Clinton/Obama and the Democratic Presidential Nomination

I want to prefix this entry with the fact that I have strong objections with the current structure of the American political system. I think we're stuck in a two party-straight jacket because of a winner take all electoral system which, besides the obvious overwhelming influence of corporate and wealthy interests, limits the range of solutions and voices in the political process. With a country so large and diverse as the United States, its impossible for two political parties to adequately represent the various interests that exist within it. The fact that third political party challenges are viewed as threats that "take away" votes from mainstream candidates demonstrates the narrow options that exist within our political system. Its inherently undemocratic that our electoral system doesn't allow for more than two political parties and especially alienating to voters when in recent years the difference in policies between the Democratic and Republican Party has become increasingly negligent on key issues like the War in Iraq, the economy, trade, and military spending. As a result, its not surprising that America has on average one of the lowest voter turnout rates among Western industrialized democracies. If we really want to break out of a corporate dominated federal government, along with measures like more campaign finance reform ,it has to start with restructuring our electoral system that allow for independent political parties to have a legitimate chance to compete.

That being said and with few viable alternatives in this present Presidential campaign, I lean towards the Democratic Party just because there is no way in hell I'd ever vote for a conservative politician. But watching the progression of this marathon Democratic nomination that just came to an end as the candidates I actually liked were forced to drop out (Kucinich and Edwards), I began to favor Obama over Clinton for the nomination.

Clinton ran a despicably vicious negative campaign that utilized a variety of smear tactics against Obama similar to those George Bush regularly used in 2000 and 2004. This, as Robert Parry calls it, "War on Obama" was planned by the Clinton political strategist far in advance of the Democratic primary and sought to promote guilt-by-association, red-baiting, McCarthyism and racial messaging against Obama through, among other things, his relationship with controversial figures such as Vietnam-era radical Bill Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In doing this, she allied with right-wing media figures and outlets such as media mogul Richard Scaife, Fox News and even Rush Limbaugh.

The Clinton campaign harped regularly on the race issue to brand and marginalize Obama as the "black candidate" to, as Parry puts it, build "animosity toward him by fanning white unease about this little-known black [man] with the exotic name."

Example of this strategy include:
"Clinton supporters have dropped comments about his acknowledged drug use as a young man, sent around photos of him in African garb, and referenced his family ties to Muslims. Most memorably, Bill Clinton likened Obama’s electoral victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s, and more recently, the former President played the role of white victim to reverse discrimination by accusing Obama’s people of playing the race card on him."

She also drew on the politics of fear toting her experience and willingness to be "tough" on foreign policy issues like threatening to "obliterate" Iran in a highly unlikely scenario that it attacked Israel. Such rhetoric reinforces the strong ties she has to the military-industrial complex that was one her main financial backers and as a member of the armed services committee in the Senate. As the Independent (UK) reported, in October of 2007,: "The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party." Her hawkish foreign policy record has been labeled as "Bush lite." When she spoke before the Council of Foreign Relations she called for a "tough-minded, muscular foreign and defense policy."

Though her campaign was no doubt historic for future potential female presidential candidates and that there was plenty of sexism in the media surrounding her candidacy. But as Barbara Ehrenreich, puts it, Hilary's campaign "revealed that women can be nasty, deceptive politicians too." I personally hope Obama picks a woman to be on his ticket for vice president, just not Hillary Clinton.

Despite his talk of change and hope, Obama's candidacy upon close scrutiny doesn't correlate in some ways with that rhetoric. Despite claims that he relied on Internet "netroots" fundraising instead of "traditional Washington-centric Democratic donors and corporate checkbooks" for his campaign funds, in many areas he's only second to Clinton in corporate donations received. According to opensecrets.org, Obama's one of his biggest donors has been Wall Street securities and investment companies. He's received the most money of any candidate Republican or Democrat with $7.9 million in campaign contributions from these firms as well as from hedge fund managers. Hows that going to reflect on his economic policies if he becomes President to deal with this severe recession, especially the sub prime crisis of which Wall Street had a large part in creating? Whose interests and voices are going to play a predominate role in shaping such solutions? If the money Obama has received from Wall Street is any indicator, I think its quite obvious. Some might make the argument that you can't be a mainstream presidential candidate these days without taking such money which unfortunately may be true. But Obama's self image as a candidate of "change" is extremely disingenuous while he's raising funds from traditional corporate sources.

Besides the obvious financial contributions, Obama has stealthily been building up connections to K Street corporate lobbyists in DC for "campaign support" and "advice" including:
former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), a consultant for Alston & Bird; Broderick Johnson, president of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC; Mark Keam, the lead Democratic lobbyist at Verizon; Jimmy Williams, vice president of government affairs for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America; Thomas Walls, vice president of federal public affairs at McGuireWoods Consulting; and Francis Grab, senior manager at Washington Council Ernst & Young. It seems like Obama is trying to balance a public image of a reform candidate while creating an Washington insider presence.

While Clinton tried to play up the issue of race, Obama has done everything to be a race neutral candidate. He's gone out of his way to claim that race is no longer an issue in America and should be a low priority of the next President. When speaking in Selma, Alabama, Obama declared that blacks "have already come 90 percent of the way" to equality in the US. I find such a statement disturbing and quite out of touch with the reality of institutional racism still quite rampant in the US in a variety of areas. This is especially true in wake of not only the Hurricane Katrina relief debacle, the "War on Drugs" but the sub-prime mortgage crisis as well. "United for a Fair Economy" in its yearly State of the Dream report that documents racial wealth gaps in the United States, stated that the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the foreclosure its created has caused "the greatest loss of wealth for communities and individuals of color in modern US History."

Obama's move to court AIPAC , the Israel lobby that promotes a far right Likkud stance in US foreign policy, doesn't seem like a sign of much change, especially when it comes to creating a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians and, in turn, peace in that region. Moreover, it doesn't suggest a new even handed approach to the situation but rather a similar one-sided Israel stance that blames everything on the Palestinians and other countries in the region which Bush despite his "road map" did quite regularly, especially in terms of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and attempts to isolate the fairly and democratically elected Hamas government in the Palestinian territories.

Obama's claim in his speech to AIPAC that Jerusalem will always be the "undivided" capital of Israel belies any effort to create a two state solution in the region since East Jerusalem, of which Israel has illegally occupied since the 1980s, is crucial to creating a Palestinian state. Moreover, despite the fact that Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, it remains, as the Israel human rights group B'tselem describes it, "the biggest prison on Earth" through tight Israeli military control of its borders but at the same time Israel "renounces its responsibility for the lives and welfare of [Gaza's] residents." As of now, Israel is causing a humanitarian crisis and committing a war crime through collective punishment in Gaza Strip in response to mortar fire from the territory by restricting fuel, medicine, water and UN food aid to the whole population. Such a blockade has been especially devastating to pregnant women and newborn babies who lack access to adequate health care supplies. At the same time, Israel has recently expanded illegal settlements in the West Bank, demonstrating a lack of respect for any attempt at creating a Palestinian state. Thus, if Obama ever becomes president, following the AIPAC line in terms of US foreign policy towards that region will not result in peace.

But what makes me hopeful about Obama is his ability to inspire people with his speeches, especially those of my age. His inclusive rhetoric that emphasizes the ability of ordinary people to make change is great to hear from a politician. I hope such rhetoric reinvigorates political engagement not just for this election, but for people to take action on a local level and organize for change. Many people my age talk about Obama as if was the American messiah. Such talk is delusional. No significant change in American politics or public policy in our nation's history came about because of certain individuals. Change comes from grassroots mobilization and the social movements that ferment them. I hope that Obama's candidacy galvanizes such potential for Americans to rise up and take action because we can never rely on politicians alone to bring about a better, more just, democratic world we want to make.

post Hurrican Katrina/Rita reconstruction, guest workers and exploitation

Indian guest workers have been on a hunger strike since May 14th in Washington DC to protest the injustice that Signal International, a subcontractor of Northrop Gruman, has committed against them.

According to an article in Foreign Policy in Focus:

"The workers were promised [by an Indian recruiter hired by Signal International] the ability to bring over their families, permanent residency and green cards (the magic word) if they agreed to work for Signal International in its shipyards in Mississippi and Texas. In exchange for this bonanza, the workers need only pay the “paltry” sum of $20,000 U.S. up front and in cash.

These workers were not spring chickens and they knew enough to get such guarantees written down and to get receipts for every dollar they paid. Even then, some began to suspect that these dealings may not be above board and demanded their money back. The response of Sachin Dewan and others was that they had entered into a legal process that could not be revoked and so unless the remaining money was paid, their passports (which were with the recruiter to expedite the visa application process) would not be returned. In some cases, Dewan even threatened to burn their passports.

To raise the money needed to participate in this scheme, workers mortgaged their houses, sold family heirlooms, and took out high-interest loans."

The workers were brought in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and Rita to do reconstruction work in shipyards of the Gulf Coast by corporations already lavished with government contracts and incentives in the region.

The conditions at the labor camps that these skilled welders worked at were atrocious:

" Workers were living 24 to a room with only two toilets and one bathroom between them. They were given poor quality food in the morning, and by the time they took their lunch break in the evening, the food had already started to spoil.

For the lodging and food services, Signal charged each worker $1,050 per month.

Furthermore workers were under constant threat of deportation; often deportation was used as an incentive to get the workers to work harder. They were already doing more welding every day than they ever had (a tactic that may have been used to reduce their hours and hence their wages). The threat of deportation often made them pick up that already brisk pace. Phrases like, 'we know what life is like back in India, and this is better than that so you better not complain' were common."

When these Indian guest workers tried to organize for better conditions, Signal "hired a security company to send in armed guards to intimidate the workers and took aside four of the key organizers and threatened them with deportation." One of the intimidated organizers even tried to commit suicide as a result.

Finally the workers walked out of the labor camp and , with the assistance of the New Orleans Worker Center for racial justice, reported that they were a victim a labor trafficking ring and formed. They have continued to publicize their cause, adopting tactics and rhetoric of the civil rights movement. Eventually these workers traveled to Washington DC to pursue their case through a subsequent hunger strike. The New Orleans Worker Center is profiling their struggle through an online blog and In January 2007 organized Alliance of Guest Workers for Dignity for others in the Gulf Region facing similar exploitation through the Hurrican Katrina reconstruction effort.

Its not surprising that one of the Indian guest worker organizers has called the American guest worker program H2B that gave them temporary visas to enter the country a "modern-day form of slavery"Unfortunately this case is just a microcosm of worker exploitation takes place under this system. As the non-profit organization Farm Worker Justice puts it, H2B ( for nonagricultural workers) and H2A (for agricultural workers) are "rife with exploitation and abuse." Under both programs guest workers "suffer from an imbalance of power with their employers because their temporary, non-immigrant status ties them to particular employers and makes their ability to obtain a visa dependent on the willingness of the employer to make a request to the U.S. government." But the H2B program unlike H2A provides minimum protections for workers such as the 3/4 minimum work guarantee, free housing, the special adverse effect wage rate, and eligibility for federally funded legal services.

MSNBC "leaning left" ?

Today in the Washington Post, there was an article in the style section called "MSNBC, Leaning Left and Getting Flak from Both Sides" Here's a taste of some of the criticism from Republicans in the article:

" 'It's an organ of the Democratic National Committee,' says Steve Schmidt, a senior strategist for John McCain's campaign. 'It's a partisan advocacy organization that exists for the purpose of attacking John McCain.'

Ed Gillespie, President Bush's counselor, says there is an 'increasing blurring' of the line between NBC News and MSNBC's 'blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann.' "

9 days days earlier, the same charge came out of Fox News on "The O'Reilly Factor." Laura Ingraham, the guest host, said that at NBC "there is no line between news and commentary. It’s all blurred." Karl Rove, during that same episode, added that “journalistic standards of MSNBC, which are really no standards at all,” are now “creep[ing] into NBC.” Its interesting that Rove , a political analyst for Fox News, would say that considering his network has covered up the fact that he also has been an informal advisor and avid supporter of the McCain campaign.

Moreover, Fox News appears to fighting back against MSNBC and the criticisms of its news commentator Keith Olbermann against Fox News. According to the Washington Post, Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News "warned that if Olbermann didn't stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O'Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well." I guess its hard to be anything left of Fox News without receiving criticism these days. Olbermann is one of the few news commentators that openly criticizes not only the Bush Administration but Fox News and politicians like Hilary Clinton for her statement about the possibility of Obama being assasinated like Robert Kennedy in justification for continuing her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But the Clinton campaign also criticized MSNBC as the article points out: " Terry McAuliffe, chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, says Matthews has been 'in the tank' for Barack Obama 'from Day One' and is practically 'the Obama campaign chair.' " If anything McCain has gotten the easiest treatment from the mass media. On all the news networks, McCain is regularly casted as a "maverick" despite the fact that, according to a recent CQ analysis, he's voted 100 percent of the time in 2008 in the Senate with same position as President Bush.

Defense Secretary Gates on Iraq: We're staying!

Its amazing how divorced from reality Defense Secretary Gates and the Bush administration is when it comes to Iraq. His plan for the US in Iraq is a a protracted U.S. troop presence along the lines of the military stabilization force in South Korea. According to him, this "would assure allies in the Middle East that the United States will not withdraw from Iraq as it did from Vietnam." Lt. General Raymond T. Odierno agreed with this plan stating that it would help "the Iraqi security forces and the government to continue to stabilize itself, and continue to set itself up for success for years to come."

Yet the fact is the US presence in Iraq is the real obstacle to stabilization. Our military presence is increasingly resented by the Iraqi people which isn't surprising considering over 600,000 have died since the beginning of this war. A recent poll from the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes found 71 percent of Iraqis want the withdrawal of U.S. troops regardless of the short term breakdown in security. Even the Iraqi Parliament has turned against the US. Early in May a majority of the Iraqi Parliament (144 members) signed a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for military withdrawal. Just recently, they passed a binding resolution requiring parliament to approve an extension of the UN mandate of US and British occupation in Iraq.

Furthermore, the long tours forced on the troops in Iraq with this "surge" has diminished their morale. According to a recent study released by the Office of the Surgeon General of the US Army Medical Command on soldiers' ethics and mental health, 10 percent of the Soldiers and Marines interviewed reported "mistreating noncombatants damaged/destroyed Iraqi property when not necessary or hit/kicked a noncombatant when not necessary)." Those suffering mental health problem (anxiety, depression or acute stress) were twice as likely to engage in such acts. Such issues among soldiers stemmed from the long periods of deployment in Iraq (over a year). Thus "the surge, as implemented by [General] Petraeus, is doing everything exactly wrong for the soldiers and Marines described in this study, namely:

• The surge has increased the frequency of soldier deployments; it requires them to serve 15 months in Iraq on each deployment, rather than 12, and it reduced to 12 months the period they can expect to be at home with their families to recuperate.
• Most importantly, for both soldiers and Marines, the surge exacerbates their already prolonged exposure to combat. It is not just a question of operations being more intense; a fundamental aspect of the surge is to locate soldiers and Marines outside their base camps and garrisons into forward locations, in the middle of towns and cities, in civilian neighborhoods."

So the chance for Iraqi civilian abuse by the US military will increase and lead to further atrocities with this prolongued "surge."

By ignoring the interests of the Iraqi people and that of the US troops supposed to be protecting them, the Bush administration will never have any success in Iraq. Instead they will create more resentment and more violence with their blatant attempt to turn this fight for (what the Bush administration claims as) democracy in Iraq into a permanent occupation existing to steal their oil. As the US constructs the largest embassy in the world in Iraq and several permanent "super-bases" (described as big "enough to have its own 'neighborhoods' ") while putting pressure on Iraq to pass an Oil Law privatizing that industry, such intentions become increasingly clear.

Starbucks and "Ethical Coffee"

It appears that Starbucks is trying to remedy its image by giving some of those that grow their coffee a better deal. According to Corp Watch: Starbucks is creating a deal with the Ethiopian government to create a "a licensing, distribution and marketing" agreement for three of their specialty coffees.

For over a year the Ethiopian government has pushed Starbucks to recognize their legal ownership of the names of its coffees. In the place where coffee was born, 11 million Ethiopians (about 1/5 of the population) depends on this crop for their livelihood and makes up 2/3 of the country's export earnings. Through ownership rights over its coffee, Ethiopia has the potential to increase income in their coffee industry by $88 million.
As of now, Ethiopian farmers as well as other coffee growers across the world make on average 3 cents for every cup of coffee sold. Its bean is considered one of the finest in the world where people pay 26$/lb but those in Ethiopia that grow the crop only get 6 percent of that profit resulting in horrible poverty.

Check out Oxfam's report for more information

Even with this possible "agreement" to help benefit Ethiopian coffee farmers, Starbucks is far from a socially responsible corporation they claim to be. Despite being listed on Fortune's 100 best companies to work for in 2007, they have a record of union-busting both in their shops (against the IWW Starbucks Worker Union) as well as in their US roasting plants.
Strikes against Starbucks in their coffee shops:
- scheduling manipulation ensures that every barista is a part-time worker and isn't guaranteed any work hours per week. For example, a Starbucks employee can get 35 hours of work one week, 22 hours the week after, and 10 hours the following week. As a result Starbucks workers in the United States earn as little $6, $7, or $8 per hour depending on the location, far from a living wage.

- Though Starbucks touts a health care plan for its employees, it covers only 42% of its workforce which is less than Walmart (47%)- a company notorious for its inadequate health care plan among other things

The barriers to health care for employees are two-fold. First, employees must work 240 hours per quarter to qualify to purchases health care through the company. With no full-time workers and no guaranteed work hours, qualifying to purchase health care is far from assured. Second, workers must pay significant premiums, co-pays, and deductibles to participate in the health care plan. With inadequate wages

- inadequate staffing during shifts as well as ergonomic issues put Starbucks employee's safety and health at risk.

If management scheduled an appropriate numbers of workers on the shop floor, workers would not have to work at such an unsafe speed with very hot beverages. The combination of the unduly brisk pace and the ergonomic inadequacies result in repetitive strain injuries like carpal tunnel syndrome for many Starbucks workers.

This is what democracy looks like...

Well I went to the January 27th Anti-War March on Washington DC on a bus from Ann Arbor. Coming into it I didn't really know what to expect (especially since I had never been to one of these) but I was hoping it was going to be big. In Ann Arbor, we had filled up 3 coach buses with both college students and adults and teenagers from the surrounding community. This had exceeded previous expectations for such a trip and seemed like a good sign of things to come at the actual march. Also, I had read a Washington Post article beforehand that said it was expected be one of the biggest anti-war marches since the beginning of the Iraq War.

We left Ann Arbor around 7:30 pm on Friday night for a 8-9 hour drive to Washington DC. After a ride in which I didn't get very much sleep, we arrived at Shady Grove Metro Station at 7 am. I rode in with some other people on the trip to Washington Mall to do some sightseeing before the actual rally and march that started at 11 am. Being from the DC metro area, I had seen many of these sites before but it still was nice to be back, even for a little bit. The weather that morning was below freezing which made it hard to walk around.

We got to the march around 11 am to a large crowd of people right near the Capital. The weather helped out as it became sunny, cloudless day with a high of 50 degrees. Diversity, along with its sheer size, marked the character of this crowd. People of various political groups, the young (even little kids) as well as the old, those of different races and ethnicities, and even war veterans were present. It wasn't just "aging hippies" or "college radicals" supporting this anti-war cause. There were people at the march who didn't look like the typical "activist" which was heartening to see. It made me realize that there really is a broad base of support moving against this War in Iraq. Its one thing to see the poll numbers but to actually see such a variety of people in the streets protesting made me happy. I just hope that Congress responds and does the right thing (though I remain skeptical of most Democrats taking a tough stance against the Iraq War). Apparently there were over 500,000 people present at the march.

Also notable was the small counterdemonstration near where people were marching in support of the Iraq War. One woman was on a megaphone stating that "if you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops." That statement really bothered me and I started chanting "bullshit" which others joined in with me. Someone else was holding up a poster that said "hippies smell." Though I definitely respect their right to free speech and assembly, such an ignorant embrace of this War in Iraq really annoys me.

The actual march began around 1 pm, which was suppose to be a loop around the Capital, and I followed the college student contingency which included people from the newly revamped Students for a Democratic Society as well as the Campus Anti-War Network. The chanting and energy from the people in the group got me real excited. Even though I enjoyed being in that crowd, the group was moving real slow and I was starting to lose my voice. Then, I bumped into a friend from back home who I knew was gonna be there but I didn't actually think I would see him in the large crowd. We ended up walking ahead of the college student group and quickly finished the loop (by that time it was around 4 pm and I was starving and my feet were killing me). After that we got something to eat, talked some politics, and then he had to leave to go back to his school.

When he left, I didn't know where the rest of my group was. I only had one other person's phone number who was on the trip and she was very far from where I was. So I went back to the site of the rally and it was getting darker at the time. Then I noticed a group of you people marching in the actual street on Pennsylvania avenue right in front of the Capital. They had stopped traffic and police were driving behind them. Apparently earlier that day, 300 college students rushed the Capital building, only to be rebuffed by police. I don't think anyone was arrested. I hung out with some other girls that I knew on the trip after that. Then we went back to the bus and left around 8 pm. Luckily I was able to actually pass out and sleep most of the way home. We finally got back into Ann Arbor at 5 am. All in all, it was a great experience and I would definitely want to go to more of them.

Injustice in 2006

A nice little review of economic injustice in this country brought to you by the Drum Major Institute:

Wages that an average CEO earns before lunchtime: more than a full-time minimum wage worker makes in a year

Ratio of the average U.S. CEO’s annual pay to a minimum wage worker’s: 821:1

Year when this ratio reached its highest so far: 2006

Total compensation in 2005 of Barry Diller of IAC/Interactive, the highest paid CEO in the US today: $469 million

Additional amount that Mr. Diller received in new stock options “to motivate Mr. Diller for future performance”: $7.6 million

Percentage of Americans who feel chronically overworked: 30

Years of unused vacation time that American workers collectively give back to their employers each year: 1.6 million

Percentage of women earning less than $40,000 per year who receive no paid vacation time at all: 37

Payment per episode that Donald Trump receives to host The Apprentice:

$3,000,000

Average amount that companies spend to recruit a new CEO from outside the company: $2,000,000

Probability that the newly hired CEO will either quit or be fired within the first eighteen months: 1 in 2

Estimated number of people lined up outside the new M&M store set to open in Times Square responding to ads for “on-the-spot” hiring for 200 jobs, 65 of which were fulltime: between 5,000 and 6,000

Starting salary that drew them there: $10.75 per hour

Fee Paris Hilton is seeking to host a New Year’s Eve party in NYC, Miami, or L.A.: $100,000 plus a private jet

Amount that Ms. Hilton is set to inherit from the Hilton Hotel fortune: $350 million

Number of times that Congress has reduced the estate tax since it last raised the federal minimum wage: 9

Longest period in which the federal minimum wage has not been increased: 1997–2006

Number of workers who would directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage: 5.6 million

Number of very large estates that would directly benefit from a reduction in the estate tax: 8,200

Highest price per custom-fitted, handmade power suit in Armani’s new line, which hopes to respond to what ex-Gucci head designer Tom Ford calls “a lot of pent-up demand for true luxury [from men who] are getting rich first, and they want to deck themselves out before they deck out their wives”: $20,000

Number of households using credit to cover basic living expenses: 7 in 10

Amount in tax breaks and subsidies that last year’s energy bill paid out to the gas and oil industry during a period of record profits and higher prices at the pump: $6 billion

Campaign donations that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who voted for the energy bill, received from the oil and gas industry: $500,000, making her the top recipient of oil contributions in the 2006 election cycle

Percentage of U.S. workers who are confident they will be able to live comfortably after retirement: 68

Percentage who have saved less than $25,000 toward their retirement: 53

Percent of African-American and Latino families that have zero or negative net worth, respectively: 31 and 38

Date on which USA Today reported that Dr. Anthony Griffin of the Beverly Hills Cosmetic Surgery Institute, who appears on the ABC program Extreme Makeover, predicted that CEOs will lead a surge in male cosmetic surgery because, he says, “for instance, executives on trial for corporate scandals would improve their chances for acquittal with a makeover just before trial”: November 4, 2006

Date on which the Dow Jones Industrial Average reached its all-time high:

October 26, 2006

Decrease in percentage of Americans who own stocks from 2004 to 2006, the first such decline on record: 51.9% to 48.6%

Total Wal-Mart received in government subsidies, sometimes called “corporate welfare” by activists, in 2005: $3.75 billion

Percent of the decline in welfare caseloads that is due to TANF programs failing to serve families that are poor enough to qualify, rather than due to a reduction in the number of families poor enough to qualify for aid, in the ten years since “welfare reform”: 57

Percentage of the GDP that went to wages and salaries in the first half of 2006: 51.8

Time when the percentage of GDP belonging to wages and salaries was lower than in 2006, out of the 77 previous years for which these data are available: never

Projected total in Christmas bonuses that the five largest investment banks in New York City will pay out in 2006: $36 billion

Estimated additional amount U.S. workers would receive annually if all employers obeyed workplace laws: $19 billion

Ratio of compensation of CEOs of publicly traded defense companies to privates before September 11th, 2001: 190 to 1

Ratio in 2006: 308 to 1

Percentage increase in out-of-pocket medical expenses for the average American in the past 5 years: 93

Estimated amount the U.S. would save each year on paperwork if it adopted single-payer health care: $161,000,000,000

Date on which incoming Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson announced “Amid this country’s strong economic expansion, many Americans simply aren’t feeling the benefits. Many aren’t seeing significant increases in their take-home pay. Their increases in wages are being eaten up by high energy prices and rising health care costs, among others”: August 2, 2006

An update will come soon enough...

College this semester has managed to overwhelm me so much that I have been unable to write that many entries.

Soon enough, I will be writing about the new Congress and the reasons in which I am pessimistic about it even if the Democrats have a majority now. Though I am very glad that the Republicans are no longer in charger (which will create a little more sanity in Congress) but the Dems don't have the guts to do anything too "progressive" with moderates at the helm. More to discuss very soon!

American hypocrisy towards torture

I've been pretty busy as of late but I really wanted to write abt the issue of US torture.

I guess the US is the only one who has the right to commit torture and brutal policing tactics. Recently, an article in the New York Times reported that "American officials have warned Iraqi leaders that they might have to curtail aid to the Interior Ministry police because of a United States law that prohibits the financing of foreign security forces that commit 'gross violations of human rights' and are not brought to justice" because of their complicity in torture and killings of Iraqi civillians.

This comes at a time when the Bush Administration pushed through a detainee bill that would loosen the right of habeas corpus, the tenets of the Geneva Convention, and restrictions on torture. Specifically, as the New York time points out, the bill paves the way for more use of America torture by doing the following:

"The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture."

Also, the "Constitution in Crisis," a report by the House Judiciary Committee Minority Staff describes in detail the systematic use of brutal torture tactics in Iraq by the US Military and CIA. Yet the Department of Justice has done little to prosecute those perpetrating these acts. Accord to the report, there are "numerous instances of torture that are capable of being punished within the jurisdiction of the Justice Department" under the Military Jursidiction Act but only one such case has resulted in an official indictment and no one has been convicted. Even at the infamous Abu Ghraib, where "numerous" detainee deaths have occurred "as a result of torture and other legal violations" no member of the military has received a sentence of more than 3 years in prison.

These US torture techniques in Iraq had tacit approval from Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He approved, in the "Haynes action memo," methods including "removal of detainee clothing, use of hoods and dogs"; Category III tactics like the "use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences for him and/or his family are imminent," and the "use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation." All these are violations of the Geneva Convention by inflicting mental harm.

Yet as Naomi Klein writes, embracing torture techniques is nothing new for America. The US- run School of America, first located in Panama but now in Fort Benning, Georgia, instructed Latin American military and police officers in torture techniques akin to those that have been publicized in Guantanamo Bay: and Abu Ghraib including "early morning capture to maximize shock, immediate hooding and blindfolding, forced nudity, sensory deprivation, sensory overload, sleep and food "manipulation," humiliation, extreme temperatures, isolation, stress positions." Even Clinton's Intelligence Oversight Board in 1996 "admitted that US-produced training materials condoned 'execution of guerrillas, extortion, physical abuse, coercion and false imprisonment.' " Thus the difference between then and now in terms of American torture, is the Bush administration relative openness about it.

Thus how can we expect the Iraqi interior ministry to stop torture and kill Iraqi civilians when we are just as complicit?

Affirmative Action for the Privileged

For those who bash affirmative action for disadvantaged minority groups in the university admissions process as against our American meritocracy should reconsider that notion. Because, as an article in "the Economist" points out, the elite in this country have their own system to get their children into the best schools.

According to the article (which profiles some of the major findings of a new book called “The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates” by Daniel Golden) "No less than 60% of the places in elite universities are given to candidates who have some sort of extra 'hook', from rich or alumni parents to 'sporting prowess.' " which benefits whites way more than blacks. The power of legacy in these elite universities are staggering. Harvard admits 40% of legacy applicants while accepting 11 % of applicants and Amherst accepts %50 of legacy applicants. Also there are plenty of sports scholarships outside of football and basketball for preppy white kid in sports like fencing, squash, sailing, riding, golf and lacrosse.

This privileged affirmative action is taking its toll on elite universities as they become more socially exclusive:
"Between 1980 and 1992, for example, the proportion of disadvantaged children in four-year colleges fell slightly (from 29% to 28%) while the proportion of well-to-do children rose substantially (from 55% to 66%)." In a time when in the US when social inequality is rising while socially mobility is at a low, the social stratification of college admissions is quite disturbing. The two groups of people that are burdened the most by these admission policies are poor whites and Asian americans.

Efforts to get rid of Affirmative Action across the country may make these trends even worse.

Here in the State of Michigan, there is a ballot initiative called the MCRI (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative) which will end affirmative action not only in state schools but also in the workplace. The campaign behind this initiative, led by Ward Connerly who has pushed this legislation through California and Washington, receives all its funding from donors outside of Michigan. In face of this elite affirmative action, trying to get rid of this program that help disadvantage groups into schools and jobs just seems unjust.

IRS attacks a liberal church's right to free speech

It looks like free speech in this country, especially the kind that doesn't sit well with the current Bush administration, is under attack. The liberal All Saints Episcopal Church is being investigated by the IRS for "alleged improper campaigning" after the Rev. George F. Regas gave an anti-war sermon two days before the 2004 Elections.

The IRS used the excuse that "the tax code bars nonprofits, including churches, from endorsing or campaigning against candidates in an election" even though the reverend made did not do so in his speech. Now the church's non-profit status could be threatened.

But under the guise of a new enforcement tool called the Political Activity Compliance Initiative, the IRS is trying to stifle freedom of speech in this country. It threatens non-profit and religious groups ability to engage in non-partisan issue advocacy and criticize our elected officials. Churches have always been a source of political activity especially during the Civil Rights Movement. Dr. Martin Luther King, was himself a preacher, and mobilized people politically through his church in Atlanta. Even in recent history, figures like Falwell and Dobson created the Religious Right through political activities in evangelical churches. I guess all that matters to the IRS is that you are advocating the wrong political ideology. Even the NAACP was under investigation after the chairman Julian Bond criticized Bush's civil rights policies until the charges were recently dropped..

Legal questions have been raised over this new IRS arm. A report of the program by OMB Watch states PACI's problems:

• the vagueness of the "facts and circumstances" test
• secrecy regarding enforcement action
• IRS statements regarding its intent to prevent repeat violations before an election
• the threat that an organization's tax-exempt status will be revoked
• lack of deadlines for closing cases

Thus this enforcement tool is ripe for abuse and partisan attacks against certain groups. As of now, Commissioner Everson, who runs the IRS and a Bush crony already has a bad track record. According to News Corpse:
"Commissioner Everson came right from the Bush White House, where he was deputy director for management for the Office of Management and Budget. His wife, Nanette, was a White House counsel. One of his first projects at IRS was a plan to cross-check applications for tax-exempt status against terrorist watch lists. These lists were notoriously inaccurate. He also considered sharing IRS data with other agencies in spite of the fact that it was illegal to do so. He was said to believe that 9/11 legislation gave him the authority to act without the laws being changed."

American Prisoner Exploitation

Not only do we have the largest percentage of the American population incarcerated but there is also a booming manufacturing industry that is growing around this prison industrial complex. This prison industry employs nearly 3/4 of a million people out of the a prisoner population of 2 million people which is "more than any Fortune 500 corporation, other than General Motors."

Prisoners manufacture goods "everything from blue jeans, to auto parts, to electronics and furniture" at dirt cheap wages since they are produced for exports (domestic goods produced by prisoners have to be paid "prevailing wages"). One such blatant example of how prisoners are being exploited for cheap labor is when Honda paid prisoner inmates $2 an hour to do the same job an autoworker would get paid $20-$30 to do.

Many of these prisoners involved in this work are serving non-violent crimes. In America in general, among our prisoner population, 76% of those incarcerated are in for non-violent crimes.

Unfortunately this industry will be expanding becoming "one of America's most important growth industries." It will help support the prisoner system which is expected to "double in the next 10 years" because of our war on drugs and tough mandatory sentencing. At the same time, our prisons have become overcrowded and neglected . Thus the industry is being used to pay for our reckless, racially biased criminal justice policies and our high-levels of incarceration which in themselves don't reduce crime rates in this country.

Interestingly enough though, many prisoners enjoy the work. Tony Matos an inmate says "When we step through the gates and into the shop, it's another world. This is a company. This isn't prison. Guards still keep watch, the capitalists still profit -- the critics and supporters still debate. But in the end, I get a skill, a few coins and a ray of hope and dignity." Though its important to keep prisoners busy, corporations should pay them atleast minimum wage if not a living wage considering they get alot out of this form of labor. This is just another way corporations undermine working people in this country by turning to dirt cheap prison labor. Not only does this undermine working people in this country but it also seems like more of an incentive for companies to push various levels of government for "tougher" criminal sentencing laws to expand that pool.

Youth and the US anti-war movement

People may be wondering where the American anti-war movement is especially when over 60% of the US public disapprove of the way the Iraqi War is being handled, 72% of American troops think the military should leave Iraq in the next year and sectarian violence continues to spiral out of control.

Well it happens to be poking up beneath the surface in local counter-recruitment campaigns: "Mass national protests didn't sway the Bush administration, so young organizers have focused on local counter-recruitment campaigns."

The US Military has become increasingly desperate for new recruits since "the Air National Guard missed its recruiting target by 14 percent last year, and the Army missed its goal by 8 percent, its largest recruitment failure since 1979." As a result, they have eased restrictions on military recruits by "allowing young men and women with criminal records to enlist, recruiting members of hate groups, easing restrictions on recruiting high school dropouts and raising the maximum recruitment age from 35 to 42." The US Military enlistment push has shot their recruitment costs up to $3 billion.

Organizations like Not Your Soldier and STORY Collaborative are trying to counter US military enlistment initiatives targeted at economically disadvantaged youths through education training camps about the brutal reality of military life. They bring youths together with Iraqi veterans to discuss The aims of these groups can be summed up in this poignant quote from Ruckus Society founder John Sellers:
" 'During Vietnam, we had the draft. Now we have the poverty draft. But we think that, by making all of the military recruiters miss their quotas, that's going to impact how Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney are going to view this war -- if they have less cannon fodder at their disposal.' "

Yet the weakness in these counter-recruitment education campaigns is exactly what makes the military recruiter's message so powerful to many individuals: economic opportunity. So an organization called smartMeme is trying to make an alternative for those who would be forced into military service as a result of economic necessity. They are building a network of organizations -- nonprofits, for-profits, institutions, businesses, farms and more -- that are willing to provide another option to young people who feel that they have no choice but to enlist.

If our politicians continue to waver on the military involvement in the Iraqi War, ordinary people will work to resist the military-industrial complex.

Even Iraqi veterans and military servicepeople are turning on the war. Lt. Ehren Watada refused to be deployed in Iraq and as a result is now the first officer in the war to face court martial charges. He calls on other soldiers to resist fighting in this war:
"The idea is this: that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it. They must remember duty to the Constitution and the people supersede the ideologies of their leadership. The soldier must be willing to face ostracism by their peers, worry over the survival of their families, and of course the loss of personal freedom. They must know that resisting an authoritarian government at home is equally important to fighting a foreign aggressor on the battlefield."

Only when the American public actively protest the Iraqi war will we achieve full troop withdrawal. This is already a good sign of things to come.

Dissidents in Iran shunning the US

I think this really shows how low the USA's credibility has gone down when Iranian dissidents who want to create a better democracy in their country don't want America's help :

"they all agree that the chaos and violence that have come with US-imported democracy in neighboring Iraq and a US Middle East policy that Iranians view as uncritically supportive of Israel -- especially during the war in Lebanon -- have darkened Iranians' view of the United States."

I wouldn't blame them either for feeling that way. They want democracy on their own terms. Iranians know that the US deposed a democratically elected government through CIA activities in 1953 and installed the Shah. These events led to the theocracy we see in Iran today.

The US has done nothing in the Middle East but create chaos through both direct inteference and also lack there of in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. That is the true failure of the "Bush doctrine." The fact that we are viewed as aggressors, especially in Iraq, and again I wouldn't disagree. Iran has even benefited, as a recent British think tank reported, from our "War on Terror" which solidified the country's position as a regional power.

What is hopeful in Iran is the internal social reforms that are taking place:
"Over the years, the carapace of government restrictions imposed in the name of Islamic purity has loosened, under popular pressure that Vatanparast compares to a chick bursting from an eggshell: 'People are pushing from inside. [The shell] is getting thinner and thinner.' " It is slight but hopefully there will more to come in Iran. It would certainly reduce tensions in the Middle East and calm the neocons who keep calling for war in Iran.

Scary enough though, Israel may be taking military action against Iran. This is despite the fact that the US intelligence on Iran's nuclear capabilities have "significant gaps". Many experts and politicians agree that a military attack on Iran is not an option and couldn't be utilized without harmful drawbacks.

"Waging a Living"

I found out that tonight there is a documentary on PBS called "Waging a Living"

An excerpt from the synopsis:
"If you work hard, you get ahead. That's the American Dream in a nutshell — no matter what your race, color, creed or economic starting point, hard work will improve your life and increase your children's opportunities. Yet, this widely held dream is out of reach for an increasing number of working Americans.

Roger Weisberg's alarming and heart-wrenching new documentary, 'Waging a Living,' puts a human face on the growing economic squeeze that is forcing millions of workers into the ranks of the poor. Shot in the Northeast and California, the film profiles four very different Americans who work full-time but still can't make ends meet. Despite their hard work and determination, these four find themselves, as one of them observes, 'hustling backwards.'"

This looks like a very good, very important documentary that all Americans should see because as I've pointed out before, people are struggling in this economy. I urge everyone to watch this documentary!

Labor Unions on the defensive in upcoming NLRB "Kentucky River" rulings

As the NewStandard (a great independent, non profit newspaper) reports, 8 million workers could lose their union-protected collective-bargaining rights as a result of several impending National Labor Relations Board rulings in what is collectively known as the "Kentucky River" cases.

The NLRB, which is stacked with pro-business Bush appointees, could shift the definition of a "supervisor" in the workplace which, as a result of the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, would bar those with that designation from being a part of a union. Barring supervisors from unions has worked to splinter solidarity in the workplace against employers. Historically though the definition of a "supervisor" under US Labor Law has been defined as the power to hire or fire other employees. But employers are trying to change that and broaden the definition of a "supervisor" into someone who delegates responsibilities to other employees.

This is just part of a larger trend of employers in this country actively and systematically working to undermine workers' rights in tandem with weak labor laws. In 2000, Human Rights Watch published a critical report of the state of labor rights, especially the right to join and form a labor union:
"Many workers who try to form and join trade unions to bargain with their employers are spied on, harassed, pressured, threatened, suspended, fired, deported or otherwise victimized in reprisal for their exercise of the right to freedom of association."

Furthermore:
"Millions of workers are expressly barred from the law's protection of the right to organize. U.S. legal doctrine allowing employers to permanently replace workers who exercise the right to strike effectively nullifies the right."

These NLRB rulings, if they occur as expected will deprive even more workers in this country of their basic human right under the UN to take part in a labor union. Labor unions are the only institution in this country that actively fights for workers' rights. They provide workers with leverage against employers not only for better pay and benefits but also arbritary decisions such as firings. An EPI report comparing unionized and non-unionized workers in terms of salaries and benefits illustrate the importance of labor unions. It concludes that "unions reduce wage inequality because they raise wages more for low- and middle-wage workers than for higher-wage workers, more for blue-collar than for white-collar workers, and more for workers who do not have a college degree."

This comes at a time when real wages are on the decline in the US. Only those at the top of the income spectrum are receiving raises that are outpacing wages. This quote from the New York Times article sums it up best:
" wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s."

Its no surprise that this is happening at a time where trade unions power has been increasingly diminished. The article even mentions that but doesn't point out the forces in the federal government (the Bush administration) that are making things worse for trade unions like these "Kentucky Rivers" cases or, as the Human Rights Watch report points out, "Labor laws [that] have failed to keep pace with changes in the economy and new forms of employment relationships," and weak enforcement of current labor laws.

The Disgusting State of New Orleans a year after Hurrican Katrina

I found a blog entry through a live journal community of some of the horrible things that have happened in New Orleans since the disaster:
----------------
Hurricane Katrina seems to have provided a perfect opportunity to privatize the entire city of New Orleans, starting with it's schools and housing

Schools
After Katrina, the Louisiana State government took over the New Orleans school district and fired 7,500 school employees including about 4,000 teachers. The rest were bus drivers, lunch workers, janitors, ect. According to Joe DeRose, Communications Director for the United Teachers of New Orleans:


"(These were) solid middle class employees, career professionals who had dedicated their careers to helping try to educate the children in one of the neediest cities in the country, a city with one of the highest poverty rates, as everybody saw in the days immediately following Katrina. They were treated with utter disrespect. There was no notification that they would be fired until one day in October, when the school board called a press conference, notified us about an hour before that they were going to have such a conference. Therefore, most people found out that they were being terminated on the 5:00 news. Those who didn't have TVs or weren't still living in the city found out in the newspaper the next morning or by phone calls from friends and relatives who were in touch with the media."


And now that the entire infrastructure of the school system has been anhilated, the privitization can begin. Just last week it was announced that $24 million of federal aid will be given for the development of private charter schools. None of this money is being given to public schools. Before the Hurricane there were 128 schools in New Orleans, now there are 25, and only four of them are public schools.


on a side note I thought it was interesting that Barbara Bush promised the Katrina victims that she would give to a charity to help the situation, but according to the Houston Chronicle

“Katrina funds earmarked to pay for Neil Bush’s software program. Former First Lady Barbara Bush donated an undisclosed amount of money to the Bush-Clinton Katrina fund with specific instructions that the money be spent with an educational software company owned by her son Neil. Since then, the Ignite learning program has been given to eight area schools that took in substantial numbers of Hurricane Katrina evacuees.”




Housing
In August 2005, the US Department of Housing and Urban Devlopment (HUD) reported they had 7,381 public apartments in New Orleans. Now HUD has announced it's plans to demolish the 5,000 remaining public housing units. HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson said: "Any New Orleans voucher recipient or public housing resident will be welcomed home." But he didn't say how they would be welcomed; apparently with bulldozers and wrecking balls.

Much of the bulldozing comes through a federal program called Hope IV, a program that destroys low income housing in the name of creating "mixed income housing". It sounds good; like something everyone can benefit from, but such is not the case. According to Bill Quigley, law professor at Loyola University, and director of the Law Clinic and the Gillis Long Poverty Law Center at Loyola:


New Orleans has already experienced the tragic effects of HOPE VI. The St. Thomas Housing Development in the Irish Channel area of New Orleans was home to 1600 apartments of public housing. After St. Thomas was demolished under Hope VI, the area was called River Gardens. River Gardens is a mixed income community - home now to 60 low income families, some middle income apartments, a planned high income tower, and a tax-subsidized Wal-Mart! Our tax dollars at work – destroying not only low-income housing but neighborhood small businesses as well. Worse yet, after Katrina, the 60 low-income families in River Gardens were not even allowed back into their apartments. They were told their apartments were needed for employees of the housing authority. It took the filing of a federal complaint by the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Center to get the families back into their apartments."


There has been some resistance. Last weekend there was a march in an upper-income area with the argument "If you want to mix, let's do mixed income. Let’s mix income in your community!" The group held a large banner in front of a $2 million house saying "If we're going to start mixed income, let's start here.”

I will end my rant with a quote from ten-term Republican Congressmember from Baton Rouge, Richard Baker.

“We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it. But God did.”
----------------

these developments really bothered me because instead of helping rebuilding New Orleans and helping those who need it the, the federal and state government is exploiting the city and pushing aside low-income people (those who suffered the most because the natural disaster).

Yet unfortunately, this isn't the end of the exploitation of New Orleans and the general gulf coast area. According to a recent report by CorpWatch:

"Disaster profiteers [are] mak[ing] millions while local companies and laborers in New Orleans and the rest of the Katrina-devastated Gulf Coast region are systematically getting the short end of the stick"because of no bid contracts to companies outside of the three most effected areas (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama) and " 'contracting charge pyramids' where the companies doing the actual reconstruction work often get only a tiny (and insufficient) fraction of the taxpayer money awarded for projects and widespread non-payment of local companies and laborers, including what has been alleged to be the deliberate and systematic exploitation of immigrant workers, including undocumented individuals."

Local businesses get shunned and cheap labor is exploited. The Bush Administration at its best!

The Possible Future Democratic Congressional Majority

I found an interesting article on TomPaine.com written by Robert Reich, former secretary of Labor under Clinton. He talks about what the Democrats should avoid doing in Congress if they do succeed in becoming the majority party again following the November elections. The type of "partisan wrangling" that would bring about a host of Bush-bashing committee investigations in Congress. I agree it would back-fire on the Democrats as it did on the Republicans when they went after Clinton so incessantly.

It would not do good for the Democrats to just bash Bush if they took back Congress. Rather, as Reich writes, they should "use the two years instead to lay the groundwork for a new Democratic agenda...[in order to] put new ideas on the table... [and] frame the central issues boldly." This means taking Bush out of the equation and inserting real alternatives. I hope the Democrats can be competent enough to put forth such a coherent plan. Senator Biden's recent editorial in the Washington Post laying out an alternate plan for Iraq is an important step in the right direction for the Democrats. It is a coherent and well structured plan to come to grips with the increasing sectarian divide in Iraq.

But, as always, I do remain pessimistic about the Democratic Party. As this article from AlterNet attests, there are those inside the Democratic Party who too advance a corporate agenda akin to the Republican Party. These are Democratic consultants who switch between politicians and lobbying firms similar to that of the K Street Gang.

The report for which the article is based off of says this trend began under the Clinton Administration. It comes under the guise of "centrism" that Lieberman and Bill Clinton embraced along with the DLC; to promote narrow corporate interests over public ones. It is narrowing the gap between Republicans and Democrats into what the article called "the Beltway Party" of big money and big business.

Though I hope the Democratic Party does take the House since it will provide atleast a few degrees of change in Congress, these trends of seeping corporate interests are alarming. I think its important for people to understand this increasing corporate influence in the Democratic Party. If it continues, I think it may alienate many voters.

Bush and the Health Care Executive Order

As the Washington Post reports, Bush signed an executive order which "requires four federal agencies that oversee large health-care programs to gather information about the quality and price of care, and to share that information with one another and with program beneficiaries."

The article claims that "the initiative underscores Bush's belief that the nation's health-care system would be more efficient if consumers could shop for the best care at the best price, administration officials say."

Bush is quoted saying "The fact is, if you have excellent information about quality, about service and about price, people make good decisions"

Yet this philosophy isn't going to make health care affordable to the over 40 million American citizens who are uninsured. Furthermore, the the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens. We end up paying more partly because our large number of uninsure citizens; $41 billion a year .

In the same article, Bush touts his health savings account "would go a long way to making consumers more interested in the cost of their health care." Yet a recent study published in "Health Affairs" rebukes that claim as one of the authors says:
“It’s hard to shop on price because the information currently available isn’t set up that way. You can know the cost of a doctor’s visit but if something is wrong and you must be treated, the costs for a course of future events is hard to assess ahead of time. It’s not like buying a car or a house.”

Furthermore, the study found that:
"HSAs and the high-deductible health-insurance plans they’re paired with can reduce the cost sharing for enrollees who spend the most and the least on healthcare, but increase it for the majority of people who fall in the middle."

Thus these health savings accounts aren't the "change agent" to reduce total medical costs in this country.

Pattern of Iraqi sectarian violence entering a "new phase"

According to an article on opendemocracy.net:

"The available evidence suggests that the war in Iraq has indeed recently entered a new phase, which will prove to be even bloodier than anything that the country has seen before. Over the past few months, guerrillas have been flowing into Baghdad from the north, west and south and have started engaging each other with a view to eliminating each other from the streets of the capital. The groups that are engaged in this struggle are working to eliminate their rivals altogether, one neighbourhood at a time."

Even scarier is the fact that Baghdad has "deliberately been transformed into a battlefield in which each party is attempting to ethnically cleanse the city of all its armed and civilian rivals."

The article goes on to discuss the evolution of the sectarian violence since the beginning of the US occupation in Iraq with the initial Sunni insurgency, to the rise of Shiite fundamentalist parties to power through parliamentary elections and the Shiite death squads that accompanied them, and the failures of the Iraqi political process to stem the sectarian violence.

Even worse is, as the article points out, is the "relative inability" of the American military to stem this current wave of violence in Iraq:
"There are simply too many fighters in the city, and their desire to control Baghdad is too great to subdue."


Just as Iraq is entering a "new phase" in sectarian violence, the US needs to enter in a new phase in its Iraq policy. We need to start thinking about an exit strategy rather then the "staying the course" mentality which obviously is leading down a path of chaos and destruction in Iraq. The presence of the American military clearly isn't a deterrent to the militias fighting in Iraq so setting a timetable for removing troops in Iraq wouldn't be, as many Republicans claim , playing into the hands of the terrorists. Rather there is growing resentment in Iraq over an "open-ended occupation." Most Iraq leaders have already asked the US to draw up a time table for military withdrawal. The sooner the US government comes to grips with this reality the better even though Bush says we will be in Iraq as long as he is president. I hope a change in Congress in November says otherwise along with the American people's ability to express their discontent through protests and demonstrations.

An article in "Time" further illustrates the difficulties in curbing violence in Iraq.