March 30, 2007

Bush/Cheney - World War III

 Easter Surprise:  

Attack on Iran, 

New 9/11… or Worse

By Heather Wokusch

“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” – George W. Bush, September 2002

“This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous… Having said that, all options are on the table.” – George W. Bush, February 2005
 
The Bush administration continues moving closer to a nuclear attack on Iran, and we ignore the obvious buildup at our peril.

Russian media is sounding alarms. In February, ultra-nationalist leader Vladimir Shirinovsky warned that the US would launch a strike against Tehran at the end of this month. Then last week, the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti (RIA-Novosti) quoted military experts predicting the US will attack Iran on April 6th, Good Friday. According to RIA-Novosti, the imminent assault will target Iranian air and naval defense capabilities, armed forces headquarters as well as key economic assets and administration headquarters. Massive air strikes will be deployed, possibly tactical nuclear weapons as well, and the Bush administration will attempt to exploit the resulting chaos and political unrest by installing a pro-US government.

Sound familiar? It's Iraq Déjà vu all over again, and we know how well that war has gone.

Seymour Hersh has published numerous articles in The New Yorker detailing the Bush administration's plans to invade Iran. His latest, "The Redirection," discusses US participation in Iran-based clandestine operations, the kidnapping of hundreds of Iranians (including many "humanitarian and aid workers") by US forces and the shocking revelation that an Iran-Contra-type scandal has been run out of Vice President Dick Cheney's office with some of the illicit funds going to groups "sympathetic to al-Qaeda."

"The Redirection" also reports that the Pentagon has been planning to bomb Iran for a year and that a recently-established group connected to the Joint Chiefs of Staff is formulating a assault strategy to be implemented "upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours." Hersh notes that current capabilities "allow for an attack order this spring," possibly when four US aircraft-carrier battle groups are scheduled to be in the Persian Gulf simultaneously.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Congress busies itself with non-binding, timid resolutions on Iraq and recently altered a military-funding bill to make it easier for Bush to invade Iran. As Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) explained, language demanding that Bush seek congressional approval before attacking Iran  "would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool  that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran."

Such sheer ignorance and blind denial would be laughable if it weren't marching us into Armageddon.

But with this Administration (and this Congress, apparently) diplomacy be damned. 

It's now widely known that Iran had broached peace talks with the US in 2003 - Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice admitted as much in 2006 when she said, "what the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States." Yet the White House rejected Tehran's overture outright and Rice has since developed selective amnesia, later saying of the Iranian proposal, I don't remember seeing any such thing. "

For its part, the UN Security Council recently tightened sanctions aimed at pressuring Iran to cease uranium enrichment, and in response, Iran announced it would cooperate less with the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

It's worth noting that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and says that its program falls under the legally permitted right to "peacefully use nuclear technology." In contrast, Israel has neither signed nor ratified the NPT and the US would breach the Treaty by conducting a nuclear attack against Iran.

Besides, the Bush administration's message to its enemies has been very clear: if you possess WMD you're safe, and if you don't, you're fair game. Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was invaded, Iran doesn't as well and risks attack, yet that other "Axis of Evil" country, North Korea, reportedly does have nuclear weapons and is left alone. When considering that India and Pakistan (and presumably Israel) developed secret nuclear weapons programs yet remain on good terms with Washington, the case for war becomes even more tenuous.

What consequences would arise from a US attack on Iran? Retaliation, for one. Tehran promised a "crushing response" to any US or Israeli assault, and while the country - ironically - doesn't possess nuclear weapons to scare off attackers, it does have other options. Iran boasts a standing army estimated at 450,000 personnel, as well as long-range missiles that could hit Israel and possibly even Europe. In addition, much of the world's oil supply is transported through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of water which Iran borders to the north. In 1997, Iran's deputy foreign minister warned that the country might close off that shipping route if ever threatened, and it wouldn't be difficult. Just a few missiles or gunboats could bring down vessels and block the Strait, thereby threatening the global oil supply and shooting the price of  crude oil to over $100 a barrel, with untold negative consequences for the world economy.

An attack on Iran would also inflame tensions in the Middle East, and could tip the scales towards a new geopolitical balance, one in which the US finds itself shut out by Russia, China, Iran, Muslim countries and the many others Bush has managed to alienate during his period in office.

The most horrific impact of a US assault on Iran, of course, would be the potentially catastrophic number of casualties. The Oxford Research Group predicted that  up to 10,000 people would die if the US bombed Iran's nuclear sites, and that an attack on the Bushehr nuclear reactor could send a radioactive cloud over the Gulf. If the US uses nuclear weapons, such as earth-penetrating "bunker buster" bombs, radioactive fallout would become even more disastrous.

The devastating implications of a US strike on Iran are clear. And that begs the question: how could the US public be convinced to enter another potentially ugly and protracted war?

Former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi chillingly noted that the Pentagon's plans to attack Iran were drawn up "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States."  Writing in The American Conservative in August 2005, Giraldi added, "The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites ... As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."

Chew on that one a minute. The Pentagon's plan would be in response to a terrorist attack on the US, but not contingent upon Iran actually having been responsible.  How outlandish is this scenario: another 9/11 hits the US, the administration says it has secret information implicating Iran, the US population demands retribution and bombs start dropping on Tehran.

While even contemplating another 9/11 brings shudders, it's worth noting that last year, Congress quietly approved provisions making it easier for the President to declare federal martial law after a domestic terrorist incident. And recall that in late 2003, General Tommy Franks openly speculated on how a new 9/11 could lead to a military form of government: "a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution."

Meanwhile, Iran conducted war games in the Persian Gulf last week and just yesterday, the US Navy began its largest maneuvers in the region since the 2003 Iraq invasion, complete with over 100 US warplanes and 10,000 personnel.

The clock is ticking, and there's far too much at stake.

If you're from the US, contact your Senators today and ask them to support the  Webb amendment prohibiting the Administration from attacking Iran without congressional approval. Tell them to support the Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) bill making it harder for Bush to declare martial law and take over the National Guard, and while you're at it, tell your Senators to only fund troop withdrawal and to bring the troops home. Thank those Congress members who voted against more war funding.

We could be looking at WWIII. The time for positive action is now.

©Heather Wokusch 2002-2006 - http://www.heatherwokusch.com/

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

 

 

 

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 11:52:09 | Permanent Link | Comments (1) |

March 27, 2007

On Ending War

 
On Ending War
By Monica Benderman


The Veterans For Peace caravan came through Hinesville, Georgia last week.  It was the first time since the start of the war that a group from the Peace movement had held any actions in this military town, home of the Third Infantry Division, the division to invade Iraq.  

Hinesville is a quiet community whose resident population includes many veterans from wars as far back as World War II.  Yellow ribbons still circle the trunks of giant oaks and pines in the center of town, but they belie the true support the community of Hinesville has given to Ft. Stewart soldiers over the years.  

In 1971, the community of Hinesville joined together to create a waiver program meant to offer real support for the men and women stationed at Ft. Stewart.  This program was a joint effort between business members in the community to ensure that soldiers and their families were taken care of while they served their country.  Local landlords offered discounts on rent, waived security deposits and offered lower rates on storage when the soldiers were deployed.  Local utility companies participated as well also offering to waive security deposits, and local businesses gave discounts to soldiers and family members who visited their stores.  

Hinesville doesn’t wear its political bent openly.  The community members don’t actively protest the war, nor do they rage against those who do.  The community of Hinesville quietly supports the soldiers who serve, knowing the difficulty of the times.  Veterans talk together about how the war has changed and how frustrated they are at the lack of any real results.  They speak of the administration’s decisions with a wisdom that comes from having served and seen war firsthand, and they acknowledge the efforts to alter the course of the war with equal intellect.  

Are we ready for that change in course?  

It is time to bring the war to an end and to begin the process of bringing our soldiers home.  But the community of Hinesville knows there is much about this country that is not ready for the return of 200,000 combat weary members of the military.  The soldiers of the 3rd Infantry have been to war three times in the past five years.  Many of the members of the 3rd Infantry were in Afghanistan before being sent to the invasion of Iraq rather than redeployed home.  The community of Hinesville was here for the soldiers when their families were told they would be stop-lossed in Iraq for months past their scheduled return dates.  They were here when the soldiers were told they would be returning to Iraq just one very short year after they had arrived home.  

At Warrior Walk on Ft. Stewart there are currently 320 trees standing in memorial to the members of the 3rd Infantry who gave their lives in Iraq.  As we walk around the grounds of Winn Army Hospital we pass soldiers with artificial limbs, a permanent limp, and in wheelchairs all trying to recover from the war that seems to go on forever.  The community of Hinesville knows, cares and does what it can to support them and their families.  Veterans have not forgotten – and they understand how much is needed when the war comes home.

Do we understand what we will face when the war is over?

In the year between the first two deployments of the 3rd Infantry there were 191 confirmed cases of child abuse on Ft. Stewart alone.  Soldiers returned but we were not ready.  

In the next year the soldiers were home following their second deployment to Iraq, there were 138 cases of spousal abuse confirmed on Ft. Stewart.   America continued to call for the soldiers to come home, but we were not ready.  

As we drive the twelve mile stretch of road that passes through the training areas of Ft. Stewart there are new landmarks along the way.  Billboards in bright colors with simple messages, thirty or more,  directed at the soldiers of the 3rd ID, ordered to be erected by a concerned installation command -

“Don’t drink and drive.”  

“Riding motorcycles drunk will kill.”

“We care about our soldiers, we want you alive.”

Large neon message boards at the exit gates of the garrison proudly display the message, “177 days since our last traffic fatality.”  

Soldiers have returned home from war alive at least, although far from unaffected.  Alongside the memorial posts in the local newspaper reminding us of the lives taken in Iraq we read posts reminding us that soldiers are affected, and while they survived combat in Iraq, they could not survive drinking and driving to forget.  

Once again the soldiers of the 3rd ID are heading to Iraq.  America is calling loudly for them to be brought home, but America is not ready.  

In 2005, the garrison commander of Ft. Stewart, Col. John Kidd, approached the on-post office of the Community Waiver project.  At no cost to the military the members of the Hinesville community had operated a project which resulted in a multi-million dollar a year savings for the soldiers and families of Ft. Stewart.  With no explanation this Colonel, serving as garrison commander, told the employees of the Waiver project that they had 30 days to collect their papers, close the office and close the door on a community offering which had been serving the needs of the soldiers for over 30 years.  This Colonel told members of the project that they were to disband, and to begin charging security deposits to the soldiers who continued to lease from them.  This same Colonel was the Convening Authority for my husband’s courts-martial, a man openly hostile to our attempts to publicize the mismanagement of the installation and the corrupt practices of some members of the command.  Col. Kidd determined that my husband deserved to go to jail for his actions, and insisted that it be for no less than 18 months – a decision he discussed with the prosecutors in the case even before the charges against my husband had been investigated.  

Shortly thereafter, new construction began at the back gate of Ft. Stewart.  New town homes appeared, a map for a master-planned community is now displayed, and hard-selling representatives leap exuberantly in hopes of a new sale as cars wind through the entrance with passengers seeking to satisfy their curiosity.  The community of Hinesville now understands.  It’s hard to sell an over-priced monster to soldiers who don’t really need the burden, unless the community has been detached – where is that Colonel now that he is no longer in command?  

The Veterans For Peace were well received in Hinesville.  Soldiers and their families continue to speak of the event and the information they received about the Appeal for Redress.  The community of Hinesville understands the need, but they also understand the need for so much more.  

My husband went to prison as a result of his public protest of this war and the lack of support the soldiers were receiving.  He spent over a year in prison yet continued to speak of the need for a legal remedy for soldiers to have the right to speak about their concerns regarding this war.  The Appeal for Redress does just that.  We hope many will support it so that soldiers do not have to face what my husband faced simply for telling the truth.  It is the kind of support our soldiers need, and the kind I wish my husband had been given.  

Americans talk about ending the war.  Americans talk about supporting the soldiers who fight, and supporting the soldiers who choose to take steps to honorably refuse to further participate in the actions of a war which has shown itself to be unjust, immoral, and to include so many illegal actions.  

So many Americans still do not understand, and our soldiers and their families continue to pay the price for their sacrifices while Americans face off over their differences, rather than work together to create a solution.    

So we end the war.  So our soldiers come home.  I can tell you from firsthand experience – America is not ready.


Monica is the wife of Sgt. Kevin Benderman, a ten-year Army veteran who served a combat tour in Iraq and a year in prison for his public protest of war and the destruction it causes to civilians and to American military personnel.  Please visit their website, www.BendermanDefense.org  to learn more.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 18:33:50 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

March 26, 2007

America's Fast Emerging Debt Crisis

From the Mirage of a Middle-Class Life to the Slavery of Debt

 
By Joshua Holland
AlterNet

America is a very wealthy country, but one has to wonder how much of our wealth is in fact a chimera, spun of a consumerist ideal and given the appearance of solidity by a flood of easy credit? How much poverty and real economic pain is covered up by an endless succession of pay-day loans and EZ-finance rip-offs that eventually just bury people under mountains of debt from which they have little chance of digging themselves out.

Today's bankruptcy rate is ten times what it was during the Great Depression, foreclosures are at a 37-year high and the United States has a negative savings rate, yet we're told every day that the economy is going gangbusters.

George W. Bush often points out that more Americans own their own homes today than ever before. He doesn't mention that they also have less equity in those homes than ever before. Every day brings news of the potential scope of the emerging "sub-prime" loan scandal -- what Robert Kuttner called "deregulation's latest gift" -- and new indicators that the housing market that's driven so much of the economy for the past five years is a bubble that's begun to burst right before our eyes.

Compounding our personal debt problems are our representatives, equally profligate spenders who are just as happy to run up enormous budget deficits and who reflexively guarantee and subsidize trillions of dollars of new loans to already strapped American businesses and consumers.

It's a pretty good time to ask ourselves just how we got here.

Writer and film director James Scurlock does just that in the documentary, and now book, Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lenders. The film is a sprawling look at the seamy underside of the American credit industry -- an industry whose practices have changed dramatically since deregulation, and not for the better -- and at those who end up caught in a trap of their own creation.

The film is not perfect. Its view is broad but lacks depth; while it makes its point with some really effective storytelling, the documentary acts on an emotional level but lacks the kind of narrative power that makes Michael Moore's films, for example, such controversial cultural touchstones.

What Scurlock's camera does brilliantly is lay bare an issue that affects millions of working Americans but is usually buried under layers of shame and taboo. The film tells the individual human stories that lie behind the bankruptcy statistics, behind the foreclosure numbers. The book, released this week, follows up with much of the narrative power and depth that the film missed.

AlterNet caught up with Scurlock by phone this week to talk about his project and the country's emerging debt crisis more generally.

Joshua Holland: You really tapped into something at the right moment -- people have become aware of the issue of debt, and we're now hearing about it described as an emerging crisis.

James Scurlock : When I started the project a lot of people didn't even know what bankruptcy reform was, but most do now. A few weeks ago, nobody knew what "subprime" meant and now because of this whole mortgage fiasco I think everyone knows what that means. So here we are, two years after the start of the project and everything discussed in the film and the book has gotten worse. As we talked to people for the film, it became pretty obvious that things were just totally out of control and there was this sense that at some point the chickens are coming home to roost and that's largely what's been happening. I'm not gloating about that -- it's really tragic.

But my sense -- and I've talked to a lot of people since the project's been done -- is that the really big system hits are yet to come. There are a lot of bad mortgages out there; there are a lot of these "liar loan" mortgages out there; there are a lot of credit cards and people used to paying off their bills by refinancing their houses every year.

Holland: Debt -- or credit -- has always been an important part of the economy; it allows people to invest and it encourages entrepreneurship -- all the standard things we learn about in Econ 101. But one thing I came away with is that we're looking at a very different credit industry in the last couple of decades than what we experienced earlier. What's different between the credit industry today compared to, for example, the industry during my parents' generation?

Scurlock: The biggest change, by far, is how the financial industry sells debt -- how it sells credit cards and mortgages and all these different products. A generation ago, you'd go to the bank for a personal loan and that was a very rigorous process. You had to provide them with proof of earnings -- your tax returns -- and you gave them references and really had to work for it. The flip side of that was that if they gave you a loan, you got it at a reasonable interest rate. Now we're in a situation where we're getting 17 billion hits of direct mail encouraging us to borrow at often very high interest rates; we're getting e-mails every day encouraging us to refinance our homes; we get offers of credit for every conceivable thing from plastic surgery to automobiles -- there's a credit card now for gambling and one to pay off your taxes. Everything. Small businesses never used to use credit cards at all. They'd go to the bank and get a small business loan with a fixed payment. Now they're primarily using credit cards.

At the same time, the way the credit industry behaves has just completely transformed itself. Its underwriting standards have gone way down and that's a big part of the reason we're seeing so many problems now.

Holland: That's a good transition point. I read somewhere that you were voted the most conservative person in your class at Wharton Business School …

Scurlock: Actually, in my high school …

Holland: OK, in high school. The reason I found that interesting is that you give very short shrift to the traditional conservative narrative around these issues. You don't focus a lot on "personal responsibility" -- on the often really bad choices people make on the way to getting into problems with debt. You focus on these unbelievably predatory situations -- scenes like the mentally handicapped guy with the low-interest government loan who you show getting hoodwinked into this high-interest loan. Respond to that.

Scurlock: You know, everybody in the film and everyone in the book will readily admit that they screwed up. They made a mistake: they bought to many commemorative plates from Franklin Mint or they took out cash advances to pay their mortgage or they bought one of those Ab-tronic belts that are supposed to give you perfect abs in five minutes or they built a 10,000 square-foot McMansion which they knew they wouldn't be able to afford if interest rates were to go up -- which they did -- and on and on.

So that's all there, but what surprised me -- and what got a lot of these people into such deep trouble -- is that lenders weren't asking for their money back along with a reasonable return and maybe a fee or two. They were asking for multiples of what these people had originally borrowed. The line between a loan-shark and a reputable bank has now become so blurred with these banks all writing high-risk, high-interest loans and slapping on all these fees and coming up with all these schemes like double-cycle billing and universal default and on and on.

It's getting to the point now where people actually have a hard time figuring out just exactly what they owe. There was one woman in the film who had a gambling problem -- someone who was very irresponsible, and no one would argue otherwise. But in one year her $12,000 debt went to $50,000 and she didn't make any new charges. There was a guy who testified before Congress recently and he had borrowed $3,200 and had paid Chase back $5,000 or $6,000 and they were still demanding another $5,000 from him.

And if you look at every study done or if you look at what New Year's resolutions people make it becomes clear: people want to pay their debts off. But they're increasingly getting into situations where their $1,000 debts are becoming $4,000, or their mortgage payments are doubling and they don't understand how that happened and in many cases it's just devastating.

Now, there are two parties to these contracts -- that's absolutely true. But the banks have the ability to change the terms and conditions, at will, and these contracts have become so complex that even the Harvard Law professor in the film has a hard time making sense of them. Sometimes bankers can't make sense of the mortgages they're selling. So, caveat emptor, yes, but you should be able to walk into a major banking institution without worrying that you're going to get loan-sharked.

Holland: Maybe you can explain something that I think would be fairly counterintuitive for most people. You say in the book that the common view many people have about bankers is that they're this conservative breed who make their money by being cautious, by writing smart loans, but in fact the real money is made by lending on the margins -- by giving loans to people who are most likely to have problems paying them back.

Scurlock: That's right, it is counter-intuitive. It's because it's gone from a business based on a conservative business model where you were loaning to people who could safely pay you back and you weren't making a ton of money -- just a bit on the spread -- so you had to look at all your risks very, very carefully in order to make money. That model is now history, and the new one is that you charge a huge amount of fees, and a very high rate of interest. So the trick is actually getting people who will pay the most interest and the highest fees.

Credit card fees went from $1.7 billion dollars per year in 1996 to almost $18 billion last year -- an increase of more than a 1000%, and that's where the money is. Now you take someone who pays their bills on time, who has savings and pays their credit cards down each month, well they're not going to pay those fees. They don't have to. And you want someone who really needs the credit, who will be willing to pay a very high price for it.

One thing you've got to understand is that we have a negative savings rate in this country. Two out of three people can't pay their credit cards off each month. At the same time, last year we cashed $800 billion dollars out of home equity. Trillions of dollars in the last few years have been cashed out of people's homes and much of that went to paying off credit card bills. And the cycle continues. So it's a bit like Enron -- you've got some wishful thinkers, and then there are these bankers making enormous fees and at the end nobody's stepping in to stop the party.

Holland: To what degree do you see this as a kind of cultural manifestation -- a reflection of how much value we as Americans tend to put on material wealth, or how much we see material wealth as a proxy for self-worth?

Scurlock: I think that has a lot to do with the taboo nature of the problem -- a lot of people just don't want to about it. Until Katrina, I don't think many people had really seen images of poor Americans. There's this scene in the film where Robin leach of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous says nobody would watch a show called "lifestyles of the poor and unknown." We just make poor people invisible in this country and there's a sense that if you can't afford something, you've failed.

And the truth is, there are a lot of people in this country who look like they're middle class but in fact if you took away their credit cards you'd see that they're actually quite poor.

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute

 CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

 

 

Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 23:20:41 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

March 23, 2007

Rat poison found in pet food


 
Rat poison found in pet food, official says

• Rat poison identified as aminopterin found in pet food
• Substance also used to treat cancer
• Class-action lawsuit filed against manufacturer
• Recall announced March 16 after cats and dogs suffer renal failure



ALBANY, New York (AP) -- Rat poison was found in the pet food suspected of causing kidney failure that killed at least 16 cats and dogs, but scientists still don't know how it got there, state officials said Friday.

The toxin was identified as aminopterin, which is used to kill rats in some countries, state Agriculture Commissioner Patrick Hooker said.

Aminopterin is not registered for killing rodents in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, though it is used as a cancer drug. State officials wouldn't speculate on how the toxin got into Menu Foods' now-recalled pet food but said no criminal investigations had been launched.

Scientists at the New York State Animal Health Diagnostic Center at Cornell and at the New York State Food Laboratory tested three cat food samples provided by Menu Foods and found Aminopterin in two of them. Hooker said they would be testing individual components of the pet food, as well.

"Any amount of this product is too much in food," he said.

Aminopterin, also used as a cancer drug, is highly toxic in high doses. It inhibits the growth of malignant cells and suppresses the immune system. In dogs and cats, it can cause kidney failure, according to Donald Smith, dean of Cornell University's College of Veterinary Medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration has said the investigation in the pet deaths was focusing on wheat gluten in the pet food. Wheat gluten itself would not cause kidney failure, but the common ingredient could have been contaminated, the FDA said.

The pet deaths led to a recall of 60 million cans and pouches of pet food produced by Menu Foods and sold throughout North America under 95 brand names. There have been several reports of kidney failure in pets that ate the recalled brands, and the company has confirmed the deaths of 15 cats and one dog.

Menu Foods last week recalled "cuts and gravy" style dog and cat food. The recall sparked concern among pet owners across North America. It includes food sold under store brands carried by Wal-Mart, Kroger, Safeway and other large retailers, as well as private labels such as Iams, Nutro and Eukanuba.

The company's chief executive and president said Menu Foods delayed announcing the recall until it could confirm that the animals had eaten its product before dying. Two earlier complaints from consumers whose cats had died involved animals that lived outside or had access to a garage, which left open the possibility they had been poisoned by something other than contaminated food, he said.

Menu Foods planned a media teleconference for later Friday, a spokesman said. The company is majority owned by Menu Foods Income Fund of Streetsville. The company also makes foods for zoo cats, but those products are unaffected by the recall.

A spokesman for New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said he was not aware of any criminal investigation involving the tainted food. FBI spokesman Paul Holstein in Albany said Friday he was not aware of any FBI involvement in the case.

"I don't know where we'll go from here," he said.

A complete list of the recalled products along with product codes, descriptions and production dates was posted online by Menu Foods.  The company also designated two phone numbers that pet owners could call for information: (866) 463-6738 and (866) 895-2708.

New York State is home to two laboratories that are part of federal emergency lab networks, created after the September 11 terrorist attacks to keep the nation's animals and food supply safe.

The New York State Food Laboratory is part of the Federal Food Emergency Response Network and is capable of running a number of toxin tests on food, including the test that identified aminopterin.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 23:43:02 | Permanent Link | Comments (7) |

The Two Highest Law Enforcement Officials of the U.S. are Criminals

 
Crime Blotter:
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
  
By Paul Craig Roberts

While serving as President Bush’s White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzales advised Bush that the president’s war time powers permitted Bush to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and to use the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on US citizens without obtaining warrants from the FISA court as required by law. Under an order signed by Bush in 2002, NSA illegally spied on Americans without warrants.

By spying on Americans without obtaining warrants, Bush committed felonies under FISA. Moreover, there is strong, indeed overwhelming, evidence that justice was obstructed when Bush and Gonzales blocked a 2006 Justice Department investigation into whether Gonzales acted properly as Attorney General in approving and overseeing the Bush administration’s program of spying on US citizens. Also at issue is whether Gonzales acted properly in advising Bush to kill an investigation of Gonzales’ professional actions with regard to the NSA spy program.

We are faced with the almost certain fact that the two highest law enforcement officials of the United States are criminals.

The evidence that Bush and Gonzales have obstructed justice comes from internal Justice Department memos and exchanges of letters between the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), an investigative office, and members of Congress. The documents were leaked to the National Journal, and the story was reported in the March 15, 2007, issue by Murray Waas, who also relied on interviews with both current and former high ranking DOJ officials. Ten months previously on May 25, 2006, Waas broke the story in the National Journal about the derailing of the OPR investigation.

From Waas’s report it is obvious that many current and former Justice Department officials have serious concerns about the high-handed behavior of the Bush administration. The incriminating documents were leaked to the National Journal, the only remaining national publication that has any credibility. The New York Times and Washington Post have proven to be supine tools of the Bush administration and are no longer trusted.

When the Bush administration’s violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was leaked to the New York Times, the paper’s editors obliged Bush by spiking the story for one year, while Bush illegally collected information that he could use to blackmail his critics into silence. As I wrote at the time, the only possible reason for violating FISA is to collect information that can be used to silence critics. The administration’s claim that bypassing FISA was essential to the “war on terror” is totally false and is a justification and practice that the Bush administration, no longer able to defend, abandoned in January of this year.

The known facts: After keeping the information from Congress and the public for one year, on Dec. 16, 2005, the New York Times reported that Bush was spying on Americans without complying with the FISA statute. In response to a request from members of Congress, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation into the Bush administration’s decision to ignore FISA and to conduct domestic spying on American citizens without obtaining the warrants required by law. On January 20, 2006, Marshall Jarrett, the Justice Department official in charge of OPR, informed senior Justice Department officials of his investigation and its scope.

Gonzales informed President Bush about the OPR investigation, and Bush shut down the investigation by refusing security clearances to the Justice Department officials in OPR. In a response to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter on July 18, 2006, Gonzales disclosed that President Bush had halted the OPR investigation.

This is the first and only time in history that DOJ officials have been denied security clearances necessary to conduct an investigation. The Bush administration claimed that the secret spying was too crucial to our national security to permit even Justice Department officials to learn about it. However, even as Bush was denying clearances to OPR, he granted identical clearances to: (1) the FBI agents ordered to find who leaked the administration’s secret spying to the New York Times, (2) DOJ officials in the Civil Division who had to respond to legal challenges to the illegal spy program, and (3) five private sector individuals who sit on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

Obviously, the unprecedented denial of security clearances to OPR was done in order to prevent the investigation.

On March 21, 2006, Marshall Jarrett wrote to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty that OPR was being “precluded from performing its duties.”

In May, 2006, Jarrett informed Congress: ”On May 9, 2006, we were informed that our requests had been denied. Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation.” The National Journal reports: “[Rep. Maurice] Hinchey and other Democratic House members asked Jarrett why he was unable to obtain the necessary clearances; Jarrett’s superiors, according to government records and to interviews, instructed him not to inform Congress that President Bush had made the decision.”

When the illegal domestic spying program was launched in 2002, Gonzales was still White House Counsel. Documents and interviews show that most high ranking Justice Department officials opposed the illegal program. Attorney General Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, and James A. Baker, counsel for the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review all raised objections to the illegality and propriety of Bush’s National Security Agency eavesdropping program. Baker went so far as to warn the presiding judge of the FISA court that authorities were improperly obtaining information and bypassing the court. On learning that the administration was violating FISA, one of the federal judges on the FISA court resigned in protest.

Goldsmith was troubled by Bush’s claim that the “war on terror” gave the president virtually unlimited powers. Goldsmith’s objections to the Bush-Cheney-Gonzales view that the president is above the law during time of war brought him under fierce attack from Vice President Dick Cheney and Cheney’s two principal henchmen, Scooter Libby, now a convicted felon, and David Addington.

Goldsmith found an ally in Deputy Attorney General Comey. Comey defied the White House in March 2004 when he refused to reauthorize Bush’s spying on American citizens unless the program was brought within the law. Comey incurred additional Bush-Cheney enmity when he appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald to investigate the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity, an investigation that resulted in the arrest and conviction of Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff.

In his lengthy and detailed report in the National Journal, Waas quotes a former White House Official: “Comey showed us that he was a guy who wouldn’t be kept on a leash in an administration that likes to keep everybody on a short leash.”

A criminal political administration has no choice but to keep everyone on a short leash in order to keep its illegal acts under wraps. Americans have never experienced an administration so replete with crimes as the Bush Regime.

This criminal regime must now be brought to an end. Impeachments of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales, followed by felony indictments and trials are imperative if the rule of law in the United States is to be preserved.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 09:30:31 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

March 21, 2007

Pet Owners frantic over food recall,...

 
Owners frantic over pets amid pet food recall
By Anupreeta Das

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A massive pet food recall has touched a nerve with pet-loving Americans, many of whom see their pets as family members.

The recalled products, manufactured by Menu Foods of Ontario, Canada, account for 1 percent of pet food sold in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration has said. But in a country where more than half the people in a 2004 survey said they would risk their lives for their pets, the thought that food could kill their animals sent fearful consumers scrambling for information about affected products.

Stories about the recall were the No. 1 most popular blog articles on Choice America Network Online  and among the top 10 most e-mailed stories listed late Tuesday on The New York Times Web page.

The pet food recall has in many ways affected more people than some of the biggest recent food scares for humans such as a peanut butter recall and concerns over spinach and lettuce.

"These are our furry babies," said Jan Rasmusen, author of the book "Scared Poopless: The Straight Scoop on Dog Care", in which she makes a case for a switch to natural, nonprocessed foods for pets.

Rasmusen said previous pet food scares turned her off most canned brands.

"I get more scared for the animals because I can just avoid spinach, but if you don't know about pet nutrition, you can't just avoid pet food," she said.

The FDA said during a media conference call on Tuesday it was investigating the deaths of 13 cats and 1 dog related to the recall, and was looking into the Kansas plant operated by Menu Foods because some recalled food was made there. It said it was still getting calls from people reporting pet deaths and asking if they could be related to recalled food.

Veterinarians said they have been flooded with calls from pet owners since the recall began on March 16, including one Boston woman who wondered if her cat that died unexpectedly a month ago could be exhumed for a post-mortem.

As of 2005/2006, 69 million American households owned a pet, including 90.5 million cats and 74 million dogs, according to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA).

For companies like Procter & Gamble, which owns the Iams and Eukanuba brands, and Nestle's Purina, the pet foods business alone will generate $16 billion this year, according to the APPMA. The organization added that spending on pets for everything from food to cremation services is expected to rise to $40.8 billion in 2007.

"(The market) continues to be driven by the humanization of pets," said CIBC World Markets analyst Vivian Ma. "It is this theme of being a pet parent rather than a pet owner (that) is driving a lot of this spending."

"There is some degree of craziness that goes along with pet ownership," said Dr. Jake Tedaldi, a veterinarian who makes private house calls in upscale Newton, Mass. "It's a form of therapy for (people), and they can indulge in it and feel good."

At the root of it is the deep emotional attachment that people form with pets, Tedaldi said. For many empty-nest parents, single women or childless couples, pets often become "surrogate children, or are treated as such."

"We think of our pets as more helpless versions of ourselves and treat them like human infants," he said.

According to the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), which did the 2004 survey, four out of five people believed their pets have human-like personality traits, while 56 percent said their pets listened to them more than spouses, friends or family members.

"Pets are a very valuable part of our lives," said Dr. Kimberly May, a veterinarian with the American Veterinary Medical Association. "The thought of losing a pet is terrifying to many people."

Menu Foods Income Fund makes a number of different pet foods sold under private label and store brands at companies including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Safeway Inc. and at specialty pet stores like Petsmart Inc.

Lists of affected brands and other recall details are on http://www.menufoods.com/recall/.

(Additional reporting by Aarthi Sivaraman)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 15:27:56 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

Pet Food Death Lawsuit filed,...

 
US lawsuit over 'pet food death'
A US woman who claims her cat died after eating tainted pet food is suing the manufacturer, Menu Foods.
 

On Friday, Canada-based Menu Foods said it was recalling 60m cans and pouches of dog and cat food after several animals died during taste testing.

But Chicago resident Dawn Majerczyk claims the company knew that there was a problem earlier and failed to act.

Her nine-year-old cat Phoenix suffered kidney failure last week after, she says, eating just one of the pouches.

Taste test deaths

The ginger cat was taken to the vet on Friday but had to be put to sleep on Saturday, just four days after Ms Majerczyk says he ate the serving of Special Kitty Select Cuts.

The cat had reportedly lost 6lb (2.7kg) in the four days and was unable to walk and almost blind by the time he was put down. 

 "By Friday, he couldn't walk," his owner said. "He couldn't even meow or lift his head up."

Ms Majerczyk filed her lawsuit against Menu Foods in a Chicago federal court on Tuesday. She says that she wants to be compensated for the veterinary bills and the trauma suffered by her children.

The US Food and Drug Administration says that 14 animals - one dog and 13 cats - have been killed by the food.

Menu Foods said it was alerted to a problem with the food during routine taste tests carried out at the company.

The food was fed to 40 animals - 25 cats and 15 dogs - and nine of the cats subsequently died.

More predicted to die

As a result the company issued a product recall for 40 brands of cat food and 51 brands of dog food.

The recall list includes well-known brands like Iams, Eukanuba, PetCare and Science Diet.

A further four cats and one dog owned by customers have also died, according to the US Federal Drugs Administration (FDA).

Dr Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, said he expected more pets to die as an investigation into what could have contaminated the food continued.

Dr Sundlof said the inquiry is currently focussing on wheat gluten used as a gravy thickener, though he said that may change.

The gluten is not used in dry pet foods.

The recall has triggered panic across the US with pet owners frantically contacting information lines and vets to find out if their pet is in danger.
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 14:56:44 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

March 20, 2007

Too Low for Zero,...

 
Houses cheaper than cars in Detroit
 
By Kevin Krolicki

DETROIT (Reuters) - With bidding stalled on some of the least desirable residences in Detroit's collapsing housing market, even the fast-talking auctioneer was feeling the stress.

"Folks, the ground underneath the house goes with it. You do know that, right?" he offered.

After selling house after house in the Motor City for less than the $29,000 it costs to buy the average new car, the auctioneer tried a new line: "The lumber in the house is worth more than that!"

As Detroit reels from job losses in the U.S. auto industry, the depressed city has emerged as a boomtown in one area: foreclosed property.

It also stands as a case study in the economic pain from a housing bust as analysts consider whether a developing crisis in mortgages to high-risk borrowers will trigger a slowdown in the broader U.S. economy.

The rising cost of mortgage financing for Detroit borrowers with weak credit has added to the downdraft from a slumping local economy to send home values plunging faster than many investors anticipated a few months ago.

At a weekend sale of about 300 Detroit-area houses by Texas-based auction firm Hudson & Marshall, the mood was marked more by fear than greed.

"These people are investors and they know the difficulty of finding financing. They know the difficulty of finding good tenants. They're cautious," said realtor Stanley Wegrzynowicz, who attended the auction.

HOW LOW IS LOW?

The city, which has lost more than half its population in the past 30 years and struggled with rising crime, failing schools and other social problems, largely missed out on the housing boom that swept much of the country in recent years.

Prices have gained less than 2 percent per year in the five years since 2001, when the auto industry entered a renewed slump.

Steve Izairi, 32, who re-financed his own house in suburban Dearborn and sold his restaurant to begin buying rental properties in Detroit two years, was concerned that houses he thought were bargains at $70,000 two years ago were now selling for just $35,000.

At least 16 Detroit houses up for sale on Sunday sold for $30,000 or less.

A boarded-up bungalow on the city's west side brought $1,300. A four-bedroom house near the original Motown recording studio sold for $7,000.

"You can't buy a used car for that," said Izairi. "It's a gamble, and you have to wonder how low it's going to get."

Detroit, where unemployment runs near 14 percent and a third of the population lives in poverty, leads the nation in new foreclosure filings, according to tracking service RealtyTrac.

With large swaths of the city now abandoned, banks are reclaiming and reselling Detroit homes from buyers who can no longer afford payments at seven times the national rate.

Michigan was the only state to see home prices fall in 2006. The national average price rose almost 6 percent but prices slipped 0.4 percent here, according to a federal study.

The state's jobless rate of 7.1 percent in January was also the second highest in the nation, behind only Mississippi.

HOW MUCH CAN YOU BUY FOR $1 MILLION?

Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was greeted with applause when he announced last week that two condominiums in the city's revitalizing downtown sold for over $1 million each.

But investors, including some from out of state, proved far more cautious at Sunday's auction.

In the most spirited bidding of the day, a sprawling, four-bedroom mansion from Detroit's boom days with an ornate stone entrance fetched just $135,000.

Dave Webb, principal at Hudson & Marshall, said Michigan had become a "heavy volume" market for his auction firm in recent years, although bigger-money deals were waiting in California, a market he said was ready for the first such auctions of repossessed property in years.

"These people that are buying have got to look at holding on for five to seven years," he said. "The key is holding power."

Even with the steep discounts on Detroit-area properties, some buyers handed over their deposits with a wince.

"I'm not sure it's congratulations," said Kirk Neal, a 55-year-old auto body shop worker who bought a ranch in the suburb of Oak Park for $34,000. "My wife is going to kill me."

Realtor Ron Walraven had a three-bedroom house in the suburb of Bloomfield Hills that had listed for $525,000 sell for just $130,000 at the auction.

"Once we've seen the last person leave Michigan, then I think we'll be able to say we've seen the bottom," he said.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 09:09:52 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |

March 17, 2007

ALERT: Pet Food Recall

 
60 million containers of pet food recalled
 
Eukanuba, Iams and store brands tied to kidney failure, deaths
 

WASHINGTON - A major manufacturer of dog and cat food sold under Wal-Mart, Safeway, Kroger and other store brands recalled 60 million containers of wet pet food Friday after reports of kidney failure and deaths.

An unknown number of cats and dogs suffered kidney failure and about 10 died after eating the affected pet food, Menu Foods said in announcing the North American recall. Product testing has not revealed a link explaining the reported cases of illness and death, the company said.

“At this juncture, we’re not 100 percent sure what’s happened,” said Paul Henderson, the company’s president and chief executive officer. However, the recalled products were made using wheat gluten purchased from a new supplier, since dropped for another source, spokeswoman Sarah Tuite said. Wheat gluten is a source of protein.

The recall covers the company’s “cuts and gravy” style food, which consists of chunks of meat in gravy, sold in cans and small foil pouches between Dec. 3 and March 6 throughout the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

The pet food was sold by stores operated by the Kroger Co., Safeway Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and PetSmart Inc., among others, Henderson said.

Menu Foods did not immediately provide a full list of brand names and lot numbers covered by the recall, saying they would be posted on its Web site — www.menufoods.com/recall — early Saturday. Consumers with questions can call (866) 463-6738.

Repeated calls to that number over several hours Friday night got only a busy signal. Attempts to reach a company spokeswoman for an explanation were unsuccessful.

The company said it manufacturers for 17 of the top 20 North American retailers. It is also a contract manufacturer for the top branded pet food companies, including Procter & Gamble Co.

P&G announced Friday the recall of specific 3 oz., 5.5 oz., 6 oz. and 13.2 oz. canned and 3 oz. and 5.3 oz. foil pouch cat and dog wet food products made by Menu Foods but sold under the Iams and Eukanuba brands. The recalled products bear the code dates of 6339 through 7073 followed by the plant code 4197, P&G said.

Menu Foods’ three U.S. and one Canadian factory produce more than 1 billion containers of wet pet food a year. The recall covers pet food made at company plants in Emporia, Kan., and Pennsauken, N.J., Henderson said.

Henderson said the company received an undisclosed number of owner complaints of vomiting and kidney failure in dogs and cats after they had been fed its products. It has tested its products but not found a cause for the sickness.

“To date, the tests have not indicated any problems with the product,” Henderson said.

The company alerted the Food and Drug Administration, which already has inspectors in one of the two plants, Henderson said. The FDA was working to nail down brand names covered by the recall, agency spokesman Mike Herndon said.

Menu Foods is majority owned by the Menu Foods Income Fund, based in Ontario, Canada.

Henderson said the recall would cost the company the Canadian equivalent of $26 million to $34 million.

© 2007 The Associated Press
 
 
CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 12:53:43 | Permanent Link | Comments (17) |

Anger is an appropriate reaction,...

 
Damn Right, We're Angry

By Paul Waldman

We can’t deny it any longer. There’s no point in hiding it, no point in trying to explain it away. Yes, it’s true: We progressives are angry. And we no longer care if the centrist, moderate guardians of the establishment scold us for it.

Our anger is not just some vague feeling whose source we can’t put our finger on. It isn’t based on absurd conspiracy theories and it isn’t illogical.

We’re angry because of what has happened to our country, because of how we’ve been treated, and because of the innumerable crimes the conservatives have committed. We’re angry at the president, we’re angry at the Congress, we’re angry at the news media. And we have every right to be.

Yes, we’re angry at George W. Bush. We’re not angry at him because of who he sleeps with, and we’re not angry at him because we think he represents some socio-cultural movement we didn’t like 40 years ago, or because he hung out with a different crowd than we did in high school. We’re angry at him because of what he’s done.

It’s true, we don’t like the fact that the most powerful human being on the planet is such a ridiculous buffoon that he can’t put two coherent sentences together without beginning to giggle and shimmy his shoulders. But we’re not angry because we think he’s stupid; we’re angry because he treats us as though we’re stupid. We’re angry that he lied to us, and lied to us and lied to us again. We’re angry that when he lies to us it isn’t because he’s caught up in scandal or got caught doing something he shouldn’t have, it’s part of a carefully constructed plan to fool the public.

Yes, we’re angry about Iraq, and we may be for the rest of our lives. We get angry every day when we open our newspapers and see the photo of another young soldier who died for this, another one maimed for life, another one with a tormented and broken soul. We’re angry about the couple of trillion dollars this war will cost. We’re angry about the thousands of young men around the world have been driven into the arms of al Qaeda, who have decided to devote their lives to killing Americans because of this war. We’re angry about the thousands upon thousands of Iraqis who have died in the orgy of bloodshed we unleashed, and the living too, those whom we said we were coming to “liberate,” but who now find themselves in a suffocating, endless miasma of fear and misery and death.

We’re angry that when we talk about ending this monstrous war, the soulless hypocrites who are glad to send more and more men and women to be scarred and maimed and killed in Iraq have the gall to accuse us of not “supporting the troops.” We’re angry that people whose actions exhibit nothing but contempt for freedom and liberty and justice, who wouldn’t know real patriotism if it came up and smacked them across the face, pin a little flag on their lapel and say that we’re the ones who hate America.

We’re angry because people who said the Iraqis would greet us as liberators, who said Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were good buddies, who said this nightmare of a war would bring a flowering of democracy across the Middle East—this band of idiots, the Kristols and the Krauthammers and the Kagans and the Kondrackes, is treated as “serious” and “credible” on matters of national security, while those of us who were right about the war are dismissed as some sort of fringe whose ideas are too silly to listen to.

We’re angry that America may now be the only country in the world in which torture is an officially sanctioned policy, proclaimed proudly in public. We’re angry that in our name prisoners are subjected to sleep deprivation, water boarding and other forms of psychological torture to the point where they are literally driven mad. We’re angry that the president has decided, over 750 times, that if Congress passes a law and he doesn’t like it, he’ll just ignore it. We’re angry that this administration has argued over and over, in public and in court, that if the president does it, it’s not illegal. We’re angry that they tell us we have to shred our freedoms in order to be safe, and that so many of our fellow citizens shrug their shoulders and think it’s no big deal.

And we’re angry that Bush has made our nation so hated around the world. We’re angry that the next time a Democrat gets elected, most of their time will be spent cleaning up the god-awful mess Bush has made of everything.

We’re angry that we and our children and our grandchildren will have to keep paying off the nation’s debt, which now stands at nearly $9 trillion. We’re angry because every other industrialized country in the world has a single-payer health care system that works, and we pay more for ours than any of them, yet we have 45 million people with no health insurance. We’re angry that the insurance companies have convinced their obedient servants in Congress that the Rube Goldberg perpetual paperwork machine we have now is somehow “the best health care in the world” and preferable to a system in which you go to your doctor, get treated and go home, without having to fill out 10 forms and get down on your knees before the gods of the HMO bureaucracy to get a partial repayment minus your deductible and your co-pay.

We’re angry that the federal government is brimming with people fundamentally opposed to the mission of the agencies over which they preside, the anti-environmentalists who run the Interior department, the mining company lobbyists in charge of mine safety and the union-busters in charge of worker safety. We’re still angry about Hurricane Katrina, that our government left thousands of its citizens stranded to suffer and die, while the president thought that the guy presiding over the disastrous failure was doing a heckuva job. We’re angry that our government sends religious fundamentalists around the world to discourage condom use, thus condemning untold numbers of people to unwanted pregnancy, disease and death.

We’re angry that forty years after the Voting Rights Act, the Republican Party continues to exploit racism and do everything in its power to stop black people from voting in each and every election. We’re angry that in the richest country in the world we can’t seem to find our way to a system in which you go to the polls, cast your ballot and know that it will be counted. And yes, we’re still angry about what happened in Florida in 2000, that through lying and cheating and pure luck the Republicans were able to steal a presidential election, and five unprincipled partisans on the Supreme Court helped them do it. We’re angry that every time we look at Al Gore all that pain and frustration and outrage comes bubbling up through our guts no matter how hard we try to “get over it.”

We’re angry that some of the most powerful people in America see nothing wrong with getting down on their knees to kiss the rings of radical clerics espousing a theology as maniacal as any on earth. We’re angry that we have to endure lecture after lecture on “family values” from people who rush from their pulpits, whether in church or in Congress or on cable chat shows, to a motel room to give in to their desires and revel in their transgression before rushing back to those pulpits to wag a finger in all our faces with talk of sin. We’re angry that people whose souls are so twisted by hate and shame they make John Winthrop look like Wavy Gravy have the nerve to tell us how to live “moral” lives.

We’re angry that when some pompous fool who less than a decade ago demanded that Bill Clinton be impeached in order to demonstrate our fealty to the “rule of law” comes on television to explain how I. Scooter Libby’s perjury and obstruction of justice mean nothing and he must immediately be pardoned, Wolf Blitzer doesn’t say, “Get out of this studio, you contemptible hypocrite, and don’t ever come back.”

We’re angry because a repellent ghoul like Ann Coulter can regularly advocate the murder of people with whom she has political differences, yet continue to get invited on NBC's "Today" show. We’re angry that journalists who ought to know better tut-tut progressive bloggers for using dirty words but don’t blink an eye when conservatives spew forth the most abominable hatred and calls for violence that one could imagine.

We’re angry that there is not a single show on cable news in which a progressive is given an hour to spout off his or her opinions, but that privilege is given to the likes of Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and John Gibson and Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough and all the other two-bit electronic hucksters of phony aggrievement.

We’re angry because snake-oil salesmen like William Donohue— despite being an anti-Semitic homophobe —can issue a press release expressing patently phony outrage about something somebody said, and get the mainstream press to jump like trained dogs. We’re angry because a band of liars like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can hoodwink the media into doing their dirty work for them. We’re angry because every despicable Republican attack gets recycled as knowing, arched-eyebrow commentary by “mainstream” commentators.

Those are a few of the things we’re angry about, and yes, that’s a lot of anger. But you know what? There’s nothing wrong with being angry. Anger is the appropriate reaction to moral outrages, to crimes against our common humanity, to the actions of those who would turn our country into something twisted and ugly.


Paul Waldman is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America and the author of the new book, Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Can Learn From Conservative Success. The views expressed here are his own.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted by ChoiceAmericaNetwork at 10:47:25 | Permanent Link | Comments (0) |
1 2