Browsed by
Tag: crony capitalism

Nancy Nord – oh please

Nancy Nord – oh please

Comments 0 Comment

Nancy A. Nord was nominated by President George W. Bush to be a commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for a term that expires in October of 2012. The CPSC is supposed to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury and death associated with consumer products. You know, lead. Things like that.

Nord is also the president of Executive Women in Government, a nonprofit professional women’s organization. Sorry, women.

In two different letters, Nancy Nord has asked lawmakers not to approve legislation that would increase the agency’s authority, double its budget and increase its ever more pathetic staff. She opposes increasing the maximum penalties for safety violations. She opposes making it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products. She opposed protecting industry whistle-blowers. And of course she opposes prosecuting executives of companies that willfully violate laws.

Hello? Anyone home in America?

The agency has suffered from a steady decline in its budget and staffing in recent years. Its staff numbers about 420, about half its size in the 1980s. It has only one full-time employee to test toys. And 15 inspectors are assigned to police all imports of consumer products under the agency’s supervision, a marketplace that last year was valued at $614 billion.

I am ashamed to share a syllable of my name with Nancy Nord. My mother’s name is Nancy, too. I haven’t felt this bad since people started asking me if I was related to OJ Simpson because of a character he played. Sorry, children.

The very direction of North – what Nord means – is blasting its winds in her general direction.

Anyone who doesn’t think the agency needs more resources “does not understand the gravity of the situation and does not understand the concerns that America’s parents have for the safety of their children,” Pelosi said.

Government Bad. Corporations Good. Yar yar.

Family values? Children’s safety?

Lead, good. Whistleblowers bad.

Good government? Promote the general welfare?

Bah. We don’t need your stinkin’ children.

Thoughts on where we are in America

Thoughts on where we are in America

Comments 7 comments

Where are we, America?

March 20th will be the four-year anniversary of the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation. We’ve succeeded in making a bad situation worse for the people of Iraq. We’ve killed and been killed. We’ve drained our financial resources for the foreseeable future, and handed out contracts to such ilk as Halliburton. The oil profits are still being debated, but does anyone believe that the Iraqi people will benefit? A majority of the soldiers themselves thought they should be out by the end of 2006. In a number of ways, our own government has shown how little they care for the lives of our military “volunteers,” or generally for any human lives – except for embryonic tissues, and that only to get votes. They have attempted to destroy the checks and balances of our system. They have illegally withheld information, they have deceived us, they have replaced our land of freedom with executive abuse of power, spying and surveillance systems, massive corruption, crony capitalism, and the cynical manipulation of religion for power. They have worked to legalize torture and undermine human rights, and have even passed legislation to provide themselves retroactive immunity for war crimes prosecution.

To the extent that the American people have allowed all this to happen, and even participated in it, we are also accountable (or in biblical terms, “blood-guilty“). Our extreme self-insulation, limitless self-adoration, self-congratulatory arrogance, over-worked fatigue and apathy, lack of access to or interest in relevant information and intelligence and so on all work against meaningful changes. We appear to lack understanding about even our own self-interest. Yes, we have a pseudo-religious fanaticism here, but even that pales in comparison to our own suicidal down-spiral.

Here is my nightmare: Most of us will not pay with our lives in any sort of splashy symbolic way (as do desperate terrorists), but we will pay instead by meaningless steps, by degrees, into our deaths (and the deaths of those we love) as the euthanasia of unnecessary lives takes hold. We’ll have workers with no rights or access to accountability or fairness; that’s why Bush wants the guest worker program and the union-busting. The profitable private prison systems will also be a source of labor. There will be no regard for real global systems such as the environment, but only for the big game of capital – a game for the few. You and I are hardly necessary except insofar as we can habitate our role as consumers. The profits will continue to go to the top; we will work more and more for less and less (remember the debate about the four-day work week? ha ha). Privatization, such as what occurred at Walter Reed hospital and elsewhere, will reward profitable incompetence. The medical crisis will get worse. As poverty increases and the gap between the rich and everyone else widens, the social safety net – such as it is – will be cut off, a result of “hard choices.” Safety standards of any kind – gone. The economy collapses. People lose their jobs and then their homes. As desperation and anger escalate violent crimes will exponentially increase. More and more people will simply entrench and cocoon – with the aid of killer drugs like meth, or by a withdrawal of engagement from reality. Neighbor will turn against neighbor. We will lose everything that so many have fought for. We will fail to thrive, we will be unable to thrive.

I fear that we are already past the tipping point. Perhaps the American experiment will end in spectacular (or simply dreary) failure. After the Cold War, can we really still say we “won”? It used to seem so, but there is a kind of return of the repressed here. The Orwellian bad points of the USSR seem to have been rebirthed in the USA, under corporate fascism and governmental abuse of power.

We have a policy of “preemptive war” now. Why isn’t that more shocking to the American people? Really. Have you understood nothing of history?

No matter what happens, we always seem to be able to get up the money for war. Other issues are for some reason not as sexy to the national psyche. Will we be able to count on medical insurance, retirement funds, education for our children and grandchildren? We don’t know. How much money are we printing? We don’t know; they don’t report that anymore. Was the stock market drop a warning from the nations who hold much of our national debt? We don’t know. What could be paid for if we could even just reduce the interest we have to pay on our debt? Have you looked? Will we be able to trust the food we eat, the air we breathe, the land upon which we walk?

Ironically, I see one possibility for a hopeful future coming from the very corporations whose greed extends the international slash-and-burn zone. Corporations who want to survive into the future (and not just cut and run from the country once they’re raped it) will be forced to offer ethics and fairness in order to continue to attract consumers and knowledgeable workers. They have to have consumers. And – they really have to have skilled workers. A massive skilled workforce shortage is on the way in this country as boomers retire or die. Long-range planning would dictate that they not kill off their number-one asset: their people.

Limiting education only to those of the upper financial classes will not be enough to keep the machine going. However, I think that education in America will tilt more and more into technical training rather than education, a kind of Spartan techno-culture. No history, no literature, no cultural understanding, no real analysis, no skill in debate or dialogue. All spin. Like Bush, “all hat, no cattle.”

I want to work through various events, such as the firings, and Halliburton going to Dubai, but at this point I feel as though I have at once too much information and not enough information. I’m slowing down a notch. I’m percolating. I need to steep. Or soak. Or wallow. Or consider. Or something like that. I’ll let you know.

Silly observation: Why is General Petraeus’s name pronounced everywhere as “Betray us”?

I’m not saying it means anything, but it’s kind of like the mouthpiece of the White House being named Tony Snow(job). Just one of those things it’s hard not to notice. I’ve been trying to hope that he knows what he’s doing, but every time I hear the news I can only hear “betray us.” It’s disconcerting.

On a more serious note, I’m disappointed in Speaker Pelosi. There were good ideas and plans on the table, like requiring targets rather than timetables. The Iraq Study group report (despite its ties to the oil industry) came up with some ideas that were summarily ignored by the White House. There have been additional plans, some of them with very good recommendations, which have also gone nowhere. The supplemental bill proposed by Speaker Pelosi will give Bush another $100 billion for the war in Iraq, with hardly any questions asked.

Dont Buy Bush's War - If you fund it, you own it

To get congressional votes, Nancy Pelosi seems to have become mired in compromises that would allow the war to drag into 2008. While I can understand the hard realities of her position, there is no excuse for removing the only amendment to the supplemental spending bill that would have forced Bush to get authorization from Congress before attacking Iran. It’s frightening to me. I can see that this White House would lose little sleep over another preemptive war, even if it included nuclear weapons. I would like to see a whole separate bill, requiring that they either call Iraq a “police action” or else be required to formally “declare war” so that they couldn’t avoid constitutional laws. Congress has to approve going to war. That’s the Constitution. The very fact that they feel they have to remind the President about that in the case of Iran is very ominous to me. After all, they know things we don’t know.

If things can still be changed, I doubt that the change will occur on the terrain of issues of war funding or authorizations for war. It seems as though that would be the leverage point, but I don’t think so. It seems as though we can only actually get moving on the less important issues. It is no surprise to me that the voters’ priorities are not really at issue. Hey, the illegal war in Iraq already abuses the terms of the authorization it got from Congress. No, it will have to be something else, something that goes deeper into the systems and networks that have built up to rob and control us.

I have to admit that I’m also disappointed in CodePink, a group of women for peace. I support them, along with the ACLU, the Feminist Majority, and a host of other groups who often work together. Still, this was kind of sad.

Here’s the song parody that CodePink members sang at Nancy Pelosi’s office (from the Beatles’ “Can’t Buy Me Love” – alternate lyrics by Rae Abileah).

Can’t buy me war, war
Can’t buy me war

Bush wants billions more for war to keep up the bloody fight
Bush wants billions more for war but we know that it’s not right!
‘Cause I voted for you Pelosi, Pelosi can’t buy me war

Our schools are broke, our parks are bare, and we need insurance too,
Our hearts are broke, our soldiers killed, and we’re all counting on you
I voted for you Pelosi, Pelosi can’t buy me war

Can’t buy me war, everybody knows it’s so
Can’t buy me war, no no no, no

Say you aren’t going to fund the war and I’ll be satisfied
Tell me that you want diplomacy, which bombing just can’t buy
I voted for you Pelosi, Pelosi can’t buy me war

Can’t buy me war, war
Can’t buy me war…no!

So that’s the endpoint, something specific, a real action: women singing a parody of a Beatles tune at the Speaker’s office, wearing pink statue-of-liberty hats and camping out in her home driveway. I guess we each do what we can, if we still care. Although I applaud the effort, the execution seems so dated and pathetic. I like what some women are doing in other countries a lot more. More on that on another occasion.

So, then, what?

Americans love images. That’s why camera-phones aren’t allowed in some areas. That’s why journalists can only be “embedded.” Let’s find more of the photographs and footage. Show it.

Let’s hear and tell the stories of all sides. Ethics requires that.

Let’s have the international debates. Real debates.

Let’s also have multi-pronged dialogue. Real dialogue.

There are possibilities. But I think that if anyone left of Attila the Hun wants to be elected President of the United States, s/he had better start doing more. Start with the actions now; those will speak far louder than your little platitudinous speeches and little sideways sniping. I’m so utterly sick of it.

If Rudy G is the best that the reichright-wing can come up with, there is a real chance here.

Let’s get some real investigations going. Journalists, academics, detectives, everyday people – whatever is needed. We have to have a better idea of what is really going on. I want to see money trails, forensic accounting, real oversight. I want to see governmental watchdog organizations headed up by people who are not inextricably tied to the industries they are supposed to be watching. That sort of thing. It’s not rocket science. The conflicts of interest are glaring. Just start looking, and you’ll see.

I want a national discussion and debate among the Presidential candidates. Not this fake thing they do, but an actual debate that goes into some depth on each issue. Each night, debate on one topic – the specifics. If people are too bored by that, then they don’t have to watch. Then I want mainstream network television coverage of the results of fact-checking by at least 2-3 reputable groups.

Ideally, we’d get rid of the two-party system that has served only to reinforce one another’s foibles and drive both sides further from the real issues and priorities of the people they claim to represent. I dream of a more representative (even parliamentary) democracy, where coalitions would need to be formed among several parties. Let’s have a dozen candidates and vote for the top three. The top two winners would be the President and VP.

America is just too diverse for the limited vision and power politics of the duo-party structure.

Well, I don’t expect to see that any time soon. But spring is coming, and I always seem to feel more hopeful when I can feel things – despite everything – still growing at the proper time.

Stay attuned.

No Permanent Bases in Iraq – Sign Biden’s Petition

No Permanent Bases in Iraq – Sign Biden’s Petition

Comments 1 comment

I support Senator Biden’s Amendment to bar any funds from being used to establish permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq or to control Iraq’s oil. I disagree with Biden’s stated opinion on the following points: I don’t think it’s at all “obvious to most Americans” that we have no designs or Iraq’s oil or strategic control of bases, nor do I believe that such topics can so easily be pushed off into the realm of “conspiracy theory” tinfoil-hatland anymore. I don’t even believe that for many Americans the idea of our being there to get “our oil out from under their sand” is a significant ethical issue. Sometimes it seems that even “freedom and democracy” is just insider code for “steal our natural resources.” Maybe it’s just me… In any case, it’s significant that the provision that both the Senate and the House had separately approved was stripped from the bill. It’s significant that this administration will not say that we aren’t building permanent bases. By some accounts, they are already nearing completion.

No Permanent Bases in Iraq.
Sign Senator Joe Biden’s petition.

Last week, the Senate and House voted on a joint emergency spending bill to support our troops in Iraq. That’s the good news. The bad news is that Republicans stripped out a key provision proposed by me and Representative Barbara Lee – and that the Senate and House had each separately approved — that would bar any funds from being used to establish permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq or to control Iraq’s oil.

That will make life even more difficult for our men and women in uniform and undercut our nation’s broader effort against terrorism.

While it may be obvious to most Americans that we don’t intend to stay in Iraq indefinitely and that we have no designs on its oil, such conspiracy theories are accepted as fact by many Iraqis. In an opinion poll conducted by the University of Maryland in January 2006, 80 percent of Iraqis – and 92 percent of the Sunni Arabs — believe we have plans to establish permanent military bases.

These views extend well beyond Iraq. In a 2004 Pew Charitable Trust survey, majorities in all four Muslim states surveyed — Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan, and Morocco — believed that control of Mideast oil was an important factor in our invasion of Iraq.

Why do Iraqis and the rest of the region believe we want permanent bases? Why do they think we would subject ourselves to the enormous ongoing costs in Iraq? Do they think we want their sand? No, they think we want their oil.

Osama bin Laden and like-minded jihadists use the U.S. “occupation” and their assertion that we aim to steal the region’s oil as rallying cries in their regular calls to arms.

Before we dismiss the resonance of their propaganda, we must remember what Iraqis have been through in the past three decades: three wars and a tyrannical regime that turned paranoia into a way of life. And there’s a longer history, too: 400 years of British and Ottoman occupation have led to a deeply ingrained suspicion of foreign military presence.

Our military leadership understands the importance of this issue. Last September, General John Abizaid, the commander of all US troops in the Middle East, told Congress: “We must make clear to the people of the region we have no designs on their territory or resources.”

No Permanent Bases in Iraq.

Against this backdrop, I had hoped the Congress would speak clearly because the Bush Administration has not.

To my knowledge, President Bush has never explicitly stated that we will not establish permanent bases in Iraq. And both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State have left the door open to do just that.

In February, Secretary Rumsfeld told the Senate Committee on Armed Services: “We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.”

That same month, in response to a question about our policy on bases from my colleague Senator John Kerry, Secretary Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “I don’t want to in this forum try to prejudice everything that might happen way into the future.”

Just last Thursday, columnist Helen Thomas asked the White House press secretary to unambiguously declare that the United States will not seek permanent bases in Iraq. Again, the press secretary could not unequivocally declare this to be the case.

The failure to speak clearly on this issue feeds the conspiracy theories and vindicates those who ascribe the worst intentions to the United States. They also make it that much more difficult to win the battle for the hearts and minds of 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Our success in that battle will determine our success in the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism.

I’ve introduced the amendment again, to the Defense (Authorization) bill that is now being debated by the Senate. It may not immediately change a lot of minds on the ground or in the region. But it can mark the beginning of a sustained effort to demonstrate through words and deeds that we have no intention of controlling Iraq’s oil or staying there forever.

It’s beyond time for the American people to have spoken clearly on this important issue. The Bush Administration has not.

But we can.

Please sign the petition to support our efforts to convince the world that we have no desire for permanent bases in Iraq or to control that country’s oil.

No Permanent Bases in Iraq.

Iraq for Sale

Iraq for Sale

Comments 0 Comment

Private military contractors are earning billions of dollars in Iraq — much of it from U.S. taxpayers. “Lucrative U.S. government contracts go to firms called on to provide security for projects and personnel — jobs that in previous conflicts have been done by the military” (and under military regulations).

From Hunter at Daily Kos, on the Aegis contractor video (complete with Elvis soundtrack):

And so the circle — or spiral — continues. For those with short memories, it was the alleged misconduct of armed contractors in Iraq that led to the killing and public display of four of them, hanging from a bridge… which led to two separate massive retaliatory assaults against Fallujah… which led to a widespread backlash in Iraq… which led to, among other things, a widened insurgency… which contributed to a situation in Iraq in which armed contractors are necessary for protection of private clients… which led to the alleged misconduct of several of them…

Keep an eye out for Robert Greenwald’s Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers in the fall. The argument of the film wil be that the ones who benefit from the war are Bush’s and Cheney’s friends in construction, security, services, and oil. Here’s a taste:

Port Questions – Et tu Dole?

Port Questions – Et tu Dole?

Comments 6 comments

It turns out that former Majority Leader and Presidential candidate Bob Dole was hired last year as a legal consultant by Dubai Ports World to shepherd the deal through, courtesy of Alston & Bird.

Wife Sen. Elizabeth Dole says that she is "deeply concerned" about operations at six U.S. ports being controlled by Dubai Ports World (owned, in case you somehow hadn’t heard, by the United Arab Emirates – AUE). Congrats on her "independence" – I guess.

I have several concerns and questions about this whole situation, so I thought I’d weigh in.

I object to any port operations run by non-Americans. This is a national security issue.

The deal would allow Dubai Ports World to operate ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. They have been operated by a British company until now – why has no-one objected to that? With that in mind, some of the objections now seem to be to be shadowed by a tinge of racism. That said, and I think it should be acknowledged that it is a possible factor…

Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of military operations in Iraq flows through two of the ports in question. Why isn’t this a matter for military logistics or Homeland Security? Has this always been a private concern? If so, why? If not, how long has it been this way and why are non-Americans in charge at our ports? If this isn’t illegal, it should be.

I thought our policy was to limit dealings with nations that support terrorism. This is actually a state-owned company. They may be allies in some ways, but they do have troubling involvement with international terrorism, including:

– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.

– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.

– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

Former CIA director Tenet told the 9/11 commission that the United States did not target Bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in February 1999 because he was meeting with the UAE royal family. What exactly are our ties here? Is there any connection to the royal family of Saudi Arabia that we’ve been protecting for so long?

It seems very suspicious to me that there are two White House ties on this. One is Treasury Secretary John Snow. The Treasury Department runs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S (the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World – giving it control of Manhattan’s cruise ship terminal and Newark’s container port)and he was also chairman of the CSX railroad company that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left to join Bush’s cabinet. The other is David Sanborn, who runs DP World’s European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. Conflict of interest, crony capitalism, anyone?

Of course, there is standard documentation of Presidential hypocrisy, this one from February 2004:

Part of doing our duty in the war on terror is to protect the homeland. That’s part of our solemn responsibility. And we are taking unprecedented steps to protect the homeland. In the 2005 budget, as the Secretary mentioned, we proposed increases in homeland security spending. And some of those increases are measures to protect our seaports. And that’s why I’ve come to this vital seaport, to remind people — to remind the American people, as they pay attention to the debates in the halls of Congress, that we have a solemn duty to protect our homeland, including the seaports of America.

Bush admits he had no knowledge of the deal before his administration approved it, but he has also threatened to veto any legislation from Congress to overturn the sale. Why didn’t he know? Why would he veto? What’s at stake here?

In a press briefing on the 21st Donald Rumsfeld also claimed ignorance of the deal, but as Secretary of Defense, he is a member of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States – who unanimously approved the sale on February 13. Huh?

Of course one must ask – how is Cheney involved in this? Here’s one connection – Halliburton has used an offshore subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands (where the company has no oil and gas construction or engineering operations) to trade with Iran. Halliburton Products and Services, a Cayman islands firm headquartered in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, made over $39 million in 2003 (a $10 million increase from 2002) by selling oil-field services to customers in Iran. Offshore money laundering, trade with Iran, avoidance of America’s laws, presumably the usual Cayman Islands tax evasion… Is this just one clue to a much bigger picture? See also "All Roads Lead to Cheney" at Rense for information on a company called Prime Projects International Trading LLC (PPI). By the way, why is Halliburton still working for the US after ripping us off? Why was it awarded multiple no-bid contracts in the first place?

On CNN’s Late Edition (Feb. 19), Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff appeared, only to assert a right to government secrecy.

The discussions are classified. I can’t get into the specifics here…

Why is it ok for Chertoff to refuse to talk about any of this? How can it be "classified"? What information exactly could be entrusted to a foreign government but not shared with the American people?

So my larger question is – who gains from this deal? What is the back story? How could this be classified? It seems to me that this bears a fractal resemblence to numerous other situations this administration has been involved with – The Carlisle Group, Enron, etc.

Homeland Unsecured has a detailed report about how the Bush Administration’s ties to industry and hostility to regulation leave our country vulnerable by failing to secure the most vulnerable, high-impact targets in our country. The report is based on an analysis of five key areas – chemical plants, nuclear plants, hazardous material transport, ports and water systems. citizens who still manage to think that Bush is "strong on security" still haven’t gotten an accurate picture. His comfty appearance as a swaggering little-boy cowboy-wanna-be doesn’t have anything to do with the realities of his policies and priorities.

Some of the Repubicans, every watchful of re-election, are starting to listen to some of their constituents on these topics. What they won’t do for the right reasons, they might do for the wrong ones. I’m not sure how to feel about that exactly, but I do welcome any signs that there might be any no-saying to this increasingly fascistic, heartless war-for-profit administration.

 

As with many situations involving the Bush administration, we may never know the whole story.

Reality will not be overthrown

Reality will not be overthrown

Comments 0 Comment

The United States has, until now, been a (if not "the") world leader in scientific research and the development of technologies. This has been the backbone of public policies that navigate reality, and it has brought us our highish standard of living and our economy of relative priviledge. But I think we’re on the way out of that role. When ideologies replace knowledge, it is always the people who pay.

Certain fundamentalist groups, suspicious of all intellectuals, "eggheads," and independent thought, have moved us even further into a state of socio-pathology. Their effects on public policy, public higher education, biomedical research, family planning and sex education, environmental issues, the arts and humanities, freedom of inquiry, and even research funding for the common good are monumental, and I suspect that these effects will continue to feed into the sucking vortex of disaster created the skewed priorities of the neocons and crony corporatists.

This administration puts political interests above our well-being as a people. Knowledge and expertise has been pushed aside in favor of unqualified appointments (or those with clear conflicts of interest), the dissolution of advisory committees, and even censorship and suppression of reports from the government’s own scientists.

Across the board, "intelligence" (I use the term in its double meaning) is disregarded unless it supports a conclusion desired by power. There is nothing more deadly to truth than this. I believe such disregard is a substantial security risk that presents a clear and present danger to the American people. We are becoming a danger to ourselves as well as to others. There is still room in our current system for things to change. I hope that the momentum for such change is growing, and I hope that real leaders will emerge – soonest – in this nation’s time of need.