Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Vae Victis

Aircraft Carrier? I hardly Know 'Er!

For those of you who have thought that going to war with Iran would be unthinkable, think on the fact that the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis will be deployed this month to the Persian Gulf to join aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Persian Gulf. This could easily and understandably be considered a military blockade by the nation of Iran and at the very least, a provocative action.

The United States has a history of provoking native peoples going back to the birth of our nation and then blaming them for our going to war.

Luckily for us, Tehran is so far proving much more civilized than Washington. After all, a military blockade is an act of war. The New York Post reports that the carrier groups are "meant to make Iran rethink its nuclear program" in a hawkish article entitle How to Fight Iran. Not surprisingly, no one is too keen on mentioning that to start another war with Iran, or even a military blockade, would be an act of international terrorism by our own definitions, and George Bush would be considered a terrorist.

According to the United States Criminal Code:

(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that—


(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

In fact, the whole New York Post article is on how to conduct a terrorist operation by a large and well funded terrorist organization. The organization: The United States of America. The funds: Loans from China and Japan as well as United States Taxpayer Dollars.

Pax Americanna et Vae Victis.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Minimum WAGE! Hee-yah!

An article from the esteemed pundit John Martin from www.strike-the-root.com has mentioned a few problems with a National Minimum Wage increase.

Luckily, I've already written an article that easily sweeps away all of his concerns. I suggest everyone read his article so that one can familiarize oneself with the so called argument from the Right, which would seem reasonable to the uninformed. Follow up with my short essay, The High Cost of Low Wages".

To respond further:

Notice that he doesn't bother to ask why any of those negatives to the economy occur. None of those so-called consequences are endemic like an immune response to the common cold. All of those actions are unnecessary and directed actions by corporate entities.

He doesn't mention that while there has been no mandatory minimum wage increase at the lowest echelons of production and service since 1997, which, according to him, would cause a significant economic downturn, there has been plenty of discretionary wage increases at the highest pay levels without any thought to the impact on the economy.

His so called fears about inflation are a veritable Red Herring as the introduction of the a minimum wage in 1933 did nothing to hurt the economy nor did it cause inflation. A look at reports of inflation before the minimum wage will show wild changes of inflation sometimes nearing 25%.

U.S. Department of Labor
Inflation Data

There has been a steady increase in the minimum wage since 1933 with no discernible correlation to inflation rates. On the contrary, after the establishment of a minimum wage, inflation remained more or less steady at around 3% with world wide economic shocks that never brought inflation much over 10% for more than a year. Moreover, after the last wage increase inflation average around a comfortable 2% for 3 years. Contrast with last year's inflation of over 4% after no wage increases for almost 10 years.

If this gentleman wants a true free market atmosphere without government interference, then, in addition to ditching the minimum wage he's going to have to give up taxpayer subsidies, neo-liberal trade policies, the U.S. Military whose "de facto role...will be to keep the world safe for our economy", and corporate bailouts by taxpayer dollar, all of which benefit large businesses and healthily moneyed elites, none of which benefit the taxpayers in the middle or the few at the bottom. With all of the government interference on behalf of businesses, I think one little minimum wage increase on behalf of the worker is only fair.

If not, we can get rid of all of government interference and negotiate wages the old fashioned way. Remember factory fires? Remember 13 hour days, 6 days a week? Eleven year olds toiling in factories, so fed up that these children went on strike? Remember those strikes being put down by bloody force? No, most people don't remember that. That's because some people want you to forget.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Benjamin Franklin Speaks from the Grave

If Benjamin Franklin were to pull his hefty gout infested carcass from the grave today, his zombified hand would point a skeletal finger and the Nation and in a gargled voice he would yell, "Called it!"

"I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

And we would all sit back with satisfied grins and say, "Dude! You so called it!" Then we would run screaming because, Jesus Christ! Benjamin Franklin Zombie Attack!

Disney/ABC and Free Speech

Coverage of Corporate Giant Disney/ABC's attack on small time blogger Spocko.



Thursday, January 04, 2007

He Takes His Secrets to the Grave. Our Complicity Dies with Him

Robert Fisk offers these incites from Common Dreams:

We've shut him up. The moment Saddam's hooded executioner pulled the lever of the trapdoor in Baghdad yesterday morning, Washington's secrets were safe. The shameless, outrageous, covert military support which the United States - and Britain - gave to Saddam for more than a decade remains the one terrible story which our presidents and prime ministers do not want the world to remember. And now Saddam, who knew the full extent of that Western support - given to him while he was perpetrating some of the worst atrocities since the Second World War - is dead.

Gone is the man who personally received the CIA's help in destroying the Iraqi communist party. After Saddam seized power, US intelligence gave his minions the home addresses of communists in Baghdad and other cities in an effort to destroy the Soviet Union's influence in Iraq. Saddam's mukhabarat visited every home, arrested the occupants and their families, and butchered the lot. Public hanging was for plotters; the communists, their wives and children, were given special treatment - extreme torture before execution at Abu Ghraib.

There is growing evidence across the Arab world that Saddam held a series of meetings with senior American officials prior to his invasion of Iran in 1980 - both he and the US administration believed that the Islamic Republic would collapse if Saddam sent his legions across the border - and the Pentagon was instructed to assist Iraq's military machine by providing intelligence on the Iranian order of battle. One frosty day in 1987, not far from Cologne, I met the German arms dealer who initiated those first direct contacts between Washington and Baghdad - at America's request.

"Mr Fisk... at the very beginning of the war, in September of 1980, I was invited to go to the Pentagon," he said. "There I was handed the very latest US satellite photographs of the Iranian front lines. You could see everything on the pictures. There were the Iranian gun emplacements in Abadan and behind Khorramshahr, the lines of trenches on the eastern side of the Karun river, the tank revetments - thousands of them - all the way up the Iranian side of the border towards Kurdistan. No army could want more than this. And I travelled with these maps from Washington by air to Frankfurt and from Frankfurt on Iraqi Airways straight to Baghdad. The Iraqis were very, very grateful!"

I was with Saddam's forward commandos at the time, under Iranian shellfire, noting how the Iraqi forces aligned their artillery positions far back from the battle front with detailed maps of the Iranian lines. Their shelling against Iran outside Basra allowed the first Iraqi tanks to cross the Karun within a week. The commander of that tank unit cheerfully refused to tell me how he had managed to choose the one river crossing undefended by Iranian armour. Two years ago, we met again, in Amman and his junior officers called him "General" - the rank awarded him by Saddam after that tank attack east of Basra, courtesy of Washington's intelligence information.

Iran's official history of the eight-year war with Iraq states that Saddam first used chemical weapons against it on 13 January 1981. AP's correspondent in Baghdad, Mohamed Salaam, was taken to see the scene of an Iraqi military victory east of Basra. "We started counting - we walked miles and miles in this fucking desert, just counting," he said. "We got to 700 and got muddled and had to start counting again ... The Iraqis had used, for the first time, a combination - the nerve gas would paralyse their bodies ... the mustard gas would drown them in their own lungs. That's why they spat blood."

At the time, the Iranians claimed that this terrible cocktail had been given to Saddam by the US. Washington denied this. But the Iranians were right. The lengthy negotiations which led to America's complicity in this atrocity remain secret - Donald Rumsfeld was one of President Ronald Reagan's point-men at this period - although Saddam undoubtedly knew every detail. But a largely unreported document, "United States Chemical and Biological Warfare-related Dual-use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War", stated that prior to 1985 and afterwards, US companies had sent government-approved shipments of biological agents to Iraq. These included Bacillus anthracis, which produces anthrax, andEscherichia coli (E. coli). That Senate report concluded that: "The United States provided the Government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-systems programs, including ... chemical warfare agent production facility plant and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment."

Nor was the Pentagon unaware of the extent of Iraqi use of chemical weapons. In 1988, for example, Saddam gave his personal permission for Lt-Col Rick Francona, a US defence intelligence officer - one of 60 American officers who were secretly providing members of the Iraqi general staff with detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning and bomb damage assessments - to visit the Fao peninsula after Iraqi forces had recaptured the town from the Iranians. He reported back to Washington that the Iraqis had used chemical weapons to achieve their victory. The senior defence intelligence officer at the time, Col Walter Lang, later said that the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis "was not a matter of deep strategic concern".

I saw the results, however. On a long military hospital train back to Tehran from the battle front, I found hundreds of Iranian soldiers coughing blood and mucus from their lungs - the very carriages stank so much of gas that I had to open the windows - and their arms and faces were covered with boils. Later, new bubbles of skin appeared on top of their original boils. Many were fearfully burnt. These same gases were later used on the Kurds of Halabja. No wonder that Saddam was primarily tried in Baghdad for the slaughter of Shia villagers, not for his war crimes against Iran.

We still don't know - and with Saddam's execution we will probably never know - the extent of US credits to Iraq, which began in 1982. The initial tranche, the sum of which was spent on the purchase of American weapons from Jordan and Kuwait, came to $300m. By 1987, Saddam was being promised $1bn in credit. By 1990, just before Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, annual trade between Iraq and the US had grown to $3.5bn a year. Pressed by Saddam's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, to continue US credits, James Baker then Secretary of State, but the same James Baker who has just produced a report intended to drag George Bush from the catastrophe of present- day Iraq - pushed for new guarantees worth $1bn from the US.

In 1989, Britain, which had been giving its own covert military assistance to Saddam guaranteed £250m to Iraq shortly after the arrest of Observer journalist Farzad Bazoft in Baghdad. Bazoft, who had been investigating an explosion at a factory at Hilla which was using the very chemical components sent by the US, was later hanged. Within a month of Bazoft's arrest William Waldegrave, then a Foreign Office minister, said: "I doubt if there is any future market of such a scale anywhere where the UK is potentially so well-placed if we play our diplomatic hand correctly... A few more Bazofts or another bout of internal oppression would make it more difficult."

Saddam knew, too, the secrets of the attack on the USS Stark when, on 17 May 1987, an Iraqi jet launched a missile attack on the American frigate, killing more than a sixth of the crew and almost sinking the vessel. The US accepted Saddam's excuse that the ship was mistaken for an Iranian vessel and allowed Saddam to refuse their request to interview the Iraqi pilot.

The whole truth died with Saddam Hussein in the Baghdad execution chamber yesterday. Many in Washington and London must have sighed with relief that the old man had been silenced for ever.