We Are the Change

Private Accounts

Bush continues to push voluntary private accounts as some kind of solution to the solvency of Social Security. People are allowed to have private accounts now. If you want to start a private account, all you have to do is go into any bank and do so. What Bush wants do is fund these private accounts with money that is supposed to go to Social Security. Can anyone who supports this idea please explain how taking money out of Social Security makes Social Security more fiscally sound.
Bush admitted that Social Security is pay-as-you-go. If people are allowed to divert their Social Security taxes into private accounts, where do the benefits of current retirees come from?

Bush Lies

I heard someone talking yesterday that claimed Bush did not lie to get this country to go to war in Iraq. My jaw dropped. I’ll admit that just about all presidents lie, but I am not aware of any president whose lies have cost so many lives. This list is by no means complete - that would fill a book. Lest the revisionists are successful in distorting the perceptions of what really happened, here are a few gems leading up to the Iraq war to help jog our memories.

Bush: "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Fact: UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003. The inspectors had full freedom to go anywhere in Iraq at anytime. Bush ordered them to leave so he could do his shock and awe thing.

Bush: "[Saddam Hussein is] a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda."
Fact: The Sept. 11 commission reported that it found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Fact: Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of the CIA has told reporters that the intelligence on Hussein’s WMDs was “full of caveats and qualifiers and based mostly on inferential or circumstantial evidence.” In other words, it was not no-doubt material.

Bush: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Fact: The document was known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.

Bush: "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."
Fact: Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there

Bush: "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Fact: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production - months before the war.

Bush: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade."
Fact: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Bush spun the intelligence 180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

The evidence is clear and we will not let it die. History will judge that Bush and his minions set out by any means to patch together their case for invading Iraq and ignored everything that contradicted it. They repeatedly lied to the American people to get their war.

The Nuclear Option

What does the Republican threat to use what they call the “nuclear option” mean?  The Republicans are in a catch-22 situation because they want to change the rule to prevent filibusters but the Democrats will filibuster the rule change to get rid of the filibuster – got that. The “nuclear option” means the Republicans will just change the rules of the senate without a vote, in other words they will just unilaterally change the rules. They can’t legally do that but who can stop them. There is no higher body to appeal to; the judiciary can’t interfere in the rules of the senate.
The senate polices itself; it is a body that only works if everyone plays by the rules, once one side decides to not observe the rules then anything can happen. In todays highly polarized political environment, it is easy to fall prey to the "might makes right" trap. What it boils down to is that without respect for the rules, anarchy breaks out.

The New Holocaust

Depleted Uranium sounds harmless enough; after all it's depleted isn't it. Wrong! Depleted uranium (DU) still contains 40% of the radioactive isotopes and also has severe chemical toxicity. If you inhale a particle of DU dust, and it lodges in your lung, it is a slow death sentence.
In the previous post about depleted uranium poisoning I said, "If you remain blind and silent to this genocide, how are you any different from Germans who stood by silently while the holocaust took place?" Each of us has a moral duty to educate ourselves on this topic. We will not receive this information from our corporate media. No matter what your political viewpoint you can research the subject and find plenty of information on both sides of this issue.
One caveat you should consider in your reading; the U.S. government is for the use of depleted uranium munitions because it provides an easy way to get rid of some nuclear waste therefore they only sponsor studies that they know will deliver conclusions that support their viewpoint. These pro-DU studies will always say something to the effect "that there is no evidence of harmful effects" but closer examination shows that they are looking at other government funded studies designed to be pro-DU. This is a kind of circular reinforcing argument. I would challenge any of the authors of these pro-DU studies to inhale a little DU dust; if there are no harmful effects, why wouldn't they. I guarantee you they would decline that challenge.
There is plenty of evidence of harmful effects but it is not provided by the U.S. government and not reported by the U.S. corporate media. Instead it will be found at media outlets outside the U.S. or at small peripheral news and media outlets.

Depleted Uranium is the New Holocaust

This is information your government doesn’t want you to hear. This major story is not covered by the pliant U.S. media. Of the 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 325,000 (56%) have permanent medical problems. Many independent experts think that most of the “Gulf War Syndrome” problems are due to exposure to depleted uranium.  Many Military authorities deny that depleted uranium is a problem. It is hard if not impossible to definitively prove that a soldier’s illness was caused by exposure to a particular toxin.

The term “depleted uranium” implies that the radioactive isotopes have been removed and it is depleted. This is not true. Only about 60% of the radioactive isotopes have been removed leaving a material called “depleted uranium” that still has considerable radiation.

In addition to its radioactive dangers, uranium is chemically toxic, like lead, and can damage the kidneys and other organs. Much of the ingested DU will be excreted by the body shortly after the exposure, but the DU that remains acts as a chemical and radiological toxin in organs and bones for the remainder of a person’s lifetime. Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years so it will never degrade or disappear.

If terrorists detonated a dirty bomb in the U.S. containing depleted uranium fragments and dust, we would call that a weapon of mass destruction. The U.S. and Britain have used tons of depleted uranium munitions in Iraq. It will remain as a toxin in that country practically forever. We have left a poisonous legacy that will continue to cause pain, deformities and death for the rest of history. When will the bill come due for the damage we have done? How will we be remembered in history? Did you educate yourself and speak up? If you remain blind and silent to this genocide, how are you any different from the Germans who stood by silently while the holocaust took place?

Peak Oil is Real

Arab members of OPEC cut oil supplies to countries that backed Israel in 1973. Overnight the west lost major supplies of oil, and the prices soared. The high prices caused a drop in demand, as people just could not afford so much oil. Both the political and economic factors slowed oil production and consumption. But this was not to do with oil "running out". This was an artificial shortage that was entirely political.

The seventies crisis has been used by some as proof that geologists are wrong about world oil production declining. They think geologists warned in the seventies that oil was running out. They have probably confused the prediction of M. King Hubbert that the oil production of the continental 48 states would begin declining in the early seventies with the artificial and political oil shortages of the early seventies. Hubbert's prediction was correct, but he had not predicted world oil production decline, only the lower 48 states. Eventually the Middle East situation stabilized and went back to normal levels of production.  So some critics have used that return of production as indicative that the geologists were wrong, when in fact they were correct. Is Peak Oil a real phenomenon or just some scary scenario painted by end of the world crazies?

From Deutsche Bank Research Report, December 2, 2004:
"The Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas (ASPO), a group of former petroleum geologists in the service of prominent petroleum corporations (e.g. BP Amoco) argues in favor of taking a different angle. It assumes a steep ascent in the output curve up to a peak, followed by a comparatively flat descent. The result is that the peak in production comes well ahead of the depletion mid-point, meaning that the production curve peaks far earlier than hitherto anticipated. Initially this applies to oil, and then, with time lag, to natural gas. In its mid 2004 updated forecast for oil, the ASPO brought the peak for oil forward from 2010 to 2008."

The report continues: "The end-of-the-fossil-hydrocarbons scenario is not therefore a doom-and gloom picture painted by pessimistic end-of-the world prophets, but a view of scarcity in the coming years and decades that must be taken seriously. Forward-looking politicians, company chiefs and economists should prepare for this in good time, to effect the necessary transition as smoothly as possible."

There you have it. An industry led research group and a respected major financial institution recognize "Peak Oil" and acknowledge that action is needed.

Human Genes in Rice

Just came across this headline on rawstory.com, "Scientists Put Human Genes in Rice". For just an instance, I thought they were talking about Condoleezza.

Peak Oil is Looming

The world consumes about 30 billion barrels of oil per year or 82 million barrels per day. The Department of Energy predicts an annual growth rate of about 2.3% which will result in world demand reaching 119 million barrels per day in 2020.
The world population is expected to reach 7 billion by 2013. The two countries with the largest populations and the highest rate of growth in oil use are China and India. These two countries may quadruple per capita oil demand within 15 years.  In the next two decades, China's oil consumption is expected to grow at a rate of 7.5% per year and India's 5.5%. But the world is at maximum oil production capacity and this production level will soon start declining. I'll leave it to you to imagine what happens when demand for oil far exceeds supply.
Let's look at why oil production is set to decline. For obvious reasons, oil companies first extract the oil that is easiest to reach. The oil pumped first was on or near the surface, in large easy to find deposits and of high quality that was easy to refine into gasoline. After the easiest oil has been extracted, oil companies moved to deeper deposits, maybe off shore and maybe not quite as high in quality.  As the most profitable sources of oil have been extracted, the remaining oil, in deep water, in smaller fields, or of more tar-like quality, will take ever more money and energy to extract and refine. As a consequence of the difficulty to extract, the rate of extraction will drop. Furthermore, all oil fields eventually reach a point where they are pumped out even though there is still some oil left. There may still be oil in the ground, but if it takes the energy of a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil, then further extraction is pointless.
It is now clear that the rate at which world oil producers can extract oil has reached, or is extremely close to reaching, the maximum level possible. This is what is meant by 'Peak Oil.' With great effort and expenditure, the current level of oil production can possibly be maintained for a few more years, but beyond that oil production must begin an irrevocable decline. This decline is a certainty, guaranteed by the natural laws that govern our physical world, and nothing in science, technology, or engineering can prevent it. The consumption of a finite resource is simply a finite endeavor, and attempting to delay the onset of decline only ensures a steeper, more uncontrollable decline. Our standard of living, our economic system, and the political stability of the world is centered on an ever increasing supply of oil. How do we get out of this perilous situation? The world's inheritance of oil has fueled the most explosive period of growth in human history. Within one human lifetime, one-half of this unique 500 million year old and irreplaceable inheritance has been spent. Now what do we do? Do we continue, like some spoiled rich kid, splurging our inheritance until it is totally gone? For a growth economy like ours, leveraged on ever increasing amounts of cheap oil, the consequences of reduced production may be dire. Without a Manhattan project to develope alternative energy sources, catastrophic economic and societal decline seem assured.

They Hate the U.S.

Borrowing a page from the Ann Coulter school of partisanship.
There is a subversive element in this country that hates the U.S. They hate the Constitution, they hate the Bill of Rights, they hate our freedoms and they hate our diversity. This subversive group wraps themselves in the flag while holding aloft the bible thinking that this somehow confers on them immunity from being questioned for their hate.
These people are not Christians the majority of whom are some of our best citizens, the kind of people you want next door. These people are not atheists, the many of whom are some of the best defenders of the Constitution. These people are not communists or allied with any foreign power.
They are Dominionists; biblical literalists who believe God has called them to take over America. They aim to break down the constitutional wall separating church and state. They want the Ten Commandments and a bible in every school room. They want the bible to replace the Constitution as the law of the land. They hate gays, feminists, liberals (Christ was a liberal), Jews, atheists, scientists, judges and anyone who stands for liberty and freedom. They are a minority but they hold considerable sway in Washington. They will continue to make progress until the rest of us unite and put an end to their war against America.

Irony

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, starting a two-day trip to Moscow, said on Tuesday the Kremlin's tightening grip on power and Russia's pliant media were "very worrying."
"Trends have not been positive on the democratic side," Rice told reporters on board her plane en route to Moscow, where she was due to meet President Vladimir Putin and other top officials.
"The centralization of state power in the presidency at the expense of countervailing institutions like the Duma (parliament lower house) or an independent judiciary is clearly very worrying. The absence of an independent media on the electronic side is clearly very worrying," she added.

Does anyone else find it ironic that Rice is using phrases like pliant media, independent judiciary, centralization of state power in the presidency and absence of an independent media when talking about others? Has she looked at Georg Bush recently?