Candidate Obfuscation

It should come as no surprise that it is virtually impossible to figure out where Presidential candidates stand on any issue. The presidential debates won't help either and neither will the mainstream media.

For example, consider this poll result and accompanying comments that appeared on bloomberg.com (Obama, Thompson Gain on Clinton, Giuliani, Poll Shows)

Even if you look really hard and pore over the poll results, you'll be hard-pressed to find why people are really in favor of or against any particular candidate or what the candidates think about specific issues. Another peculiarity is polls often tend to emphasize issues such as immigration and abortion rights.

However, it's impossible to get a broad idea of the candidate's stand on any issue.

For example, what does Obama think about Universal Health Care ? Defense Spending ? NAFTA ? Tax Cuts ? Iraq ? How many times did Obama vote in favor of the war ? What is his record on social issues ? Who exactly is donating to his campaign and WHY ?

What does Hillary Clinton have to say about Iraq ? Health Care ? Is she a war-monger ? Does she hire expensive PR firms to fine-tune her image ? What exactly does she mean by moral issues ? Does she mean gay rights ? poverty ? genocide ? Which one exactly ? Who are her campaign donors ?

And so on for each candidate (Republican or Democrat or whoever), you could ask the same set of questions and get no answers.

Instead, if you look at the bloomberg article, you'll see outright obfuscation. Here are but a few meaningless snippets as to why people favored (or disliked) particular candidates (also note the focus on making the elections sound like a sporting event). Abortion rights and immigration are mentioned often.

"A majority of Democrats say they favor ``a candidate who can bridge partisan divides'' -- a central theme of his campaign -- over a candidate ``with long experience in government and policy making,'' "

Obama is ``a new breed and I think he can work with other people better than she can,'' said John Bryan (new breed --- wonder what that means ?)

"A strong majority of poll respondents say national security is more important than social issues, such as abortion, where Giuliani's pro-choice position puts him out of sync with the majority of his party's voters. Giuliani does better with women voters than the other Republican candidates."

Thompson, 64, a former Republican senator from Tennessee, may also benefit from his fame as a film and television actor. ``When I watch him on `Law and Order' I've always loved him,'' said Al Pepe, a 79-year-old retired electronics manager from Jacksonville, Florida.

Penny Crider, a 44-year-old bus driver from Livonia, Michigan, says she opposes abortion and likes Thompson partly because he has consistently opposed abortion rights. ``His core beliefs have never changed,'' Crider, a Republican, said in a follow-up interview. ``He doesn't flip-flop.''

``He reminds me of Reagan,'' said Pepe, a Republican who favors Thompson. ``You want to listen to him.'"

Yes, corporate-sponsored candidates are toxic waste products of the PR industry.

CFR gets a new face

Avid Angelina Jolie fans may have already heard about her induction into the Council on Foreign Relations. "Angelina Jolie is accomplished in her field and has demonstrated serious interest in issues such as Darfur, international education and refugees," said Lisa Shields, vice president of communications at CFR. "As such, her profile fits very well with other young professionals we've selected as the next generation of foreign policy leaders."

One might ask, "What is the Council on Foreign Relations ?"

According to wikipedia, the CFR "is an influential and independent, nonpartisan foreign policy membership organization founded in 1921. Through its membership, meetings, and studies, it has been called the most powerful agent of United States foreign policy outside the State Department". Officially, the CFR is "dedicated to increasing America's understanding of the world and contributing ideas to U.S. foreign policy". The CFR has many high-ranking government officials in its membership. Notable members include Cheney, Rice and Wolfowitz and Kissinger (yes, Kissinger is the same guy who called the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi a "bitch")

However, others closely associate the CFR with the New World Order (NWO) often citing the words of Bush I: "Now we can see a New World coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a New World Order."

Carroll Quigley, Professor of History at Georgetown University, stated, "The Council of Foreign Relations is the American Branch of a society which originated in England and believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established."

New World Order aside, which member of the CFR do you prefer ?

The Biofuel Chimera

What do biofuels have to do with a doubling of the price of corn tortillas in Mexico in late 2006 ?

The following piece appeared in the May/June 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) which debunks the "green" alternative to fossil fuels (same piece appeared in NYT as well)

How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor
C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer

Some interesting points from the article:

"In March 2007, corn futures rose to over $4.38 a bushel, the highest level in ten years. Wheat and rice prices have also surged to decade highs, because even as those grains are increasingly being used as substitutes for corn, farmers are planting more acres with corn and fewer acres with other crops."

"The ethanol industry has also become a theater of protectionism in U.S. trade policy. Unlike oil imports, which come into the country duty-free, most ethanol currently imported into the United States carries a 54-cents-per-gallon tariff, partly because cheaper ethanol from countries such as Brazil threatens U.S. producers" -- so much for "free trade"

"The biofuel industry has long been dominated not by market forces but by politics and the interests of a few large companies," in large part Archer Daniels Midland, the major ethanol producer

"The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year"

"The number of food-insecure people in the world would rise by over 16 million for every percentage increase in the real prices of staple foods. That means that 1.2 billion people could be chronically hungry by 2025 -- 600 million more than previously predicted."

"Should corn and soybeans be used as fuel crops at all? Soybeans and especially corn are row crops that contribute to soil erosion and water pollution and require large amounts of fertilizer, pesticides, and fuel to grow, harvest, and dry. They are the major cause of nitrogen runoff -- the harmful leakage of nitrogen from fields when it rains -- of the type that has created the so-called dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, an ocean area the size of New Jersey that has so little oxygen it can barely support life"

"Ethanol and biodiesel are often viewed as environmentally friendly because they are plant-based rather than petroleum-based. In fact, even if the entire corn crop in the United States were used to make ethanol, that fuel would replace only 12 percent of current U.S. gasoline use. Thinking of ethanol as a green alternative to fossil fuels reinforces the chimera of energy independence and of decoupling the interests of the United States from an increasingly troubled Middle East."

Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now

Noam Chomsky interview on Democracy Now where he comments on Democracy Deficit, Iraq Troop Withdrawal, Haiti, Democracy in Latin America and the Israeli Elections

Audio
Video
Transcript

This is Reform ?

The current Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh (also the chief architect of India's disastrous neo-liberal 'reforms' since 1991) recently exhorted the corporate world (or "industry captains") in India to assume "social responsibility" to alleviate income inequality, reduce conspicuous consumption and cap exorbitant CEO salaries. He tossed around phrases like "inclusive growth", “socially responsible media and finance socially responsible advertising”, "worker welfare", "extended affirmative action" and "cartelisation". Various commentators are already talking about the PMs transformation from "reform" to "socialism". His speech to the CII (Confederation of Indian Industry) can be found here.

Coming from the chief architect of India's disastrous neo-liberal reforms since 1991, the PMs words sound hollow, superficial and guilt-ridden. In 1991, his neo-liberal reforms resulted in the scrapping on India's previously state-managed economic development with unfortunate consequences. For the period from 1996 to 2005, the annual agricultural growth rate fell to 1.1 percent from an average annual growth rate of 3.2 percent during the 1980-96 period. The 1.1 growth rate was barely a quarter of the 4 percent agricultural growth target that the government had set for the 10-year period of 1996-2005.

During the 1990s the World Bank pushed large loans making India dependent on foreign finance. World Bank loans are always accompanied by "reforms" and "structural adjustments" such as deregulation, privatization, tax cuts, the gutting of all restrictions on the laying off of workers and closure of plants, and the slashing of “non-productive” social expenditure. Indonesia and Argentina are but a few examples of the results of World Bank loans and "structural adjustments" and India is rapidly joining the ranks.

According to the The UN Human Development Index (HDI) of 2003, India ranks 127 (was at 115 in 2001). So clearly the "reforms" aren't working. In 2004, expressing clear displeasure with the so-called reforms, the ruling party was voted out of power. Privatization of water-supply and other crucial public services have resulted in price increases. Reforms require the dismantling of public and social responsibility and opening up domestic markets to transnationals. Debt repayment and military spending prevent the nation from focusing on resolving social issues.

P Sainath, an award-winning Indian development journalist who focuses on social problems, rural issues and poverty describes the magnitude of the problem (see http://www.indiatogether.org/opinions/talks/psainath.htm) below:

"The crisis states are AP, Rajasthan and Orissa. In the single district of Anantapur, in Andhra Pradesh, between 1997 and 2000, 1800+ people have committed suicides, but when the state assembly requested these statistics, only 54 were listed. [see April 29 and May 6 issues of The Hindu, for more details]. Since suicide is considered a crime in India, the district crime records bureaus list categories for suicide - unrequited love, exams, husbands' and wives' behavior, etc.; in Anantapur, the total from these categories was less than 5%. The largest number, 1061 people, were listed as having committed suicide because of "stomach ache". This fatal condition results from consuming Ciba-Geigy's pesticide, which the government distributes free, and is almost the only thing the rural poor can readily acquire."

"In India, people have the perception of "subsidies" being given to farmers, and this is one of the reasons why the urban folks think that farmers need to improve their act. But the vast majority of this subsidy is given not to the farmers themselves but to fertilizer producers. The "farmers" who get this subsidy are called Birla, Tata and Ambani! Also, this is given in such a way that the more you produce the lower the rate of subsidy, and the smaller amounts you produce, the more higher the rate of subsidy. In theory, this should support the "small farmers", but in fact the large producers overproduce and understate their output, just so they can avail of the higher rate of subsidy." 

"The poor farmer is sometimes portrayed as uncompetitive, and that he lives off subsidies; many people take the view that if he cannot compete with global players, he should try something other than farming. But the reality is that Indian farmers are asked to compete with U.S. farmers who get $35,000 in subsidies per farmer! The European Union conducts its milk and cheese bonfire each year, destroying surplus which might depress prices if released in local markets instead. With markets forced open by trade agreements, that produce is dumped in India (and elsewhere), and it kills the livelihood of the everyday milkman."

The New Economics Foundation (UK based) released a report (2006) about the world economy. According to this report, "Growth isn't working: the uneven distribution of benefits and costs from economic growth, shows that globalisation is failing the world's poorest as their share of the benefits of growth plummet"

In India, the reforms only benefit the upper echelons with income inequality skyrocketing. India now has the fourth largest number of billionaires in the world (36, compared with Japan's 24) with a significant portion the population living in villages or in wretched city slums. The CEO-average worker income differentials in India now stand at a mind-boggling 500:1 or 1,000:1.

In a devious move, Manmohan Singh announced a Cabinet shuffle in February 2006 (ostensibly to broaden regional representation). However if you look closer, this was at the same time as the negotiations on the Indo-US nuclear agreement. The two most significant developments associated with the shuffle were the demotion of Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar and Manmohan Singh's decision to retain in his own hands the post of External Affairs Minister. In all probability, this was concession to the US to further the agreement . Mani Shankar Aiyar (Left) was a vocal proponent of the scheme to build a pipeline to deliver Iranian gas to Pakistan and India. The Bush administration repeatedly made clear that it is adamantly opposed to the building of such a pipeline, which would undercut its efforts to isolate the Iranian regime. Aiyar also championed the development of an Asian energy grid to lessen Asian dependence on western-based oil companies, and promoted cooperation between India and China in overseas energy exploration and production. Needless to say, The Unites States was not pleased.

The shuffle was also used to push through a number of right-wing measures (speeding up the pace of "reform" via more privatization, more deregulation, redirection from income-support programs to defense spending) indicating a clear right-wing shift in the Congress party which is prostituting itself to US interests and violating India's traditional non-aligned movement. Note that Manhoman Singh already has a large number of other posts besides that of prime minister. These include head of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Ministry of Planning, Department of Atomic Energy, and Department of Space and External Affairs (sound like a power grab ?)

Also, see Mani Shankar Aiyars speech to the CII here

I've commented in more detail on the various problems with the Indo-US nuclear agreement here

Being the architect of disaster, could it be that the PM is feeling guilty for wreaking havoc on the country ? Its blindingly obvious that his very own policies have caused the very problems that he's now asking corporations to cooperate with the government in solving. Or is it because he sees a huge increase in domestic unrest (quickly getting uncontrollably out of hand) as a result of social inequality and brutal oppression and is switching panic mode ?

Unfortunately, "corporate social responsibility" is a myth. The capitalist model is responsible solely to its shareholders and is motivated only by profit and greed and is inherently self-destructive and inhumane, so voluntary social responsibility is not going to happen. If Manmohan Singh were really serious about corporate social responsibility, he would enforce government regulations to that effect. For starters, he can place a cap on CEO salaries but that's the least he can do. In fact, he has to start undoing all his own "reforms" by passing regulations to reign in corporations, increase (real) agricultural subsidies and increase taxes on the rich, increase spending on social programs and free India from debilitating World Bank loans.

Maybe, in the PMs guilty admission of the failure of his reforms there is still hope for real reform instead of relying on corporate social responsibility.

On the bright side, we're starting to see roadblocks in the Indo-US nuclear agreement with both sides refusing to yield. According to this very interesting update on the status of the Indo-US nuclear agreement:

"Any lingering doubts on the US stance can be said to have been resolved once and for all by the letter of admonition written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh by a group of Congresspersons. Dated May 2nd, the letter authored by members of key Congressional foreign relations committees seeks—baldly stated--to browbeat the Indian government into dropping energy-based ties with Iran".

However, in a surprising twist, instead of buckling to US demands, "As recently as May 8 Petroleum Minister Murli Deora affirmed in Parliament that India would not surrender to US threats and that Energy Secretary Sam Bodman had been informed that US interference in the IPI project was unwarranted. The pipeline project could well be the barometer for a cooling off in Indo-US relations and an end to the period of abject submission to US requirements."

Maybe things are looking up.
References:

New Maharajas
World Bank President Wolfowitz pledges $9 billion in loans to India The People who matter most
With cabinet changes, India's UPA government tilts still closer to Washington
Refusing to Pay the Price

Big, Scawy Terrorist Plot

Be vewy, vewy scared.



The whole "Big, Scary Terrorist Plot" hysteria has morphed into a running joke. The plots are created out of thin air and breathlessly reported.

The latest JFK plot isn't the first time this happened. Here is a short list of previous "plots":

• Lackawanna Six
• Detroit
• Virginia Paintball guys
• The tortured Abu Ali
• Jose Padilla
• Lodi, California
• Miami plot against the Sears Tower
• New York subway tunnels
• New York subway station
• “Liquid explosives” plot on UK to US flights
• Ft. Dix Six

The pattern is humorously dissected by The Huffington Post in "How to Foil a Terrorist Plot in Seven Simple Steps"

But, jokes aside, here is something that should cause real concern but barely gets a mention in the media. You'll be hard-pressed to find much coverage of the Noonday (homegrown fascistic right) plot, but there was some cursory coverage in the NYT and a few other sites.

According to the New York Times:

"On April 2003, John Ashcroft's Justice Department disrupted what appears to have been a horrifying terrorist plot. In the small town of Noonday, Tex., F.B.I. agents discovered a weapons cache containing fully automatic machine guns, remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and a chemical weapon — a cyanide bomb — big enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building."

And this is even more worrisome regarding the Noonday plot:

"Mr. Krar's arrest was the result not of a determined law enforcement effort against domestic terrorists, but of a fluke: when he sent a package containing counterfeit U.N. and Defense Intelligence Agency credentials to an associate in New Jersey, it was delivered to the wrong address"

Needless to say, this plot was very real (i.e. involving real weapons) compared to the fictitious ones manufactured by highly suspect FBI informants. The Noonday plot remains virtually unknown outside of Texas and barely received media coverage. Something wrong with this picture ?

Noonday in the Shade (2004)
Ashcroft Neglects Real Terrorist Threats Because of His Ideological Biases By Paul Krugman

US media, Ashcroft silent on conviction of right-wing terrorists in Texas
Conspirators built chemical bomb By Bill Vann

A clear indicator of the administrations misplaced priorities.
Protect the population ? Right.

What Withdrawal ?

It's official. The United States is digging its heels in Iraq. The clues (more like obvious facts) are coming in thick and fast and its hard to see how anyone can still have any doubts about this.

First, there was the matter of spineless Democrats and continuing war funding.

Next, for those who came in late, the US Embassy in Iraq is currently under construction (by First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting, billed at 592 million $, US taxpayer money, of course). Being the size of the Vatican, it isn't exactly modest. This is basically the largest embassy ever, anywhere. Forget the citizens of Baghdad and their reconstruction needs. That money is lining the pockets of various corporations that were awarded no-bid contracts. However, embassy construction is under full swing and will almost certainly be the only thing in Iraq to be completed on schedule. To add to this, during the construction, several labor laws are being broken as documented in Kuwait Company’s Secret Contract & Low-Wage Labor by David Phinney.
Does the embassy have a Starbucks and "other versatile solutions for modern living" ? Probably. Does this sound like an imminent withdrawal to you ? No.

Then there is the matter of military bases in Iraq. As revealed by Dahr Jamail at truthout in Iraq: Permanent US Colony, there are quite a few not-so-tiny bases in Iraq.
As described by Jamail:

"Camp Anaconda, near Balad. Occupying 15 square miles of Iraq, the base boasts two swimming pools (not the plastic inflatable type), a gym, mini-golf course and first-run movie theater. Air Force officials on the base claim the runway there is one of the busiest in the world" 

"There are several other gigantic bases in Iraq besides camp Anaconda, such as Camp Victory near Baghdad Airport, which - according to a reporter for Mother Jones magazine - when complete will be twice the size of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. The Kosovo base is currently one of the largest overseas bases built since the war in Vietnam" 

"Camp Liberty is adjacent to Camp Victory - where soldiers even compete in their own triathlons. The course, longer than 140 total miles, spanned several bases in the greater Camp Victory area in west Baghdad"

Does this sound like a withdrawal ?

But wait, there are more clues from the foul mouths of the administration officials themselves. I guess they just assume now that people have figured it out anyway and there is no point pretending anymore.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday the United States is looking to a long-term military presence in Iraq under a mutually agreed arrangement similar to that it has long had with South Korea.

Gates says "What I'm thinking in terms of is a mutual agreement where some force of Americans -- mutually agreed with mutually agreed missions -- is present for a protracted period of time" (US troops have been in South Korea since the end of the 1950-54 Korean War)

Gates also says " Our military commanders should not have to worry about the Washington clock. That is for us in Washington to worry about".

Not sure what clock Robert Gates is talking about. The Democrats made sure there is no clock. But I bet Iraqi civilians do have a clock unless it gets blown to smithereens by a cluster bomb. Oh, by the way, cluster bomb fragments are intentionally designed to be jagged so that its harder to remove them from the eye of a screaming victim.

Many (well-meaning) commentators have remarked on the similarities between the Iraq war and the Vietnam war. I think Stephen Zunes analysis at FPIF (see The Democrats' Support for Bush's War) is excellent in general, but I think his analogy with the Vietnam war may be flawed.

According to Zunes:

"In certain respects, the movement against the war in Iraq today is in a similar situation to the movement against the war in Vietnam in 1969. After more than four years of fighting, the majority of Americans and increasing segments of the news media and elite opinion are finally recognizing the need for a withdrawal of American troops" 

"And it may take heightened measures, including sustained nonviolent direct action. When Congress forced the withdrawal of American troops from Cambodia in 1970, it came only after anti-war protests shut down more than 300 colleges and universities across the country and more than 100,000 demonstrators converged on Capitol Hill in early May."

I agree that the popular global movement against the Iraq war is unprecedented (doubt if the same applies to the media and elite opinion). However, whether this will change policy at the highest levels of power is debatable. There is good reason why Democrats (or Republicans or the lapdog media) aren't going to react the same way to popular protest against the Iraq war as they did in Vietnam. Iraq isn't Vietnam. The US aims in Vietnam were to destroy its independent nationalist movement before it inspired others in the region to take a similar route. Vietnam's natural resources were not of much significance to the US. However, Iraq is an altogether different scenario. The massive petroleum resources in the region are one of the largest in the world. Control over these resources is essential to continuing US hegemony while allowing the United States to exert considerable influence over its competitors (Europe, Japan, China etc.).

Withdrawal from Iraq would have very serious consequences for the United States in terms of its global hegemony and that's why withdrawal is unlikely even in face of unprecedented public protests. Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch nor the elite media is willing to deal with the consequences of a withdrawal.

As Noam Chomsky puts it quite clearly in a recent FPIF interview, the two fundamental questions to ask are: "Why did we invade? Why don’t we want to get out?"