Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta alternet. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando las entradas con la etiqueta alternet. Mostrar todas las entradas

domingo, septiembre 11, 2011

Empire of Chaos: How 9/11 Shaped the Politics of a Failing State

The neoconservative ideas that shaped the war on terror have evaporated as the United States is battered by an economic depression that shows no end.

The neoconservative ideas that shaped the war on terror have evaporated as the United States is battered by an economic depression that shows no end.

The events made my mind reel. The angry plumes of smoke, office paper raining like confetti, tumbling windows flashing in the sunlight. I could make out jumpers and watched a jet fighter whoosh by the burning towers, bank and disappear. I thought, “This is like a movie.”

It upset me that my only way to comprehend the events was to reference the Hollywood imaginarium. But it was understandable. Where else would I have seen images resembling the war in my backyard – collapsing skyscrapers, gigantic fireballs and thousands of dead?

The need to make sense of the events of Sept. 11 – the plot by al-Qaeda, four hijacked airliners, the demolished twin towers and nearly 3,000 dead – is universal. It is why the state’s first task after 9/11 – before one bomb dropped, one soldier deployed – was to imprint the “war on terror” on the collective American mindset.

Mere hours after the attack, in his address to the nation, President Bush began assembling the ideological scaffolding for endless war: “America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world”; “our nation saw evil”; “the American economy will be open for business”; “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”; and “we stand together to win the war against terrorism.”

Many of the ideas that have shaped the events and policies of the first decade of the war on terror are right there: American exceptionalism, they hate us for our freedoms, capitalism will triumph, and this war will know no geographic or temporal bounds.

These ideas were bundled into the “New American Century,” the neoconservative dream to extend Pax Americana indefinitely. Ten years later that dream has evaporated as the United States is being battered by an economic depression that shows no end. The only question appears to be how quickly America will be eclipsed by China. So how did we get from the triumphalism of “mission accomplished” to the twilight of American Empire?

In essence, the responses to 9/11 by the managers of the corporate-military state, which were largely shaped by ideology, have accelerated a decline that started decades ago. After World War II, U.S. hegemony was based on its ability to order the world. Today, U.S. power is dominant but waning, and its main effect is that of disorder – internationally and domestically. And that disorder is eroding the military, economic, political and diplomatic foundations of its rule.

While there is no certainty that China will usher in a Pacific Century – in the 1980s it was “the Japan threat” that generated U.S. anxiety – American Empire will continue to decay if for no other reason than its economic base has been hollowed out and new power blocs are taking shape across the world.

After WWII, the United States wielded all manner of institutions and ideology in establishing global rule: the Bretton Woods Agreement ordered the world economy, the dollar was the reserve currency, the United Nations legitimized undemocratic big-power rule, the Pentagon and threat of nuclear weapons served as the instruments of violence, the transnational corporation combined with U.S. government aid opened and created new capitalist markets, and anti-Communism undermined and isolated mass anti-capitalist forces in the West. Finally, the compact between capital and labor provided for social welfare, generous benefits and increasing wages so workers could enjoy the consumer bounty in return for purging the left from unions and helping squelch labor movements in the Third World.

To read more HERE.

viernes, julio 22, 2011

21st-Century Slaves: How Corporations Exploit Prison Labor

In the eyes of the corporation, inmate labor is a brilliant strategy in the eternal quest to maximize profit.

There is one group of American workers so disenfranchised that corporations are able to get away with paying them wages that rival those of third-world sweatshops. These laborers have been legally stripped of their political, economic and social rights and ultimately relegated to second-class citizens. They are banned from unionizing, violently silenced from speaking out and forced to work for little to no wages. This marginalization renders them practically invisible, as they are kept hidden from society with no available recourse to improve their circumstances or change their plight.

They are the 2.3 million American prisoners locked behind bars where we cannot see or hear them. And they are modern-day slaves of the 21st century.

Incarceration Nation

It’s no secret that America imprisons more of its citizens than any other nation in history. With just 5 percent of the world’s population, the US currently holds 25 percent of the world's prisoners. In 2008, over 2.3 million Americans were in prison or jail, with one of every 48 working-age men behind bars. That doesn’t include the tens of thousands of detained undocumented immigrants facing deportation, prisoners awaiting sentencing, or juveniles caught up in the school-to-prison pipeline. Perhaps it’s reassuring to some that the US still holds the number one title in at least one arena, but needless to say the hyper-incarceration plaguing America has had a damaging effect on society at large.

According to a study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), US prison rates are not just excessive in comparison to the rest of the world, they are also substantially higher than our own longstanding history. The study finds that incarceration rates between 1880 and 1970 ranged from about 100 to 200 prisoners per 100,000 people. After 1980, the inmate population began to grow much more rapidly than the overall population and the rate climbed from about 220 in 1980 to 458 in 1990, 683 in 2000, and 753 in 2008.

The costs of this incarceration industry are far from evenly distributed, with the impact of excessive incarceration falling predominantly on African-American communities. Although black people make up just 13 percent of the overall population, they account for 40 percent of US prisoners. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), black males are incarcerated at a rate more than 6.5 times that of white males and 2.5 that of Hispanic males and black females are incarcerated at approximately three times the rate of white females and twice that of Hispanic females.

Michelle Alexander points out in her book The New Jim Crow that more black men are in jail, on probation, or on parole than were enslaved in 1850. Higher rates of black drug arrests do not reflect higher rates of black drug offenses. In fact, whites and blacks engage in drug offenses, possession and sales at roughly comparable rates.

Incentivizing Incarceration

Clearly, the US prison system is riddled with racism and classism, but it gets worse. As it turns out, private companies have a cheap, easy labor market, and it isn’t in China, Indonesia, Haiti, or Mexico. It’s right here in the land of the free, where large corporations increasingly employ prisoners as a source of cheap and sometimes free labor.

In the eyes of the corporation, inmate labor is a brilliant strategy in the eternal quest to maximize profit. By dipping into the prison labor pool, companies have their pick of workers who are not only cheap but easily controlled. Companies are free to avoid providing benefits like health insurance or sick days, while simultaneously paying little to no wages. They don’t need to worry about unions or demands for vacation time or raises. Inmate workers are full-time and never late or absent because of family problems.

To read the complete article HERE.


sábado, diciembre 25, 2010

Bradley Manning Suffering Extreme Isolation Prison Torture by Our Goverment

Courageous Whistleblower 'Physically Deteriorating'...

Bradley Manning is suffering inhumane isolation in prison that numerous experts say is a form of real torture.

AlterNet / By Joshua Holland

December 23, 2010/ Last week, Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of giving classified materials to Wikileaks, spent his 23rd birthday in the brig of the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia. He has been convicted of no crime, but endures the kind of highly restrictive detention that's usually reserved for the most dangerous criminals in America's supermax prisons. He is kept isolated in his cell 23 hours a day, where he is cut off from most human contact, denied reading materials and personal items, prevented by the guards from exercising and regularly awakened from his sleep. He has been at Quantico for five months, following two months of detention in Kuwait.
The circumstances of Manning's detention gained prominence last week after Salon's Glenn Greenwald wrote a scathing exposé of what he called “conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture.” As AlterNet's Sarah Seltzer noted, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture has started a probe to determine whether Manning's solitary confinement constitutes torture under international law.
The Pentagon reacted to the story by claiming that Manning is “a maximum custody detainee” who can “receive the same privileges that a detainee classified as general population may receive … [including] daily television, hygiene call, reading and outside physical activity without restraint.” But David House, one of the few people able to visit Manning, said that Manning told him he'd only been allowed outdoors sporadically, and his exercise consisted of being placed in a room where he can only walk around in circles.
Manning also has a “Prevention of Injury” (POI) order that requires him to be constantly monitored by guards, and prevents him from having normal bedding. He has to strip down to his underwear and surrender his clothes to the guards each night before sleeping under a “suicide blanket” – he told House it's “similar in weight and heft to lead aprons used in X-ray laboratories, and similar in texture to coarse and stiff carpet.” Manning “expressed concern that he had to lie very still at night to avoid receiving carpet burns.” According to Greenwald, prison medical officials are administering him antidepressants.
POI orders are usually issued for brief periods of time for inmates who are judged to be suicidal or have not yet undergone a psychological evaluation. Manning has been evaluated, and there is no indication he is a threat to himself or others. He has been, by all accounts, a model prisoner.
Clinical psychologist Jeff Kaye spoke to House after his visit with Manning, and while he stressed that a complete evaluation of Manning's well-being is impossible without personal contact, he predicted that “Solitary confinement will slowly wear down the mental and physical condition of Bradley Manning.”
Solitary confinement is an assault on the body and psyche of an individual. It deprives him of species-specific forms of physical, sensory and social interaction with the environment and other human beings. Manning reported last weekend he had not seen sunlight in four weeks, nor does he interact with other people but a few hours on the weekend. The human nervous system needs a certain amount of sensory and social stimulation to retain normal brain functioning. The effects of this deprivation on individuals varies, and some people are affected more severely or quickly, while others hold out longer against the boredom and daily grind of dullness that never seems to end.
Over time, isolation produces a particular well-known syndrome which is akin to that of an organic brain disorder, or delirium. The list of possible effects upon a person is quite long, and can include an inability to tolerate ordinary stimuli, sleep and appetite disturbances, primitive forms of thinking and aggressive ruminations, perceptual distortions and hallucinations, agitation, panic attacks, claustrophobia, feelings of loss of control, rage, paranoia, memory loss, lack of concentration, generalized body pain, EEG abnormalities, depression, suicidal ideation and random, self-destructive behavior.

In order to read the complete article HERE.

Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNOnvp5t7Do&playnext=1

http://www.ted.com/ The controversial website WikiLeaks collects and posts highly classified documents and video. Founder Julian Assange, who's reportedly being sought for questioning by US authorities, talks to TED's Chris Anderson about how the site operates, what it has accomplished -- and what drives him. The interview includes graphic footage of a recent US airstrike in Baghdad.TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at http://www.ted.com/translate. Watch a highlight reel of the Top 10 TEDTalks at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/top10

viernes, octubre 22, 2010

Would You Believe Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky and Bruce Springsteen? 10 20th-Century Progressives the Nation Left Off Its List

Including the key progressives from the second half of the 20th century.

You can't blame the Nation too much for publishing a list of the 50 most influential progressive figures of the 20th century that includes a fair share of truly historical figures, some of whom are barely remember-able. After all, the magazine is more than 140 years old. They have a lot of perspective. And it is rather noble of them to be so evenhanded, or perhaps a little shortsighted, when it comes to the late 20th century, where there are flesh-and-blood heroes still making a fuss, who very well should be on that list.

I tip my hat to Peter Dreier, a professor at Occidental College, whose project it was to pick the 50. Along with the great pillars and heroes of the past 100 years, the household names, he also aimed a spotlight on figures from the first half of the century that people under 60 years old may have a hard time remembering -- historical players like Lincoln Stefffens, Florence Kelly, A.J. Muste, Henry Hay, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and Roger Baldwin (not James). Or you might scratch your head about a few who just don't belong on the list at all, like Bayard Rustin, who not only supported the Vietnam war, but was an apologist for some of the worst minority community bashing by the odious Albert Shanker, longtime head of the New York City Teachers Union.

But before old lefties get too hot and bothered, I know all of these choices have their rationale. All in all, a good deal of the 50 are very obvious, like Cesar Chavez, the list's only Latino, and Paul Robeson and Martin Luther King Jr., two of the 10 African Americans, if my count is accurate. There are two second-wave feminist heroes in Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, union heavies like John L. Lewis and Walter Reuther, and on and on -- check it out and be forewarned. (The Nation loves its beautiful slide show of each of its heroes, so much that I was unable to find an actual list. Maybe it exists and someone can tell me how to find it.)

Of course, by the very nature of attempting such a task, Dreier was asking for trouble or perhaps controversy, which is all in good spirit. Imagine picking 50 progressives over 100 years. That's one every two years.That's leaving a lot of people out. And the frustration I feel is that since I lived only for the second half of the century, many of those left out are people we have known and admired, who have been important to our lives.

As the list is constructed, almost everyone on the list is dead or quite old -- only about 10 of the 50 are still alive. So my biggest complaint is that baby boomers -- those who were born roughly 1946-1964 -- get short shrift. Michael Moore, at 56, is the only boomer and by far the youngest person picked. One gets the impression that the boomer are represented by some of the heroes of boomers -- but notice that this collection of boomer icons are from the "silent," generation and very much pre-boomer: Harvey Milk ('30), Barbara Ehrenreich ('41), Gloria Steinem ('34), Billie Jean King ('43), Jesse Jackson ('41), Ralph Nader ('34), Bill Moyers, ('34).

To read the complete article HERE.

lunes, julio 12, 2010

Most Popular of the Week


AlterNet: Most Popular of the Week

Support AlterNet by supporting its advertisers

We're in a Recession Because the Rich Are Raking in an Absurd Portion of the Wealth

We're in a Recession Because the Rich Are Raking in an Absurd Portion of the Wealth

By Robert Reich, The Nation

Our economy can't thrive when the richest 1% get an ever larger share of the nation's income and wealth, and everyone else's share shrinks. READ MORE »


Has the American Dream Become Our Nightmare?

Has the American Dream Become Our Nightmare?

By Mary Sykes Wylie, Psychotherapy Networker

The time is ripe for us to rethink some of our deepest beliefs about the way this country should work, and how we should live our lives. READ MORE »


6 (Unlikely) Developments That Could Convince This Atheist To Believe in God

6 (Unlikely) Developments That Could Convince This Atheist To Believe in God

By Greta Christina, AlterNet

Atheists often point out that religious faith is closed off to evidence that contradicts it. What evidence would persuade atheists that their atheism was mistaken? READ MORE »


Why Women Dominate the Right-Wing Tea Party

Why Women Dominate the Right-Wing Tea Party

By Ruth Rosen, openDemocracy.net

Without its grassroots female supporters, the Tea Party would have far less appeal to voters frightened by economic insecurity and the disappearance of a white Christian culture. READ MORE »


Michael Moore: Why I Had to Hire 9 Bodyguards After Winning an Oscar

Michael Moore: Why I Had to Hire 9 Bodyguards After Winning an Oscar

By Amy Goodman, Michael Moore, Democracy Now!

In a wide-ranging interview, Moore talks about his controversial career, taking over his local Democratic Party, and unloads on Obama's handling of the Afghan war. READ MORE »


America's Tragic Descent into Empire

America's Tragic Descent into Empire

By Tom Engelhardt, Haymarket Books

Engelhardt's new book, "The American Way of War," explores the U.S.'s jaw-dropping transformation into a global military empire. READ MORE »


America's Deadliest Sweetener Betrays Millions, Then Hoodwinks You with Name Change

America's Deadliest Sweetener Betrays Millions, Then Hoodwinks You with Name Change

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, AlterNet

Aspartame has been wreaking silent havoc with people's health for the past 30 years. READ MORE »


7 Lessons Saul Alinsky Would Give Progressives Today

7 Lessons Saul Alinsky Would Give Progressives Today

By Nicholas von Hoffman, AlterNet

The author worked closely with community organizing legend Saul Alinsky. What would Alinsky say to progressives today? READ MORE »


Profiling 5 Key Right-Wing Mouthpieces Who Spread Paranoia and Hatred to Extremists on the Fringe

Profiling 5 Key Right-Wing Mouthpieces Who Spread Paranoia and Hatred to Extremists on the Fringe

SPLC Intelligence Report

From Glenn Beck and Andrew Napolitano at Fox News to the conspiracy radio network established by Alex Jones. READ MORE »


Facing Reality, The

Facing Reality, The "New Monogamy" Is Keeping Relationships Together

By Tammy Nelson, Ph.D, Psychotherapy Networker

Affairs outside of marriage are nothing new, but this take on monogamy is. READ MORE »


You are subscribed as: adriana1abril@gmail.com


SUPPORT ALTERNET | CONTACT US | PRIVACY POLICY | UNSUBSCRIBE

© 2010 Independent Media Institute‚
All Rights Reserved
77 Federal St., 2nd Floor,
San Francisco, CA 94107

sábado, septiembre 12, 2009

Obama Touts the Money We'll Save with Health Reforms, While We Quietly Spend Billions on Bush's Wars

The debates over health care reform and the war in Afghanistan are dogged by the same questions: What is the cost to us? How have our priorities changed?

By Byard Duncan, AlterNet

That President Barack Obama's most important domestic policy speech of 2009 coincides almost exactly with the eighth anniversary of 9/11 should not be ignored.
This is because the debates surrounding both health care reform and the war in Afghanistan are dogged by the same questions: What is the cost to the American people? How have our priorities changed? How long can we afford to place political dogma above human life before we are overwhelmed by the consequences?
In Wednesday's speech, Obama did his best to bounce between bipartisanship and big-stick politics. He called out the right's "demagoguery and distortion," only after first mentioning his "Republican friends." He sprinkled assurances of cost-cutting into a critique of the previous administration's fiscal policy. His words about the public option -- easily one of the health care debate's most ferociously contested issues -- were essentially sanded down and smoothed out, docile.
"The public option is only a means to that end," Obama said. "And we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal."
The word "Afghanistan" was only uttered once, when Obama pointed out that the cost of health care over the next 10 years would fall short of the total spent by the United States thus far on its two wars.
The numbers were supposed to be good news -- they meant that one policy priority (seemingly, the more immediate and important one, the one that directly affects 50 million Americans) would not strangle the U.S.'s ability to continue our "good war." Subtly, Obama was assuring Americans that they could win on both fronts.
The subtlety, though, is deceptive. Yes, health care will only cost $900 billion over the next 10 years. But thanks to Obama's decidedly hawkish stance on Afghanistan -- a war nearing its eighth year and conjuring comparisons to Vietnam -- the United States stands to foot a serious bill abroad.
According to the Center for Defense Information, the total cost of the war in Afghanistan will reach $439.8 billion by the end of 2009.
The United States, which spent exactly 10 times more on Afghanistan in 2008 ($140 billion) than it spent in 2002 ($14 billion), increased such efforts by $33 billion in just the last year. Obama's escalation, largely overshadowed by the health reform's incendiary spectacle, has been swift and significant.
It's also showing no signs of slowing down. On Thursday, a Senate subcommittee approved 2010's $636.3 billion defense appropriations bill. Of this, $128.2 billion has been set aside for "overseas contingency operations."
Simple multiplication tells us that the cost of maintaining this rate of defense spending for the next decade would eventually make Afghanistan $300 billion more expensive than the health care overhaul's projected cost.
And that's just dollars and cents. The more implicit (and insidious) cost to maintaining a presence in Afghanistan is ideological.
The U.S.'s approach to war -- one that rationalizes poverty and civilian casualties through flimsy rhetorical attempts at "stabilizing" or "helping" the culture that is being bombed and crippled -- is a mind-set that provokes, not prevents, acts of terrorism.

To read more HERE.

We Can't Afford to Wait
MoveOn.org members and R.E.M. speak out for health care reform. We need a public option now.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GoFj8Fc9iM

miércoles, septiembre 09, 2009

Video: Obama's School Speech (and the Right's Real Problem With It)


One right-wing commentator tips his hand: the president's just too likable


For those scratching their heads over the right-wing consternation about President Obama's speech to schoolchildren today, conservative commentator Joe Watkins, speaking on MSNBC, let the cat out of the bag: the president is just too persuasive and likeable, Watkins said. So, while Watkins had no objection to the president's message, he explained, the problem comes later, when the president -- whom the students now like, because they've seen him speaking directly to them -- advances ideas their parents don't like, like, say, repealing the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act.They may listen to him! Hear his arguments! And he's verrrrry persuasive, with all that fer'n socialist voodoo mojo he's got goin' on.Of course, this is a paraphrase: I'll post the transcript or video when they become available. You can check out Watkins' commentary here. Otherwise, you can judge for yourself: here's the president's speech to schoolkids.


miércoles, julio 22, 2009

Cheney's CIA Secrets: We Must Fight to Get the Truth

By Marie Cocco, Washington Monthly.

The scary part is how little we know about the Bush Administration's clandestine plans.



WASHINGTON -- It is the damned spot that simply will not go out. The legacy of the Bush administration's antiterrorism tactics cannot be washed away in a tide of feel-good rhetoric about moving on, nor will it fade eventually if we apply President Barack Obama's spiritual wisdom that this should be a time for "reflection, not retribution." The revelation that CIA Director Leon Panetta killed a secret program reportedly aimed at assassinating top al-Qaeda leaders, and quickly informed Congress of its existence, does not shock. It has long been a presidential aim to decapitate the terrorist network. Despite Republican claims that President Bill Clinton limply addressed terrorism as only a law enforcement problem, he had taken steps to allow what would have amounted to an in-the-field execution of Osama bin Laden, according to the 9/11 commission.
The peril is not in what Congress and the public already know about President George W. Bush's clandestine plans, but in what we do not know. That Vice President Dick Cheney was deeply involved, and may have been behind the extraordinary level of secrecy applied to the program, deepens the dread.
In just the past few days, other lights have been blinking red. Attorney General Eric Holder has been doggedly, and correctly, pursuing investigative leads in the use of torture against terrorism detainees. Holder may prosecute some who went beyond even the shockingly permissive and almost certainly illegal guidelines cooked up as justification by Bush administration lawyers. Far too many in official Washington see prosecution as a political distraction, and an incendiary one. But this is itself a measure of how thoroughly our moral compass has been shattered. It is Holder's duty to prosecute those who have broken the law. Political calculation, even one that helps the president who appointed him, should not be the decisive factor.
Less bloody than the gruesome details of torture that are likely to come to light in any prosecution are the latest hints that the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program was far more extensive than what has been revealed. This came in a report from the independent inspectors general of the five agencies that have had some involvement in the surveillance, or in use of the information culled from it. The details of the "other intelligence activities" undertaken through the presidential directives that allowed the surveillance remain "highly classified," the inspectors say. They note the surveillance involved "unprecedented collection activities" and cautioned that the retention and use of this material should be "carefully monitored." Who and what were swept up in this vast net remain unknown. What we know, thanks to the report, is that the information has been kept in the bowels of the operation -- for who knows what purpose. The more the attorney general, Congress and independent investigators look back at what defenders of the Bush administration claim is already well-trod ground, the more rocks they turn over and the more contaminated soil is revealed. The Obama administration has good reason to want to avert its eyes. It is true that in a tit-for-tat era, any effort to hold accountable the lawbreakers of the past will be spun as political justification for failure to move forward with important legislation on such crucial issues as energy and health care. This is another big lie.Congressional Republicans aren't cooperating with Obama's agenda in the first place. Deep differences among Democrats have slowed progress on many issues. If little or nothing gets done in the coming months, it will not be because those cranky civil libertarians, human rights activists and the few members of Congress bold enough to side with them have derailed the president's agenda.
The means to some measure of accountability already is at hand in legislation for a "truth commission," such as that sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers of Michigan. It would have been easy for the White House to allow this, and a similar Senate measure, to move forward without much ado. Instead, it has told Capitol Hill it wants the idea squashed.
But the trap the White House set for itself has now sprung. Having declared that it would not look back in anger or even with the intent of holding wrongdoers accountable, it is now haunted week after week by new revelations. They are signs that some have a conscience that cannot be stilled.
(c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group

domingo, junio 28, 2009

'A Comedy of Errors': Why It's Time to Get Rid of the So-Called Terrorist Watch List

A new report finds people on the terrorist watch list can more easily buy guns than board planes. But the real problem lies deeper than that.

If the recent outbreak of right-wing gun violence wasn't alarming enough, this week brought news that people whose names appear on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list have somehow managed to purchase firearms at a frighteningly steady rate.
Just how steady? According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office, folks on the list bought guns 865 times -- in 963 attempts -- over a five-year period. And not just guns -- at least one person purchased more than 50 pounds of explosives.
Scary, right? But don't seek out a Dick Cheney-style bunker just yet. Although some media outlets were quick to announce that "terrorists" can now buy guns more easily than they can board planes, these alarming headlines should have carried a pretty bold disclaimer: If the bad news is that people on the terrorist watch list can buy guns as easily as any law-abiding hunting enthusiast, the good news is that the so-called terrorist watch list is a total sham.
The 'Terror Gap'?
But first, the guns.
It may come as a surprise to most Americans that having your name on the government's terrorist watch list is not enough to render you unqualified to own dangerous weapons. Yet, according to the GAO study: "Under current law, there is no basis to automatically prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives because they appear on the terrorist watch list.
"Rather, there must be a disqualifying factor (i.e., prohibiting information) pursuant to federal or state law, such as a felony conviction or illegal-immigration status."
Of the 10 percent of unsuccessful attempts to purchase guns documented by the GAO, these factors -- and not the person's place on the watch list -- were to blame.
The GAO study was carried out at the behest of Democratic Reps. John Conyers of Michigan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Robert C. Scott of Virginia, chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, as well as New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg. The men had requested an update to a 2005 report, "Gun Control and Terrorism: FBI Could Better Manage Firearm-Related Background Checks Involving Terrorist Watch List Records," whose conclusions pretty much speak for themselves.
The disturbing findings of the new study were met with predictable political outrage.
"The special-interest gun lobby has so twisted our nation's laws that the rights of terrorists are placed above the safety of everyday Americans," Lautenberg declared in a written statement this week. "The current law simply defies common sense."
Lautenberg called the GAO report "proof positive that known and suspected terrorists are exploiting a major loophole in our law, threatening our families and our communities."
"This 'terror gap' has been open too long, and our national security demands that we shut it down," he said.
This week, Lautenberg introduced legislation to close the "terror gap." The "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009" would "provide the attorney general with discretionary authority to deny the transfer or issuance of a firearm or explosives license or permit when a background check reveals that the purchaser is a known or suspected terrorist, and the attorney general reasonably believes that the person may use a firearm or explosives in connection with terrorism."
On its surface, this might seem a legitimate counterterrorism measure as well as an important check on the out-of-control gun lobby (which, let's face it, wants to see firearms in churches, on school campuses and just about everywhere else). But for those who are stoking Americans' fear over "known and suspected terrorists" buying guns, an inconvenient fact remains: the government's so-called terrorist watch list -- an initiative of the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center -- is, not-so-technically speaking, a complete joke.
'A Comedy of Errors'
Chris Calabrese is counsel for the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project in New York. He recently called the TSC watch list a "comedy of errors."
The occasion, just last month, was an audit by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. Among its findings: Of more than 68,000 names on the terrorist watch list, the DOJ found that 35 percent were outdated.

In order to read the complete article HERE.

jueves, junio 25, 2009

Food Inc: Michael Pollan and Friends Reveal the Food Industry's Darkest Secrets

The new film Food Inc. is a shocking look at the health, human rights and the environmental nightmare that lands on our plate each meal.

It turns out that figuring out the most simple thing -- like what's on your dinner plate, and where it came from -- is actually a pretty subversive act.
That's what director Robert Kenner found out while spending six years putting together the amazing new documentary, Food Inc., which features prominent food writers Michael Pollan (The Omnivore’s Dilemma) and Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation).
Warning: Food Inc. is not for the faint of heart. While its focus is not on the gory images of slaughterhouse floors and filthy feedlots, what it does show about the journey of our food from "farm" to plate is not pretty.
The story's main narrative chronicles the consolidation of our vast food industry into the hands of a few powerful corporations that have worked to limit the public's understanding of where its food comes from, what's in it and how safe it may be.
But it's also a larger story about the people that have gotten in the way of the stampeding corporate herd -- like farmer Joel Salatin (also profiled in Pollan's Omnivore’s Dilemma), who has bravely bucked the trend to go corporate.
There's also Barbara Kowalcyk, who becomes a tireless food-safety advocate after her 2 1/2-year-old son Kevin died from eating an E. coli-tainted hamburger. And there is the economically strapped Orozco family, which is faced with the difficult decision of whether to save money by buying cheap processed food and spend more later on medical bills, or spring for the more expensive, but healthier food options that stretch its immediate income.
There are also the farmers who appear with their faces blacked out on screen for fear of Monsanto, or the communities ravaged by Type 2 diabetes, or the undocumented workers at processing plants who are recruited from their NAFTA-screwed homelands, illegally brought over the border to work dangerous jobs for peanuts, only to be humiliatingly sacrificed in immigration raids that only criminalize workers and never the employers.
It's really the people that make this film so riveting. If you've read Pollan's or Schlosser's important works, then you already know a lot -- but the film is still eye-opening on so many levels. And sometimes, you really just have to see it to believe it.
Both Pollan and Schlosser narrate the film, but it is the ordinary folks in the film that make you realize how critical these issues are to the future of food, health care, the environment and human rights in this country.
If you care about what you eat, then you should see this film -- and if you do, you'll likely never walk through the supermarket in the same way again. And that's a damn good thing.
AlterNet recently had the chance to talk with Kenner about whether our food is really safe to eat, why the food industry doesn't want us to know what we're eating, and how we can fight back.
Tara Lohan: So how did this film come about?
Robert Kenner: I read Eric Schlosser's book, Fast Food Nation, and I was struck by the idea that with food, there could be so much we don't know about something we are as familiar with. I began to think about doing a film about how we eat and where the food comes from. Ultimately exploring the idea that -- on one level we are spending less of our paycheck on food today than probably at any point in the history of the world -- and at the same time, this inexpensive food is coming to us at a high cost that you don't see at the checkout counter.
I thought by being able to talk about all the producers -- from the [small farmer] Joe Salatins of the world to big agribusiness -- it could be a very interesting conversation. Unfortunately, that conversation never took place [because the agribusiness companies wouldn't consent to be interviewed], so the movie kept transforming into something different. I was very disappointed in the wall and the veil that was placed between us and this conversation about our food.
TL: What was your learning curve like -- how much did you know about these issues going into this, and what did you learn along the way?

In order to read the complete article HERE.

Be in a TV Ad -- and Call Senate Democrats Out on Health Care Reform


Posted by Adam Green, Open Left , AlterNet

PCCC co-founder Stephanie Taylor, over at Daily Kos:
Last Friday, over coffee, Adam Green and I started talking about health care reform. And once we started talking, we couldn't stop. We couldn't believe that so many Democratic senators have the audacity to oppose the public health insurance option.
Polls show that 76% of Americans support the public option. But many of the same health and insurance interests that oppose the public option have given $80 million to sitting Democratic senators. $80. Million. Dollars.
It's easy to feel powerless on big issues like this. But we decided to do something about it. We made a TV ad calling them out. And now we're inviting you (and your friends) to put your name in the ad before we air it in Washington DC!
Click WeWantThePublicOption.com to see the ad -- and add your name.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee will air this ad on CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Show, and other places that these senators and their staffers will be sure to notice. We'll continually rotate new names in. Please help this idea grow by recommending this post and emailing it on to anyone you think would like to add their name.
Together, we'll make the Senate listen to the vast majority of Americans who say: "We want the public option!"
Join the fun...WeWantThePublicOption.com
AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.


Add your name: WeWantThePublicOption.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a06vMlLwKUc

martes, junio 16, 2009

A Movement to Make Obama Bring an End to War


Time to answer Obama's call and "make him do it."

Co-authored by Jane Hamsher.

In 2007, 82 Democratic members of Congress signed a pledge. They would never again vote to fund the war in Iraq without plans for troop withdrawal.
Republican critics accused them of demagoguing the war. Of using our soldiers as a political pawns, of not meaning what they said.
Those who signed that pledge need to cast their vote against the Supplemental Appropriations Act on Tuesday and prove them wrong.
We may agree or disagree about what needs to be done in Iraq, but a promise is a promise. Anti-war activists have supported these members of Congress because of that 2007 pledge. They knocked on doors and distributed leaflets and donated to their campaigns. They and marched side by side with them as they sought to bring an end to the war that still lingers in Iraq and escalates in Afghanistan, as the new film Rethink Afghanistan documents.
When Barack Obama declared his presidential candidacy, he said “Start leaving we must. It’s time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future.” But Obama’s 2008 victory was only half the battle for those who want to bring an end the war.
Obama was once asked about how he planned to solve the Israeli/Palistinian conflict. He responded by telling a story about Franklin Roosevelt who, when asked if he could address the plight of African Americans, said:
You know, Mr. Randolph, I’ve heard everything you’ve said tonight, and I couldn’t agree with you more. I agree with everything that you’ve said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit….But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it.
It’s the president’s job to make the best decisions he can and keep the country governable at the same time. When it comes to highly divisive issues like the war, he’s got to consider many factors — including the pressures that the military and the CIA bring to bear on the situation. It’s the public’s job to create the political space for him to move in. For those who supported his candidacy because we wanted to bring an end to the war, it means we have to answer his call to go out and “make him do it.”
We’re working with state blogs from across the country to sound the call to action:
Square State (Colorado)
Turn Maine Blue (Maine)
Michigan Liberal (Michigan)
Burnt Orange Report (Texas)
Green Mountain Daily (Vermont)
Not Larry Sabato (Virginia)
My Left Nutmeg (Connecticut)
Blue Mass Group (Massachusetts)
Calitics (California)
The Albany Project (New York)
Blog for Arizona (Arizona)
There is a movement growing now to create the climate for change to occur. If progressives will stand together, we can have a real voice in working with President Obama to shape our nation’s future.
AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.
Campaign to stop IMF and war funding



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiTxa6hlu3k

jueves, junio 11, 2009

Why Isn't This on CNN? Afghan Refugee Describes Recent US Bombings

Exclusive footage inside a refugee camp in Afghanistan following US airstrikes.


Why isn't this footage on CNN or MSNBC? Why can't the American public have easy access to it? Those are questions we should be asking ourselves as we watch the powerful images of Abdullah Khan, a refugee from Afghanistan's Helmland province forced to seek shelter in an IDP camp outside Kabul.

Innocent people who lost loved ones and limbs, homes and all possessions during recent US airstrikes are now living in tents, unable to provide food or water for themselves or their children. It's no wonder Khan, who lost two or three family members himself, resents the US military presence so deeply. "Americans don't do us any good," he says. "When the Americans came these atrocities happened. When the Americans were not here, things were calm; there was the same earth and sky. When the Russians came, they bombarded us, and also now the Americans are bombarding us. What benefit did the Americans bring us?"
This exclusive footage is from the soon-to-be-released fourth segment of Rethink Afghanistan, which focuses on civilian casualties. Brave New Foundation is releasing it in the hopes that others use it to raise awareness about the dire situation on the ground in Afghanistan right now, but thus far, it appears the corporate media is not doing their job in covering this war accurately. When US airstrikes killed up to 143 civilians in Farah province last month -- an attack that was the direct result of military error -- FireDogLake blogger Siun discovered CNN was merely repeating the Department of Defense's spin on the story.
I guarantee if footage like this ever found its way onto major news networks, public opinion about the war in Afghanistan would be dramatically different. Congress wouldn't be on the verge of approving $96.7 billion in supplemental wartime funding, the President and military leaders wouldn't be able to call for tens of thousands more troops so easily, and there would be a public outcry for the Pentagon to provide an exit strategy.
You can also help make sure a wider audience sees this video with a few clicks on the following networking sites: digg, current, stumbleupon, and reddit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxFRhCkjWDg




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duTqOf7u6yI