogger Jotman has been relentlessly chronicling CNN's truly awful and propagnadistic "reporting" on the WikiLeaks tape -- see here and here. Aside from CNN's constant attempts to justify and obscure what was done, they simply refuse to show the most graphic and harrowing (i.e., the most revealing) parts of the video. Wolf Blitzer actually justified this self-censorship with the smug claim that it was "out of respect for the family members" of the victims -- as though they would want the evidence of what was done to their loved ones to be suppressed -- and other CNN programs are sticking a huge black box over the video during the most important parts so as to prevent their viewers from seeing what actually happened:

The video released by WikiLeaks has now been seen by close to 4 million people on YouTube alone, but CNN either refuses outright to show the most revealing parts or treats those parts like they're too naughty for their fragile, childish viewers to see. This is a perfect example of how the American media helps to propagandize the public and obscure the truth: it's virtually always the case that these realities of what our Government is doing are simply kept away from Americans, but in the rare instances where it has to be addressed (because of what WikiLeaks did), CNN takes affirmative steps to block its viewers from seeing what it really is.

I haven't been able to stomach CNN since the episode unfolded.

Anwar al-Awlaki, the muslim American Obama has sentenced to death

Jotman — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 11:32:00 +0000

President Obama has taken it upon himself to order the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who happens to be an American citizen. When a US president orders the killing -- without trial -- of an American, he crosses a line.

More here.

Airline charges passengers for use of overhead compartment

Jotman — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 02:33:00 +0000

CNN: Spirit Airlines announced Tuesday that it will charge its customers $20 to $45 for items they place in the overhead bins. Each passenger will still able to bring one personal item that fits under a seat for free, such as a purse,...

WikiLeaks video: Shame on CNN!

Jotman — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:34:00 +0000

CNN viewers around the world are shouting three words in unison: "Shame on CNN!" Yesterday, tracking the response of the US media to the release of the WikiLeaks video, I blogged:

CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviewed Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr about the video. The network presented a short clip from the video. Out of "respect for the families of the journalists killed" CNN does not show the Apache helicopter actually firing on the group of men. What is really bizarre is that this CNN report makes no mention at all of the unconscionable attack on the rescue van which killed the rescuers and seriously injured two children.

Continued here . . .

US news media cover-up of WikiLeaks video?

Jotman — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:17:00 +0000

Two questions arise about US media coverage of the WikiLeaks video:

1. At what point today did the MSM media decide that this story was "news"?
2. What is to account for the staggering omission in the CNN Situation Room report in which Wolf Blitzer interviews Barbara Starr about the video?

More on these questions.

US military video obtained by WikiLeaks

Jotman — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:52:00 +0000

Spokesmen for the US military lied to the press about what actually happened. The Pentagon falsely claimed that the incident had been properly investigated.

Continued....

The too-consumeristic ipad frenzy has a silver lining

Jotman — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 01:11:00 +0000

One word: travel.

Sarah Palin's letter to her Facebook fans is misleading

Jotman — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:13:00 +0000

UPDATED

In response to the passage by the House of Representatives of the Senate's health care reform bill on Sunday, Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page today:

With the president signing this unwanted and “transformative” government takeover of our health care system today with promises impossible to keep, let's not get discouraged. Don't get demoralized. Get organized!

We're going to reclaim the power of the people from those who disregarded the will of the people. We're going to fire them and send them back to the private sector, which has been shrinking thanks to their destructive government-growing policies. Maybe when they join the millions of unemployed, they'll understand why Americans wanted them to focus on job creation and an invigorated private sector. Come November, we're going to print pink slips for members of Congress as fast as they've been printing money. . . . .

The three statements I have highlighted above are false. The first two points are familiar Fox News/GOP spin. But the third falsehood seems to be a Sarah Palin original. It's that ludicrous.

First, is Obama's health care reform package really unwanted? Most Americans either support the Obama health care reform bill or believe it isn't liberal enough. This is apparent when you look at the latest poll results closely, as Greenwald has done:

A new CNN poll today finds that Americans oppose the current health care plan by a margin of 59-39%, but a sizable portion of those opposed -- 13% -- oppose it because "it is not liberal enough" (see questions 20 and 21):

Thus, a majority of Americans either support the plan or believe it should be more liberal (52%), while only a minority (43%) oppose the plan on the ground that it is too liberal.

Second, what government take-over of health care? Obama's health care reform bill -- more accurately described as health insurance reform -- promises to provide the health insurance industry with 29 million new customers by 2019.

Third, is the private sector shrinking thanks to government-growing policies? The stimulus spending bill passed in 2009 -- which Sarah now opposes -- did not shrink the private sector. It has had the opposite effect. Some spending went to contractors in the private sector. To the extent stimulus spending saved the jobs of public sector employees, it also bolstered the private sector. In a capitalist economy, when you save a public sector worker's job, you also save the private sector jobs of those who supply these workers with homes, entertainment, groceries, transportation, etc. Of course, a large part of the stimulus bill went toward tax cuts. What some economists have, in fact, argued is that government spending will raise the deficit, lead to inflation, and thereby have a detrimental effect on the private sector growth some number of years in the future. Paul Krugman, among other economists, does not share this concern. Anyway, this was not the point Sarah Palin made. Her assertion, that "government growing policies" are responsible for having caused the "shrinking" of the "private sector," is utter nonsense.

Palin's latest Facebook entry provides further support for the already overwhelming case that the former governor of Alaska is either recklessly ill-informed or willfully disingenuous about the critical public policy issues of the day.

UPDATE: Two points of my critique suppose that Palin adheres to a conventional understanding of terms like "private sector" and "government." Because I have heard nothing from Palin to suggest otherwise, my critique likewise adheres to the conventional distinction.

Conventionally we think of "government" to be an entity distinct from the private sector, and we refer to an industry such as the health insurance providers as "private sector." Yet it is potentially misleading to speak of certain industries (banking, military-industrial, health insurance, energy) and various branches of the US government as if they were independent of one another. From this convergence many of today's problems arise.

Air France: Obese passengers must now pay for two seats

Jotman — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 10:13:00 +0000

In response to an investigation into a crash landing in which Air France staff struggled to free a fat passenger from a seat while the jet burned, Air France has announced that obese passengers must pay for an extra seat. Purchase of a second seat...

Did China cause the Mekong River droubt?

Jotman — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:43:00 +0000

When will China realize that a lesson it learned during the 2003 SARS crisis has broad applicability?

Continued...

Will Obama join the Republican Party?

Jotman — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 21:07:00 +0000

I thought it was sad that in 2008 McCain-Palin built a presidential campaign around a panacea. A policy that was not a foundation for long-term prosperity.

The Republican Party put the advocacy of offshore drilling at the forefront of its 2008 campaign. The trouble with the idea is that drilling amounts to only 3 or 4 years' supply of oil.

Now "drill baby, drill!" is front and center of Obama's energy agenda. That's a shame -- one that speaks volumes to the president's priorities.

Will Obama join the Republican Party? In so far as he prioritizes the interests of corporate donors, he already has.

WikiLeaks Vs the Pentagon

Jotman — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:27:00 +0000

It may well be the most important website you have never heard of. The following video answers the question: What is WikiLeaks?

As the founder of the website makes clear, the concept itself is the very embodiment of American values.

This post asks a more urgent question: Why is the United States out to destroy it?

Arrested? Obama thinks the state should have your DNA

Jotman — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:45:00 +0000

Wired:

When it comes to civil liberties, the Obama administration has come under fire for often mirroring his predecessor’s practices surrounding state secrets, the Patriot Act and domestic spying. There’s also Gitmo, Jay Bybee and John Yoo.

Now there’s DNA sampling. Obama told Walsh he supported the federal government, as well as the 18 states that have varying laws requiring compulsory DNA sampling of individuals upon an arrest for crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. The data is lodged in state and federal databases, and has fostered as many as 200 arrests nationwide, Walsh said.

The American Civil Liberties Union claims DNA sampling is different from mandatory, upon-arrest fingerprinting that has been standard practice in the United States for decades. A fingerprint, the group says, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.

Perhaps you think you won't get arrested because you obey the law. I had assumed you had to do something illegal to get arrested, until this happened to me.

Even if you trust the government will not misuse it, what makes you so sure the data will be kept safe and secure?

Bluefin tuna: endangered and overfished

Jotman — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:36:00 +0000

UPDATE: See this post.

This week delegates at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) consider a proposal on the table for a complete ban on international trade of the bluefin tuna to allow stocks to regenerate. Clearly, the time has come to ban the fishing of bluefish tuna, but a number of countries refuse to act responsibly. In this post, we are going to name and shame these lousy global citizens.

NPR reports:

. . .. a ban on fishing bluefish tuna, it is necessary because the Atlantic bluefin is a migratory species that swims from the western Atlantic to the Mediterranean — putting it beyond any one country's border. Compounding the tuna's plight is the growing threat from illegal fishing fleets and the failure of existing measures to keep the population sustainable. Patrick Van Klaveren, a delegate with the Monaco delegation. "With bluefin tuna, it's not a question of 10 or 20 years but five or six years or less to see the stock collapse."

When a fish stock "collapses" it may not come back -- ever. Just ask a Newfoundland Atlantic Cod fisherman. Atlantic Cod was plentiful off the Grand Banks until the fishery collapsed in the mid-1990s.

Bluefish tuna is loaded with mercury, so it's a wonder that so many people want to eat the stuff.

RESPONSIBLE GLOBAL CITIZENS

Monaco - "the sponsor of the proposed ban on the export of Atlantic bluefin tuna — says numbers have fallen by nearly 75 percent since 1957." (NPR)
United States - Supporter of the ban
Eurpean Union - Supporter of the ban

DISGRACEFUL GLOBAL CITIZENS

China - believed to be opposed to the ban (AP)
Canada- believed to be opposed to the ban (AP)
Australia - "backed a weakened proposal at the 175-nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species that would regulate the trade but not ban it outright." (AP)
New Zealand - Ministry of Fisheries wants to increase New Zealand's quota from 420 to 532 tonnes, partly because it was allocated smaller limits than other countries in previous years. (RNZ)
Peru - backed a weakened proposal
Spain, Greece and Malta - have significant tuna industries; they oppose the ban.
Japan - Japanese have proposed that the tuna stocks be managed regionally, an approach conservationists say wouldn't work since the fish cross international borders... Japan won’t comply with a total ban, and would instead prefer a fishing quota.... Japan, meanwhile, hopes to fend off the ban by enlisting the support of developing nations in Africa and Latin America. Tokyo said that even if a ban is implemented, it could use a treaty technicality to opt out of the agreement by expressing “reservations,” and would then continue to import from other countries. (NPR)

In Japanese the word for shame or disgrace is chijoku.

Certain other countries listed above have far smaller tuna fleets than Japan, yet have nevertheless failed to voice unequivocal support for a ban. Arguably these countries are the most chijoku of all.
____
Illustrations from How to draw a tuna.

Good blog about Antarctica

Jotman — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:35:00 +0000

Check out Antarcticana.

Bangkok Demonstrations on March 15

Jotman — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:32:00 +0000

AP reports that Abhisit rejected the protesters' demand on national television.

The Al Jazeera correspondent reports (at 12:00pm BKK from outside the army base) that speakers have been set up outside the army base, broadcasting songs from the Northeast of Thailand -- where many of the protesters live. The protesters don't seem to have any intention of taking over the base (which would be extremely difficult)....

Targeting Abhisit, Red Shirts march on Bangkok military base

New York City taxi scam

Jotman — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:23:00 +0000

In America, driving a bank off a cliff is not considered half as serious as scamming your passengers.

Bankers Gouged Taxpayers Out of Trillions

Jotman — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:13:00 +0000

That headline never appeared in the New York Times. Here's one that did.

Jesse Ventura goes on Fox News

Jotman — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:57:00 +0000

Ventura gives "Fox and Friends" a piece of his mind.

Oscars live-blog 2010

Jotman — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:50:00 +0000

Find out who is there live.

Used Japanese car imports power economy of the Russian Far East

Jotman — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:59:00 +0000

Russian Jotman reader Sanjuro writes:

Triggered by the news of proposed higher import tariffs for used foreign-made cars, drivers in Vladivostok, Nakhodka and other Far Eastern cities (followed by other regional centers in Siberia and European part of Russia), convened in large numbers and demanded to drop the proposed tariffs and carried crude slogans suggesting the Russian political elites to use Russian cars instead of their Mercedes-Benzes.

This is the one of the rare instances that I recall (except perhaps the equally potentially dangerous social outrage in 2005-2006 over the failed social security reform) where the people's anger is aimed directly at ex-President Putin. Even as PM he is largely perceived as the sole center of responsibility and, in addition, as PM he is technically responsible for enacting of the proposed tariffs. Crude remarks and outright hostility towards Mr Putin from the Far Eastern drivers and car merchants come at stark constrast with the recently staged TV talk show.

According to the Kommersant, the regional parliament of the Primorsky Kray (one of the main constituencies of the Russian Far East, with its capital in Vladivostok) appealed to the federal government with a request to withdraw the proposal citing "growing social tensions". The Kommersant reports that Nov 22 protests gathered about 200 drivers on their cars and Dec 14, the number grew to nearly 2000 (http://kommersant.ru/doc. aspx?DocsID=1094866). New. Drom.Ru claims about a 1000 drivers in Novosibirsk (http://news.drom.ru/11803. html). The Car Owners Federation website started collecting votes against the proposed new tariffs - 18,200 votes so far (http://www.autofed.ru/ actions/14.12.08.html).

The used car import and transit industry is the sole major job provider in the Russian Far East. In the Primorsky Kray alone approximately 100,000 people (local parliament's figure) are engaged in importing used Japanese cars and delivering them to buyers across Siberia, reaching the Urals and beyond. Russian Car Drivers Movement claims that 60% of the Primorsky Kray are engaged in this industry, but this is likely an exaggeration. In any case almost anyone living and working in Siberia and the Russian Far East would be affected by the new tariffs.

Among drivers in Siberia and the Russian Far East, there is certain affection towards these old Japanese vehicles, deep respect towards the Japan carmaking industry. There's also some sense of camaderie amongst the drivers and people in the tough car transit industry that potentially makes them a formidable political force. These people are not necessarily aggressive, but their business remembers violent times. I have visited Vladivostok in 1998 and 2004, and from I recall, I could also tell there's deeply embedded separatism in the Far East. Usually latent, it becomes apparent in incidents such as this. Vladivostok has been one of the rare politically active cities in Russia with quite turbulent history of new governance.

Both Kommersant and Gazeta.Ru report that unlike in case with the annual march of the dissidents, authorities are apparently taking these protests very seriously. So far the official reaction has been vague, mixed and reserved.

http://www.gazeta.ru/auto/ 2008/12/15_a_2911448.shtml

There some pictures on local Vladivostok websites:

http://news.vl.ru/vlad/2005/ 11/17/akcijaproshla/

http://foto.drom.ru/1043/

http://news.drom.ru/11803.html (This one has videos)

Chinese American to serve as Obama's Energy Secretary

Jotman — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:11:00 +0000

Fallows applauds Obama's decision to bring Steven Chu into his administration:

Identity politics is a second- or third-order aspect of this nomination. Mainly his choice says something about the role of real science in public life, about America's commitment to retain its leadership as a research power, and about the redoubling of scientific/technical efforts to deal with energy and climate problems. But in karmic terms it doesn't hurt that Chu, who was born in St. Louis of Chinese parents, will head the very department that, under then-secretary Bill Richardson, was involved in the Wen Ho Lee imbroglio in the late 1990s. (In brief: Lee, who was born in Taiwan and who worked at Los Alamos, was accused of massive theft of U.S. nuclear secrets on China's behalf. The NY Times loudly trumpeted this story. Eventually nearly all the charges were dropped, and the presiding federal judge apologized to Lee for government excesses.) Again, this is not a reason to have chosen him, but it's worth noticing.

More about Steven Chu here.

China and US global warming politics

Jotman — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:15:00 +0000

I recently blogged about a legislative issue in the US that concerns precisely the point where the world's number one policy issue intersects with the world's most important bilateral relationship: Climate change on one hand, and US-China relations on the other.

Should the US should take a carrot or a stick approach to China? Even among those who agree on global warming policy, there are differences of opinion concerning tactics by which various countries -- especially China -- might be brought on board. Case in point: Although journalist James Fallows and economist Paul Krugman both share similar views on a range of issues (both stand in agreement that climate change action is of the utmost importance), they have expressed quite different views on the question of means. That is, the manner by which a global agreement can best be reached.

A few weeks ago James Fallows, based in China, expressed disapproval of a column Krugman wrote in his NT Times after a visit to China. This line gives you an idea of the tone of the Krugman article:

Each time I raised the issue during my visit, I was met with outraged declarations that it was unfair to expect China to limit its use of fossil fuels. . . .

Fallows responded: "I've heard that Chinese response too many times to count. But it's mainly a throat-clearing prelude to talking-turkey discussions about what the country will and can do, and under what circumstances." Fallows says many Chinese he has spoken to are not nearly so intransigent on the issue of climate change as Krugman believes:

While his conclusion -- that China has to be part of global efforts to control carbon emissions -- is obviously correct and important, his premise -- that no one in China admits this -- does not square with my observation over these past three years. . . .

If blunt-instrument outside pressure like this column makes it more likely that Chinese authorities will keep making progress, then as a pure matter of power-politics I say: fine. But my guess and observation is that it is just as likely to get their back up -- and encourage the ever-present victimization mentality that makes it less rather than more likely that Chinese authorities will behave "responsibly" on the international stage.

Concerning global climate change policy, should the US take a leading-by-doing approach, or adopt a more coercive approach to getting countries like China to cooperate?

My perspective.
_____
* ----> Recommended reading: Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?.

China scholars: Tibet riots rooted in valid complaints

Jotman — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:53:00 +0000

NY Times (via CDT):

A group of prominent Chinese lawyers and legal scholars have released a research report arguing that the Tibetan riots and protests of March 2008 were rooted in legitimate grievances brought about by failed government policies — and not through a plot of the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader.

... The research paper was quietly posted last month on Chinese Web sites, and an English translation was released this week by the International Campaign for Tibet, an advocacy group based in Washington.

Comparison: China's high speed rail plans Vs Obama's for America

Jotman — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:50:00 +0000

Here's one critical difference between the US and China -- and Obama touched on it in his "State of the Union" speech: Whereas increasingly, the infrastructure of China is sparkling and new, the infrastructure of the United States is crumbling and old.

What has China been up to with respect to high-speed rail? And how does Obama plan to close the "rail gap"?

The answer might astound you.

Google and China-US relations

Jotman — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:34:00 +0000

James Fallows, having recently returned from China after a long stay, has blogged a particularly interesting post concerning Google's decision to pull out of China. Fallows points to a string of recent developments that give the appearance that China is entering a particularly antagonistic -- but not threatening -- phase with respect to its relations with the outside world:

But there are also reasons to think that a difficult and unpleasant stage of China-US and China-world relations lies ahead. This is so on the economic front, as warned about here nearly a year ago with later evidence here. It may prove to be so on the environmental front -- that is what the argument over China's role in Copenhagen is about. It is increasingly so on the political-liberties front, as witness Vaclav Havel's denunciation of the recent 11-year prison sentence for the man who is in many ways his Chinese counterpart, Liu Xiaobo. And if a major U.S. company -- indeed, Google has been ranked the #1 brand in the world -- has concluded that, in effect, it must break diplomatic relations with China because its policies are too repressive and intrusive to make peace with, that is a significant judgment.

I should add that Fallows recent posts concerning the Copenhagen negotiations have provided rare glimpses of the Chinese leadership in action. The accounts were weird enough to make me wonder whether China might be experiencing some serious internal conflicts. Of course, no one seems to be talking this way. But as Xiao Qiang asked some journalists gathered in Helsinki, what makes us so sure the experts have China right?

How many Muslims live in China?

Jotman — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:06:00 +0000

There are more Muslims in China (22 million) than either Malaysia or Syria.

According to a recent Pew report, "There are Muslims in every province of China, but the highest concentrations are in the west, primarily in Xinjiang, Ningxia and Gansu, with other significant populations in Henan, Qinghai, Yunnan, Hebei and Shandong. Xinjiang is the only Muslim-majority province of China, with Muslims accounting for approximately 53% of the total population."

Could a voucher program save journalism?

Jotman — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:19:00 +0000

McChesney and Nichols, authors of The Life and Death of American Journalism, turn to the America's founding fathers in search of solutions for the crisis facing journalism.

Team USA at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver

Jotman — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:25:00 +0000

American athletes march in to the Opening Ceremonies of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver.

Did Sarah Palin write these questions?

Jotman — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 07:50:00 +0000

In the previous post I introduced readers to GOOOH, a group that has a plan for returning control of the House of Representatives to the American people. This new political movement claims to be independent and non-partisan.

Integral to GOOOH's candidate-selection process is that every member of GOOOH -- and would-be candidate -- complete a long questionnaire. I decided to take the "Candidate Questionaire" myself. Here are some of the questions, plus my reactions whilst attempting to answer them:

Can you confirm that you have never been a member of, or made a donation of any amount to, the KKK or NAMBLA, and that you have not made a donation of more than $100 to the ACLU after the age of 30 or after the year 1999? This GOOOH question equates the ACLU with a group advocating pedophilia and the KKK.
Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution with a “law of predominant majority”, which says the “rights” of groups can be denied if they have consistently demonstrated behavior that 95% of the population considers unacceptable? For example, 95% of the population would likely vote that a public KKK rally should NOT be allowed, overriding the “right” of free speech for that particular group. How is the government supposed to determine what 95% of the population wants when under 65% of Americans vote in any election?
Will you vote for or against limiting the fees a plaintiff’s legal representative can receive to one hundred times the amount a plaintiff in the case receives? As an example, if a plaintiff receives $10,000, the combined legal fees could not exceed one million dollars. Yet no limit on the amount a corporation can spend in its own defense?
Will you vote for or against providing government funds to the ACLU? Why always single out the ACLU?
Will you vote for or against multiplying by ten the prison sentence of those convicted of possessing drugs that are not willing to provide information that leads to the conviction of their supplier? Let's suppose the supplier is not convicted, say due to a technicality?
Will you vote for or against reducing farm subsidy allocations by at least 25 percent each year you are in office? For.
Will you vote for or against limiting foreign aid to ten or less countries in any year? "fewer"
Will you vote for or against a federal budget that includes any item whose benefit is primarily for a single state (e.g., a bridge in Alaska, or a levee in Louisiana)? After Hurricane Katrina, who would dare equate federal spending on a levee for Louisiana with a bridge (to nowhere) in Alaska?
Will you vote for or against only applying the Endangered Species Act to animals that are larger in mass than a marble (i.e. eliminate protection for species such as salamanders, crickets, and spiders), unless a critical contribution to the ecosystem is defined? Did Sarah Palin write these questions?
Will you vote for or against establishing a .xxx Internet domain (e.g., www.notforkids.xxx) and imposing steep fines and significant jail time for all sites that provide access to pornographic material outside of this domain? Define pornographic.
Will you vote for or against limiting total military spending to 3% of GDP, excluding periods when our nation is imminently at risk of war with another country or a recognized military unit (i.e., claiming we are at war with terrorists is not the same as being at war with another country)? Worth considering.
Will you vote for or against decreasing total foreign aid contributions to match the average contributions of the leading countries in the world in absolute dollars: Britain ($4.9b), Germany ($5.3b), France ($5.5b), China ($0), Russia ($0), Australia ($1.0b), Canada ($1.0b), and Japan ($9.9b), or approximately $3.5 billion per year ($27.6b / 8)? An "absolute dollars" criteria means that the average American would contribute less than the average citizen of any other developed country. What kind of cheapskate rat proposed this question?
Will you vote for or against United Nations recommendations or dictates given to the United States? Since the US has a veto on the Security Council, a "dictate" cannot be issued from the UN to the US.
Will you vote for or against processing all people who commit a crime against a U.S. citizen who are not U.S. citizens in military tribunals instead of the U.S. legal system? (Effectively declaring they do not have the same rights as our citizens.) "Do unto others..."
Will you vote for or against allowing government assistance (of any kind) to a company that has A- or lower bond rating (S&P). ... government assistance of any kind?

In the previous post, I quoted this GOOOH rule:

Candidates are required to sign a binding agreement, before they are selected, that ensures they will vote according to their documented answers once in office. If they do not, they will be legally obligated to resign within 72 hours.

If GOOOH ever gets one of its candidates elected, the movement will surely be a boon to lawyers. The elected GOOOH politician-drones would have no time to legislate. They will be preoccupied with responding to various lawsuits accusing them of having acted contrary to this or that insanely-worded item on the Candidate Questionnaire.

If you should want to take this tedious questionnaire yourself (there are better ways to spend your time), visit the GOOOH website. If you want your answers to count, you will first have to pay GOOOH $100.00.

UPDATE: One further observation about the GOOOH Candidate Questionnaire has taken some time to sink in. It occurs to me that many of the questions are worded in a rather tricky way. That is, the answer seems straightforward unless you happen know something about the subject (the UN question); or you take the time to think through the implications (plaintiff, foreign aid question, etc). Many of these question/statements more resemble what a lobbyist would ask to throw a poll or manipulate a state referendum than what sincere citizens would come up with on their own. Who came up with the questions, and how?

The more fundamental problem isn't the questions themselves, but the premise that citizens know or care enough about all of these issues that they should even want to hold elected representatives to account for obeying their response to every item on such a survey. I suspect few people even have a strong opinion -- let alone an informed opinion -- on even half these questions.

What is Goooh?

Jotman — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 07:19:00 +0000

Recently I came across a video in which Ralph Nader, the independent consumer-rights advocate who keeps running for president, said that he now thinks the best hope for cleaning up US democracy would be to focus on electing true representatives of the people to the House of Representatives. A movement to do so has emerged in the form of GOOOH (pronounced "go").

Goooh (for Get Out Of Our House) is a movement founded by someone named Tim Cox who has written a book. It seems to be gaining some traction among the so-called ~~"tea-bag"~~ "tea-party" constituency of outraged Republican voters. According to the website,

It is a NON-PARTISAN plan to evict the 435 career politicians in the U.S. House of Representatives and replace them with everyday Americans just like you.

Well, it claims to be non-partisan. If you go to the links section of the website, beside one of the links (Most Corrupt Politicians) there is a warning: "beware, most claim this site is largely funded by Democrats / Progressives." The need for the warning is not clear to me as fully half the "most corrupt" politicians listed are Dems. On the link list, I did not see any "warnings" about websites funded by persons associated with Republican/Conservatives (as are several of the "tea party" groups listed). When GOOOH claims to be non-partisan, I suppose it is rather like the Fox News claim to be "fair and balanced."

Americanpolicy.org blog describes the selection process for GOOOH candidates:

To become a candidate for Congress through the GOOOH System, one must first become a GOOOH member and complete the Questionnaire. Then they must pass a screening exam to ensure they meet all the requirements for holding office, including citizenship, age, etc.

Then, candidates are asked to sign a “Commitment Letter” confirming, if elected, they will vote according to their questionnaire answers and that they will not accept special interest money should they be elected to Congress.

The selection process has several stages. According to the group's website:

Once we have the membership needed to succeed participants will be sorted, randomly, into pools of ten within their congressional district. Each pool will use our peer-selection process to select two candidates who will advance to the next round. The process will repeat until a single person emerges in each of the 435 congressional districts. Since every district is unique in its political views, we expect the final 435 GOOOH candidates to run the political spectrum from liberal to conservative.

Candidates are required to sign a binding agreement, before they are selected, that ensures they will vote according to their documented answers once in office. If they do not, they will be legally obligated to resign within 72 hours.

I can't help think GOOOH is at once too simplistic (with their drive toward check-list democracy) and also too complicated. For example, a candidate can change his position on an issue, but only after submitting his intention to a website referendum.

There might be a more significant problem with the concept. Once you register at the site, you are taken to a four-step sign-up menu:

Pass the candidate screening exam
Complete the Candidate Questionnaire
Sign a “Commitment Letter”
Donate $100 to the GOOOH system

If I understand it correctly, the only way to "activate" your participation in GOOOH's "direct democracy" movement is to donate $100. Woa! How do I know that GOOOH is not some kind of scam?

In the next post, I report on my experience taking the "Candidate Questionnaire."

How much will the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed cost?

Jotman — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:46:00 +0000

Senator Dianne Feinstein argues in a letter to President Obama that the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should be moved out of New York City "to a less prominent, less costly, and equally secure location.” Feinstein writes:

First, the concerns of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other local government officials should be taken seriously. The mayor’s concerns, raised earlier this week in a departure from his initial views, focused on the costs associated with the trial....

Certainly, New Yorkers should not have to bear the anticipated costs of such a trial. Having endured so much, New Yorkers should neither have to pay dearly for justice, nor be denied it. A country that will spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting terrorism with guns can surely afford to pay the relatively small cost of fighting terrorism with Justice.

Feinstein's letter continues:

... the terrorist threat to the United States remains high. Without getting into classified details, I believe we should view the attempted Christmas Day plot as a continuation, not an end, of plots to strike the United States by al-Qa’ida and its affiliates. Moreover, New York City has been a high-priority target since at least the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The trial of the most significant terrorist in custody would add to the threat.

....Our adversaries are capable and adaptive, however, and I believe holding this trial in Manhattan makes their interest in a terrorist attack even stronger.

Politicians like Sen. Feinstein should not propose special arrangements for terrorists. They need to refrain from using phrases like "our adversaries" when describing terrorists. Most of all, they need to stop scaring people.

Where does Sen. Feinstein's logic lead? How many other events should New York forsake holding out of fear of tempting terrorists to target the city? The purpose of terrorism, after all, is to terrorize.

A great nation equates mere outlaws with soldiers at its peril. To her credit Feinstein opposes military tribunals. A worse option than moving the trials, military tribunals dignify terrorists and ennoble their cause.

If the government were to treat suspected 9/11 terrorists as it would any other suspected criminals, this would help to dis-empower terrorists. That's why I think regardless of the cost, irrespective of fear, every effort should be made to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to justice in a jurisdiction where the crimes occurred.

US and China must cooperate on the environment

Jotman — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:59:00 +0000

Fallows, who recently spent several years in China, blogs:

Thirty years from now, the most important aspect of Barack Obama's interaction with China will be whether the two countries, together, can do anything about environmental and climate issues. If they can, in 2039 we'll look back on this as something like the Silent Spring/Clean Air Act moment in American history, which began a change toward broad environmental improvement. If they can't....

How many Muslims live in sub-Saharan Africa?

Jotman — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:09:00 +0000

Pew reports:

Sub-Saharan Africa, which includes 50 countries and territories, has about 241 million Muslims, which is about 15% of the world Muslim population. Nigeria has the largest Muslim population in Sub-Saharan Africa, with about 78 million Muslims (about 50% of Nigeria's total population). Almost one-in-three Muslims (about 32%) in Sub-Saharan Africa live in Nigeria. Western Africa is the only area in Sub-Saharan Africa with a Muslim majority. In contrast, the southern part of Africa has the smallest Muslim population.

Obama September 9 speech to Congress

Jotman — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:43:00 +0000

I've live-blogged Obama's speech to Congress about health care. See here.

Palin house scandal

Jotman — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:57:00 +0000

Is an iceberg about to sink the good ship Palin? Was the brewing of a new scandal the explanation for Sarah Palin's resignation? Sarah doesn't want bloggers to speculate, she's threatening the press.

To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those “responsible for the abuse of that right.” Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.

The big question: will iceberg gate turn out to be "house gate" -- the alleged scandal that we learned about back in October?

Hat tip Sullivan

Americans would support for health care bill if they understood it

Jotman — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:01:00 +0000

While searching for the polling data reported in this post, I came across a blog comment that relates to my own observation: that the public knows little about the Obama health care bill. Eliza Jane Dodd commented at Healthcare Now:

Why is the WHITE HOUSE AFRAID to TAKE a POLL or have a PETITION for HR676 Universal Health Care ? I know the Bill would Pass ! Every Single Person is Blown away [...] Never have Heard about it and when they read it they all ask: How do we get it and want it! I think something is very FISHY SMELLING in America’s White House. I have E-Mailed over 3,000 E-mails […] EVERYONE WANTS HR676 NOW!

Dodd's observations about the reaction of her countrymen after she tells them the specifics of HR-676 are not surprising if you consider the polling data. The polls show that American want that which happens to be in the bill. Of course, the White House has done more to advance the issue since Dodd's comment was posted in February -- but arguably not nearly enough.

Certainly a lot of blame goes to the media, but the White House is hardly off the hook.

Health care reform: a priority for Obama?

Jotman — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:36:00 +0000

Earlier in the month, I noted that "In domestic politics . . . Obama's inclination to play the "unity card" has tended to undermine the position of many of his supporters at the bargaining table to the advantage of his Republican opponents." Well, he's at it again. Krugman blogs:

My big fear about Obama has always been not that he doesn’t understand the issues, but that his urge to compromise — his vision of himself as a politician who transcends the old partisan divisions — will lead him to negotiate with himself, and give away far too much. He did that on the stimulus bill, where he offered an inadequate plan in order to win bipartisan support, then got nothing in return — and was forced to reduce the plan further so that Susan Collins could claim her pound of flesh.

And now he’s done it on a key component of health care reform. What was the point of signaling, right at this crucial moment, that he’s willing to give away the public plan? Let alone doing it at the very moment that he was making such a good case for it?

There are two possibilities. Obama is 1) just a really lousy negotiator, or 2) not at all serious about achieving meaningful health care reform.

Given that it was Edwards who put health back on the Democrats' agenda, I am not convinced Obama is committed.

Daily Show interviews Iranians and Americans

Jotman — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:00:00 +0000

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Ayatollah You So

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

Health care reform: What does industry want?

Jotman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:14:00 +0000

So where does big business likely stand with respect to health care reform? Pharmaceutical and banking industries can be expected to stand behind the insurance companies who stand the most to lose. Agriculture, of course, is the dominion of the petrochemical industries (fertilizer and pesticides); naturally, petrochem is going to be fully behind whatever big pharma wants: that's no real reform.

On the other hand, industries that employee lots of full-time workers who make things or provide services ought to favor reform. For example, military-industrials stands to gain from health care reform. That's because under the current system companies are saddled with paying for -- often expensive -- health insurance plans for their workers.

So does this mean that the oligarchs are split over health care?

Not exactly. The problem is that even industries that must pay the full burden of insuring workers have often been able to escape the burden of employer-financed health care by passing the costs along to their workers in the form of lower wages. So I don't imagine that the oligarchs are going to have a civil war among themselves over this particular issue.

The principle beneficiary of real health reform is middle-class America. The only question is whether the people still count in Washington.

Poor Americans forced to hunt for food

Jotman — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:13:00 +0000

Barbara Ehrenreich, NYT:

There are other, less life-threatening, ways to try to make ends meet. The Associated Press has reported that more women from all social classes are resorting to stripping, although “gentlemen’s clubs,” too, have been hard-hit by the recession. The rural poor are turning increasingly to “food auctions,” which offer items that may be past their sell-by dates.
And for those who like their meat fresh, there’s the option of urban hunting. In Racine, Wis., a 51-year-old laid-off mechanic told me he’s supplementing his diet by “shooting squirrels and rabbits and eating them stewed, baked and grilled.” In Detroit, where the wildlife population has mounted as the human population ebbs, a retired truck driver is doing a brisk business in raccoon carcasses, which he recommends marinating with vinegar and spices.

Ehrenreich observes: "Larry Mishel, the president of the Economic Policy Institute, offers data showing that blue-collar unemployment is increasing three times as fast as white-collar unemployment."

Her sobering conclusion?

The recession of the ’80s transformed the working class into the working poor, as manufacturing jobs fled to the third world, forcing American workers into the low-paying service and retail sector. The current recession is knocking the working poor down another notch — from low-wage employment and inadequate housing toward erratic employment and no housing at all. Comfortable people have long imagined that American poverty is far more luxurious than the third world variety, but the difference is rapidly narrowing.