WASHINGTON: Shoddy electrical work by private contractors on United States military bases in Iraq is widespread and dangerous, causing more deaths and injuries from fires and shocks than the Pentagon has acknowledged, according to internal army documents. During just one six-month period -- August 2006 through January 2007 -- at least 283 electrical fires destroyed or damaged American military facilities in Iraq, including the military's largest dining hall in the country, documents obtained by The New York Times show. Two soldiers died in an electrical fire at their base near Tikrit in 2006, the records note, while another was injured while jumping from a burning guard tower in May 2007. And while the Pentagon has previously reported that 13 Americans have been electrocuted in Iraq, many more have been injured, some seriously, by shocks, according to the documents. A log compiled earlier this year at one building complex in Baghdad disclosed that soldiers complained of receiving electrical shocks in their living quarters on an almost daily basis. Electrical problems were the most urgent noncombat safety hazard for soldiers in Iraq, according to an army survey issued in February 2007. It noted "a safety threat theaterwide created by the poor-quality electrical fixtures procured and installed, sometimes incorrectly, thus resulting in a significant number of fires."
WASHINGTON: Shoddy electrical work by private contractors on United States military bases in Iraq is widespread and dangerous, causing more deaths and injuries from fires and shocks than the Pentagon has acknowledged, according to internal army documents.
During just one six-month period -- August 2006 through January 2007 -- at least 283 electrical fires destroyed or damaged American military facilities in Iraq, including the military's largest dining hall in the country, documents obtained by The New York Times show. Two soldiers died in an electrical fire at their base near Tikrit in 2006, the records note, while another was injured while jumping from a burning guard tower in May 2007.
And while the Pentagon has previously reported that 13 Americans have been electrocuted in Iraq, many more have been injured, some seriously, by shocks, according to the documents. A log compiled earlier this year at one building complex in Baghdad disclosed that soldiers complained of receiving electrical shocks in their living quarters on an almost daily basis.
Electrical problems were the most urgent noncombat safety hazard for soldiers in Iraq, according to an army survey issued in February 2007. It noted "a safety threat theaterwide created by the poor-quality electrical fixtures procured and installed, sometimes incorrectly, thus resulting in a significant number of fires."
Why can't the writters of the story get the back story, and its implications, straight? They make it sound like poor little KBR was pulled into this horrible circumstance of having to make Saddam's palaces work for the troops, but those brown-skins can only build buildings that can't be fixed after 7 years of raping and pillaging.
In reality, to disguise the real number of people in Iraq and to pretend that the Rumsfeld small army routine was smart, and to give Bush's buddies the remaining lucre of the dying empire, the Army and Marines aren't feeding or housing themselves. Between Blackwater and KBR, billions of dollars are gone, and the military has been mal-fed by KBR's malevolence and now we find, actually being electrocuted by KBR's incompetence.
This is the true legacy of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. Re-name the facilities where people were electrocuted in the shower or burned in their huts in honor of the disgraced and fallen Emperors, Cheney & Bush - perhaps they can be imprisoned in them after their war crimes trials. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
WASHINGTON: Every day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day. One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Obama supported the decision by Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Obama with bullet points, was yes -- or "a genuine opportunity," as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week. Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters. "It is unwieldy, no question," said Denis McDonough, 38, Obama's top foreign policy aide, speaking of an infrastructure that has been divided into 20 teams based on regions and issues, and that has recently absorbed, with some tensions, the top foreign policy advisers from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. "But an administration is unwieldy, too. We also know that it's messier when you don't get as much information as you can."
WASHINGTON: Every day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.
One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Obama supported the decision by Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Obama with bullet points, was yes -- or "a genuine opportunity," as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week.
Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.
"It is unwieldy, no question," said Denis McDonough, 38, Obama's top foreign policy aide, speaking of an infrastructure that has been divided into 20 teams based on regions and issues, and that has recently absorbed, with some tensions, the top foreign policy advisers from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. "But an administration is unwieldy, too. We also know that it's messier when you don't get as much information as you can."
Certainly I could do without some of the people advising him, though, as poemless can discuss in infinitely greater detail than I. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Cuba is to put more state-controlled farm land into private hands in a move to increase food production. The decree, approved by President Raul Castro, was published in the country's Communist Party newspaper, Granma. Private farmers who have shown themselves to be productive will be able to increase their holdings up to 99 acres (40 hectares) for a 10-year period that can be renewed. Until now, Cubans have only been able to own small amounts of land. Correspondents say the majority of agriculture was placed in the hands of large, state-owned enterprises. These have proved highly inefficient, and the BBC's Michael Voss says half the land is unused and Cuba now imports more than half its needs
Cuba is to put more state-controlled farm land into private hands in a move to increase food production.
The decree, approved by President Raul Castro, was published in the country's Communist Party newspaper, Granma.
Private farmers who have shown themselves to be productive will be able to increase their holdings up to 99 acres (40 hectares) for a 10-year period that can be renewed.
Until now, Cubans have only been able to own small amounts of land.
Correspondents say the majority of agriculture was placed in the hands of large, state-owned enterprises.
These have proved highly inefficient, and the BBC's Michael Voss says half the land is unused and Cuba now imports more than half its needs
Former Texas Republican Sen. Phil Gramm late Friday stepped down as co-chair of Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign. "It is clear to me that Democrats want to attack me rather than debate Sen. McCain on important economic issues facing the country," Gramm said. The former senator had been criticized for a remark in which he said that the economic slowdown was a "mental recession," and that the U.S. was a nation of "whiners." The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) had seized on the remark and used it for a barrage of attacks on Gramm and McCain. "That kind of distraction hurts not only Sen. McCain's ability to present concrete programs to deal with the country's problems, it hurts the country," Gramm said. "To end this distraction and get on with the real debate, I hereby step down as co-chair of the McCain campaign and join the growing number of rank-and-file McCain supporters."
"It is clear to me that Democrats want to attack me rather than debate Sen. McCain on important economic issues facing the country," Gramm said.
The former senator had been criticized for a remark in which he said that the economic slowdown was a "mental recession," and that the U.S. was a nation of "whiners." The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) had seized on the remark and used it for a barrage of attacks on Gramm and McCain.
"That kind of distraction hurts not only Sen. McCain's ability to present concrete programs to deal with the country's problems, it hurts the country," Gramm said. "To end this distraction and get on with the real debate, I hereby step down as co-chair of the McCain campaign and join the growing number of rank-and-file McCain supporters."
The Waaaaahmbulance has finally arrived, saving Bunsen from the Nation of Whiners.
Bye, Phil. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
What a smug, self-serving, hollow rattling empty shell of a human being.
Historian and author Gareth Porter discusses with Pepe Escobar the positioning of Senator Barack Obama relative to the power of the national security establishment in the US; the legacy of JFK; the feasibility of the US refusing to occupy Muslim lands; and what it takes to be elected president of the United States.BioGareth Porter is a historian and investigative journalist on US foreign and military policy analyst. He writes regularly for Inter Press Service on US policy towards Iraq and Iran. Author of four books, the latest of which is Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.TranscriptPEPE ESCOBAR, SENIOR ANALYST: I'm here in Washington with Gareth Porter, historian and author, and we're going to talk about Iran, Iraq, Obama, McCain, and the ramifications of Obama and McCain's foreign policy. Gareth, let's start with the war in Iraq. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran emerges as the big regional power in Southwest Asia. The US gets rid of the Taliban in east of Iran and gets rid of Saddam Hussein west of Iran. Basically what Bush and McCain have been saying and preaching all along is that they will never accept it, the emergence of Iran as a big regional power. Obama, on the other hand, maybe we could say that he's a following a tradition that starts with Truman, goes through Ronald Reagan, and gets to George Bush I. It's basically a Cold War mentality. It's American hegemony in the end. But at the same time, Obama wants to get rid of all US troops in Iraq, bring them back home. What are we facing here? Isn't this an enormous contradiction, like Cold War mentality, being progressive and antiwar in the case of Iraq? GARETH PORTER, INVESTIGATIVE HISTORIAN, MILITARY POLICY ANALYST: And the answer is both. And that's because he is a contradictory figure in a political system which is profoundly dysfunctional in terms of what it produces on many fronts, but particularly on national security policy. I mean, this is a society that has long since lost--and arguably never had in the first place--the capacity to really have a serious debate about any national security issue, for the simple reason that the terms of any public discourse on national security are so heavily weighted in favor of the national security bureaucracy's point of view that, you know, the media, news media, essentially carry only one side, and therefore only a small minority of people in the United States are going to have the opportunity to access a point of view that is different from the point of view of those people who've been making the wars of the past and still making the wars of the present. And therefore there's no surprise here that someone who is as intelligent and in many ways as progressive as Obama is, you know, remarkably so within the context of the Democratic Party, let alone the political system in general, is a captive of what you call--and I think correctly so--Cold War mentality, that is to say, a mentality that begins with a whole set of assumptions that have very little to do with reality, particularly in the case of Iran, to suggest that, you know, Iran is a threat because of the allegations that have to do with Iraq or with the nuclear program that are not based on, you know, reality at all. You know, this is simply a function, for the most part, of where he gets his information, who advises him, and where they get their information. The whole system is completely tilted, so extremely tilted towards the warlike point of view, that even somebody who does have a great deal of intelligence, relatively speaking, and a desire to make change, relatively speaking, is hogtied, in a way, to try to do anything about it.
Historian and author Gareth Porter discusses with Pepe Escobar the positioning of Senator Barack Obama relative to the power of the national security establishment in the US; the legacy of JFK; the feasibility of the US refusing to occupy Muslim lands; and what it takes to be elected president of the United States.Bio
Gareth Porter is a historian and investigative journalist on US foreign and military policy analyst. He writes regularly for Inter Press Service on US policy towards Iraq and Iran. Author of four books, the latest of which is Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.Transcript
PEPE ESCOBAR, SENIOR ANALYST: I'm here in Washington with Gareth Porter, historian and author, and we're going to talk about Iran, Iraq, Obama, McCain, and the ramifications of Obama and McCain's foreign policy. Gareth, let's start with the war in Iraq. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran emerges as the big regional power in Southwest Asia. The US gets rid of the Taliban in east of Iran and gets rid of Saddam Hussein west of Iran. Basically what Bush and McCain have been saying and preaching all along is that they will never accept it, the emergence of Iran as a big regional power. Obama, on the other hand, maybe we could say that he's a following a tradition that starts with Truman, goes through Ronald Reagan, and gets to George Bush I. It's basically a Cold War mentality. It's American hegemony in the end. But at the same time, Obama wants to get rid of all US troops in Iraq, bring them back home. What are we facing here? Isn't this an enormous contradiction, like Cold War mentality, being progressive and antiwar in the case of Iraq? GARETH PORTER, INVESTIGATIVE HISTORIAN, MILITARY POLICY ANALYST: And the answer is both. And that's because he is a contradictory figure in a political system which is profoundly dysfunctional in terms of what it produces on many fronts, but particularly on national security policy. I mean, this is a society that has long since lost--and arguably never had in the first place--the capacity to really have a serious debate about any national security issue, for the simple reason that the terms of any public discourse on national security are so heavily weighted in favor of the national security bureaucracy's point of view that, you know, the media, news media, essentially carry only one side, and therefore only a small minority of people in the United States are going to have the opportunity to access a point of view that is different from the point of view of those people who've been making the wars of the past and still making the wars of the present. And therefore there's no surprise here that someone who is as intelligent and in many ways as progressive as Obama is, you know, remarkably so within the context of the Democratic Party, let alone the political system in general, is a captive of what you call--and I think correctly so--Cold War mentality, that is to say, a mentality that begins with a whole set of assumptions that have very little to do with reality, particularly in the case of Iran, to suggest that, you know, Iran is a threat because of the allegations that have to do with Iraq or with the nuclear program that are not based on, you know, reality at all. You know, this is simply a function, for the most part, of where he gets his information, who advises him, and where they get their information. The whole system is completely tilted, so extremely tilted towards the warlike point of view, that even somebody who does have a great deal of intelligence, relatively speaking, and a desire to make change, relatively speaking, is hogtied, in a way, to try to do anything about it.
Porter:
even somebody who does have a great deal of intelligence, relatively speaking,
...was fun to read too. :)
No free ride for Europe, says top Barack Obama aideIn an interview with The Daily Telegraph on the eve of Mr Obama's week-long trip to Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe, Susan Rice emphasised that the election of Mr Obama would mark a decision by Americans to "turn the page" on President George W Bush.But the former Rhodes Scholar, who took her Master's degree and doctorate in international relations at New College, Oxford, made clear that an Obama administration would also challenge Europe to do more after a Democratic victory in November's election."It would signal a return to the more pragmatic and bi-partisan traditions of American foreign policy, which have been lost to ideology in the Bush years," she said. "He will not proceed through an ideological frame and seek to impose that frame on every challenge.
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph on the eve of Mr Obama's week-long trip to Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe, Susan Rice emphasised that the election of Mr Obama would mark a decision by Americans to "turn the page" on President George W Bush.
But the former Rhodes Scholar, who took her Master's degree and doctorate in international relations at New College, Oxford, made clear that an Obama administration would also challenge Europe to do more after a Democratic victory in November's election.
"It would signal a return to the more pragmatic and bi-partisan traditions of American foreign policy, which have been lost to ideology in the Bush years," she said. "He will not proceed through an ideological frame and seek to impose that frame on every challenge.
The most lionised US politician since JFK visits Europe next week. Mass outbreaks of Obama-mania are expected. Are you prepared? Read Leonard Doyle's instant briefingThe tour "Renegade" (Barack Obama's Secret Service nickname) is due to arrive in Jordan on Monday - or he might go first to London. Or will he make a lightning dash from Amman to Baghdad or Kabul? Nobody knows. Such is the hyper-sensitivity about protecting the first black candidate for the world's top job that only the innermost members of his 300-strong inner circle of foreign policy advisers are privy to his itinerary. Nonetheless, Obama is on his way to Europe, and is expected to stop for a high-profile handshake or two in London. He's also going to France and Germany, as well as heading for Israel and the West Bank - where security fears are high. The Irish, too, want O'Bama to drop in on Moneygall (one traffic light, two pubs, pop 298.) His great-great-great-grandfather, one Fulmuth Kearney, left for America in 1850.The agendaObama has been relentlessly twitted by his opponent as a foreign policy lightweight, so his 2008 tour is all about finding the right soundbites and photo ops for the folks back home. He has to convince sceptics in Kansas and West Virginia that he's got the Right Stuff to be commander-in-chief. What they don't want are huge crowds of adoring European fans swooning before him. Instead, expect lots of earnest handshakes, dramatic backdrops and the unavoidable crowds. As a political cross-dresser, Obama is desperate to appear at the Brandenburg Gate and channel Ronald Reagan ("Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall"). But Angela Merkel is kicking up such a fuss that he may have to settle for channelling John F Kennedy ("Ich bin ein Berliner") instead - outside Berlin's town hall. Expect some harsh words for Europeans who criticise America while taking the free ride they get on the back of America's battered army. He won't just be talking about the liberation of Europe in the Second World War and the Berlin airlift. If Washington reopens, as he hopes, under new management, Obama wants German, Belgians and Italian boots on the ground in Afghanistan - and anywhere else where hard fighting is taking place against terrorism.
The tour
"Renegade" (Barack Obama's Secret Service nickname) is due to arrive in Jordan on Monday - or he might go first to London. Or will he make a lightning dash from Amman to Baghdad or Kabul? Nobody knows. Such is the hyper-sensitivity about protecting the first black candidate for the world's top job that only the innermost members of his 300-strong inner circle of foreign policy advisers are privy to his itinerary. Nonetheless, Obama is on his way to Europe, and is expected to stop for a high-profile handshake or two in London. He's also going to France and Germany, as well as heading for Israel and the West Bank - where security fears are high. The Irish, too, want O'Bama to drop in on Moneygall (one traffic light, two pubs, pop 298.) His great-great-great-grandfather, one Fulmuth Kearney, left for America in 1850.
The agenda
Obama has been relentlessly twitted by his opponent as a foreign policy lightweight, so his 2008 tour is all about finding the right soundbites and photo ops for the folks back home. He has to convince sceptics in Kansas and West Virginia that he's got the Right Stuff to be commander-in-chief. What they don't want are huge crowds of adoring European fans swooning before him. Instead, expect lots of earnest handshakes, dramatic backdrops and the unavoidable crowds. As a political cross-dresser, Obama is desperate to appear at the Brandenburg Gate and channel Ronald Reagan ("Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall"). But Angela Merkel is kicking up such a fuss that he may have to settle for channelling John F Kennedy ("Ich bin ein Berliner") instead - outside Berlin's town hall.
Expect some harsh words for Europeans who criticise America while taking the free ride they get on the back of America's battered army. He won't just be talking about the liberation of Europe in the Second World War and the Berlin airlift. If Washington reopens, as he hopes, under new management, Obama wants German, Belgians and Italian boots on the ground in Afghanistan - and anywhere else where hard fighting is taking place against terrorism.
I want a President, not a Generalissimo
and don't get me started on "The Homeland" "Schiller sprach zu Goethe, Steck in dem Arsch die Flöte! Goethe sagte zu Schiller, Mein Arsch ist kein Triller!"
We should be so grateful for being finally allowed to clean up the mess left behind by W's gang. I know, I can hardly stand the excitement either.
Cold war mentality? Let see: two super-powers maneuvering smaller pawn states, Kosovo on my left, Abkhazia on my right. Thousands will die in this Empire game, but who cares? Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
Do more what, exactly?
Rice:
"He will not proceed through an ideological frame and seek to impose that frame on every challenge.
...Which is a guarantee that he will.
The frame is US Exceptionalism, and the message will be that as vassal states, we have a duty to support that.
"do more" what, exactly ?
That's the whole problem. Obama talks in vacuous phrases where actual meaning is tenuous and unlikely to be what you hoped/thought it was. In this I'm reminded of the mendacious phrase "Endeavour to persevere" told to the Indains in the film "Unforgiven".
Why should we support their stupid war ? They broke it, we didn't. It's like Iraq. Good things could have happened if only it wasn't run by a bunch of idiots who think that they can do what they like, kill who they want and have everybdoy love them cos everybody loves American gum.
If they want to get Afghanistan back on track they have to stop doing what they're doing. All of it. they have to stop bombing people who are neutral. they have to stop bombing weddings, they have to stop killing people cos it's easy.
Cos it's easy, fun even, to break things, blow things up and people are just so easy to kill. Blood on the sand and holes in the ground give politicians a sense of progress. But it doesn't win peace. And if Obama wants our enthusiastic help he has to stop with the blood and the bombings.
He, working alongside other, wiser, less guilty-of-counter-productive-mayhem, heads has to work out what the hell we are trying to achieve in Afghanistan (apart from waging war on ideas) and to determine a better way of achieving that aim that what is being done now. Till then, I hope our jellyfish elites find the courage to say don't call us, we'll call you. keep to the Fen Causeway
He, working alongside other, wiser, less guilty-of-counter-productive-mayhem, heads
That's going to be the crux of the problem. He already talks about resorting the US as the leader of the world - with that picture in mind it might be difficult for him to act alongside others.
Obviously, spend more money on munitions and soldiers so you can help us defeat the world-wide communist conspiracy. Or, maybe it's the world-wide terrist conspiracy. Or the Islamicists. Whatever. Some sort of foreigners, that's for sure.
Phil Gramm, the senator-banker who until recently advised John McCain's campaign, did get it right about a "nation of whiners," but he misidentified the faint-hearted. It's not the people or even the politicians. It is Wall Street--the financial titans and big-money bankers, the most important investors and worldwide creditors who are scared witless by events. These folks are in full-flight panic and screaming for mercy from Washington, Their cries were answered by the massive federal bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the endangered mortgage companies. When the monied interests whined, they made themselves heard by dumping the stocks of these two quasi-public private corporations, threatening to collapse the two financial firms like the investor "run" that wiped out Bear Stearns in March. The real distress of the banks and brokerages and major investors is that they cannot unload the rotten mortgage securities packaged by Fannie Mae and banks sold worldwide. Wall Street's preferred solution: dump the bad paper on the rest of us, the unwitting American taxpayers. The Bush crowd, always so reluctant to support federal aid for mere people, stepped up to the challenge and did as it was told. Treasury Secretary Paulson (ex-Goldman Sachs) and his sidekick, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, announced their bailout plan on Sunday to prevent another disastrous selloff on Monday when markets opened. Like the first-stage rescue of Wall Street's largest investment firms in March, this bold stroke was said to benefit all of us. The whole kingdom of American high finance would tumble down if government failed to act or made the financial guys pay for their own reckless delusions. Instead, dump the losses on the people. Democrats who imagine they may find some partisan advantage in these events are deeply mistaken. The Democratic party was co-author of the disaster we are experiencing and its leaders fell in line swiftly. House banking chair, Rep. Barney Frank, announced he could have the bailout bill on President Bush's desk next week. No need to confuse citizens by dwelling on the details. Save Wall Street first. Maybe lowbrow citizens won't notice it's their money. We are witnessing a momentous event--the great deflation of Wall Street--and it is far from over. The crash of IndyMac is just the beginning. More banks will fail, so will many more debtors. The crisis has the potential to transform American politics because, first it destroys a generation of ideological bromides about free markets, and, second, because it makes visible the ugly power realities of our deformed democracy. Democrats and Republicans are bipartisan in this crisis because they have colluded all along over thirty years in creating the unregulated financial system and mammoth mega-banks that produced the phony valuations and deceitful assurances. The federal government protects the most powerful interests from the consequences of their plundering. It prescribes "market justice" for everyone else.
Phil Gramm, the senator-banker who until recently advised John McCain's campaign, did get it right about a "nation of whiners," but he misidentified the faint-hearted. It's not the people or even the politicians. It is Wall Street--the financial titans and big-money bankers, the most important investors and worldwide creditors who are scared witless by events. These folks are in full-flight panic and screaming for mercy from Washington, Their cries were answered by the massive federal bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the endangered mortgage companies.
When the monied interests whined, they made themselves heard by dumping the stocks of these two quasi-public private corporations, threatening to collapse the two financial firms like the investor "run" that wiped out Bear Stearns in March. The real distress of the banks and brokerages and major investors is that they cannot unload the rotten mortgage securities packaged by Fannie Mae and banks sold worldwide. Wall Street's preferred solution: dump the bad paper on the rest of us, the unwitting American taxpayers.
The Bush crowd, always so reluctant to support federal aid for mere people, stepped up to the challenge and did as it was told. Treasury Secretary Paulson (ex-Goldman Sachs) and his sidekick, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, announced their bailout plan on Sunday to prevent another disastrous selloff on Monday when markets opened. Like the first-stage rescue of Wall Street's largest investment firms in March, this bold stroke was said to benefit all of us. The whole kingdom of American high finance would tumble down if government failed to act or made the financial guys pay for their own reckless delusions. Instead, dump the losses on the people.
Democrats who imagine they may find some partisan advantage in these events are deeply mistaken. The Democratic party was co-author of the disaster we are experiencing and its leaders fell in line swiftly. House banking chair, Rep. Barney Frank, announced he could have the bailout bill on President Bush's desk next week. No need to confuse citizens by dwelling on the details. Save Wall Street first. Maybe lowbrow citizens won't notice it's their money.
We are witnessing a momentous event--the great deflation of Wall Street--and it is far from over. The crash of IndyMac is just the beginning. More banks will fail, so will many more debtors. The crisis has the potential to transform American politics because, first it destroys a generation of ideological bromides about free markets, and, second, because it makes visible the ugly power realities of our deformed democracy. Democrats and Republicans are bipartisan in this crisis because they have colluded all along over thirty years in creating the unregulated financial system and mammoth mega-banks that produced the phony valuations and deceitful assurances. The federal government protects the most powerful interests from the consequences of their plundering. It prescribes "market justice" for everyone else.
and some comments:
Wall Street's Great Deflation
Interesting numbers from The Nation: Top 5 corporate CEO's combined income - $290,456,558; Top five hedge-fund managers combined income - $12,600,000,000. And then there's John Paulson, former employee of Bear Stearns who in '07 and early '08 made $3 billion shorting subprime mortgages. (Name familiar? Henry Paulson is Treasury Secretary.) Given that America's 400 highest-earning taxpayers in '05 paid only 18.2 percent of their income in federal taxes their contribution to their own bail-out will be miniscule compared to the rest of us. Given Washington's complicity in the drive to enrich the already rich this country has become an industrial autocracy. Posted by felicity at 07/14/2008
Interesting numbers from The Nation: Top 5 corporate CEO's combined income - $290,456,558; Top five hedge-fund managers combined income - $12,600,000,000.
And then there's John Paulson, former employee of Bear Stearns who in '07 and early '08 made $3 billion shorting subprime mortgages. (Name familiar? Henry Paulson is Treasury Secretary.)
Given that America's 400 highest-earning taxpayers in '05 paid only 18.2 percent of their income in federal taxes their contribution to their own bail-out will be miniscule compared to the rest of us.
Given Washington's complicity in the drive to enrich the already rich this country has become an industrial autocracy.
Posted by felicity at 07/14/2008
and:
As someone who's a shareholder in one of the big banks on Wall Street (the one with the least exposure to sub-prime), I'm hoping for some kind of taxpayer rescue plan, so that my stock can get back on track. The thought that some of you here will have to pay additional taxes so that my bank will be cushioned from any post-subprime down draft tickles my funny bone no end. Posted by KSP556 at 07/14/2008
As someone who's a shareholder in one of the big banks on Wall Street (the one with the least exposure to sub-prime), I'm hoping for some kind of taxpayer rescue plan, so that my stock can get back on track.
The thought that some of you here will have to pay additional taxes so that my bank will be cushioned from any post-subprime down draft tickles my funny bone no end.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/14/2008
In 20 years the United States will become like England after the end of WW II, a once great nation with diminished power and little influence in the world. Prepare ... Posted by bcodding at 07/14/2008 @ 9:45pm | Alas, 'tis true, 'tis true. And if Obama were to dare to try to slow - or worse, reverse - this process, the hired slimers in the "progressive" media, like the New Yorker, will be on the job to do The Owners' bidding, slapping the uppity one back down in his place. But in the unlikely event that it doesn't work, The Owners have other ways of getting their way. None less than the NYTimes wrote, on its front page no less, many months ago, of the possible assassination of Obama. Never a mention of a similar fate for a Clinton. Obama gets the message, loud & clear. Posted by sloper at 07/15/2008
In 20 years the United States will become like England after the end of WW II, a once great nation with diminished power and little influence in the world. Prepare ... Posted by bcodding at 07/14/2008 @ 9:45pm |
Alas, 'tis true, 'tis true.
And if Obama were to dare to try to slow - or worse, reverse - this process, the hired slimers in the "progressive" media, like the New Yorker, will be on the job to do The Owners' bidding, slapping the uppity one back down in his place.
But in the unlikely event that it doesn't work, The Owners have other ways of getting their way. None less than the NYTimes wrote, on its front page no less, many months ago, of the possible assassination of Obama. Never a mention of a similar fate for a Clinton.
Obama gets the message, loud & clear.
Posted by sloper at 07/15/2008
I agree with William Greider: Make Fannie Mae what is was before, a regulated non-profit agency. Deregulating Fannie Mae and then creating Freddie Mac for "competition" has only created another corrupt oligopoly. This trust has gone bust. The reformers of the 1930s knew what they were doing! This terrible two-step corruption dance, in which Republicans lead the push to deregulate, and then Democrats lead the push to bailout, has got to stop. This kind of foul bipartisanship is good for nobody. Posted by JakobFabian at 07/15/2008 @ 07:02am
I agree with William Greider: Make Fannie Mae what is was before, a regulated non-profit agency.
Deregulating Fannie Mae and then creating Freddie Mac for "competition" has only created another corrupt oligopoly. This trust has gone bust. The reformers of the 1930s knew what they were doing!
This terrible two-step corruption dance, in which Republicans lead the push to deregulate, and then Democrats lead the push to bailout, has got to stop. This kind of foul bipartisanship is good for nobody.
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/15/2008 @ 07:02am
last but not least:
Good for you. The editors of The Nation voted (and will vote) for the Dems, and probably a lot of the geniuses contributing to this thread did (and do) as well. The notion of "the people" no longer makes sense. American citizens love to whine and complain, but they never do anything. They didn't stop the Iraq war. They didn't get the Democratic leadership to impeach Bush/Cheney. Apparently they couldn't pressure Obama to change his position on telecom immunity. It's better to do something, even if that means fattening one's stock portfolio, than sit around and whine like old women. Posted by KSP556 at 07/15/2008
Good for you. The editors of The Nation voted (and will vote) for the Dems, and probably a lot of the geniuses contributing to this thread did (and do) as well.
The notion of "the people" no longer makes sense. American citizens love to whine and complain, but they never do anything. They didn't stop the Iraq war. They didn't get the Democratic leadership to impeach Bush/Cheney. Apparently they couldn't pressure Obama to change his position on telecom immunity.
It's better to do something, even if that means fattening one's stock portfolio, than sit around and whine like old women.
Posted by KSP556 at 07/15/2008
ah yes, it takes all sorts... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
There has been endless jabber in the blogsphere about a possible October surprise, an attack on Iran to strengthen John McCain's bid for the White House. After last week's Iranian missile tests in response to an earlier Israeli air force exercise that included in-flight re-fueling operations, the media was abuzz with speculations about Israel possibly going it alone. Now it's definite, almost official: there won't be an attack on Iran during the remainder of President Bush's tenure.
What evidence I have to make such a claim? None. What crucial factors I can cite to base my take on? Three.
First, yesterday evening, The Guardian revealed that the Bush White House is to announce next month the opening of an US interests section in Tehran, thus re-establishing direct diplomatic relations with Iran after almost thirty years.
Second, at Saturday's talks in Geneva between the EU-3 and Iran, the US will be represented by Undersecretary of State, William Burns. For the first time US and Iranian negotiators will officially meet one-on-one to discuss the latter's nuclear enrichment.
Third, according to Anthony Cordesman, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen was sent to Israel ten days ago to tell Tel Aviv quite frankly that the U.S. would neither approve nor green-light an Israeli solo run. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
http://agonist.org/hannes_artens/20080717/now_its_definite_no_attack_on_iran#comment ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
U.S. Solar Could Surpass German Market by 2011 According to a solar overview from JP Morgan, the U.S. market will reach 1.6 gigawatts in 2011, compared with a market of 1.35 gigawatts in Germany in 2012. The research firm also expects Greece, South Korea and Italy to grow quickly. by: Jennifer Kho July 18, 2008 The U.S. will overtake Germany as the largest solar market in 2011, a recent JP Morgan report suggests. According to a chart in the June report, which in turn cited Marketbuzz and Wall Street research, the U.S. market is projected to grow from an estimated 617 megawatts of new photovoltaic installations this year to 617 megawatts in 2009, 1.02 gigawatts (thousands of megawatts) in 2010 and 1.63 gigawatts in 2011. Meanwhile, another chart - this one citing Solarbuzz, Navigant Consulting, Greentech Media's PV News and China's Renewable Energy Development Project progress report - forecasts that the German market will grow 6 percent from 1.28 gigawatts of capacity in 2008 to 1.35 gigawatts in 2012. But in spite of slower growth than other countries, JP Morgan expects Germany - by far the largest solar market today - to remain one of the world's largest markets in 2012. According to the chart, which Calisolar CEO Roy Johnson included in a presentation at Intersolar this week, South Korea will be the third-largest market at 957 megawatts. And even separated out from its country, California alone could be counted as the fourth-largest market, as it is expected to reach 920 megawatts. "It's got roughly half the population of Germany, twice the incident sunlight and about one-tenth the market of Germany [today]," Johnson said of California. The JP Morgan chart projects that the fastest-growing markets in the next four years will be Greece, expected to grow 135 percent, followed by South Korea expected to grow 89 percent, and then Italy, which is expected to grow 65 percent. In spite of faster growth, Italy's market will be smaller than that of Spain in 2012, according to the chart, which shows Italy at 404 megawatts and Spain at 450 megawatts. The Spanish solar market has taken off, due to a generous incentive program. But the program is set to expire in September, causing industry-wide uncertainty about whether the new program will continue to strongly support solar installations (see Solar Firms Struggle to Forecast 2009).
The U.S. will overtake Germany as the largest solar market in 2011, a recent JP Morgan report suggests.
According to a chart in the June report, which in turn cited Marketbuzz and Wall Street research, the U.S. market is projected to grow from an estimated 617 megawatts of new photovoltaic installations this year to 617 megawatts in 2009, 1.02 gigawatts (thousands of megawatts) in 2010 and 1.63 gigawatts in 2011.
Meanwhile, another chart - this one citing Solarbuzz, Navigant Consulting, Greentech Media's PV News and China's Renewable Energy Development Project progress report - forecasts that the German market will grow 6 percent from 1.28 gigawatts of capacity in 2008 to 1.35 gigawatts in 2012.
But in spite of slower growth than other countries, JP Morgan expects Germany - by far the largest solar market today - to remain one of the world's largest markets in 2012.
According to the chart, which Calisolar CEO Roy Johnson included in a presentation at Intersolar this week, South Korea will be the third-largest market at 957 megawatts. And even separated out from its country, California alone could be counted as the fourth-largest market, as it is expected to reach 920 megawatts.
"It's got roughly half the population of Germany, twice the incident sunlight and about one-tenth the market of Germany [today]," Johnson said of California.
The JP Morgan chart projects that the fastest-growing markets in the next four years will be Greece, expected to grow 135 percent, followed by South Korea expected to grow 89 percent, and then Italy, which is expected to grow 65 percent.
In spite of faster growth, Italy's market will be smaller than that of Spain in 2012, according to the chart, which shows Italy at 404 megawatts and Spain at 450 megawatts.
The Spanish solar market has taken off, due to a generous incentive program. But the program is set to expire in September, causing industry-wide uncertainty about whether the new program will continue to strongly support solar installations (see Solar Firms Struggle to Forecast 2009).
BERLIN (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months. In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.
In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
It is the first time he has backed the withdrawal timetable put forward by Obama, who is visiting Afghanistan and us set to go to Iraq as part of a tour of Europe and the Middle East.
Ouch.
I'm not sure how I feel about this as it relates to policy, because I don't know a lot about Maliki and don't trust news reports one way or another. (Others should feel free to enlighten me.) From a purely domestic political perspective, though, this is quite powerful.
So Maliki endorses Obama, for all practical purposes. Who's next? Merkel? Brown? Karzai? Sarkie? Not being a big believer in the idea that foreign leaders and citizens should keep their opinions to themselves about our election, I say they should quit being sissies. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
In the UK the conservatives officially like McCain, even if Cameron has taken to quoting Obama. Brown, being a Bushie PM, has to be officially neutral. I'd like to think he'd prefer Obama, but as he's a bellicose Atlanticist I cannot be certain about that.
'sides which, whatever your feelings on the issue, personal experience suggests that most of your fellows think we should keep our opinions to ourselves regarding your elections. keep to the Fen Causeway
