Mark Stapleton
-
Posts
1,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Stapleton
-
-
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/09/2389/
Mainstream Media Where Are You?
by Paul Buchheit
A group of teachers in Chicago recently started an initiative to inform college and high school students about critical global issues. The initiative deals with young people who have a wide range of academic skills, who are generally hard-working and eager to find a suitable career, and whose savvy about modern culture makes up for their lack of life experience. But they know almost nothing about their country’s relationship with the world. They know there’s a war going on, they’ve heard about genocide in Africa, they suspect that Iran is a threat to the United States. But ask them to provide some details and they return a blank stare.
It is understandable that today’s youth, with so many entertainment options and electronic distractions, and with the pursuit of good times high on their list of priorities, can’t be sufficiently aware of world issues. But they do read newspaper headlines and occasionally watch the news. They simply don’t get enough information from these sources. If they hear at all about controversial issues, the information is oversimplified, incomplete, and often one-sided.
They need to know that the U.S. is responsible for almost half of the world’s total military expenditures, that nearly half of the arms sales to developing countries (in 2005) came from the United States, and that 20 of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms sales in the developing world were declared undemocratic or human rights abusers by the U.S. State Department’s own Human Rights Report.
They need to know that the U.S. attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments from the end of WW2 to the turn of the century, many of them populist and democratic movements that were battling oppressive regimes.
They need to know that the U.S. went to war with Iraq in 2003 because of erroneous claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had ties to Al Qaeda.
They need to know that studies by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, the FBI, the State Dept., and all four branches of the armed forces, revealed that the occupation of Iraq has contributed to an increase in the overall terrorist threat. And that studies by the University of Chicago, the Hoover Digest, the Cato Institute, Iraq Body Count, and the 2005 Human Security Report support these findings.
They need to know that the U.S. opposed United Nations votes on the right to food, the rights of women, the rights of children, and the right to freedom of people forcibly deprived of that right. That the U.S. opposed the banning of landmines. That the UN has accused the U.S. of repeatedly violating the World Convention against Torture, and that the UN voted the U.S. off the U.N. Human Rights Commission in 2001. And that at the end of 2006, 80% of the UN’s unpaid dues were owed by the United States.
They need to know that only eight corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Viacom (formerly CBS), General Electric, Yahoo, Google, and MSN — now control most of the U.S. media, and that some of them have close connections to companies making weaponry for the U.S. military.
They need to know that while 3,000 Americans died in the horrible terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, every DAY of the year 30,000 children die of hunger and preventable diseases around the world. That the United Nations Human Development Report 2005 concluded that “The gap between the average citizen in the richest and in the poorest countries is wide and getting wider.” That the World Bank’s World Development Report 2006 stated that inequality in the U.S. is the worst in the developed world. That corporate income has risen much faster than workers’ wages, while the corporate tax rate has dropped dramatically over the past 50 years.
They need to know that U.S. foreign aid, based on percentage of income, is one of the lowest in the developed world. That most of our aid goes to relatively wealthy Israel and another ally, Egypt. That 70% of U.S. aid is ‘tied,’ which means that the recipient must use it to purchase U.S. goods and services. That even our impressive level of private aid is mostly confined to donations within the U.S., and in the form of remittances (money sent back to the home countries of people working in the United States).
They need to know that “free trade” is often skewed in favor of wealthy countries. That we give more economic aid to our own multinational companies than foreign aid to poor countries. That U.S. tariffs on countries like Viet Nam and Bangladesh are 10 times higher than on European Union countries. That according to Christian Aid, trade liberalization in the past 20 years has cost sub-Saharan Africa more than $272 billion, a staggering sum that could have erased all its debts while paying for vaccination and school for every child. That the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the New Economics Foundation, and the United Nations Report on the World Social Situation 2005 all reported that free trade has not helped the world’s poor.
Is it unpatriotic to criticize the behavior of one’s own country? It depends on the meaning of patriotism. Socrates angered people by challenging them in public and exposing their ignorance. But he felt he was acting as a patriot by encouraging thoughtfulness over blind acceptance and celebration of government policies. In words attributed to him, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Like Socrates, Henry David Thoreau believed that citizens should tolerate nothing less from their government than the highest standards of behavior. He said, “Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform.” Martin Luther King talked about moving “beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience.”
But how do we know what’s true and what isn’t? Opinions derived from any one source may be inaccurate, or biased, or simply wrong. Our students in the Global Initiative are taught to research the issues, to seek multiple sources if there is any question about the truth. It can be hard work. Their job would be a lot easier if the newspapers and TV news shows would take on the big issues and make a realistic effort to provide balanced coverage.
Paul Buchheit is a professor with the Chicago City Colleges, co-founder of Global Initiative Chicago, and the founder of fightingpoverty.org. He has contributed to commondreams, counterpunch, and countercurrents.
Email: pbuchheit@ccc.edu
References
1 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook
2006 ( http://yearbook2006.sipri.org/chap8)
2 “World Wide Military Expenditures”
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm )
3 “U.S. Military Spending vs. the World,” Center for Arms Control and
Non-Proliferation, February 5, 2007
4 Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998-2005,” CRS
Report for Congress, October 23, 2006
5 Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung, with Leslie Heffel, “U.S.
Weapons at War 2005: Promoting Freedom or Fueling Conflict?” June 2005
6 “The G8: Global Arms Exporters: Failing to prevent irresponsible
arms transfers” Amnesty International, IANSA, Oxfam International,
June 2005
7 William Blum, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”
(Common Courage Press, 2000)
8 “Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq,” by Thomas Ricks
(Penguin Books, 2006)
9 Robert A. Pape, “Suicide Terrorism and Democracy: What We’ve Learned
Since 9/11,” Cato Institute, September 8, 2006
10 “Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn’t Work,” by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita
and George W. Downs, The Hoover Digest, January 23, 2006
(http://www.hooverdigest.org/042/bdm.html)
11 “Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? The Historical
Record,” by Ivan Eland, Cato Institute, December 17, 1998
(http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1568.htm)
12 “The Iraq Effect: War Has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide,”
By Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, Mother Jones, March 1, 2007
(http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_effect_1.html )
13 “Year Four: Simply the worst,” Press release 15: Iraq Body Count
March 18th 2007 (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr15.php)
14 “The Terrorism Index,” by Foreign Policy & The Center For American
Progress, July/August 2006
15 “Human Security Report 2005″
(http://www.humansecurityreport.info/content/view/28/63)
16 “US Position on International Treaties,” Updated July, 2003
(http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/tables/treaties.htm)
17 “Why do people hate America?” by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn
Davies (Disinformation Co., 2002)
18 “Convention on the Rights of the Child,” UNICEF
(http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_30229.html)
19 “U.S. Opposes Right to Food at World Summit,” Peter Rosset, Food
First, June 30, 2002
20 Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 (www.hrw.org)
21 United Nations Population Fund, January 2006
( http://www.unfpa.org/support/friends/34million.htm)
22 “US acknowledges torture at Guantanamo; in Iraq, Afghanistan - UN
06.24.2005
( http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/...fx2110388.html)
23 “U.S. ousted from U.N. Human Rights Commission,” cnn.com, May 3,
2001 ( http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/03/us.human)
24 “UN approves Human Rights Council over US opposition,” University
of Pittsburgh School of Law, March 15, 2006
25 “U.S. Will Not Join Landmine Treaty”
(http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_03/Rademaker.asp)
26 “Global Governance Initiative: Annual Report 2006″
( http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Initiatives/GGI_Report06.pdf)
27 “What Every American Should Know About Who’s Really Running the
World,” by Melissa Rossi (Plume Books, 2005)
28 “Human Security Report,” Human Security Centre, 2005
(www.humansecurityreport.info)
29 “UN Finance,” Global Policy Forum, accessed February 2007
(http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance )
30 Ben Bagdikian, “The New Media Monopoly” (Beacon Press, 2004)
31 “Big Six U.S. TV Companies,” TVNewsday, April 21, 2006
32 “And then there were eight: 25 years of media mergers, from GE-NBC
to Google-YouTube,” Mother Jones, March 2007
33 Jeffrey D. Sachs, “The End of Poverty” (Penguin Press, 2005)
34 United Nations: Human Development Report 2005
( http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pd..._chapter_2.pdf)
35 “Historical Income Tables - Income Equality,” U.S. Census Bureau,
May 2004
36 United Nations Human Development Report 2005
37 World Bank, “World Development Report 2006″
38 “The Income Gap,” US News & World Report, January 22, 2007
39 “Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows,” New York Times, March 29, 2007
40 “Two Americas: One Rich, One Poor? Understanding Income Inequality
in the United States” by Robert Rector and Rea Hederman, Jr., August
24, 2004 ( http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm)
41 “The Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Through 2006: The Latest CTJ Data, June
22, 2006 (http://ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf )
42 “New IRS Data Show Income Inequality Is Again on the Rise,” By
Isaac Shapiro, October 17, 2005 (http://www.cbpp.org/10-17-05inc.htm)
43 “The Decline of Corporate Income Tax Revenues,” by Joel Friedman,
October 24, 2003 (http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm)
44 World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United
Nations University (UNU-WIDER), “The World Distribution of Household
Wealth,” December 5, 2006
45 “Corporate Tax Dodgers: The Decline in U.S. Corporate Taxes and the
Rise in Offshore Tax Haven Abuses,” Center for Corporate Policy
46 “Americans on Foreign Aid and World Hunger: A Study of U.S. Public
Attitudes, Program on International Policy Attitudes,” 2001 and 2006
47 “Official Development Assistance increases further - but 2006
targets still a challenge,” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 11/04/2005
48 “Development aid from OECD countries fell 5.1% in 2006,”
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, March 4, 2007
49 “Human Development Report 2005,” United Nations
(hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/HDR05_chapter_3.pdf)
50 “Stingy Samaritans: Why Recent Increases in Development Aid Fail to
Help the Poor,” By Pekka Hirvonen, Global Policy Forum, August 2005
51 “Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and
Policy,” Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress,
January 19, 2005
52 “Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and
Policy,” Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress,
April 15, 2004 ( http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/trade/files/98-
916.pdf
53 “Paying the Price: Why rich countries must invest now in a war on
poverty,” Oxfam International 2005, Figure 10
( http://www.oxfam.org/en/files/pp041206_MDG.pdf)
54 “Tied Aid Strangling Nations, Says U.N.” by Thalif Deen, July 6,
2004
55 “The Index of Global Philanthropy 2006,” Carol Adelman, Center for
Global Prosperity (cgp.hudson.org)
56 “Think Again: U.S. Foreign Aid,” By Steven Radelet, Center for
Global Development, February 2005
( http://www.cgdev.org/docs/FP_Radelet_2_05.pdf)
57 Commitment to Development Index for 2005, Center for Global
Development (http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi )
58 “Remittances aren’t charity, and one country does not make an
index,” by Steve Radelet, cgdev.org, April 13, 2006
59 “International comparisons of charitable giving,” Charities Aid
Foundation, November 2006
60 “Savage Subsidies,” By Michael Hogan, 03-28-06
(http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/3066/1/159 )
61 “Human Development Report 2005″
(http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005)
62 “It Takes More than Free Trade to End Poverty,” By Joseph Stiglitz,
Former World Bank Chief Economist, February 3, 2006
(http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/wto/2006/0203stiglitz.htm)
63 “A Compendium of Inequality: The Human Development Report 2005,” by
Jens Martens
64 “The economics of failure: The real cost of ‘free’ trade for poor
countries,” A Christian Aid briefing paper, June 2005
65 The Damage Done: Aid, Death and Dogma, Christian Aid 2005
66 “For Richer or Poorer: transforming economic partnership between
Europe and Africa, Christian Aid 2005
67 “Taking Liberties: Poor people, free trade and trade justice,”
Christian Aid 2004
68 “Effects of Financial Globalization on Developing Countries,” IMF
Occasional Paper 220, 2003.
69 “The Persistently Poor: An Internal Report Criticizes World Bank’s
Efforts on Poverty,” By Peter S. Goodman, Washington Post, December 8,
2006
70 “World Economy Giving Less to Poorest in Spite of Global Poverty,”
New Economics Foundation, January 23, 2006
71 “Globalization Will Increase Inequality in Developing Countries,”
South Centre, February 28, 2006
72 Amy Chua, “World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy
Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability” (New York: Anchor Books,
2004)
73 “Critical Patriotism,” By J. Peter Euben
(http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2002/02so/02sojeu.htm)
74 Henry David Thoreau, “Civil Disobedience”
( http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Tho...obedience.html)
75 “A Time to Break Silence,” By Martin Luther King Jr., April 4th,
1967
-
Once we travel beyond the simple, elegant, irrefutable proof of conspiracy to be found in the medical, photographic, ballistic, audio, eyewitness, and earwitness evidence, we move into the wilderness.
The United States House of Representatives concluded that conspiracy is "probable," but would not follow us into the unknown territory where answers to "who" and "why" await discovery.
How do we account for such a decision?
Charles
I could take a guess, Charles.
Because it knows that if the principal conspirators were ever revealed then it would shatter any remaining faith people might have had in the Government.
And since the media has been such a fierce defender of the Government position, one must assume that they share the same fear and hence those two are on the same team. Which team they are playing for is not clear but it definitely isn't ours.
-
Lee,
My only question on the van or other vehicle parked just beyond the overpass on the south side is the distance from the limo. The limo was not in the closest lane. I believe it was in the far north lane, to enter the ramp to the freeway. Though I know nothing about explosives, I wonder if any vehicle with a bomb in that area was close enough to the passing limo to ensure death to its occupants. I assume it would have to be one hell of a bomb, killing everyone within many yards of the vehicle.
As for the potential patsies for the bomb, the tramps in a train car loaded with explosives (and assuming that the operation was to be blamed on Castro), of all the usual tramp suspects (Holt, Hunt, Crisman, Sturgis, Harrelson, Frenchy, Abrams, Gedney, and Doyle), what possible connection did any of them have to Cuba?
Ron
I asked the same question and found out that it is entirely possible - it would be interesting to compare notes with the device discovered along the Miami motorcade route. Anyway - I also don't know much about explosives, however it was demonstrated to me that it was entirely feasible from that distance - plus for all I know there was some form of diversionary tactic planned to push the lincoln closer to the target - many questions - but the van still seems most suspect - and the cars parked along Commerce? Seem even further away and too close to the underpass. That cop standing there would have obliterated. I don't know on the tramps - if you take the line that Holt was on the level - even consider the possibility that there were more than one set of tramps - I never got an answer as to whom this gentleman may have been for example...
http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/beers21.jpg
it still leaves that question - however, I don't know that there wasn't more than one game being played. Certainly with Oswald you had the FPCC, Cuba, and the Soviet Union to play with. As this was a rightwing game, there could have been other targets aside from regaining Cuba. There may have been material in their backgrounds that would have led in some Cuban direction. For example, The Man on the Grassy Knoll has a very possible Harrelson running around with Oswald - as reported by a Reverend and his wife - names escape me. Bottomline, good question - I don't know the answer. I do believe Oswald's arrest was not according the plan [imagine the sweating that went on after that]. And I have heard of at least one op that was done in the 70s in which something similar to a 'Lone Nut' scenario was offered as a potential alternative [the individual leading the op in question suddenly realized what ocurred in DP]. Leaving behind corpses is probably the preferred method.
- lee
Lee,
What was this device discovered along the Miami motorcade route which you referred to?
-
In April 1963 LBJ made comments in a radio interview about not shooting "the captain of the ship" or something to that effect. As I recall, it was in reference to critics of JFK. The comments could be interpreted as code for a go-ahead on the assassination. Does anyone have the details on this (his exact words, date, etc.)? I found nothing through Google.
Ron,
This is news to me. Where did you hear this?
If you could find out which radio station broadcast the interview, it could be worth checking with the Museum of Radio and Television. Probably a longshot.
-
Mark: "...its middle class is growing accordingly" - it's localised. Deliberately so.
The killers of Tienamin Square were handpicked to not have relations amongst the demonstrators. As well. they were compartmentalised, isolated and indoctrinated prior to striking. It's a nation divided, with a unity that is a result of that division.
China is an Imperial nation with an Emperor. It has been so since the mists of its early history for thousands of years. They have evolved a system of government that essentially has remained the same because it can take on many guises. Broadly there is the mass peasant base. Then a series of hierarchical levels that are in fact potentially accessible to all. Patronage and Justice is meted out irrespective of a persons presumed status. A lowly peasant may rise to very high positions and a person high in the hierarchy may sink to the bottom of the pile. The Emperor remains an elusive person, or assemblge of persons, depending on circumstances.
At the moment, a 'foxy' (see the meaning of the fox in chinese mythology), leadership is raising a portion of society to western standards. The peasantry as usual is left to fend for themselves within this hierarchical system. Perhaps a refined form of corporate fascism a' la Il Duce is an apt comparison. China is imperialistic and is spreading its influence wider and wider, knowing when to hold back, and when to advance. It advances on many levels, ranging from open economic influences, covert drug trades, and open warfare, economic and military. Because of the success of the Chinese system, there are elements in western society in thrall of it, and there are very influential elements in US high society privy to this formula.
The Last Emperor never was. The Emperor merely changed clothes, and continues to do so. China is a society with little regard for human life at the top and perhaps a marxist wolud call it 'State Capitalist'. The truth. however, I suspect, is something more sinister.
John,
Interesting stuff about China. Perhaps an imperialistic war between China and the US could be on the cards.
I agree it doesn't value life highly. Over 8,000 Chinese miners died last year while Australia's mining industry, which is of a similar size, lost three. John Howard's comment a while back that he would like the Australian mining industry to be more like its Chinese counterpart was carefully noted by the unions.
It has an economy so overheated that the Chinese Premier said recently that he didn't know how to reign it in. It will be interesting to see how much of this growth will eventually be attributed to the Beijing Olympics, but the environmental issue is the wild card which could sink them. The poisoned air and water will make some of their worst polluted cities, up in the north, uninhabitable before long. Interesting times ahead.
-
Interesting point, Daniel.
It's the same here in Australia and most likely throughout other western democracies. In fact, from 1999 to the present, I believe the gap will have grown considerable bigger, with no end in sight as the price of energy inexorably rises.
China is having boom times--!0% per annum for the last four years or so--and its middle class is growing accordingly. Unfortunately, it looks like those in the West's lower and middle classes could suffer a drop in living standards roughly commensurate with the rise in living standards the Chinese and Indians are experiencing.
It's not all good news for China. They're paying a high price with nine of the ten most polluted cities on earth being located in that country. The economy and the environment are on a direct collision course in China and it will be very interesting to see how it plays out, imo.
I definitely have no problem with increasing the living standards of people in China, India, Latin America, etc. This will I think inevitably lead to greater democracy (for instance, in China). My main point about China is that back when you and I were kids the very idea of what's been going on was considered "trading with the enemy" -- a totalitarian, undemocratic Communist state. Western businessmen have taken a much more "liberal" attitude since then, recognizing that cheap labor can be "got at" best where there isn't a lot in the way of democracy, bargaining rights, etrc, etc. Those who have the wealth know what they're on about and couldn't care less about anything as long as their profits are increased. That end is not served by the higher living standards (wages) of western workers. And the point is apt about pollution: the Chinese government is selling out both the population and their environmental health for the sake of.......capitalism. Odd turn of events all around, I think; you'd think some Marxist could make an extensive critique about that, if there are any left out there.
I have no problem with increased living standards in those countries either. I'm just pointing out that it could be accompanied by a drop in living standards in the west. As manufacturing and other labor intensive sectors re-locate en masse to the source of cheaper labor, the labor force in the west is experiencing a sharp drop in demand for their services--unless the labor costs can be reduced to compete with those overseas, of course. 'We must compete in a global environment' is the corporate mantra justifying this 'realignment'.
Alternatively, the cheap labor force can come to the west. In Australia, employers can have cheap labor home delivered via section 457 temporary visas, allowing foreign labor to move here under strict supervision--from the employer. There have been shameful tales in the Australian media about foreign workers being paid as little as $10 per day by employers eager to exploit such schemes. I believe the sponsors of globalism have determined that labor costs in the west have been too high for too long. Industries in the West which have heavily unionised workforces, like manufacturing, just relocate to a third world country if the domestic cost of labor cannot be bargained down.
The cost of labor in the west must and will fall, gradually resembling that of the third world until some equlibrium is reached, I guess. It's a drop in living standards, although not for everyone.
-
Apparently it's not possible (for me) to transfer a table of data to a post here without all the numbers getting jumbled together, so I'll have to adapt. The following information is from Time Almanac 2000, with Information Please. The Millennium Collector's Edition. Ed. Borgna Brunner. Boston: Family Education Company, 1999, p. 838.
A brief article, The Rich Get Richer, reads as follows:
"In September 1999, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) released a report examining the distribution of after-tax income among Americans in 1977 and 1999. The report, which is based on data from the Congressional Budget Office, shows that despite tax increases on high-income households in 1990 and 1993, this group has received large tax cuts overall since 1977. The result has been a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor.
"The CBPP report breaks the U.S. population into fifths based on after-tax household income level. According to the report, the top one percent of Americans made an average gain of 115% in after-tax income between 1977 and 1999. The top one-fifth also fared well, gaining 43%. In contrast, the middle fifth made only 8% more and the bottom fifth in fact saw its average income decline by 9%. The next-to-bottom fifth did not change significantly."
The data for this is as follows (U.S. Average After-Tax Income in 1977 and 1999):
The lowest 1/5 income group had an average after-tax income in 1977 of $10,000 a year (5.7% of all US income); in 1999 the lowest fifth was projected to have an average income of $8,800 (4.2% of all income).
The second-lowest 1/5 income group had an average income in 1977 of $22,100 a year (11.5% of all income); in 1999 this income group was projected to have average income of $20,000 (9.7% of all income).
The middle group had an average income in 1977 of $32,400 a year (16.4% of all income); in 1999 this group projected to have average income of $31,400 (14.7% of all income).
The fourth 1/5 income group in 1977 had an average income of $42,600 a year (22.8% of all income); in 1999 this group projected to have average income of $45,100 (21.3% of all income).
The highest 1/5 income group in 1977 had an average income of $74,000 a year (44.2% of all income); in 1999 this group projected to have average income of $102,300 (50.4% of all income).
Meanwhile, the top one percent had an average income of $234,700 a year in 1977 (7.3% of all income); in 1999 the top one percent projected to have average after-tax annual income of $515,600 (12.9% of all US income).
"NOTE: Figures rounded to nearest hundred dollars.... Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Web: www.cbpp.org. (Based on data from the Congressional Budget Office.)" (Ibid.)
Although no indication is given either way, I assume these figures are in constant dollars (viz., $10,000 in 1977 dollars would be a much larger amount than $8,800 twenty years later). But even assuming that, it's noticeable that the income appears to be "depressed" the lower you go on the income scale (see below on minimum wage rates for similar indications of "depressed income").
I think one of the interesting things about this is that while the highest income group was the only group that actually increased its "percentage share" of all after-tax income (from 44.2% to 50.4%), it seems likely that the illusion of "upward mobility" for the second-highest group (and probably similar notions of incremental improvement for the middle groups) helped serve to offset the reality that there was little or no substantive "improvement" in their own "position." (One notices that the first four groups are separated by around $10,000 increases, until we get to that last group, where there's a big jump in differential -- $45,000 to $100,000.) In other words, the vast, vast majority (4/5ths) of Americans can "aspire" to an after-tax annual income of around $50,000, and all their income put together only makes up half of all such income.............unless, of course, things have changed for the better in these happy years under the leadership of the Bush Administration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this data, the year and its corresponding US federally-mandated minimum wage rate is given, followed in parentheses by the constant value of that rate in 1996 dollars<1>:
1955: $0.75 ($4.39)
1956: $1.00 ($5.77)
1957: $1.00 ($5.58)
................................................................................
1960: $1.00 ($5.30)
1961: $1.15 ($6.03)
1962: $1.15 ($5.97)
1963: $1.25 ($6.41)
1964: $1.25 ($6.33)
1965: $1.25 ($6.23)
1966: $1.25 ($6.05)
1967: $1.40 ($6.58)
1968: $1.60 ($7.21)
1969: $1.60 ($6.84)
1970: $1.60 ($6.20)
................................................................................
1973: $1.60 ($5.65)
1974: $2.00 ($6.37)
1975: $2.10 ($6.12)
1976: $2.30 ($6.34)
1977: $2.30 ($5.95)
1978: $2.65 ($6.38)
1979: $2.90 ($6.27)
1980: $3.10 ($5.90)
1981: $3.35 ($5.78)
1982: $3.35 ($5.45)
................................................................................
1988: $3.35 ($4.44)
1989: $3.35 ($4.24)
1990: $3.80 ($4.56)
1991: $4.25 ($4.90)
1992: $4.25 ($4.75)
1993: $4.25 ($4.61)
...............................................................................
1995: $4.25 ($4.38)
1996: $4.75 ($4.75)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<1> "Adjusted for inflation using the CPI-U. Source: U.S. Employment Standards Admin. Web: www.dol.gov/esa/public/miniwage." (Ibid., p. 828.)
One could draw the conclusion from this data that from the time of the Kennedy Administration until the Reagan Administration there was some consensus that a "reasonable" minimum wage rate was about $6.00 an hour (in 1996 dollars value). Since then apparently even $5.00 an hour was too much to hope for.
To put this in context, I know plenty of people who've worked the same jobs for 25 years or so and make a good living earning about 3 times the value of the minimum wage circa 1962; this is "more" in today's terms because it's roughly 4 times as much as current minimum wage rates.
To put this in more context, where I live beginning factory workers today consider themselves lucky to start out at $10.00 an hour, which is not much more than what minimum wage would've been in the 1960s. And even then, one's job is not exactly secure in light of the extremely inexpensive (and lacking-in-bargaining-rights) labor pool that exists in, say, the democratic country of China.
Interesting point, Daniel.
It's the same here in Australia and most likely throughout other western democracies. In fact, from 1999 to the present, I believe the gap will have grown considerable bigger, with no end in sight as the price of energy inexorably rises.
China is having boom times--!0% per annum for the last four years or so--and its middle class is growing accordingly. Unfortunately, it looks like those in the West's lower and middle classes could suffer a drop in living standards roughly commensurate with the rise in living standards the Chinese and Indians are experiencing.
It's not all good news for China. They're paying a high price with nine of the ten most polluted cities on earth being located in that country. The economy and the environment are on a direct collision course in China and it will be very interesting to see how it plays out, imo.
-
I fall into that unusual category of people who believes that 9-11 and the JFK assassination were inside jobs ("a conspiracy theorist" in common parlance) and who also believes that we urgently need to develop a global system of governance, decentralized by all means, but global nevertheless.
A nice idea, Sid. The only problem is how would one prevent that model of governance being corrupted like all the others? Empowering it with the ultimate jurisdiction would not make that Government corruption-proof, imo.
An equitable global taxation system, massive reduction in global arms expenditure and a cohesive plan to prevent the planet from permanent damage due to overpopulation would provide a more stable and harmonious planet but it all seems a bit idealistic in light of the plentiful evidence that corruption is part of human nature.
How to create a corruption-proof (or even corruption-resistant) model of Global Government, while having it run by humans is the big question.
-
I think Nelson will have his knuckles wrapped for this outbreak of honesty. I think some of the more liberal Tories are considering their credibility after Howard has departed. Nelson is aligned to the faction which supports reluctant Howard challenger Peter Costello, and he would expect a plum job in any future Costello Government.
I think you have it right, Mark.
Last night's media amounted to a carpeting for Nelson.
Incidentally, has anyone else noticed that the Right Execrable Brendan Nelson is a doctor? Very suss, IMO. What does it mean? Shouldn't we vet our 'Defence' Ministers more carefully? Does he have links with international terror? (easy to answer that one!)
Nice Steve Bell cartoon in the Guardian:
Yes when Nelson was head of the AMA, his public statements were so critical of the conservatives that many were surprised that he subsequently joined the Tories instead of the Labor Party.
Luckily for us, Sid, the media have tumbled to the duplicity of the medical profession. We're saved.
-
I think the sentences I bolded in Paul's latest reply deserve an answer. I'll call it the Rigby Theorem of Spook Self-Interest. I hope the author isn't upset by that.
I can live with it, Sid.
I paraphrase. Exactly what accountability controls apply to these people?Are there any?
How would we ever know?
The most serious questions facing the Anglosphere today. And yet not a single politician of stature - at least, none that I'm aware - is asking any of them. It is a catastrophe; and will, if current trends are not reversed quickly and decisively, destroy our societies far more effectively than any external threats.
Paul
Well said!
Thirded.
-
Duplicate post
-
Very nice statement on your position, Lee. I think you have the 'how' pretty well covered.
Btw, are you saying you believe a car bomb may have been a contingency and if so, what persuaded you to this?
Thanks Mark.
Yes - no other reason to have a demo expert present unless you plan to blow something up. Hargraves in his interview with Twymann makes it very clear. It sounds as if Hargraves was at ready with a car parked beyond the underpass that was rigged, with Vidal [maybe as Blackdog Man] acting as a signal point to another individual that would have been positioned on top of the underpass. Curious isn't it. I still wonder if Hargraves was the man in the red shirt on the stairs on Elm - seen in the Moorman, Muchmore, Nix films and aftermath stuff. The young man referred to by Hudson that was never identified, worked on Industrial, and parked in the back lot. The demolition piece would have been rigged via radio transmitter - and the patsies would have been the tramps found in the train car - which as per Chauncey Holt, was loaded with explosives. The photo of the old tramp may not look like him at all - but man his story is pretty interesting.
The preparation says, again, Oswald as lone nut was someone else's idea. And only the new Commander-in-Chief had the power to bully everyone into it - just like his old nickname.
- lee
Lee,
Perhaps a plan to blow him up might have been used if they had to abort Dealey Plaza at the last minute. The war on terror (Cuban, of course) might have begun 44 years ago.
Worst nightmare for the plotters would have been if DP had been unsuccessful, inflicting minor wounds. In such a situation I can't see how blowing him up shortly thereafter would be credible, despite the fact that the public in 1963 believed almost anything they were told to believe. In this situation some kind of Plan B involving Parkland Hospital might have been a contingency, imo, and the plotters would have soiled their pants at such a potentially disastrous turn of events.
In any case, I agree with you and other posters that there was no way he was getting out of Dallas alive.
-
One more time in case you missed it.
Dallas was packed to the gills with operations on 11/22 - which would account for the records of so many ops being on record as having been in Dallas, fleeing from Dallas, etc. A large number of compartmented operations were in progress, all with varying roles and assignments and locations. Among them, as per what I have read and gathered from other folks, were the locations of Love Field, Dealey Plaza, the Trade Mart and Parkland Hospital.
These ops were handled after the normal fashion - traditional tradecraft, employing compartmented cells, with specific roles. The leader of each cell would have to be on the ground and present - to reassure the cell members that they had not been 'shopped' or 'false flagged.'
The roles varied, but a small list would include spotters, shooters, transporters, demolition, observers, and recorders. Only the team leaders would have information with respect to the purpose of the op - and they would also [for the most part] be on a need to know basis and weren't going to ask any questions.
Among the various cells that participated in Dealey Plaza, it was a given that there could be a need for a secondary plan, or a patsy to protect and distance the cell from exposure. Several team leaders are thought to have been Jean Soutre, Vidal Santiago, Rip Robertson, John O'Hare, and Anita Silveira. Along with radio communications and frequency jamming equipment, physical signals were also employed - possibly for redundancy in the event the radio communication failed. It is likely that the DPD radio channels were compromised and used to provide signals to call for shots, with a three second timed spacing before delivery.
The role of the overall operation was geared towards placing the blame for Kennedy's murder on Cuba. A large portion of the operatives assigned were Anti-Castro Cuban exiles - unhomed by El Commandante, humiliated at the Bay of Cochinos, and furious with the hints of detente and tactical missiles remaining on Cuban soil following the so-called withdrawal of same by Soviet forces.
Called 'a day off,' operatives were pulled off their various assignments and drop shipped into Dallas without knowledge of the overall goal of the mission - provided only enough information to perform their tasks. Weapons were in all likelihood planted in positions early that morning. False identification would also have been provided, along with a variety of disguises. Safe houses, drivers, and local presence would have been employed. Local Dallas would have been tasked to provide cars, housing, weapons, supplies - access to locations required by the shooting teams.
I've stated this before and I'll do it again - from what I gathered from having read Culligan's material - the shooter is God. Not only does he have the power to take life, but he is highly trained, experienced and skilled. No matter what roles his cell may play, the spotter and radio man must look to ensure that the shooter is well protected and that he escapes unharmed.
In the various cells were a number of individuals - many Cuban, in addition to local Dallas, underworld elements, military folk and oddly enough, it appears one cell was primarily made up of French corsicans - as per the research of Steve Rivele and the revelations of Hunt. This cell was positioned in the area of the grassy knoll and accompanying parking lot area. These individuals may have been different than the other cells in that they were made up of serious professional killers [not that Alpha 66 or the School of Americas was anything to sneeze at]. This was the cell observed by Ed Hoffman - and the reason for the pantomime engaged in by the shooter - who in all likelihood spoke little english.
Cameras were recording. Signallers were in place. Demolition was set as a failsafe in the event of a botched shooting - similar to DeGaulle. The underpass would have had one party to the signalling crew to send the word to the demo team that the car bomb was on or off. Another signaller would be responsible for observing Kennedy's condition and relaying the signal to the underpass.
Kennedy waded into the trap - which was never rigged as a single shooter and lone nut. Lee Oswald was only one of many patsies available and disposable as part of the operation. The direct intervention and authority of the new commander-in-chief, criminal Lyndon Johnson, saw to it that the game became rigged after-the-fact, and anyone that participated - with the hopes of an invasion of Cuba and a return of freedom of the poor abused Cuban people - were dashed to ruins - but ironically, they continue to vote Republican as a block - perhaps failing to recognize that Johnson was a Democrat in name only - and that Kennedy's detente had a hook in it, with plans to solve the Castro situation - his 1964 vote would have been contingent upon this critical issue.
Following the successful murder of the Commander in Chief - let me repeat that - following the successful murder of the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, Johnson set about cleaning up the mess - and burying anyone's efforts to question conspiracy - first with his juvenile effort at a Texas court of inquiry, followed by the whitewash of the Warren Commission. Medical evidence was tainted, withheld, altered, destroyed, stolen, etc. The record of the assassination was seized, repressed, destroyed, altered. Witnesses whose only crime was their desire to see the President - and be in the wrong place at the wrong time - were threatened, and many times murdered. The Whitewash commission altered statements, was selective, and duplicitous. Edgar Hoover followed orders and saw to it that the Lone Nut scenario was adhered to as the truth. History was distorted. And even though he may have been a womanizing, drug abusing, rich boy with questionable honors, the last President of the United States to ever command the office of the President, was laid to rest in the squalor of the culture that was 1963 US history.
Figuring out the entire mystery of the assassination may not ever be possible - as the many compartmented cells would have only had their own assignments and roles, and Intelligence is after all a family affair. Diming out yourself would mean potentially causing others to suffer. And many individuals that participated in the Dallas Op did so because they were on assignment - Dallas holds bad memories. The murder of 2 innocent human beings - Tippit and Oswald, weigh heavily. The knowledge that criminal Johnson did nothing to further the cause of the poor Cubans, salt in the wound. Any operative who then went on to lose family to Johnson's Vietnam - more pain, as there would be complicity on their part in assisting this scumbag in taking over the Nation.
And things haven't changed since.
- lee
Very nice statement on your position, Lee. I think you have the 'how' pretty well covered.
Btw, are you saying you believe a car bomb may have been a contingency and if so, what persuaded you to this?
-
Anyone yet 'fessed up about the strategic oil pieline running across Afghanistan being a reason for the long-term positioning of troops there? Or must we just conclude they are there to ensure a safe and orderly increase (threefold since their arrival) in heroin production for export to the west?
David
This bar chart is instructive, David:
Source: Afghan opium production ’soars’
Things were looking grim indeed circa 2001.
Apparently the Taliban took the 'War on Drugs' rather too seriously.
Solution?
Switch wars.
The War on Terror and the War on Drugs complement each other perfectly.
-
BBC Website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6272168.stm
Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has admitted that securing oil supplies is a key factor behind the presence of Australian troops in Iraq.
He said maintaining "resource security" in the Middle East was a priority.
But PM John Howard has played down the comments, saying it was "stretching it a bit" to conclude that Australia's Iraq involvement was motivated by oil.
The remarks are causing heated debate as the US-led Iraq coalition has avoided linking the war and oil.
Australia was involved in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and has about 1,500 military personnel still deployed in the region.
There are no immediate plans to bring them home.
In comments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Nelson admitted that the supply of oil had influenced Australia's strategic planning in the region.
"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world," he said.
"Australians and all of us need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq.
"It's in our interests, our security interests, to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security."
John,
I think Nelson will have his knuckles wrapped for this outbreak of honesty. I think some of the more liberal Tories are considering their credibility after Howard has departed. Nelson is aligned to the faction which supports reluctant Howard challenger Peter Costello, and he would expect a plum job in any future Costello Government.
A sidebar to this was the spectacular gaffe made last week by Howard enforcer Bill Heffernan, a backbencher from Queensland. Heffernan publicly advocated that all parliamentarians be routinely drug-tested in order to set a good example to society. An EXCELLENT idea, I thought. Alas, Howard quickly dimissed the suggestion, claiming that he would only consider it if he thought there was a problem, and there's none, so forget it OK. You can bet your life Howard has already cut Heffernan out of his inner circle. His close advisor has revealed himself to be so stupid he actually believes the idiotic rhetoric which underpins the war on drugs. He failed to understand the obvious, namely that the War on Drugs is designed to fill the jails with the poor and disadvantaged, not the elite classes. What a clod!
-
Yeah, I think it simply some sensationalism at its worst.
Evan,
Surely it's more than sensationalism if - and I admit it is an IF - the 'canon' is not in reality just an ordinary civilian, but is instead playing a conscious role in hyping up this latest terror scare.
The Telegraph one could accuse of sensationalism (although I suspect the editor might take it as a compliment).
The vicar might more accurately be described as a spook - or at minimum, a stooge of spooks.
But the story seems so obviously absurd it seems doubtful the vicar would be doing this at the behest of an intel agency. Mark did he say why he didn't say anything to authorities?
Good question, Len.
No, the article was silent on that important question. I agree that the story (regarding Canon White's comments) does seem quite absurd. But that's the point--when it comes to the WOT absurdity rules the day, it's become the rule not the exception. Perhaps it's the chilling images of 9/11 which immobilise people's brains but the media here has the public scared witless.
Murdoch's media, in particular, seems to be pushing the issue of terrorism so hard that they seem to be willing it to happen. Cynical, sure, but just think of the media windfall---talkback radio goes into meltdown, the public glued to the cable news channels and the newspapers become compulsive reading (higher circulation, extra editions). Think of all that lovely, lovely lucre. The sweet icing on the cake is that Murdoch's mouthpieces would then preach to all and sundry the new gospel, "We told you didn't we"? It's no wonder the rest of Australia's fearless media is falling into line behind Uncle Rupert.
Hopefully it won't happen. This will cement in Murdoch's mind the conviction that terrorists are low, rotten bastards--and unreliable as well.
-
An interesting anecdote..."What is to become of the Palestinians?" "Oh," Sharon said, "we'll make a pastrami sandwich of them." I said, "What?" He said, "Yes, we'll insert a strip of Jewish settlement, in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlement, right across the West Bank, so that in twenty-five years time, neither the United Nations, nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart".
Winston S. Churchill III (journalist, former member of Parliament, and grandson of the British prime minister) at the National Press Club, October 10, 2001, recalling his conversation with then-General (res.) Ariel Sharon in 1973
Yes, it's incredible that 34 years later there are still 187,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Thankfully, none in Gaza. Also interesting, Sid, is that one of Sharon's last initiatives was the forced removal of settlers.
p.s. as far as I'm aware, Sharon still lies in a coma. How long are they going to keep him that way? Seems a bit odd to me.
-
Emblazoned across the front page of today's Daily Telegraph, Sydney's highest circulation newspaper and owned by arguably the most vocal supporter of the global war on terror, Rupert Murdoch, is this:
OATH OF EVIL:
Those who cure you will kill you
With these sinister words, al-Queda terror chiefs delivered their chilling warning that men who had taken an oath to save lives were set to become cold-blooded killers.
Just weeks before the plot to mass murder British civilians, al-Queda issued the coded warning that doctors would be their new foot soldiers.
As the family of the Gold Coast doctor still being held as a terror suspect defended his innocence, Baghdad based Anglican vicar Andrew White revealed yesterday he was told of the plan in April. He said he was approached by the Iraqi al-Queda leader at a religious reconciliation meeting in Jordan.
"He told me that the plans were already made and they would soon be destroying the British. He said "The people who cure you will kill you".
"I met the devil that day. He talked to me about how they were going to destroy British and Americans".
Canon White refused to divulge the identity of the al-Queda commander.
The man, who travelled from Syria for the meeting, said the plans would come to fruition in the next few weeks.
British born Canon White, who runs Baghdad's St. George Memorial Church, is also seen as a diplomat, a hostage negotiator and an advisor to the US Government.
My question is how many al-Queda leaders sidle up to Anglican vicars and reveal to them the plans for terrorist activities in advance?
-
AS IT HAPPENED
Broadcast Date: Friday 22 June 2007
Channel: Free to Air / SBS
Broadcast Time: 8.30 pm
Classifications: Documentary, M (CC)
Timeslot Duration: 60 mins
(Part 1) Six Days In June - (The Six Day War)- The shooting lasted only six tense days in June 1967, but the Six Day War has never really ended. Every crisis that has ripped through this region in the ensuing decades had its roots in these fateful days. On the 40th anniversary of the war, the region remains trapped in conflict. This war has long been seen by Israel as the miraculous victory of their little state this enclave surrounded by an ocean of tens of millions of Arabs from all over the Middle East. For the Arab states, this was a humiliating defeat suffered at the hand of imperialistic plotters. Our two-part film tells the true story of the Six Day War beyond the images and propaganda clichés. (From France, in English, Hebrew and Arabic, English subtitles) (Documentary Series)
Did anyone catch this? I missed it.
Part 2 is on Friday June 29 at 8pm.
It will be interesting to see if the Liberty is mentioned and what angle the doco takes.
Well worth watching Mark
French made documentary, some very interesting footage from the era. The first part traced the road to war. Dayan was shown as the main protagonist of war; Eshkol as a reluctant war-leader. Nasser's terrible miscalculation was also covered (very poor advice from his military commanders). It also came through clearly how widespread the perceptions were that Israel was in mortal peril. Most westerners, Arabs - even ordinary Israelis - held that view. The Israeli military command knew otherwise.
If the USS Liberty incident is covered, it must be in Part 2.
Would you believe I missed part 2 as well?
Anyway, tonight SBS will air a two part doco on Cutting Edge entitled 'Years of Blood'. A brief description from the SBS viewing guide describes the subject matter:
In 2002, Israel launches a large incursion into the West Bank, and places Arafat's compound in Ramallah under siege, effectively isolating Arafat and his 400-strong loyal guards from the outside world. Then came the Jenin battle, where several Israeli soldiers and scores of Palestinians were killed. Sharon decides to implement the disengagement plan with Gaza, announcing a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza strip, which was occupied in 1967. 22 settlements, some built in the early 70s, are slated for eviction. Under pressure from the UN and Western countries, Arafat accepts the creation of the position of Prime Minister. (From Israel, in English, Hebrew and Arabic, English subtitles) (Documentary Series) (Part 2)
Both one hour parts will be shown, beginning at 8.30pm (eastern) tonight.
The series was produced in Israel so it will be interesting to see if a cross section of views are presented by the interviewees or whether it will focus primarily on Israel's side of the story, with brief comments from token Arab spokespersons (carefully edited of course).
-
Yesterday evening Australian time, I witnessed both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SBS TV - both public broadcasters - uncritically relay the latest official version of the latest British bomb atrocities/mysteries.
Both devoted considerable time to an analyis of how many Islamic extremists in Australia we should be concerned about.
The chain of 'reasoning' ran something like this.
- In Britain, MI5 currently keeps tabs on 3000 'Islamic extremists'
- in Australia, taking the lower size of the Moslim population into account, that amounts to a few hundreds.
- claims there are thousands of Islamic extremists in Australia who might be about the blow us (and themselves) up at any moment are exaggerated. It's mote like a few hundred.
The maths was reasonably accurate and fair minded - but that's all.
The rest of the analysis, of course, is assumption at best, downright lie at worst. The intended effect, I guess, would be to create even greater disaffection, anger and paranoia in the Islamic community, while generating even more anti-Islamic resentment, hostility and paranoia in the non-Muslim community.
Now, both SBS and the ABC ran this nonsense. I imagine something similar was running on the commercial channels.
Note the use of reverse psychology. The argument presented to the public by these spinners poses as liberalism. The storyline is: "Alarmists exaggerate when they say there are thousands of insane Muslims in Australia itching to kill us all... there are ONLY a few hundred".
In this way, the anti-Islamic extremists who have siezed control of our airwaves in a long, slow coup, pose as moderates.
Sneaky, unscrupulous and utterly evil.
Sid, I've been worried about SBS for some time now.
For non-Aussies, the SBS is one of two national television broadcasters and also broadcasts radio and online programmes in many languages. Established under the Special Broadcating Act, 1991, its role under its charter is to inform, educate and entertain and reflect Australia's multicultural society. The Act also states that the SBS will have programming and operational independence from the Government, although whether this precludes SBS from ideological independence from the Government is another issue entirely (especially since the Government pays most of the bills, limited advertising being permitted)
The current board of directors includes Christopher Pearson, founding editor of the Adelaide Review, right wing journalist and former advisor and confidante to Prime Minister John Howard:
http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/index.php?id=1200
I have noticed a change in the tone and content of SBS docos and general news reporting which roughly dates back to Pearson's appointment in October 2003. Some excellent docos are still broadcast but many dubious ones, such as recent hatchet jobs on JFK and his 'loose' morals are also shown. Recent docos dealing with the Middle East seem to broadly reflect the US/ Israeli point of view. SBS news reporting in regard to real or suspected incidents of terrorism unfailingly lays the blame at the door of Muslim fundamentalism even before all the facts have been established. As such, I longer regard SBS as reliable or independent when it comes to issues such as this.
Interestingly, Pearson's term expires in October 2007. If he seeks another term, I've got no doubt Howard will grant it as it seems that Pearson has been quite effective in reminding the other Board members that it's the Government which holds the purse strings (so it's plainly in their interests to see things his way).
If Pearson doesn't seek re-appointment, I would recommend the Government appoint one David Oldfield to continue its slimy agenda. A former right wing MP in the NSW State Legislature, Oldfield was arguing on radio a few days ago that extremists in the Muslim world are not a small minority, but are, in fact, a reflection of mainstream Muslim sentiment and that the Islamic faith, being violent and hostile to western society, should be confronted with force at all times. The only thing he forgot to say in his feverish tirades was that they hate us for our freedom.
-
I'd just like to welcome you back, Tim.
Not meaning to divert the thread. Please continue.
-
Once again, we have the spectacle of increasingly strident western attacks on a democratically-elected nationalist leader with:
- strong and stable popularity
- the determination to assert the interests of the part of the world community he represents above the interests of global corporations and banking interests
I'd be interested in comments about the following paragraphs from Whitney's article:
Putin has made great strides in improving life for the Russian people. That is why his public approval rating is soaring at 75%. The Russian economy has been growing by 7% a year. He’s lowered the number of people living beneath the poverty-line by more than half and will bring it down to European levels by 2010. Real incomes are growing by an astonishing 12% per year. As Putin says, “Combating poverty is one of our top priorities and we still have to do a lot to improve our pension system too because the correlation between pensions and the average wage is still lower here than in Europe.”Are these statistics accurate?
I get the feeling that you might be making the above statements in sarcasm, but if not;
Per the Hudson Institute and the Economist, Putin, former high ranking KGB officer, has filled most of the Russian Government posts with former KGB and FSB officers and agents. Criticism of Putin is quite typically met with retribution, often violent.
From the Hudson Institute (Irwin Stelzer):
Russia's president has managed, brilliantly it must be conceded, to use his nation's oil and gas resources in a way that his predecessors never managed to use the Red Army--to gain huge influence in Western Europe. "If power is measured by the fear instilled in others--as many Russians believe--[Putin]is certainly winning," observes the Economist.None of this would matter if we were dealing with ordinary commercial transactions, aimed at maximizing the value of Russia's natural endowments. But that is not the case. When Sergei Kuprianov, press spokesman for Gazprom, described its natural gas operations as "normal business," former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray commented, "Normal business is the last thing Gazprom is involved in."
First, Gazprom is an important weapon in Putin's program of eliminating dissenting voices in Russian media. Gazprom Media took over what had been the country's only independent television channel after Putin closed it down. The company also bought two of Russia's large and once-independent newspapers, and Alisher Usmanov, chairman of Gazprominvest Holdings, the company's financial arm, bought the remaining one--after which the editor was fired and the defense correspondent had a fatal fall from a third-story window. Gazprom's control of the media is so complete that Ambassador Murray reports, "The era of free speech . . . is now over." Second, the takeovers of Shell, BP, and other assets hardly represent transactions at market prices between willing parties. Putin takes his instruction from Mario Puzo's The Godfather rather than Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, and makes potential sellers offers they can't refuse: my price or nothing if you are a foreign corporation with billions already sunk in Siberia, and my offer or a long visit with Khodorkovsky if you are within my reach.
From the Wall Street Journal:
From The Daily Mail:The key to the situation is corruption. Russian officials run the biggest companies, controlling, according to some estimate, financial flows from assets that account for 80% of the capitalization of the Russian stock market. Persons and institutions challenging this oligarchy's hold on power have been steadily eliminated.To distract attention from this situation, Russian leaders insist on Russia's "right" to dominate the nations that emerged from the Soviet Union and -- to a degree -- the Warsaw Pact, and to pursue its "great power" interests in a manner that pays little heed to the security needs of the West. Russia reacted with hysteria to the removal of the Soviet war memorial in Tallinn, although the bodies of Soviet World War II soldiers still lie unburied in Russia 60 years after the end of the war. Russia backs secession for Abkhazia and South Ossetia but not for Chechnya, and is concerned about U.S. anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic but not the nuclear development of North Korea and Iran.
Peter Hain, the outspoken Northern Ireland Secretary, told BBC1's Sunday AM programme: "His success in binding what is a disintegrating nation together with an economy which was collapsing into Mafioso-style chaos... his success in that must be balanced against the fact there have been huge attacks on individual liberty and on democracy and it's important he retakes the democratic road in my view."He added: "The promise that President Putin brought to Russia when he came to power has obviously been clouded by what has happened since, including an extremely murky murder of a senior Russian journalist.
Haine has said that Putin was systematically attacking liberty and democracy.
From the Daily Mail, ex-Spetznaz commandos have formed a secret 'Persuasion' organization:
Putin spends the eqyuivalent of tens of millions of dollars each year to shine his public image. Critics of Putin are arrested, violelently persuaded to change their views, or outright murdered.'Dignity and Honor' are loyalists waging their own Cold War campaign against critics of Russian president Vladimir Putin.Putin has systematically nationalized (which is another word for 'seized') foreign interests in Russian business, such as British Petroleum's investments in Russian oil.
By the way, Boyle is incorrect when he says that the US is continuing its first strike nuclear policy. The US has always taken a defensive position with respect to Nuclear weapons. It was the former Sovite Union that had a first strike policy.
Concerning the murder of Anna Plitovskaya, a critic of Putin's genocidal treament of Chechnya:
Politkovskaya captures both the horror and the absurdity of life in Putin’ s Russia...Anna Politkovskaya, one of Russia’ s most fearless journalists, was gunned down in a contract killing in Moscow in the fall of 2006. Just before her death, Politkovskaya completed this searing, intimate record of life in Russia from the parliamentary elections of December 2003 to the grim summer of 2005, when the nation was still reeling from the horrors of the Beslan school siege. In A Russian Diary, Politkovskaya dares to tell the truth about the devastation of Russia under Vladimir Putin– a truth all the more urgent since her tragic death.
Writing with unflinching clarity, Politkovskaya depicts a society strangled by cynicism and corruption. As the Russian elections draw near, Politkovskaya describes how Putin neutralizes or jails his opponents, muzzles the press, shamelessly lies to the public– and then secures a sham landslide that plunges the populace into mass depression. In Moscow, oligarchs blow thousands of rubles on nights of partying while Russian soldiers freeze to death. Terrorist attacks become almost commonplace events. Basic freedoms dwindle daily.
(Per a posthumus review of her book:)
"One cannot read these journals without the awful knowledge that their author, Politkovskaya (1958-2006), paid for them with her life, shot in the head in front of her Moscow apartment on October 7 (President Vladimir Putin's birthday). Internationally known as one of the few Russian journalists fearless enough to report Russian news independent of Kremlin spin...
The US hasn't had the best record on human rights recently, RE Gitmo, interrogation methods in secret CIA camps overseas, etc., but by comparison to Putin and company, the US is a soft touch.
Some of the silenced critics of Putin's Kremlin (from The Independent) Note that this is only a partial list, the entire list is quite a bit longer:
It goes on and on.Dmitry KholodovFollowing an anonymous phone call to his office in October 1994, the journalist travelled to a Moscow train station to collect what he thought was a briefcase of documents that would help him in his exposs of corruption within Russia's military. The briefcase exploded, killing him and wounding a colleague. Six military officers were acquitted of his murder in 2004.
Larissa Yudina
Her battered body was found in June 1998, a day after she failed to return from a meeting with an anonymous caller. She had been stabbed and had a fractured skull. As editor of the only non- government newspaper in Russia's autonomous Kalmykia region, she had made powerful enemies. Members of the Kalmykia president's inner circle were later implicated in her death.
Galina Starovoitova
A human rights campaigner and leading liberal politician, she was gunned down by hired killers in November 1998 as she left her apartment in St Petersburg. Supporters claimed the killing could only have been political because she had fewbusiness interests. Although two hitmen were eventually jailed for hermurder, no one has been prosecuted for ordering the killing.
Sergei Yushenkov
As cochairman of Russia's leading opposition party, Liberal Russia, Yushenkov was a fierce critic of the Kremlin. He had lambasted what he sa was increasingly anti-democratic legislation and was extremely critical of the Russian government's wars in Chechnya. He was killed in April 2003 by a shot to the chest outside his Moscow apartment. Fourmen were convicted of his murder.
Paul Klebnikov
The US born editor of Russia's Forbes magazine was shot outside his office in July 2004, just three months after taking up the position. No one has been convicted of his murder and, even as he lay dying, he was unable to think of anyone who might order such an attack. He had written extensively on crime and corruption following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Andrei Kozlov
The deputy chairman of Russia's Central Bank had made it his mission to clear up the corrupt banking system and was murdered last month for doing so. Two gunmen opened fire on his car as he left a football stadium. One week earlier he had called for a lifetime ban on bankers found guilty of tax crimes and fraud. He had also taken away licences from Russian banks he thought to be corrupt.
Peter,
Putin's a hard case with a tough record and plenty of enemies. You should hear what Gary Kasparov thinks of him. But the fact is that Russia has the oil and America wants it.
Provoking Russia into a cold war won't benefit the people of Russia or America, or anywhere else. If you can tell me how it will, I would love to know. It would benefit the armaments industry and the oil conglomerates.
-
Once again, we have the spectacle of increasingly strident western attacks on a democratically-elected nationalist leader with:
- strong and stable popularity
- the determination to assert the interests of the part of the world community he represents above the interests of global corporations and banking interests
I'd be interested in comments about the following paragraphs from Whitney's article:
Putin has made great strides in improving life for the Russian people. That is why his public approval rating is soaring at 75%. The Russian economy has been growing by 7% a year. He’s lowered the number of people living beneath the poverty-line by more than half and will bring it down to European levels by 2010. Real incomes are growing by an astonishing 12% per year. As Putin says, “Combating poverty is one of our top priorities and we still have to do a lot to improve our pension system too because the correlation between pensions and the average wage is still lower here than in Europe.”Are these statistics accurate?
It would appear they are accurate. The CIA world factbook basically endorses them:
Russia ended 2006 with its eighth straight year of growth, averaging 6.7% annually since the financial crisis of 1998. Although high oil prices and a relatively cheap ruble initially drove this growth, since 2003 consumer demand and, more recently, investment have played a significant role. Over the last five years, fixed capital investments have averaged real gains greater than 10% per year and personal incomes have achieved real gains more than 12% per year. During this time, poverty has declined steadily and the middle class has continued to expand. Russia has also improved its international financial position since the 1998 financial crisis. The federal budget has run surpluses since 2001 and ended 2006 with a surplus of 9% of GDP. Over the past several years, Russia has used its stabilization fund based on oil taxes to prepay all Soviet-era sovereign debt to Paris Club creditors and the IMF. Foreign debt has decreased to 39% of GDP, mainly due to decreasing state debt, although commercial debt to foreigners has risen strongly. Oil export earnings have allowed Russia to increase its foreign reserves from $12 billion in 1999 to some $315 billion at yearend 2006, the third largest reserves in the world. During PUTIN's first administration, a number of important reforms were implemented in the areas of tax, banking, labor, and land codes. These achievements have raised business and investor confidence in Russia's economic prospects, with foreign direct investment rising from $14.6 billion in 2005 to an estimated $30 billion in 2006. In 2006, Russia's GDP grew 6.6%, while inflation was below 10% for the first time in the past 10 years. Growth was driven by non-tradable services and goods for the domestic market, as opposed to oil or mineral extraction and exports. Russia has signed a bilateral market access agreement with the US as a prelude to possible WTO entry, and its companies are involved in global merger and acquisition activity in the oil and gas, metals, and telecom sectors. Despite Russia's recent success, serious problems persist. Oil, natural gas, metals, and timber account for more than 80% of exports and 32% of government revenues, leaving the country vulnerable to swings in world commodity prices. Russia's manufacturing base is dilapidated and must be replaced or modernized if the country is to achieve broad-based economic growth. A 20% appreciation of the ruble over 2005-06 has made attracting additional investment more difficult. The banking system, while increasing consumer lending and growing at a high rate, is still small relative to the banking sectors of Russia's emerging market peers. Political uncertainties ahead of the elections, corruption, and widespread lack of trust in institutions continue to dampen domestic and foreign investor sentiment. From 2002 to 2005, the government bureaucracy increased by 17% - 10.9% in 2005 alone. President PUTIN has granted more influence to forces within his government that desire to reassert state control over the economy. Russia has made little progress in building the rule of law, the bedrock of a modern market economy. The government has promised additional legislation to make its intellectual property protection WTO-consistent, but enforcement remains problematic
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...book/index.html
It seems the US is determined to obtain a generous share of Russia's resources. Their game plan is to ratchet up the military threat and incite unrest with the possibility of a regime change. The media's job is to pretend that Putin is a tyrant.
-
How many post mortems were ACTUALLY performed on Bob Woolmer?
What are the options?
Doesn't matter, I'll say seven.
Michael, your presentation on this to be quite fascinating, although promised photos of Sky weathergirls have been disappointingly few and far between.
Still, what's the motive for murdering Woolly? Was he going to spill the beans on Pakistani match fixing or is there more to it?
Op Dallas
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Thanks Ron. Interesting.