Who Ya Gonna Call?

Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd (is that really how his last name is spelled?) are too old to catch ghosts. And, frankly, who's going to top Ghostbusters 2? It had Bobby Brown and everything.

In an effort to prove my point, Imams in Malaysia have its their prerogative to issue a fatwa declaring "exhibitions on ghosts, ghouls and supernatural beings were forbidden, as they could undermine the faith of Muslims." This includes genies.

Why, you might ask?

Abdul Shukor Husin, The National Fatwa Council's chair stated, without a hint of irony, "We don't want to expose Muslims to supernatural and superstitious beliefs."

He also mentioned that meta-beings of that nature were beyond the scope of human comprehension. Which leads me to ask, if lesser supernatural beings are beyond human comprehension, what does that say about our ability to comprehend a Supreme Being, the Supreme Being?

Hmm...

Cut and Run? Never!

Luckily for the people of Iraq, Dick Cheney understands their particular wants and needs better than they do. Cheney, along with others in the Bush Administration deliver fair and balanced justice and tough love like a caring father who beats the gay out of his son because he loves him (Not that Iraqis are gay, and not that there's anything wrong with that).

I'm sure that the recent large demonstration in Iraq's spiritual center of Najaf, hundreds of thousands strong, won't affect the measured and stoic considerations that Cheney has for the people of Iraq. They have, unbeknownst to their political naivete, fallen for the Crazy Left-Wing Liberal Communist Baby-Killing America-Hating Godless Democrat's Cowardly Cut and Run Strategy (CLWLCBKAHGDCCRS). But a level headed Cheney understands their mistake, and like their tough but loving father, will assure them that "that the American people do not support a policy of retreat or defeat." Cheney will not allow the Iraqi people to accept defeat. He will guide them towards democracy and self-determination even if it kills every last one of them. He will do this by letting them know that what they want as a people, is not what they really want.

Of course, their burgeoning sense of Democracy is so very quaint. And our Administration certainly lauds them like a pat on the head. Isn't it cute? And just think, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe says, "Iraq [...] is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions, and that was something they could not do under Saddam." Just look at them "gather" with their foamy Nerf Democracy. Don't hurt yourselves! If you scrape a knee, don't worry. We've got our Howitzer packed with Neosporin. And though "this is a country that has come a long way from the tyranny" the Iraqi people need to understand that "we have much more progress ahead of us."

The Iraqis are naive. They don't understand that a functioning democracy allows for people like Don Imus to say whatever they want without fear of government reprisal. But the Iraqi people haven't learned that a functioning democracy also means their government isn't listening.

Thanks to the efforts of Dick Cheney and the rest of America's strong father figures, I think they're learning.

Fair and Balanced

See how an Israeli paper covers Zionism:
On racism against Arabs.
On the hubris of Right Wing Zionism.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Democracy in Latin America Must Be Crushed

Uprising Radio interviews School of the Americas Watch about the quiet lifting of a Military Training Ban for Latin America. The purpose of this lifting was reportedly to combat the democratic shift to the left in Latin America showing Washington's disdain for democracy that doesn't go their way. This ban was lifted in early October, unreported by the media, and is being followed through with the appointment of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Robert Gates was a key player in the Iran-Contra Affair.

The goal, of course, is to reestablish a Wilsonian like Imperialist control of Latin America. This is why there is still a trade embargo on Cuba and why Oliver North, another more public player in the Iran-Contra Affair, was sent to Nicaragua to warn the citizens against voting for the wrong person.

Can you believe they'd ever vote against crippling debt, raping of their national resources through neo-liberal economic policies, and the strangle hold of military dictatorships? I guess those ignorant masses in Latin countries just don't know a good deal when they see it.

Deregulation

Fox is leading the charge for FCC deregulation backed by such media giants as Sinclair and Clear Channel. In a statement to the FCC Fox contends that "opponents of relaxing the media ownership rules continue to advance the spurious claim that deregulation is some sort of 'threat' to democracy" and "their argument is unsupportable, because it wholly ignores the power of the Internet - without doubt the most democratizing technology in the history of human invention."

Let us disregard the several statements of FOXNews conservative so-called journalists who regularly display open disdain for the very idea of plurality in the United States and consider the statement at face value. FOXNews disparages the "spurious claim" that relaxing ownership rules on media "is some sort of 'threat' to democracy" and suggest that the argument that plurality will not be preserved is "unsupportable." This flies in the face of the FCC report in 2004 whose study "suggest that locally owned television broadcast stations air more local news than network owned-and-operated and non-locally owned stations" possibly because "economics of scale in program distribution favor non-local content." Those same economics of scale "induces a smaller owner to favor local content."

Of course, this report was never made public.

Fox is attempting to convince the FCC to not listen to their own publicly funded study on media consolidation. Not to mention that Fox suggests that the claims against deregulation need support while not offering any support of their own to the contrary.

The internet is certainly "the most democratizing technology in the history of human invention." However, the idea that we should give up avenues for affecting democracy simply because new avenues open up is simple beyond the scope of logic. We would still be giving up an avenue that has a great influence over the public. We won't even mention that there should never be an occasion when we feel restful enough to let any avenue for democracy close. Nor will we mention the new war major communications corporations like Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth are waging against "net neutrality" which could dull the teeth of this new "democratizing technology." Nor will we mention that Fox owner Ruppert Murdoch has already gained a foothold on the internet with the purchase of the wildly popular MySpace.com. And we most certainly need not mention that self-appointed FOXNews spokesman, uninformed pundit, and all around windbag, Bill O'Reilly, constantly rails against this "democratizing technology" with truly spurious claims that bloggers, the most succinctly vocal users of the internet, "are hired guns..." and "...these are people hired — being paid very well to smear and try to destroy people." The Big Business sentiment for "democratizing technology" is quite clear.

Public support for media ownership regulations was made abundantly clear three years ago. After Michael Powell led the partisan decision to deregulate the public outrage was so loud that the FCC had to back down.

Fox, in the tradition laid down by it's "Fair and Balanced" cable news network, continues to push forward an agenda regardless of public opinion and the facts.

We Wanna Be Anarchy...

I want to make the case for Anarchy. I do this to gain a deeper understanding of anarchist principles, the history of anarchy and collectivization, and to, hopefully, disseminate a similar understanding to readers.

First of all, I want to rid from the readership any misconceived notions about the nature of anarchy and anarchism. The word anarchy is rooted in the Greek words an meaning "without" and archon or arkhos meaning "authority." Therefore the anarchy is literally "without governance" or (for out philosophical purposes) "without government." This is not to say, as many would have the conventional wisdom to be, that it is chaos. Contrarily, anarchy can, is, and has been, a very sophisticated and complex social phenomenon.

The anarchist philosophy takes the literally meaning several steps further with the postulation that there should be no governing authority, that all external governing authorities are inherently illigitimate (a concept I'll discuss later), and that authority should be in the hands of the individual interdependent to the collective. For this reason anarchy is not a socialist or communist movement. Though it may have some of the qualities of socialism and communism but is missing and critical of one key factor, which is the submission to a centralized authority.

Without an organized or centralized system of government, anarchy is inherently the only and truest form of democracy where individuals must act necessarily in a cooperative and collective manner.

In the case for anarchy I will critically analyze known systems of governance, which I believe can be easily categorized under three labels: Monarchy, Oligarchy, and Anarchy.

My thesis is that within the framework of modern industrial and post-industrial societies, the notion that even limited forms of governance are acceptible as a "necessary evil" is heavily biased in conventional wisdom and violates the universal ethic that liberty is the pre-existing condition of humankind.

I will also argue that all forms of governance, past and present, have failed to protect humankind's pre-existing condition and have necessarily devolved into cruel despotism and authoritarianism. With this failure of governmental institutions, the time has come to throw off unnessecary and archaic shackles to human existence, and with the advent of new technologies it will be possible to exist effectively outside the bonds of centralized authority. I will also show that, far from a necessary transition, it is an inevitable social evolution.

If you have a Myspace account feel free to join my Anarchy discussion and action group.

Hegemania!

I know what you've been wondering. What exactly is the Project for the New American Century and why do I need to care? You may be surprised to discover that this is a foundation founded in 1997 by the likes of Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Bennet, Dan Quayle, I. Lewis Libby, Steve Forbes, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld, etc. who also penned there Statement of Principles. Curiously missing from this list is one George "Dubya" Bush.

Here is how they define themselves in a nutshell:

"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."

According to their Statement of Principles these are their goals:

"• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

In a letter to Bill Clinton in 1998 they all but spell out their intentions for the Middle East:

"We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world."

"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

"We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf."

This letter is signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Bennett and Paul Wolfowitz, among others. This sentiment is repeated in a letter to Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott after Clinton fails to act accordingly.

Curiously, Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney are founding members. Cheney is now the Vice President, Jeb Bush is governor of the state where the election controversy occured. George Bush is now President of the United States, and his name is nowhere to be found accept within letters of commendation from the foundation praising him on his war in Iraq and his war on terror where they state:

"It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a "safe zone" in Iraq from which the opposition can operate."

"A serious and victorious war on terrorism will require a large increase in defense spending...We urge that there be no hesitation in requesting whatever funds for defense are needed to allow us to win this war."

Wow. Does our President do any thinking of his own?

As much as I respect the fact that they are completely open and unapologetic about this idea, I have to express alarm at the swiftness in which all of this has come to pass. What they seem to have underestimated is the resolve of the insurgency in Iraq and the Middle East. Unfortunately, this realization, obvious to most, may escape their convoluted thought patterns, and it has not helped the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that have died in the cause of securing oil and U.S. interests in the Middle East.

It is frightening to think that many of the members of this foundation have been handed some of the most powerful positions in our government and for over 5 years have been able to make some of their wildest fantasies come true.

A Fair Amount of Killing

"At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."

--Major Ralph Peters 'Constant Conflict' Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly Summer 1997, Vol. XXVII, No. 2 pp. 4-14.

I don't think I need to say anything more about that.

The High Cost of Low Wages

Chicago just passed a living wage law within the city limits, prompting many big box retailers like Wal-mart to whine like little bitches.

Of course, Wal-mart could care less about whether or not people make a living, much less understand the history of the labor movement in the United States. For example, 11 year olds going on strike for higher wages because they were working 13 hour days, 6 days a week, for less than a quarter a day. We have a federal minimum wage because of that. We also have 8 hour days, 5 days a week because of that, with overtime after 40 hours (Which George Bush happily altered to the detriment of a large segment of the population).

How will the companies afford to pay workers more with raising costs to consumers many have asked. They haven't asked. They've claimed rather vehemently that it can't possibly be done.

Consider this USAToday article:

"CEOs running 100 of the USA's biggest companies pulled in median 2002 compensation of $33.4 million...

"CEO salaries and bonuses surged 15% in a year salaries for rank-and-file workers averaged 3.2% gains.

"...many companies gave CEOs large blocks of restricted shares... Among 36% of CEOs receiving them, the median value was $2.9 million.

"More than 90% received fresh stock-option grants, with a median potential value of $23.2 million.

"Nearly one-third pulled in compensation valued at $50 million or more. Even at companies where pay fell, pay packages remained large. PepsiCo CEO Steve Reinemund's pay package fell 62%, but was a still-impressive $76.5 million."

Hmmm. I think these CEO's could afford to pay their lowest level employees $10 to $15 an hour and take a fifty percent pay cut and still maintain quite a healthy standard of living, while increasing the standard of living of thousands under them.

For example in MSN's Money Central:

"The average pay for the top executive at the 200 largest U.S. companies last year was $11.3 million... That's more than 2.5 times the average $4.3 million earned by the top executive at 100 companies in the London Stock Exchange's FTSE 100 Index..."

"Bosses at U.S. businesses with annual sales of about $500 million earned $2.16 million last year. CEOs at similar-size companies in the UK, France and Germany earned $1.2 million, about half as much... In Japan, the typical CEO at this size company made $543,000."

CNN puts some perspective on those numbers:

"...American chief executive salaries have ballooned to more than 170 times the average worker's pay, up from 40 times in the 1970s. In Great Britain, that multiplier is just 22; in Japan, it's 11. The median salary for CEOs of the 100 largest U.S. companies hit $17.9 million in 2005, a 25 percent jump over 2004. Workers got a 3 percent raise."

What's worse is according to the New York Times, CEO salaries "are set by corporate boards, often filled with insiders or friends...nor is pay always linked to performance."

The problem isn't whether the cost of goods and services will go up for everyone, but rather will the companies who offer those goods and services be willing to take a pay cut at the highest echelons so that they can offer a fair wage for employees, competitive prices for consumers, and still make millions of dollars?

The March to War

Condeleeza Rice, on behalf of the Bush Administration, has offered America's own version of an Olive Branch to Iran. Let's take a look:

"The Iranian people believe they have the right to civil nuclear energy. We acknowledge that right. Yet the international agreements Iran has signed make clear that Iran's exercise of that right must conform with its commitments. In view of its previous violations of its commitments and the secret nuclear programme it undertook, the Iranian regime must persuasively demonstrate that it has permanently abandoned its quest for nuclear weapons."

As I've mentioned before, it is quite well documented and known and reported that Iran, though the regime is theocratic and repressive, was very open about its reestablishment of its civil nuclear programme. It was not secret at all. By the strategic addition of "secret" Rice has implanted the idea to distort the public discourse and give ammunition to their allies in the form of Right Wing Political Pundits. I have already reported that their are absolute and deliberate lies that are coming from that side of the political spectrum.

She continues:

"The United States is willing to exert strong leadership to give diplomacy its very best chance to succeed. Thus, to underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance the prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table with our EU-3 colleagues and meet with Iran's representatives."

This seems like a reasonable offer from the Bush Administration but consider these points:

1) Iran is a signer of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Within the treaty nations including Iran are allowed to develop civil nuclear programmes under a watchful eye. Iran has reported its intentions and has opened its civil nuclear development programmes to international scrutiny. The is well documented but conveniently under reported within the United States.

2) Pay careful attention to the words "fully and verifiably" with respect to suspending its enrichment activities. Unless you have a very short memory you might recall similar commitments to diplomacy in the Bush Administration's handling of Iraq. The Administration, after repeatedly warning Saddam Hussein to give up Weapons of Mass Destruction, simply ignored reports that Hussein did not have them and went to war anyway. Verification is in the eye of the beholder and the Bush Administration can simply and easily report that any suspension on the part of Iran's nuclear programme is not revealing enough and there are still considerable doubts. This will be easy to justify to the public because of the condition of the regime as a fundamentalist theocracy and repeated and deliberate labelling as a terror state by the Administration. Who would not think they had something to hide?

3) Iran, legally, has not obligation to suspend its enrichment programmes and will probably refuse to do so.

In short, this diplomatic offer is nothing more than smoke and mirrors within the current Administration's continuous march to war.

In the future I would like to consider the likelihood that the United States, as a world power, is in decline.

I See Your True Colors...

Nothing like the hot topic of immigration to bring out the true colors of the Right Wing:

May 16th Bill O'Reilly:

"...the newspaper and many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed. According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will."

May 10th, Michael Savage:

"Do you think that the minorities, when they take over the country, will be quite as benevolent and as enlightened as the European-Americans are today? Or do you sense that just perhaps, just maybe, they will not bring the learnings of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, to their new power?

"...whites are being erased from America. Now, when whites become a minority in America, tell me what you think is going to happen to your grandchild? Do you think that the people who are now minorities, when they seize power, when they are the senators, when they are the congresspeople, when they are the president, and the vice president, do you think they'll be quite as enlightened as our liberal government is today? And treat the minorities, meaning then the whites, as fairly as the nonwhites are being treated today? I don't, I do not."

May 16th, Pat Buchanan

"It's not immigration. There is an invasion of the United States of America. And until you put a security fence now along 2,000 miles of border, you are not going to stop this invasion. And it's coming not only from Mexico, it's coming from the whole world."

Maybe it's because I'm only a monkey, but does any of that seem racist to you?

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Many people in the United States don't know that "on December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights..." and "...called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and 'to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or
territories.'"

Without further ado:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Reasonable Search and Seizure?

Porter Goss has resigned as head of the Central Intelligence Agency and Bush has nominated former NSA head General Michael Hayden. Here's a guy who when asked whether or not the NSA's ability to circumvent the FISA courts to gain a warrent violated the Fourth Amendment's provision that proof of probably cause was required for searches and seizures stated that "probably cause" was not spelled out in the constitution. He stated the legal standard was "unreasonable searches and seizures" and that the NSA's new abilities were not illegal under the Constitution because the searches and seizures were considered reasonable.

For the record:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Either Gen. Hayden has no understanding of the this Amendment or he's just lying to everyone. I can't imagine that he would have been appointed as head of the NSA without an understanding of the Forth Amendment therefore, it is safe to say that he is spinning the Constitution to suit his purposes.

No Spin, anyone?

Correspondence

I wrote an email to Martha Zoller after she said on Lou Dobbs this week of Stephen Colbert's Correspondents Dinner Speech, "What came to mind after seeing 'United 93' this weekend is 9/11 was a Tuesday, so that was -- and he probably didn't even think about that, but for me, having lost friends in the World Trade Towers that was the first thing I thought of."

She commenting on a segment that Lou played where Colbert said, "The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man's beliefs never will."

I wrote to her, "Criticizing Stephen Colbert for saying the word Tuesday because of your 9/11 sensitivities is completely disingenuous. You know full well that he wasn't invoking 9/11 in any way. This just shows a level of political correctness that is often the hypocrisy of the Right."

She responded, "I think if you read the whole quote you would see that I was saying how I felt about the comment and I said I am sure he did not intend it that way. But I will never apologize for remembering 9/11. Thanks for taking the time to write but if you look at the whole quote, I think you will see what I mean. If you don't that's fine, that why we have free speech."

I wrote back once more, "I appreciate that you've taken the time to respond. I don't believe you should ever forget 9/11. However you choose to qualify it, the intent was to equate Mr. Colbert with a 9/11 apologist, the implication being that you are more patriotic for remembering 9/11, Mr. Colbert less so for criticizing the President. You are correct, we do have free speech, and sometimes it comes in the form of embarrassing satire."

She has yet to write me back, but I wanted to expand a bit, perhaps narcassitically.

After watching the video again, its obvious to me that her invoking of 9/11 was a pure non sequitor and meant to do exactly what I've described above. She in no way attempted to address the content of Colbert's remarks, but rather hid under the typical 9/11 umbrella as her defense against free thought and open criticism. A radio talk show host who is trained to speak in sound bites should realize that they are said out of context as often as they are taken out of context.

A Stephen Colbert Report's Special Report

Stephen Colbert, the "fightin' Colbert," is saving the world one White House dinner at a time. Ladies and gentlemen, let us thank him for his wit, his poignancy, and his courage not to suck up.