Skeptics may say a nuclear-free world is an impossible dream, but they said that about slavery and apartheid too

by Desmond Tutu

This year the nuclear bomb turns 65 - an appropriate age, by international standards, for compulsory retirement. But do our leaders have the courage and wisdom to rid the planet of this ultimate menace? The five-yearly review of the ailing nuclear non-proliferation treaty [1], currently under way at the United Nations in New York, will test the strength of governments' commitment to a nuclear-weapon-free world [2].

If they are serious about realizing this vision, they will work now to shift the focus from the failed policy of nuclear arms control, which assumes that a select few states can be trusted with these weapons, to nuclear abolition. Just as we have outlawed other categories of particularly inhuman and indiscriminate weapons - from biological and chemical agents to anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions - we must now turn our attention to outlawing the most iniquitous weapons of all.

Gains in nuclear disarmament to date have come much too slowly. More than 23,000 nuclear arms remain in global stockpiles, breeding enmity and mistrust among nations, and casting a shadow over us all. None of the nuclear-armed countries appears to be preparing for a future without these terrifying devices. Their failure to disarm has spurred nuclear proliferation, and will continue to destabilize the planet unless we radically alter our trajectory now. Forty years after the NPT entered into force, we should seriously question whether we are on track to abolition.

D is not an option for governments to take up or ignore. It is a moral duty owed by them to their own citizens, and to humanity as a whole. We must not await another Hiroshima or Nagasaki before finally mustering the political will to banish these weapons from global arsenals. Governments should agree at this NPT review conference to toss their nuclear arms into the dustbin of history, along with those other monstrous evils of our time - slavery and apartheid.

Skeptics tell us, and have told us for many years, that we are wasting our time pursuing the dream of a world without nuclear weapons, as it can never be realized. But more than a few people said the same about ending entrenched racial segregation in South Africa and abolishing slavery in the United States. Often they had a perceived interest in maintaining the status quo. Systems and policies that devalue human life, and deprive us all of our right to live in peace with each other, are rarely able to withstand the pressure created by a highly organized public that is determined to see change.

The most obvious and realistic path to a nuclear-weapon-free world is for nations to negotiate a legally binding ban, which would include a timeline for elimination and establish an institutional framework to ensure compliance. Two-thirds of all governments have called for such a treaty, known as a nuclear weapons convention, and UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has voiced his support for the idea. Only the nuclear weapon states and NATO members are holding us back.

Successful efforts to prohibit other classes of weapons provide evidence that, where there is political momentum and widespread popular support, obstacles which may at first appear insurmountable can very often be torn down. Nuclear abolition is the democratic wish of the world's people, and has been our goal almost since the dawn of the atomic age. Together, we have the power to decide whether the nuclear era ends in a bang or worldwide celebration.

Last April in the Czech capital, Prague, President Barack Obama announced that the United States would seek the peace and security [3] of a world without nuclear weapons, but he warned that nations probably would not eliminate their arsenals in his lifetime. I am three decades older than the US president, yet I am confident that both of us will live to see the day when the last nuclear weapon is dismantled. We just need to think outside the bomb.



Liberated from Libertarianism: Rand Paul Runs and Hides from... Rand Paul

by David Michael Green

Maybe we can finally have a serious discussion in this country about the lunacies of libertarianism.

I doubt it. This is, after all, America. I doubt we'd know an intelligent political discourse if it whacked us upside the haid.

But now we have Rand Paul, son of Ron, marching toward the United States Senate, with a mission to "take back our government". Oh boy.

I might be able to get a little bit excited about that if it really was his goal. The truth is that the American government exists almost entirely to serve the interests of the American plutocracy. If libertarians want to break that evil connection, well, then, definitely give me a shout. I'll be glad to pitch in.

But, of course, you pretty much never hear them talk about that part as they rant about the evils of government.

What do libertarians actually want, Herr Doktor? It's not entirely clear to me that they know themselves. They're pretty good with the shibboleths, but always seem to have trouble beyond that. That's because it is precisely on the other side of the sappy slogans where the contradictions of libertarianism come glaringly into focus. This is the place where naive but kindly people would say "Wot, I signed up for that?", and that's exactly why libertarians don't want to go there.

Such avoidance of reality is not only rarely a problem in American political discourse, it's nearly a national religion. In this sense, the discussion Rand Paul had with Rachel Maddow the other night was doubly instructive. First, because Paul - the national savior on horseback du jour - was reduced to repeated instances of the most basic, and base, political maneuvering in order to come to grips with the implications of his own ideology.

And, second, because Maddow gave us a partial reminder of what good journalism would actually look like in America. She didn't actually get quite all the way to where she should have gone, but her polite, thoughtful and semi-relentless questioning of her guest was as foreign to what passes for journalism in this country today as would be six-headed fourteen-dimensional gaseous creatures from a distant galaxy. Maddow is fast becoming a national treasure, which says a lot about her, but, regrettably, a lot more about her colleagues in the ‘news' business.

There are several key explanations for the rise of the insane right over the last three decades, but surely one of them has been the compliance of the mainstream media. Politicians have been able to make the most absurdly ridiculous and hypocritical statements without fear of being called on them. And if they ever were, they need only repeat the same line in some slightly different variation, and that's the end of the affair - media lapdogs are well trained to cease and desist. One of Maddow's great virtues - which ought to be a sine qua non for anyone calling themselves a journalist - is her doggedness.

To see what I mean, check out this paraphrased approximation (not too far from verbatim, actually) of her conversation with Rand Paul the other night:

MADDOW: Congratulations on your big victory last night. Do you believe that private business people should be able to not serve black people or gays or any other minority group?

PAUL: I don't believe in racism. I don't think there should be any governmental or institutional racism. Now I'm going to go into a long diversionary soliloquy about William Lloyd Garrison, an early nineteenth century abolitionist, and also about when ‘desegregation' [actually anti-discrimination] legislation was passed into law in Boston...

MADDOW: Yes, okay, that was pretty weird. But what about private businesses who might want to not serve blacks or gays? Should they have the legal right to do so?

PAUL: We had incredible problems with racism in the 1950s concerning voting, schools and public housing. This is what civil rights addressed and what I largely agree with.

MADDOW: But what about private businesses? I don't want to be badgering you on this, but I do want an answer.

PAUL: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form, I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. What's important here is to not get into any sort of "gotcha" on the question of race, but to ask the question, "What about freedom of speech?" Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent?

MADDOW: The Civil Rights Act was created to take away the right of individual business owners to discriminate, taking away their right to make that decision. Which side of that debate are you on?

PAUL: In the totality of it, I'm in favor of the federal government being involved in civil rights, which is mostly what the Civil Rights Act was about. I'm opposed to any form of governmental racism or discrimination or segregation.

MADDOW: The reason that this is something I'm not letting go of this is because it effects real people's lives. This question involves the matter of private discrimination in public accommodations. Should that be allowed?

PAUL: The debate involves a lot of court cases with regard to the commerce clause. Many states are now saying that they have a right to force restaurant owners to allow people to enter with guns even if the owners don't want them to. So you see how this issue can cut both ways, against liberals too.

MADDOW: What if the owner of a restaurant or a swimming pool or a bowling alley wanted to segregate their facility? Should they be allowed to do so under your world view?

PAUL: We did some very important things in the 1960s that I'm all in favor of. That was desegregating schools, public transportation, water fountains.

MADDOW: How about lunch counters?

PAUL: Well, if you do that, then can the owner of the restaurant keep out guns? Does the owner of a restaurant own his restaurant or does the government own his restaurant?

MADDOW: Should Woolworths lunch counters have been left to be segregated? Sir, just yes or no?

PAUL: I don't believe in any discrimination. If you believe in regulating private ownership, you have to decide on whether you also want to force guns in restaurants when the owner doesn't want them. This is a red herring being used by my political opponents. It's an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964 that you want to bring up. Every fiber of my being doesn't believe in discrimination, doesn't believe that we should have that in our society, and to imply otherwise is just dishonest.

MADDOW: I couldn't disagree with you more on this issue, but I thank you for coming on the show and having this civilized discussion about it...

So, by my count, Maddow asks Paul the core question here no fewer than eight times in a row. This is precisely what she should have been doing, and in doing so she provides a huge service to American society. If I were to fault her anywhere, it would be only for not identifying Paul's diversionary tactics for what they were, calling them out, and thereby pushing them off the table. I would have liked to have seen her say, "With respect, sir, we're not talking about that. Or that, or that, or that. We're talking about this."

And she would have needed to do that several times over, because Paul's game here is to shift the discussion to domains where he is more comfortable, and where the problems with his ideology don't show up so readily. Maddow says let's talk about discrimination in privately-held public accommodations, and he says let's talk about my lack of prejudice. She tries again and he wants to discuss governmental discrimination. She repeats the question and he says let's talk about nineteenth century history. She asks once more and he starts talking about censorship and the First Amendment. She tries yet again and he changes the topic to guns, which involves legislating behavior, rather than race, which concerns who you are. She asks still another time and he cries foul, claiming that this is some obscure red herring being used by his opponents for purposes of political assassination.

All of these are diversionary lies, meant to avoid the unpleasant realities of what libertarianism would actually look like in action. But the last lie is the most egregious. The entire reason for Rand Paul's existence right now - which is also almost literally true, given that he has the unfortunate burden of being named for Ayn Rand, a twisted soul if ever there was - is his premise of reclaiming American government in the name of liberty for the American people. That's who he is. That's what he represents himself to be. That's his political shtick, his raison d'être. What the Maddow interview reveals, however, is that he's really just another politician trying to win office, not a crusader at all. And what it also reveals is just how bankrupt are those libertarian notions if you look at them at all closely.

The ideology has some nice bumper-sticker like appeal, especially for the more simplistic among us. I mean, who, after all, could be against more freedom? And, indeed, when it comes to social issues, the libertarians have it exactly right. The government shouldn't be in the business of controlling women's bodies, or telling people what substances they can imbibe, or who they can sleep with or marry, or whether they can end their own lives should they choose to. But you don't need to be a libertarian to get to those places. These are also progressive ideas as well.

Where libertarianism breaks down is in assuming that we can all just do what we want and it will work out great. And in assuming that all private actors are essentially well intentioned. Neither of these is true, and a libertarian society would leave each of us at the mercy of these twin fallacies. And that's an ugly place to be, let me tell you.

Suppose you bought a house and had a fat mortgage outstanding on it. Now the guy who owns the plot next door decides to build an abattoir on his land. You can't live in your house anymore because of the nauseating, permeating, stink. You also can't sell it, because no one else wants to live there either. And you're still stuck paying the mortgage, probably plunging you into bankruptcy since you're now also paying rent to live somewhere else. Why did all this happen? Because you voted for that libertarian city council, and they threw out all the zoning laws on the books, preferring maximum freedom for use of private property instead. Aren't you thrilled about how that worked out?

So you pack all your belongings in your car and decide to drive away. But you turn around after going just a couple of miles, because everybody drives on any side of the road they want to, whenever they want to, and it's scary dangerous out there. Why? Because the libertarian state government you elected - true to its principles - eliminated all such driving laws as the restrictions on personal freedom they truly are.

So maybe you'll fly instead, eh? Oops. Sorry. That's just as frightening. The new libertarian federal government eliminated the FAA and all its restrictions on private carriers as an invasion of their corporate liberties. No red tape here anymore! No onerous regulations! Now each carrier can hire whomever it wants, at whatever salary, to do whatever amount of safety inspection it deems appropriate. Or none at all. No reason to worry, though. I'm sure a corporation would never cut corners in order to maximize profits, right?

Well, actually, never mind - the flying off to a better place idea is moot anyhow. You see, there's no airport in your town. No private actors had either the resources or the motivation to build one. And since government is evil, they never did the job either. Which is also why you're about to lose you job, as well. With no ports, trains, highways, internet or other mass infrastructure, the US is about to become an economic actor more or less on the scale of Togo. Congratulations on that bright move, my libertarian friend! How does the freedom of chronic unemployment taste? Yummy, eh?

But, really, what do you care, anyhow? Your water is polluted because anyone can dump anything into it they want. Ditto with your filthy air. And global warming is about to take out all the living things on the planet, anyhow. We will be quite free to die, thanks to libertarianism.

Well, all is not lost. At least you can walk down to your local dining establishment and have a nice meal without having to fear the presence of darkies or queers in the same room with you. That pretty much makes it all worth it, no?

We could go on and on from here, but why bother? The point is made. The problem with libertarianism is that it is a child's candy store fantasy. Lots of sugar, no nutritional value. It's the Mel Gibson ("Freeeee-dom!!") of political ideologies. The ugly truth is that we hominids are social animals, not atomistic asteroids, each flying through space in our own little orbit. At the end of the day, the simultaneous great delight and awful curse of our humanness is, ultimately, each other.

That is not to say that individual liberty is not important. It is, and I no more favor libertarianism's opposite number, totalitarianism, than I do the lunacy of Ayn Rand, who spent her life (vastly over-)reacting to the Stalinism of her youth. I don't want to live in either of those worlds. It's just that it's naive and juvenile to believe that what is required here is anything other than some sort of difficult balance between the needs of the individual and those of society. That's the only solution that works.

One would think we might have learned this lesson of late. We've just come through an era of wholesale foolish deregulation in the name of setting free Americans and their productive capacities. The whole of our ethos of political economy these last three decades could easily be boiled down to a single bumper-sticker: "Government Bad, Industry Good". So now we might wanna ask ourselves, as Sarah Palin would put it (assuming she had a brain larger than a centipede's), "How's that whole deregulatey depressiony thing working out for you?"

Sorry, Mr. Paul. Just when we've seen precisely what happens when greedy individuals with all the morality of mafia hit men are allowed to do whatever they want by a government that is completely coopted by them on a good day, and utterly AWOL the rest of the time, you come talking to me about more ‘freedom' from government intrusion?!?! Are you joking?

Government, as imperfect and downright lethal as it can be when in the hands of those who use it for the wrong purposes, is the instrument and expression of the public will. It is the tool through which society conveys its values and seeks to achieve our mutual goals. And it is meant to be triumphant over private actors because societal needs (which, by the way, can, should and often do include government protecting individual liberties - see, for example, "Rights, Bill of") are broadly more important than those of the individual.

It would be a mark of our (return to) political maturity if we could acknowledge that.

If that's too much to ask, though, I wonder if my libertarian friends would at least be willing to take ownership of the real implications of their own ideology.

I mean, if you guys are just going to practice deceit and hypocrisy, why bother taking over the Republican Party?

Those guys are already experts.

David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. 

Colombia set to elect the world's first Green leader A former philosopher with some unusual policy ideas looks certain to take the country's presidency

By Esmé McAvoy

Sunday, 23 May 2010

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colombia-set-to-elect-the-worlds-first-green-leader-1980495.html

Green Party supporters show their backing for Mockus at a campaign rally in Bogota last Sunday

If Antanas Mockus wins the Colombian elections – and polls indicate that he will – he won't be your average president. Not only did he make his name when rector of the National University by dropping his pants and mooning a packed auditorium of rioting students, but he has recently been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. And then there's his party. If the 58-year-old is elected, he will be the first Green head of state in the world.

Next Sunday, Colombians will vote for a successor to the outgoing president, Alvaro Uribe, and Mr Mockus, a philosophy professor and mathematician, is favourite to win, leading his rival, the former defence minister Juan Manuel Santos, by up to nine points in polls. The son of Lithuanian immigrants, and twice mayor of Bogota (1995-97, 2001-03), he might never have entered politics were it not for that pants-dropping incident in 1994. He was forced to resign from his post as rector but, in a bizarre twist, it triggered a groundswell of support. Suddenly a symbol of honesty, he stood for mayor of Bogota on a ticket to cut corruption and curb the city's violence, and won by a record majority.

His approach is playful, wacky even, but few can fault his two terms as mayor. To tackle the city's chaotic traffic, he deployed teams of street mime artists to show both drivers and pedestrians how to behave. It was so successful he was able to dispense with the corrupt municipal traffic police and employ more mimes instead.

Mr Mockus's current "green team" is impressive. It includes Enrique Peñalosa and Luis Eduardo Garzon, two popular ex-mayors of Bogota, while his running-mate, Sergio Fajardo, was former mayor of Medellin. A fellow mathematician-turned-politician, the charismatic Mr Fajardo worked similar miracles to his boss in Medellin, today a modern city with a state-of-the-art metro, clean streets and reduced crime.

Since taking leadership of the Green Party just two months ago, Mr Mockus has steadily climbed in the polls. Even the recent announcement about his health failed to halt the rise. At an election rally last Monday in Manizales, the centre of Colombia's coffee region, Mr Mockus urged the crowd to join him in shouting, "Life is sacred! Life is sacred!" before highlighting the social problems Colombia needs to face: millions of people internally displaced by the ongoing guerrilla war and an increase in poverty. He emphasised the importance of transparency in the control of public funds and the responsibility of all to pay taxes. While mayor of Bogota, Mr Mockus introduced an optional 10 per cent tax for the city's richest residents, which more than 60,000 volunteered to pay.

Yet few will deny that President Uribe's government has brought radical improvements. Since 2002, when he came to power, kidnappings have fallen by two-thirds and homicides by more than half. Colombia has also experienced rapid economic growth, thanks to Mr Uribe's investor-friendly policies. Improved security and favourable tax rates have seen foreign investment under his leadership increase five-fold, to an estimated $10bn this year. "Mockus supporters have forgotten what things were like before Uribe came to power, when we were under the grip of the guerrillas," says Ruben Torres from the Colombian city of Cali. "We couldn't travel a few kilometres out of the city without risk of kidnap or worse."

But the past few years have been a heady mix of success and scandal. The release of 15 hostages held by the Farc insurgents, including Ingrid Betancourt, in 2008 without a single gunshot marked a political high. But the grisly news that thousands of innocent civilians had been murdered by the military 

and then dressed in guerrilla uniforms has left many desperate for change. "Under Uribe, human rights abuses by the army have risen and a third of Congress is under investigation for alleged links to paramilitary groups," says Grace Livingstone, a Latin American specialist and author of America's Backyard.

"Colombia is Washington's closest ally in Latin America," she adds. "For the past 10 years, the US has been pouring money into Colombia – it has received more US military aid than the rest of Latin America put together." Mr Mockus throws doubt on some agreements with the US, and he has promised greater Latin American integration should he come to power. Meanwhile, Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez, has implied support for the Green candidate.

While Mr Santos is the ostensible candidate of choice for the US, Mr Mockus, as a moderate left, could be an acceptable alternative. Free-trade agreements between the two countries have stalled, and commentators suggest that Mr Mockus could to help broker a deal.

But as the Green Party's candidate, where exactly are his "green" policies? "Unfortunately, the environment is not high on any candidate's agenda," says Martin Von Hildebrand, director of a Colombian NGO, Gaia Amazonas. "Under Uribe, the number of licences granted for mining exploration/exploitation in the Colombian Amazon has soared... Selling the country as El Dorado to international mining companies is just not being questioned."

Despite policy gaps, the Green Party's campaign has won the youth vote. Antanas Mockus has more than 600,000 Facebook fans. Mockus campaigners have posted videos and organised "flash mobs" – where hundreds of supporters converge on parks or shopping malls at a specific time, and, at a given signal, reveal their green T-shirts and placards to surprised onlookers.

But the site has also yielded a death threat. Although it has been dismissed by many as a sick joke, Ms Livingstone warns that reformist presidential candidates have been murdered before. "Mockus is not a radical left candidate," she says, "but is certainly a real maverick who could break the mould of Colombian politics."



Party of No: How Republicans and the Right Have Tried to Thwart All Social Progress

TruthOut.org / By Arun Gupta

As much as they may grumble, there is a legitimate reason why the Republicans have been labeled the “Party of No.” For decades, the party’s kneejerk stance has been to oppose any legislation or policy involving social, economic or political progress.

 

You name it, the right has opposed it: civil rights, school desegregation, women’s rights, labor organizing, the minimum wage, social security, LGBT rights, welfare, immigrant rights, public education, reproductive rights, Medicare, Medicaid. And through the years the right invoked hysterical rhetoric in opposition, predicting that implementing any such policies would result in the end-of-family-free-enterprise-God-America on the one hand, and the imposition of atheism-socialism-Nazism on the other.

 

Click to read more ...

Shadow Elite: Derivatives, A Horror Story

Janine R. Wedel

Author, "Shadow Elite"

Posted: May 20, 2010 07:41 AM

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janine-r-wedel/emshadow-eliteem-derivati_b_583014.html

Strange as it sounds, my experience mapping under-the-radar power in Communist Poland, as a social anthropologist, helped me identify a new breed of modern-day power broker here in the U.S. Unaccountable operators are increasingly shaping public policy to suit their own interests, a disturbing trend I examine in my book Shadow Elite.

Click to read more ...

Modern Day Slavery in America -- Over 300,000 U.S. Children Fall Prey to Sex Trafficking

By Dan Rather, Huffington Post
Posted on May 19, 2010, Printed on May 21, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146932/

Child prostitution has become a national problem in this country. Yes, I know that you have trouble believing that. You don't want to believe it, so you tend not to.

"Widespread sex trafficking in children?" you may be saying to yourself. "Sure, it happens overseas in places like Thailand and Moldova, and while there may be some of it here there's not that much of it in our country."

Based on a months-long investigation and some reportorial digging, I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. We all are. We're in denial.

Click to read more ...

UNASUR: An Emerging Geopolitical Force

by Alex Main

Earlier this month, as the US loudly complained [1] about Venezuela's decision to purchase arms from Russia, South America's ministers of defense came together in Guayaquil, Ecuador and put the finishing touches on an agreement [2] to develop common mechanisms of transparency in defense policy and spending.   The agreement, which also calls for the creation of a multilateral Center for Strategic Defense Studies [3], is the most recent example of the growing effectiveness of the Union of South American Nations (Spanish acronym UNASUR) as a forum for addressing the most urgent and sensitive issues on the regional agenda.   Though the group remains unknown to most of the US public - and is rarely referred to by US policy makers - it has, in the space of a few years, emerged as one of the Western Hemisphere's leading multilateral bodies and, in the process, is rapidly undermining the regional clout of the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS).   

Click to read more ...

Sanctions that don’t work vs. diplomacy that does

by Phyllis Bennis

The U.S. crusade for new UN sanctions against Iran has been underway for a long time. But the new intensity, the new scurrying around to make sure China and Russia are on board, and the new scramble for an immediate public announcement all reflect Washington's frustration with the new agreement with Iran brokered by Turkey and Brazil. That agreement requires Iran to send about half of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for somewhat higher-enriched prepared fuel rods for use in its medical reactor, which is pretty close to what the U.S. and its allies were demanding of Iran just months ago.

So the harsh U.S. response — condemning the agreement as "just words," demanding that Iran make even more concessions, implying that only a complete and utter Iranian surrender would suffice — makes it clear that U.S. policy towards Iran isn't about an actual nuclear weapons threat, but about power politics. There’s no question the United States is really mad: Reports are circulating around the UN that Washington is up to its old habits of issuing implicit threats against the two upstart diplomatic powers. Brazil has been angling for a permanent Security Council seat and Turkey has long been trying to join the European Union. No dice on either one, U.S. diplomats seem to be hinting.

Click to read more ...

Who’s Afraid of Rand Paul?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/whos_afraid_of_rand_paul_20100518/

Posted on May 18, 2010

By Robert Scheer

Tuesday’s election results were pretty good for progressives. The retirement of that windbag chameleon Sen. Arlen Specter is long overdue, and pro-labor forces were able to push Sen. Blanche Lincoln into a runoff in Arkansas. Even the big tea party win in Kentucky has its bright side.

Count me as one lefty liberal who is not the least bit unhappy with the victory by Rand Paul in Kentucky’s Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Not because it might make it easier for some Democratic Party hack to win in the general, but rather because he seems to be a principled libertarian in the mold of his father, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and we need more of that impulse in the Congress. What’s wrong with cutting back big government that mostly exists to serve the interests of big corporations? Surely it would be better if that challenge came from populist progressives of the left, in the Bernie Sanders mold, but this is Kentucky we’re talking about.

Click to read more ...

Hightower's "Icky" Awards -- Who Are the Greediest, Grossest Corporate Hogs?

By Jim Hightower, AlterNet
Posted on May 19, 2010, Printed on May 20, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146914/

It's not nearly as well known as an Emmy or Grammy, but the annual awarding of the "Icky" often produces high drama, fierce competition and gasps of surprise.

This coveted corporate prize goes to the group of CEOs whose performances in the past 12 months exhibit the best combination of greediness, goofiness and grossness.

Click to read more ...

The Financial Crisis As A Game Of 3 Card Monte

You Always Think You Are Going To Win Until You lose

By Danny Schechter l Host of The News Dissector Thursdays at 10 am

Author of The Crime Of Our Time

We live in a three card monte world. Follow the money as it moves from one shell to another. Now guess where it is.  Most of us don’t know the hand can be quicker than the eye. That’s why mostly everyone who has ever been suckered into playing ends up losing except those who are allowed to win to keep the hustle going.  We miss the tricks of the trade even as we swear we know where the winning card or money or ball is.

Phase one: (http://www.goodtricks.net/three-card-monte.html)

Click to read more ...

EPA Science Divorced from Needs and Discombobulated

Science Advisory Board Seeks Better Integration of Science into Agency Decisions

WASHINGTON - May 18 - The state of science within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in disrepair and needs major improvements, according to a fact-finding review by its own Science Advisory Board.  Scores of interviews with EPA scientists reveal deep dysfunctions and disconnects among its branches, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

The Science Advisory Board (SAB), a 32-year old Congressionally-chartered panel of outside scientists to provide guidance to EPA, began a review of how well the agency uses science in its decision-making in late 2008.  On March 31, 2010, the SAB finished the fact-finding stage of its review in which it spoke with EPA scientists from each major branch of the agency.  Its major conclusions include that - 

Click to read more ...

The 'Mad-As-Hell' Party Scores as the Anxious Class Stews

Robert Reich

Former Secretary of Labor, Professor at Berkeley

Kentucky Tea Party hero Rand Paul scores a knockout victory over Republican Trey Grayson. Before that, Utah Senator Robert Bennett loses to a Tea Party-fueled Republican insurgent. Is the lesson here the rise once again of the Republican right?

Not so fast. Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln is also in a tough fight -- threatened from the left by Lt. Governor Bill Halter. In Pennsylvania, newly-minted Democrat Arlen Specter is in a heated battle with an opponent on his left. Meanwhile, thirteen-term Democratic representative Paul Kanjorski is challenged by 36-year-old Corey O'Brien -- who's waged a spirited campaign from his RV, accusing Kanjorski of being too tied to Wall Street.

Click to read more ...

Fear Comes of Age

David Michael Green

http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/Fear%20Comes%20Of%20Age.html

Elena Kagan is the perfect Supreme Court pick for Barack Obama.

In fact, in so many ways, she is Barack Obama.

Moreover, they both represent their generation well. They are the leading edge of Generation X, and they embody its character fully.

Click to read more ...

Washington - Industry Complicity Behind the Gulf Disaster

By Stephen Lendman l Host of Progressive Radio News Hour

Thursday at 11 am, weekends at 1 pm

It's common practice in America. A government-Wall Street cabal caused the financial crisis and subsequent fallout. Now debated financial reform is a stealth scheme to let bankers self-regulate. Rogue Democrats rammed through health reform to ration care and enrich corporate providers. Defense, technology, and related firms profit hugely from permanent wars, and a regulatory-free Washington - energy industry alliance lies at the root of the Gulf disaster, by far America's greatest ever environmental calamity, worsening daily with no fail-safe, or perhaps any, way to stop it.

It's too big even for the major media to ignore - to wit, on May 15, New York Times writer Justin Gillis headlined, "Giant Plumes of Oil Found Forming Under the Gulf of Mexico," saying:

Click to read more ...

10 Reasons to Be Alarmed About Our Catastrophic Oil Addiction

May 15, 2010  |   By Luke Combellick

War, terrorism, economic instability -- these are just a few of the reasons to be concerned about our addiction to oil.

1. Terrorism The threat of terrorism has been crucial in shaping U.S. policy since 9/11. However, unbeknownst to many, the rise to power of radical, anti-American Islamism can be largely financially traced back to the American consumer’s demand for oil to support a cheap energy lifestyle. That the United States has in its possession only 3% of oil reserves in the world while consuming 25% of total world daily oil production should be alarming. That the majority of oil that we import comes from countries ruled by dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations should be further alarming. These OPEC nations include Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Nigeria, Venezuela and Ecuador. It is clear that many of these nations are not pro-American by any means, and some are notorious harbors and financiers of international terror networks such as Al-Qaeda. 

Click to read more ...

Does the Obama Administration Know What It's Doing in Afghanistan and Iraq?

By Tom Engelhardt, Tomdispatch.com
Posted on May 17, 2010, Printed on May 18, 2010
http://www.tomdispatch.com/

On stage, it would be farce.  In Afghanistan and Pakistan, it’s bound to play out as tragedy.

Less than two months ago, Barack Obama flew into Afghanistan for six hours -- essentially to read the riot act to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whom his ambassador had only months before termed “not an adequate strategic partner.”  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen followed within a day to deliver his own “stern message.”

Click to read more ...

Politicians Ignore Keynes at Their Peril

y Dean Baker

John Maynard Keynes explained the dynamics of an economy in a prolonged period of high unemployment more than 70 years ago in The General Theory [1]. Unfortunately, it seems very few people in policymaking positions in the United States or Europe have heard of the book. Otherwise, they would be pushing economic policy in the exact opposite direction than it is currently heading.

Most wealthy countries have now made deficit reduction the primary focus of their economic policy. Even though the US and many eurozone countries are projected to be flirting with double-digit unemployment [2] for years to come, their governments will be focused on cutting deficits rather than boosting the economy and creating jobs.

Click to read more ...

The Elena Kagan You Won’t See

By E.J. Dionne

Brace yourself for several months of occasionally biting but essentially meaningless political theater over the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.

Underlying the fight will be a fundamental divide between liberals and conservatives over the direction of the court. Thus, many senators who supported Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will oppose Kagan, while most who were against Roberts and Alito will be for her.

The irony is that the surface similarities between Roberts and Kagan are breathtaking. My conservative colleague Michael Gerson wrote of Kagan: “We know that she is connected to just about everyone in the legal establishment, and most seem to like her.” Change “she” to “he,” and “her” to “him,” and the same sentence could have been written about Roberts.

Click to read more ...

Britain’s PM Wants Relationship with US Re-Evaluated

by Eric Margolis

PARIS - "Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests," Britain's Lord Palmerston famously said in the 19th century.

Contradicting Palmerston, Winston Churchill later proclaimed a "special relationship" between Britain and the United States, an undying bond of brotherhood, loyalty in war and friendship transcending politics.

This transatlantic myth has gripped both nations ever since. But Britain's new 43-year-old leader, Conservative David Cameron, has stated he wants U.S.-British relations re-evaluated and made more pragmatic.

Click to read more ...