About those Jobs...(3 articles)

Friday, January 6, 2012 by CommonDreams.org
The Cheery Jobs Report That Isn't: Outlook Still Dismal
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Almost 24 million people are unemployed or underemployed.

Agencies are cheering a Labor Department report that showed a growth of 200,00 jobs in December.


AP reports:

The nation added 200,000 jobs in December in a burst of hiring that drove the unemployment rate to its lowest in almost three years. The figures raised hopes that the economy might finally be healthy enough to power an even stronger job market.

Alan B. Krueger, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, stated:

Today’s employment report provides further evidence that the economy is continuing to heal from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

This statement may be of little comfort to the long-term unemployed. The report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows:

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 5.6 million and accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities gave a sobering look at the jobs report:

..a strong jobs recovery remains elusive. The overall jobs deficit remains large, the labor force shrank for the second straight month, and the proportion of people aged 16 and over who have a job remains depressed. Jobs are still hard to find, especially for the long-term unemployed.

Economist Dean Baker remarks that the touted 200,000 figure is not an accurate number of the jobs created:

We created 42,200 courier jobs in December. Was there really a big surge in hiring in the courier industry? Well, the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed a surge of more than 50,000 new courier jobs last December, all of which were gone in January and then some. In other words, pull out our 42,000 courier jobs and we are looking at job growth of 158,000, not much to celebrate.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities further notes today:

• The recession and lack of job opportunities drove many people out of the labor force, and we have yet to see a sustained return to labor force participation (people aged 16 and over working or actively looking for work) that would mark a strong jobs recovery. That situation did not improve in December. The labor force shrank by 50,000 people in December after falling by 120,000 in November. The labor force participation rate remained 64.0 percent in December, which is lower than it was a year ago when the unemployment rate was nearly a full percentage point higher, and it remains at levels last seen in 1984. 

• Finding a job remains very difficult. The Labor Department’s most comprehensive alternative unemployment rate measure (U6) — which includes people who want to work but are discouraged from looking and people working part time because they can’t find full-time jobs — was 15.2 percent in December, down from its all-time high of 17.4 percent in October 2009 in data that go back to 1994, but still 6.4 percentage points higher than at the start of the recession. By that measure, almost 24 million people are unemployed or underemployed.  

• Long-term unemployment remains a significant concern. Over two-fifths (42.5 percent) of the 13.1 million people who are unemployed — 5.6 million people — have been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer. These long-term unemployed represent 3.6 percent of the labor force. Before this recession, the previous highs for these statistics over the past six decades were 26.0 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively, in June 1983.

As Baker bluntly notes today:

Coming out of a steep recession, we should be expected job growth in the 300k-400k monthly range. Unfortunately, there has been a huge effort to lower expectations so that we come to accept dismal economic performance as the best we can do.

***

Friday, January 6, 2012 by The New York Times
Bain, Barack and Jobs
by Paul Krugman

 

America’s recovery from recession has been so slow that it mostly doesn’t seem like a recovery at all, especially on the jobs front. So, in a better world, President Obama would face a challenger offering a serious critique of his job-creation policies, and proposing a serious alternative.

Instead, he’ll almost surely face Mitt Romney.

Mr. Romney claims that Mr. Obama has been a job destroyer, while he was a job-creating businessman. For example, he told Fox News:  “This is a president who lost more jobs during his tenure than any president since Hoover. This is two million jobs that he lost as president.” He went on to declare, of his time at the private equity firm Bain Capital, “I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs.”

But his claims about the Obama record border on dishonesty, and his claims about his own record are well across that border.

Start with the Obama record. It’s true that 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs now than when Mr. Obama took office. But the president inherited an economy in free fall, and can’t be held responsible for job losses during his first few months, before any of his own policies had time to take effect.

The economy lost 3.1 million jobs between January 2009 and June 2009 and has since gained 1.2 million jobs. That’s not enough.

Incidentally, the previous administration’s claims of job growth always started not from Inauguration Day but from August 2003, when Bush-era employment hit its low point. By that standard, Mr. Obama could say that he has created 2.5 million jobs since February 2010.

So Mr. Romney’s claims about the Obama job record aren’t literally false, but they are deeply misleading. Still, the real fun comes when we look at what Mr. Romney says about himself. Where does that claim of creating 100,000 jobs come from?

Well, Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post got an answer from the Romney campaign. It’s the sum of job gains at three companies that Mr. Romney “helped to start or grow”: Staples, The Sports Authority and Domino’s.

Mr. Kessler immediately pointed out two problems with this tally. It’s “based on current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain,” and it “does not include job losses from other companies with which Bain Capital was involved.” Either problem, by itself, makes nonsense of the whole claim.

On the point about using current employment, consider Staples, which has more than twice as many stores now as it did back in 1999, when Mr. Romney left Bain. Can he claim credit for everything good that has happened to the company in the past 12 years? In particular, can he claim credit for the company’s successful shift from focusing on price to focusing on customer service (“That was easy”), which took place long after he had left the business world?

Then there’s the bit about looking only at Bain-connected companies that added jobs, ignoring those that reduced their work forces or went out of business. Hey, if pluses count but minuses don’t, everyone who spends a day playing the slot machines comes out way ahead!

In any case, it makes no sense to look at changes in one company’s work force and say that this measures job creation for America as a whole.

Suppose, for example, that your chain of office-supply stores gains market share at the expense of rivals. You employ more people; your rivals employ fewer. What’s the overall effect on U.S. employment? One thing’s for sure: it’s a lot less than the number of workers your company added.

Better yet, suppose that you expand in part not by beating your competitors, but by buying them. Now their employees are your employees. Have you created jobs?

The point is that Mr. Romney’s claims about being a job creator would be nonsense even if he were being honest about the numbers, which he isn’t.

At this point, some readers may ask whether it isn’t equally wrong to say that Mr. Romney destroyed jobs. Yes, it is. The real complaint about Mr. Romney and his colleagues isn’t that they destroyed jobs, but that they destroyed good jobs.

When the dust settled after the companies that Bain restructured were downsized — or, as happened all too often, went bankrupt — total U.S. employment was probably about the same as it would have been in any case. But the jobs that were lost paid more and had better benefits than the jobs that replaced them. Mr. Romney and those like him didn’t destroy jobs, but they did enrich themselves while helping to destroy the American middle class.

And that reality is, of course, what all the blather and misdirection about job-creating businessmen and job-destroying Democrats is meant to obscure.

***

Friday, January 6, 2012 by CommonDreams.org
'Job Creators' Aren't Doing Their Job
by Carl Gibson

 

If you put in long hours and hard work into a job, would you be upset with a boss who paid you with a handful of nickels, especially if hundred-dollar bills spilled out of your boss’s pockets while he dug around for the coins?

As taxpayers, Americans expect to get what they pay for—safe infrastructure, prompt emergency response, good schools, and a strong social safety net. As shareholders in profitable companies, investors expect to get what they pay for—dividends. And as job seekers in a troubled economy, America’s unemployed are trying to find work wherever they can; but corporate greed is depriving taxpayers, shareholders and job seekers of what they need and deserve.

With $2 trillion at home and $1.4 trillion abroad, corporations are sitting on record-high piles of cash. For example, Apple holds $76 billion by itself, more than the U.S. Treasury. Yet, these hoards of cash remain untaxed. A 35% tax on corporate America’s cash reserves in the United States alone would generate $700 billion in revenue. That amount would reverse every budget cut in every state, rejuvenating America’s schools and infrastructure by re-creating almost a half-million public sector jobs lost since the recession.

If corporations simply invested their American stash of cash reserves in creating good jobs for America’s unemployed, they could put 3.5 million new people to work in the private sector each year for five years, at an annual salary of $40,000. If corporations just used their cash reserves to pay dividends to their shareholders, investors like the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System wouldn’t have to cut benefits for their retirees.

Corporate executives blame the “uncertainty” of the economy as an excuse to sit on piles of cash, yet the economic boost of 17.5 million jobs created in five years would dramatically lower the unemployment rate and increase GDP, bolstering local economies by creating a surge of new demand for struggling small business owners. Using cash reserves to pay dividends to shareholders would restore confidence in the market and strengthen the investments millions are counting on for their retirement.

It is both greedy and irresponsible for American corporations to allow untaxed cash to pile up on their balance sheets while American infrastructure crumbles, public education suffers, the unemployed struggle to survive and shareholders lose their investments. It’s time for America’s “job creators” to do their job.

Time for a Real Debate: Are Corporations People? (3 articles)

Saturday, January 7, 2012 by CommonDreams.org

by Robert Hinkley

 

"Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend."—Mitt Romney

It’s true that corporations have no ability to act for themselves.  They only act through people; their officers, directors, employees, lawyers and agents.  However, the important question to ask is “do corporations behave like people?” Because if they don’t behave like people, our nation faces a serious problem it wasn’t designed to handle.

Our form of government was created in 1788 with the adoption of the US Constitution.  This was a time when there were only a handful of corporations in existence (and none of the modern variety which have no obligations to protect the public interest).  As a consequence, there is no mention anywhere in the Constitution of the word corporation.

This means that our government governs people and corporations the same way—through the passage of laws enacted by our elected representatives.  Until such laws are passed, both people and corporations can harm the environment and other elements of the public interest to the extent they have the capacity and inclination to do so.  Sometimes the passage of effective new laws can take a very long time.  Sometimes such laws never get passed.

The public interest is exposed while our leaders decide what should be done.  However, people are unlikely to take advantage of this situation.  They generally have little capacity or inclination to engage in behavior that harms the public interest.  Modern corporations, on the other hand, have plenty of both.

Protection of the public interest in our democracy depends upon citizenship.   It depends on citizens voluntarily stopping behavior that is harming the public interest even when no law prohibits it.  When good citizens realize they are harming the public interest, they stop.  They don’t wait for the law to make them stop.  They don’t lobby to keep the law from making them stop.  They simply stop.

People generally stop.  Modern corporations too often do not.

While companies don’t start out with the intention of plundering the public interest, it sometimes becomes evident that their now successful business is doing great harm.  This is when their citizenship is tested.  Almost universally, companies fail this test when large amounts of money are at stake.

When it becomes evident a citizen is harming the public interest, he, she or it has two options:  recognize the obligations of citizenship and stop (the citizenship option) or take advantage of the rights of citizenship and get involved in the legislative process to delay or frustrate the passage of new laws which will prohibit their destructive behavior (the political option).  Most human beings choose the former.  Corporations choose the latter. 

There are several reasons why people choose the good citizen option and corporations choose the political option.  Most have to do with the differences between people and corporations.  People generally develop a sense of right and wrong.  None of us has a compelling need to harm the public interest.  Corporations, on the other hand, have no conscience.  The people that work for them do, but they have to follow rules that rarely result in a collective conscience.  Moreover, at times companies have a compelling need to harm the public interest—when future profits and/or their survival depend upon it.

Lots of people are saying our government is broken.  A huge reason for this is they see that government is unable to protect the public interest from corporate anti-social behavior.

Because our Constitution contains no special provisions for the government of corporations, protection of the public interest depends upon corporate citizenship just as it does on individual citizenship. Indeed, it depends on corporate citizenship more.  A big corporation has the capacity to do more harm to the public interest in one afternoon legally than the average human being can do in a lifetime.

In the case of modern corporations with huge amounts of money invested in factories, processes and products that harm the public interest, that citizenship is not present.  The reason for this has to do with state corporate laws that say, so long as corporations are operating in accordance with existing laws, corporate directors must act in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders.

These laws encourage corporate managers to continue harming the public interest in the pursuit of their company’s own interest (profit and survival). It’s time to start thinking about changing these laws.  The law should balance the duty of directors to act in the company’s best interest with safeguards that will ensure protection of the environment and other elements of the public interest.

In Iowa Mitt Romney argued that “Corporations are people.”  New Hampshire is the next stop on the trail to selecting a GOP nominee for president.  Two debates are scheduled between now and primary day; one Saturday hosted by New Hampshire's ABC affiliate WMUR and the other Sunday morning, a joint effort by Facebook and NBC's 'Meet The Press'.  Isn’t it time all the candidates for president from both parties were asked whether they too believe corporations people?

***

Thursday, January 5, 2012 by TomDispatch.com
Buying Congress in 2012

Time to Stop Being Cynical About Corporate Money in Politics and Start Being Angry

by Bill McKibben

 

My resolution for 2012 is to be naïve -- dangerously naïve.

I’m aware that the usual recipe for political effectiveness is just the opposite: to be cynical, calculating, an insider. But if you think, as I do, that we need deep change in this country, then cynicism is a sucker’s bet. Try as hard as you can, you’re never going to be as cynical as the corporations and the harem of politicians they pay for.  It’s like trying to outchant a Buddhist monastery. 

Here’s my case in point, one of a thousand stories people working for social change could tell: All last fall, most of the environmental movement, including 350.org, the group I helped found, waged a fight against the planned Keystone XL pipeline that would bring some of the dirtiest energy on the planet from Canada through the U.S. to the Gulf Coast. We waged our struggle against building it out in the open, presenting scientific argument, holding demonstrations, and attending hearings.  We sent 1,253 people to jail in the largest civil disobedience action in a generation.  Meanwhile, more than half a million Americans offered public comments against the pipeline, the most on any energy project in the nation’s history.

And what do you know? We won a small victory in November, when President Obama agreed that, before he could give the project a thumbs-up or -down, it needed another year of careful review.  (The previous version of that review, as overseen by the State Department, had been little short of a crony capitalist farce.)  Given that James Hansen, the government’s premier climate scientist, had said that tapping Canada’s tar sands for that pipeline would, in the end, essentially mean “game over for the climate,” that seemed an eminently reasonable course to follow, even if it was also eminently political.

A few weeks later, however, Congress decided it wanted to take up the question. In the process, the issue went from out in the open to behind closed doors in money-filled rooms.

Within days, and after only a couple of hours of hearings that barely mentioned the key scientific questions or the dangers involved, the House of Representatives voted 234-194 to force a quicker review of the pipeline.  Later, the House attached its demand to the must-pass payroll tax cut.

That was an obvious pre-election year attempt to put the president on the spot.

Environmentalists are at least hopeful that the White House will now reject the permit.  After all, its communications director said that the rider, by hurrying the decision, “virtually guarantees that the pipeline will not be approved.”

As important as the vote total in the House, however, was another number: within minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that the 234 Congressional representatives who voted aye had received $42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry; the 193 nays, $8 million.

Buying Congress
I know that cynics -- call them realists, if you prefer -- will be completely unsurprised by that. Which is precisely the problem.

We’ve reached the point where we’re unfazed by things that should shake us to the core.

So, just for a moment, be naïve and consider what really happened in that vote: the people’s representatives who happen to have taken the bulk of the money from those energy companies promptly voted on behalf of their interests.

They weren’t weighing science or the national interest; they weren’t balancing present benefits against future costs.  Instead of doing the work of legislators, that is, they were acting like employees. Forget the idea that they’re public servants; the truth is that, in every way that matters, they work for Exxon and its kin. They should, by rights, wear logos on their lapels like NASCAR drivers.

If you find this too harsh, think about how obligated you feel when someone gives you something. Did you get a Christmas present last month from someone you hadn’t remembered to buy one for? Are you going to send them an extra-special one next year?

And that’s for a pair of socks. Speaker of the House John Boehner, who insisted that the Keystone approval decision be speeded up, has gotten $1,111,080 from the fossil-fuel industry during his tenure. His Senate counterpart Mitch McConnell, who shepherded the bill through his chamber, has raked in $1,277,208 in the course of his tenure in Washington.

If someone had helped your career to the tune of a million dollars, wouldn’t you feel in their debt? I would. I get somewhat less than that from my employer, Middlebury College, and yet I bleed Panther blue.  Don’t ask me to compare my school with, say, Dartmouth unless you want a biased answer, because that’s what you’ll get.  Which is fine -- I am an employee.

But you’d be a fool to let me referee the homecoming football game. In fact, in any other walk of life we wouldn’t think twice before concluding that paying off the referees is wrong. If the Patriots make the Super Bowl, everyone in America would be outraged to see owner Robert Kraft trot out to midfield before the game and hand a $1,000 bill to each of the linesmen and field judges.

If he did it secretly, the newspaper reporter who uncovered the scandal would win a Pulitzer.

But a political reporter who bothered to point out Boehner’s and McConnell’s payoffs would be upbraided by her editor for simpleminded journalism.  That’s how the game is played and we’ve all bought into it, even if only to sputter in hopeless outrage.

Far from showing any shame, the big players boast about it: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, front outfit for a consortium of corporations, has bragged on its website about outspending everyone in Washington, which is easy to do when Chevron, Goldman Sachs, and News Corp are writing you seven-figure checks. This really matters.  The Chamber of Commerce spent more money on the 2010 elections than the Republican and Democratic National Committees combined, and 94% of those dollars went to climate-change deniers.  That helps explain why the House voted last year to say that global warming isn’t real.

It also explains why “our” representatives vote, year in and year out, for billions of dollars worth of subsidies for fossil-fuel companies. If there was ever an industry that didn’t need subsidies, it would be this one: they make more money each year than any enterprise in the history of money. Not only that, but we’ve known how to burn coal for 300 years and oil for 200.

Those subsidies are simply payoffs. Companies give small gifts to legislators, and in return get large ones back, and we’re the ones who are actually paying.

Whose Money?  Whose Washington?
I don’t want to be hopelessly naïve. I want to be hopefully naïve. It would be relatively easy to change this: you could provide public financing for campaigns instead of letting corporations pay. It’s the equivalent of having the National Football League hire referees instead of asking the teams to provide them.

Public financing of campaigns would cost a little money, but endlessly less than paying for the presents these guys give their masters. And it would let you watch what was happening in Washington without feeling as disgusted.  Even legislators, once they got the hang of it, might enjoy neither raising money nor having to pretend it doesn’t affect them.

To make this happen, however, we may have to change the Constitution, as we’ve done 27 times before. This time, we’d need to specify that corporations aren’t people, that money isn’t speech, and that it doesn’t abridge the First Amendment to tell people they can’t spend whatever they want getting elected. Winning a change like that would require hard political organizing, since big banks and big oil companies and big drug-makers will surely rally to protect their privilege.

Still, there’s a chance.  The Occupy movement opened the door to this sort of change by reminding us all that the system is rigged, that its outcomes are unfair, that there’s reason to think people from across the political spectrum are tired of what we’ve got, and that getting angry and acting on that anger in the political arena is what being a citizen is all about.

It’s fertile ground for action.  After all, Congress’s approval rating is now at 9%, which is another way of saying that everyone who’s not a lobbyist hates them and what they’re doing. The big boys are, of course, counting on us simmering down; they’re counting on us being cynical, on figuring there’s no hope or benefit in fighting city hall. But if we’re naïve enough to demand a country more like the one we were promised in high school civics class, then we have a shot.

A good time to take an initial stand comes later this month, when rallies outside every federal courthouse will mark the second anniversary of the Citizens United decision. That’s the one where the Supreme Court ruled that corporations had the right to spend whatever they wanted on campaigns.

To me, that decision was, in essence, corporate America saying, “We’re not going to bother pretending any more. This country belongs to us.”

We need to say, loud and clear: “Sorry. Time to give it back.”

***

Friday, January 6, 2012 by YES! Magazine
How Cities and States are Sticking It to Citizens United
From courthouses to statehouses, the pro-corporate ruling is under pressure.
by Brooke Jarvis

 

The Supreme Court may have declared in Citizens United v. the FEC that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, but that doesn’t mean cities and states have to be happy about it.

They’re expressing their disagreement on an increasing number of battlegrounds, with Citizens United under challenge in courts, in city council meetings, in state legislatures, on ballots, and in the streets.

Dissension in the Courts
Some of the most interesting recent action has been in the courts, with lower courts—including a state Supreme Court and a federal appeals court—taking on Citizens United.

“While, as a member of this Court, I am bound to follow Citizens United, I do not have to agree with the Supreme Court’s decision." -Justice James C. Nelson

In Montana, the state Supreme Court upheld a longstanding law limiting corporate spending in politics. A lower court had held that Citizens United invalidated the Corrupt Practices Act, a law passed by citizens’ ballot initiative in 1912, when it was common practice for the copper industry to bribe state politicians. Unwilling to lose a basic, century-old protection against corruption, the state appealed the issue to the Montana Supreme Court, which on Dec. 30 allowed the law to stand.

For over 100 years, Montana has had an electoral system that preserves the integrity of the political process, encourages full participation, and safeguards against corruption,” said Attorney General Steve Bullock, who argued the state’s case. “The Supreme Court’s decision upholds that system and is truly a victory for all Montanans.”

The decision holds that Montana—for a host of reasons, from its history of corrupt industries to its thinly spread population—has a compelling interest in keeping the law. “If the statute has worked to preserve a degree of political and social autonomy, is the State required to throw away its protections?” asked Chief Justice Mike McGrath, writing for the majority.

Even Justice James C. Nelson, who dissented, did so regretfully. “While, as a member of this Court, I am bound to follow Citizens United, I do not have to agree with the Supreme Court’s decision,” he wrote. “And, to be absolutely clear, I do not agree with it.”

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took a similar stand when, in late December, it upheld a 2006 New York City law that, among other things, bans lobbyists from giving gifts to City officials and requires them to disclose all fundraising and consulting activities. A group of plaintiffs challenging the law hoped it would be invalidated under Citizens United; the court dismissed their lawsuit, upholding the City’s right to put limits on political contributions and prevent “pay-to-play” schemes.

Judge Guido Calabresi, in a concurring opinion, explained his reasoning for maintaining limits on corporate lobbying: “If an external factor, such as wealth, allows some individuals to communicate their political views too powerfully, then persons who lack wealth may, for all intents and purposes, be excluded from the democratic dialogue.”

From Cities and States to the U.S. Constitution
Though lower courts can take stands against it, the Supreme Court’s ruling—that money is constitutionally protected free speech and that corporations are legal persons entitled to such protections—is final. If the Montana and New York City cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, the lower court rulings are likely to be reversed; Montana and New York City would quickly see the end of their hard-won protections.

That’s why the New York City Council on Wednesday joined a group of other cities (including Los Angeles, Boulder, Albany, Oakland, and Madison) in asking Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. The resolution declares support for an amendment saying “that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of protections or ‘rights’ of natural persons, specifically so that the expenditure of corporate money to influence the electoral process is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.”

The same day, California lawmakers introduced a similar resolution in the state legislature.

Meanwhile, activists are gearing up for the upcoming 2-year anniversary of the ruling, planning rallies on the steps of the Supreme Court and federal courthouses across the country.

It won’t be easy to stop big money from undermining our democracy. But momentum is building. The desire for a functioning democracy, writes Judge Calabresi in his concurring opinion for the 2nd Circuit, “is, I believe, something that is so fundamental that sooner or later it is going to be recognized. Whether this will happen through a constitutional amendment or through changes in Supreme Court doctrine, I do not know. But it will happen.”

The Whims of an Empire Gone Mad

Horror and Puppetry

by LINH DINH

 

Meat, water, sock or political, it’s not easy being a puppet. Even before the first word tumbles from your mouth, people crack up, and your face alone can bring down the house.

Take this passage from Hamid Karzai, from a 2004 address to a joint session of the American Congress:

Our national army is being trained by American forces, American troops, and wherever we have deployed them the Afghan people have welcomed them. We have initiated the fight against narcotics to save our children, to save your children and children across the world from the evil of addiction to drugs.

It’s amazing the Capitol was still standing after these one liners. Need I remind you that Karzai spent much of his adult life on the payroll of the CIA, the world’s biggest drug gang? And that his brother, since assassinated, was a notorious drug dealer? As for the Afghan people’s love for Karzai’s army, it now depends on four times the number of American troops to keep it from disintegrating or being overrun. The night’s biggest howler, however, came when Karzai related this tale about two American soldiers in Kandahar:

Somebody, a terrorist, threw a grenade at them. The grenade landed in their vehicle. They took the grenade. Instead of throwing it into the street where there were people around them, civilians, these heroic men stuck the grenade under their seat. The grenade exploded. Fortunately, they survived. But they were badly injured. To us, this was also an example of heroism and care for humanity, and we are proud of these two American soldiers. These stories tell a tale of partnership, tell a tale of joint struggle, tell a tale of care and courage and care for humanity.

I’m sorry for being skeptical, but in the long an(n)als of propaganda or warfare, I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that a soldier placed a live grenade under his butts (and jewels). It just doesn’t happen, OK? Even if his mother was standing in that crowded street, I doubt he would shove it right there.

As an American puppet, Karzai had to mouth such absurdities, but these jokes wouldn’t go over too well at home, especially as American atrocities avalanched. When even the New York Times had to report that Afghan children were being blown up just for fun by American chopper crews, Karzai had to protest. He couldn’t follow his supposed outrage to its conclusion, however, by demanding that America quit Afghanistan, because if there were no more American troops in Afghanistan, there would also be no more Karzai… in Afghanistan.

Even Karzai’s own vice-president accused him of being a puppet, so as an American stooge, he had to appear as an uber-Afghan. Thus, the lambskin hat, the bright robe, the tunic. No ordinary suit and tie, Allah forbid, as found on the Syrian President, enemy of the West, or just a discount, JC Penney jacket, as draped on the Iranian leader.

Now, a political puppet can certainly outgrow his role. No longer useful, he can be shoved aside or even killed. Conversely, if he feels that he no longer needs his patron, that he has used this support long enough to consolidate his own power, he can also ditch the patron to stand on his own two feet. This, Karzai hasn’t come close to achieve. Quite the reverse. As recent events have proven, Karzai has become even more superfluous.

Karzai’s only justification for being was that he was an alternative to the Taliban, so when the US started to negotiate with these same Taliban, he went berserk, especially as neither sides bothered to bring him into their discussions. Karzai’s indignation changed nothing, however, so now he’s endorsing this rapprochement between his Yankee masters and his political enemy.

To prove that he’s his own puppet, after all, and a nationalist and humanist, to boot, Karzai’s now demanding that the US returns Bagram Prison to Afghanistan. Citing its atrocious human rights abuses, Karzai considers this complex a violation of Afghan sovereignty. Of course he’s right, but then everything America does in Afghanistan is a violation of Afghan sovereignty, because America shouldn’t be there at all. America’s installation of Hamid Karzai is a violation of Afghan sovereignty.

Since the American invasion, thousands of Afghans have had to suffer indefinite detention without access to a lawyer, often after having been yanked from their home in the middle of the night. Many have been tortured, with some killed in custody. At present, there are over 1,700 prisoners in Bagram. With the National Defense Authorization Act, Americans can now look forward to the same sadistic, inhuman treatment, but who, and how many?

Since there will be no legal presentation or due process, with everything done in secret, you will never know, will you, unless it’s you yourself who are suddenly stripped naked, hung from the ceiling and beaten, forced to endure unbearable cold and to curl up naked on the floor in an empty cell day after day, without any evidence presented whatsoever, with no basis at all for your open-ended suffering but the whims of an empire gone mad.

Police State Targeted by New Year’s Eve Demos

"Get Loud: Decrowd!"

by STEVEN HIGGS

 

If mainstream media reports on a New Year’s Eve demonstration in downtown Bloomington, Indiana are given any credibility, the only crimes committed that evening were perpetrated by a couple protesters, and the city’s lightweight mayor may take away Occupy Bloomington’s tents for their indiscretions.

But mainstream media reports on social justice issues, especially on the police, have little to no credibility. By institutional design, they are propaganda for the economic elite, managed by law enforcement to shock the masses (and produce profits for media companies). The real news from Bloomington is that the “noise demo” that took place along its streets as the year turned was part of a coordinated, ongoing, global struggle against the corporate police state.

“Noise demos outside of prisons in some countries are a continuing tradition, a way of expressing solidarity for people imprisoned during the New Year, remembering those held captive by the state,” said a nationwide call for the New Year’s Eve actions posted on websites like 325.

Before the new year was 24 hours old, first-person accounts of noise demos from Sydney, Seattle, Chicago, Portland, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, New York and Baltimore, as well as Bloomington, had been posted on the Anarchist news dot org website.

The Bloomington account began, “Saturday night, around 50 people gathered at the Occupy Bloomington camp in People’s Park for a roving dance party and noise demonstration outside the Monroe County jail. The party left the park just before 11 p.m., heading west on Kirkwood Avenue toward the square.”

The mood, it said, was festive, as street dancers traded greetings of ‘Happy New Year!’ with other revelers on the sidewalks, in cars and in windows overlooking the square. Followed all the while by the police, the march arrived at the jail at around 11:30 p.m., where the dancing continued, and squad cars sealed off the streets.

“One comrade read a statement through a megaphone expressing solidarity with those people locked inside the jail and against this prison society,” the account continued. “It was inspiring to hear pounding on the windows from the inside as we cheered from the outside. Just before midnight a banner that read ‘Break Your Chains’ was dropped from the Hilton hotel across the street from the jail.”

***

The New Year’s Eve noise demo in Bloomington was at least the third such action in the city since summer 2011. One was held in October, as a court-ordered limit on the jail’s prisoner population was set to expire. Another was held August to show solidarity with striking prisoners in the Indiana Department of Correction. Occupy Bloomington marches all stop at the jail.


The Monroe County Jail, renamed Monroe County Correctional Center, was opened in 1986 with a maximum prisoner capacity of 126. By September 2008, the inmate population had reached 312, Monroe County Sheriff Jim Kennedy told The Bloomington Alternative at that time for an investigative reporting series called Going to Jail.

That series ran 10 months after an inmate sued the county over the inhumane and unconstitutional conditions caused by jail overcrowding. The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of inmate Trevor Richardson, was settled in December 2009.

The federal court order set a “cap” of 278 prisoners in the facility.

As the agreement’s Oct. 1, 2011, expiration date arrived, the group Decarcerate Monroe County issued a news release inviting the public to a parade called “Get Loud: De-Crowd!” to recognize the settlement’s expiration, jail conditions and the impact that incarceration has on everyone in the community.

“The majority of people held at the Monroe County jail pose no threat to the community,” the release said. “On the contrary, the security of those incarcerated and their families is threatened because being in jail means losing your ability to work and care for your family.”
The Decarcerate release said county judges in September had begun allowing non-violent offenders to be released from jail without bond as a step to reduce the crowding.

The Herald-Times reported on Oct. 1, 2011, that the jail population was 243, still almost twice the design capacity. The article said Kennedy had written a letter asking federal-court approval of a one-year extension to the cap. It also announced the Get Loud: DeCrowd! March.

Searches on The Herald-Times Online produced no follow-up stories on either story angle.

***

The Bloomington New Year’s Eve demo proceeded from the jail “toward the newest hipster bar in town,” as tourists and revelers watched, the Bloomington Anarchist dot org account continued.




“Upon arriving at the hipster bar, our numbers swelled to well over 100 and maybe 150 as well-groomed partiers came out to dance and be seen in the street,” the post said. “While the whole scene was being closely monitored by over a dozen cops, it looked as if they were going to let the party ride out and fizzle on its own accord. But that’s not what happened.”

The crowd dropped back to about 50 as “last call” summoned the drinkers back inside, the account said. “Somewhere in the mix a bottle was broken on the sidewalk,” after which an officer jumped out of his car and tackled a protester, “punching him in the head as he lay helplessly below the much larger cop.”

Protester efforts to retrieve the man from custody were unsuccessful, which led to verbal confrontations between police and protesters, the account said. “More cops, including university cops, BPD and Monroe County, showed up. The march turned east on Kirkwood, as 15 cops or so followed on foot, ordering people out of the street.”

Two more protesters were arrested during the demo, which ended about 1:30 a.m. Prosecutors have charged one man with two felonies for the altercation with police.

Charges against another were dropped. The third was charged with public intoxication.
Occupy Bloomington issued a statement on Jan. 3 saying the arrested men had no connection to the local group.

***

In August, Bloomington activists acted in solidarity with prisoners at Indiana state prisons, where similar conditions contribute to increased tensions, violence and rebellion, according to a post titled “Bloomington solidarity actions with prisoners in struggle” on the Rififi Bloomington website.


According to the post, Indiana state prisons were put on system-wide lockdown in July, using as a pretext “the stabbing of an Aryan Brother (a member of a prison gang that often acts in collusion with guards and administrators) in Pendleton.”

The real reason, the post says, was to prevent a “rebellion.”

At the end of July, prisoners in the Secure Housing Unit (SHU) at Indiana’s Wabash Valley Correctional Facility organized a protest against the shutdown and the inhumane conditions, which included no water for sanitation or cleansing. SHU’s are solitary-confinement prisons within prisons.

The strike caught the attention of national prison reform activists, who on Aug. 3 organized a national call-in day to support Wabash Valley prisoners, the Reififi post said. Fifteen Bloomington activists passed out fliers and covered the town in chalked messages to raise awareness of the prisoners’ protest.

In early August the SHU protest ended inconclusively. “Prisoners remain on lockdown, but the rebels win an improvement of conditions, including the restoration of water for sanitation and washing up,” the post said.

An Aug. 10 noise demo was held outside the Bloomington jail, “making a ruckus for Prisoner Justice Day,” the post said. “It’s dedicated to prisoners killed and tortured inside every prison, but especially the local jail and the Wabash Valley SHU.”

The lockdown ended in mid-August. A search for “Secure Housing Unit” on the H-T website produced no results.

Situation All Fracked Up

We Asked For Water, They Gave Us Gasoline

by ROBERT HUNZIKER

 

According to worldwide energy industry participants, all of the low hanging fruit is gone.

Finding new energy sources will henceforth be difficult and expensive… and very dangerous to your health. The unquenchable thirst for energy is unique to modern man, a little over 100 years old, and energy is unquestionably the heartbeat of modern civilization.

We cannot exist without it, but where and how to find it is fast becoming the biggest challenge to the health of planet earth. Case in point: Fracking is the fastest growing segment of the energy industry, massively so in North America, but it may be the death knell of society well before global warming has the opportunity to really strut its stuff.

According to Texas Governor Rick Perry, when confronted on the campaign trail about fracking problems: “We have been using hydraulic fracturing in my home state for years and this is a fear tactic that the left is using and the environmental community is using that absolutely, excuse the pun, does not hold water.”

Governor Perry’s bias and ill-founded statement is herein refuted by 12 personal testimonials in Texas included in the appendix to this article. Further, it is well understood by professionals who seriously follow the trails and tribulations of fracking that almost all cases where fracking has poisoned ground water are quickly settled, payoffs to the victims, by energy lawyers who arrange for the legal documents to be sealed.  The implication herein is we do not know the whole story by a long shot, but knowing the whole story may be the only way to survive as a species. Why we don’t know all the facts should be one of the most important political questions of 2012.

The upcoming national debate about the election of 2012 should, front and center, address the fracking issue in earnest, and the government has a responsibility to its citizens to re-establish effective monitoring of the fracking industry under the U.S. Clean Water Act. Why not? Fracking poisons ground water (see testimonials in appendix), and because fracking is the fastest growth segment of the energy industry, it will be too late once its deadly effects are well understood by the public at large.
\
How do we reverse poisoned aquifers?

1)    December 8th, 2011-Environmental Protection Agency says Gas-Fracking Chemicals Detected in Wyoming Aquifer, (a drinking-water aquifer in west-central Wyoming; residents of Pavilion, Wyoming warned to use ventilation when showering in order to air out potentially dangerous chemicals, and to drink and cook from bottled water.

2)    April 27th, 2011- Jessica Ernst, an Alberta, Canada resident who is an oil patch consultant, sued Encana, Alberta Environment and Water, and the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board for $33M over allegations that Encana’s fracking/drilling caused water contamination, i.e., her faucets began to whistle, the toilet fizzed, black particles clogged her water filters, and she broke out in rashes.

3)    December 23^rd, 2011- US Dept. of Energy issues a request for proposals, offering $35 million, of projects that will address environmental impacts of… including contamination of drinking water with fracking chemicals….”

4)    According to WaterDefense.org, “Across the country, state regulators have documented over 1,000 incidents of groundwater contamination related to fracking.  In many cases, water is so polluted with gas that people can literally light their water on fire, right out of the tap!”

5)    A New York Times article, d/d August 3, 2011, “A Tainted Water Well, and Concern There May be More,” by Ian Urbina, states: “The report concluded that hydraulic fracturing fluids or gel used by the Kaiser Exploration and Mining Company contaminated a well roughly 600 feet away on the property of James Parsons in Jackson County, W.Va., referring to it as “Mr. Parson’s water well… This fracture fluid, along with natural gas was present in Mr. Parson’s water, rendering it unusable.” The article goes on to conclude: “…E.P.A. report, said that she and her colleagues had found “dozens” of cases that she said appeared to specifically involve drinking water contamination related to fracking. But they were unable to investigate those cases further and get access to more documents because of legal settlements.”

APPENDIX

A list of actual groundwater contamination cases from the Natural Resources Defense Council:

Arkansas: In 2008, Charlene Parish of Bee Branch reported contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Southwestern Energy Company. Her water smelled bad, turned yellow, and filled with silt.

Arkansas: In 2007, the Graetz family in Pangburn reported contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Southwestern Energy Company. The water turned muddy and contained particles that were “very light and kind of slick” and resembled pieces of leather.

Arkansas: In 2009, a family in Bee Branch, who wishes to remain anonymous, reported changes in water pressure and drinking water that turned gray and cloudy and had noxious odors after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Southwestern Energy Company.

Arkansas: In 2007, a family in Center Ridge reported changes in water pressure and water that turned red or orange and looked like it had clay in it after hydraulic fracturing of nearby wells owned by Southwestern Energy Company. They told their story on YouTube.

Arkansas: In 2008, a homeowner in Center Ridge reported changes in water pressure and water that turned brown, smelled bad, and had sediment in it after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby well owned by Southwestern Energy Company. He also told his story on YouTube.

Colorado: In 2001, two families in Silt reported a water well blow-out and contamination of their drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of four nearby natural gas wells owned by Ballard Petroleum, now Encana Corporation. Their drinking water turned gray, had strong smells, bubbled, and lost pressure. One family reported health symptoms they believe are linked to the groundwater contamination.

Colorado: In 2007, the Bounds family in Huerfano County reported a pump house exploded and contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of nearby wells owned by Petroglyph Energy.

Colorado: In June, 2010, the day hydraulic fracturing began on a nearby gas well in Las Animas County, landowner Tracy Dahl checked his cistern and found approximately 500 gallons of grayish brown murky water where water had previously run clear for years. The Dahls have extensive water testing documentation going back many years, verifying that their water has always been clean and clear. They were told by Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC”) staff that the water could not be tested for chemicals in the hydraulic fracturing fluid because there is insufficient information about the chemicals used. Three monitor wells on the ranch are now producing methane at an escalating rate.

New Mexico: A 2004 investigation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found two residents who reported that the quality of their water was affected by hydraulic fracturing.

New York: In 2007, the Lytle family in Seneca County reported contamination of drinking water the morning after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Chesapeake Energy Corporation. The water turned gray and was full of sediment.

New York: In 2009, the Eddy family in Allegany County reported contamination of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing of a nearby well owned by U.S. Energy Development Corporation. The water turned “foamy, chocolate-brown.”

North Dakota: The North Dakota non-profit organization Bakken Watch reports very serious health symptoms in humans, livestock, and pets after nearby hydraulic fracturing. Their website has photos of sick animals, pit leaks, and corroded tanks. North Dakota state legislators admit they are “understaffed and overwhelmed” and “struggling to provide adequate oversight amid an explosion of activity in North Dakota’s oil patch.”

Ohio: In 2007, there was an explosion of a water well and contamination of at least 22 other drinking water wells in Bainbridge Township after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Ohio Valley Energy Systems. According to the State investigation, one of the contributing factors to this incident is that: “the frac communicated directly with the well bore and was not confined within the “Clinton” reservoir.”

Pennsylvania: A gas well near the home of the Simons family in Bradford County was drilled in 2009 and re-fracked in February 2011. Shortly after the 2011 operation, the Simons family reports that their tap water turned gray and hazy. After the water changed, family members began getting severe rashes with oozing blisters, and one child had to be taken to the hospital for torrential nosebleeds that would not stop, nausea and severe headaches. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) tested the water and found very high levels of methane and other contaminants in the water, but said it was safe to drink. Since the Simons family stopped using any of their water, these symptoms have gone away but the water still “stinks awfully; it is a scummy, rotten, nasty smell…”

Pennsylvania: In September 2010, a lawsuit was filed by 13 families who say they have been and continue to be exposed to contaminated drinking water linked to hydraulic fracturing. Eight different properties in Susquehanna County are said to have contaminated drinking water. One child has neurological symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic substances. Southwestern Energy, the company operating the well near these families, responded that it promptly investigated all complaints and that both the company and the Pennsylvania Department of the Environment independently tested the water and found no link between gas operations and the water quality and no problems with the integrity of the gas well.

Pennsylvania:  In 2009, the Zimmerman family of Washington County reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of nearby natural gas wells owned by Atlas Energy. Water testing on their farm found arsenic at 2,600 times acceptable levels, benzene at 44 times above limits, naphthalene at five times the federal standard, and mercury and selenium levels above official limits.

Pennsylvania: In 2008, two families in Gibbs Hill reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby natural gas well owned by Seneca Resources Corporation. Their water had strong fumes, caused burning in lungs and sinuses after showering, and caused burning in the mouth immediately upon drinking. The state found that the company had not managed the pressure in the well properly and had spilled used hydraulic fracturing fluids that contaminated the drinking water supply.

Pennsylvania: In 2009, families in Bradford Township reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of nearby natural gas wells owned by Schreiner Oil & Gas. The drinking water of at least seven families has been contaminated.

Pennsylvania: In 2009, the Smitsky family in Hickory reported contamination of their drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of nearby natural gas wells owned by Range Resources. Their water became cloudy and foul smelling. Testing found acrylonitrile, a chemical that may be used in hydraulic fracturing.

Pennsylvania: A family in Bradford County reports that its water turned black and became flammable from methane contamination in 2009 after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby well operated by Chesapeake Energy. The water cleared for a while but turned black again in 2010. Relatives living down the road also report their water turning black in 2010.

Texas: Larry Bisidas is an expert in drilling wells and in groundwater. He is the owner of Bisidas Water Well Drilling in Wise County, and has been drilling water wells for 40 years. Two water wells on his property became contaminated in 2010. When his state regulator stated that there has been no groundwater contamination in Texas related to hydraulic fracturing, Mr. Bisidas replied: “”All they’ve gotta do is come out to my place, and I’ll prove it to them.”

Texas: In Wise County, Catherine and Brett Bledsoe report that their drinking water became contaminated in 2010 soon after hydraulic fracturing began on two natural gas wells bordering their property. The water stung their eyes during showers, and their animals refused to drink the water. Without any assistance from regulators, the Bledsoes paid for their own water testing. The testing found benzene, a known carcinogen, at double the safe levels.

Texas: In 2007, three families who share an aquifer in Grandview reported contamination of drinking water after hydraulic fracturing of a nearby well owned by Williams. They experienced strong odors in their water, changes in water pressure, skin irritation, and dead livestock. Water testing found toluene and other contaminants.

Texas: The Scoma family in Johnson County is suing Chesapeake Energy, claiming the company contaminated their drinking water with benzene and petroleum by-products after hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells near the Scoma home. The family reports that its drinking water sometimes runs an orange-yellow color, tastes bad and gives off a foul odor.

Texas: Tarrant County Commissioner J.D. Johnson, who lives in the Barnett shale area, reported groundwater contamination immediately after two gas wells on his property were hydraulically fractured. His water turned a dark gold color and had sand in it. (I live in Tarrant County.--jef)

Texas: Carol Grosser, in south Texas, noticed changes in her water after a neighbor told her a nearby well was being hydraulically fractured. Carol noticed changes in her water pressure and rust-colored residue in her stock tanks. The fish in her tanks died, and some of her goats had abnormal milk production and produced kids with unusual birth defects.

Texas: Toby Frederick began noticing a foul odor and discoloration in his water after ”an oil company blew out some casing during a hydraulic fracturing job northeast of his property.” Mr. Frederick paid for his own water samples, which found traces of benzene, a known carcinogen, in his water. He sent samples to his local Ground Water Conservation District, but never received any results. The Texas Railroad Commission told him his water was drinkable, even though it is brown and smells like diesel fuel.

Texas: The Executive Director of the Upper Trinity River Groundwater Conservation District in north Texas stated that the District “gets ‘regular reports’ from property owners who said that ‘since a particular [gas] well had been fracked, they’ve had problems’ with their water wells, such as sand in them, saltier water or reduced water output….” (Close to me, too.--jef)

Texas: Susan Knoll in the Barnett shale reports that last year her drinking water became foamy right after hydraulic fracturing of a well adjacent to her property. Since that time, additional gas wells have been fractured near her home and her drinking water has continually gotten worse. It sometimes foams, becomes oily, and has strong odors that burn Susan’s nose when she smells her water. Susan has a lot of videos and more information on her blog.

Texas: Grace Mitchell, a resident of Johnson County, Texas, is suing Encana and Chesapeake. According to her lawsuit, soon after drilling and hydraulic fracturing took place near her home in 2010, her water became contaminated, feeling slick to the touch and giving off an oily, gasoline-like odor. Testing results performed on her well water confirmed it was contaminated with various chemicals, including C-12-C28 hydrocarbons, similar to diesel fuel.

Texas: The Harris family of Denton County, Texas, is suing Devon Energy. They say that their water became contaminated soon after Devon commenced drilling and hydraulic fracturing near their home in 2008, and that their water became polluted with a gray sediment. Testing results performed on the well water found contamination with high levels of metals: aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, lithium, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, strontium, titanium, vanadium, and zinc. (Also near me.--jef)

Virginia: Citizens reported drinking water contamination after hydraulic fracturing. Water was murky and had oily films, black sediments, methane, and diesel odors. Individuals experienced rashes from showering. The Buchanan Citizens Action Group reported over 100 documented complaints of adverse effects of hydraulic fracturing and the Dickenson County Citizens Committee reported ground water quality deteriorated throughout the county as a result of the large number of hydraulic fracturing events.

West Virginia: The Hagy family in Jackson County, West Virginia, is suing four oil and gas companies for contaminating their drinking water. They say their water had ”a peculiar smell and taste” and the parents as well as their two children are suffering from neurological symptoms. A news article reports that the lawsuit makes the connection between the drinking water contamination and the hydraulic fracturing process.

West Virginia: In Marshall County, Jeremiah Magers reported in October, 2010, that “As soon as they ‘fracked’ those gas wells, that’s when my water well started getting gas in it.” He also lost all the water in his well.

West Virginia: In Wetzel County, Marilyn Hunt reported to the EPA in 2010 that: ”frac drilling is contaminating the drinking water here.” Residents report health symptoms, such as rashes and mouth sores, as well as illness in their lambs and goats, which they suspect is linked to drinking water contamination.

Wyoming: Families in the small town of Pavillion have been reporting contamination of their drinking water for at least ten years. Hydraulic fracturing has been used in the many wells in the area owned by Encana Corporation. Drinking water has turned black, smelled bad, and tasted bad. Individuals report medical symptoms they believe are related to water contamination. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found contamination in 11 water wells, and concluded in the draft report on its investigation that: “the data indicates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing.”

THE BAD SEED

(Thank you to Naomi Wolf for posting this story on Facebook.--jef)

by Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
 

For decades, the Monsanto the devil Corporation of St. Louis has been slowly dominating the world's supply of seed for staple crops (corn, soybeans, potatoes) -- a business plan that Monsanto's critics say is nothing short of diabolical. Monsanto the devil says it is just devilishly good business.

Monsanto the devil has spent over $30 billion in recent years buying numerous U.S. seed companies. As a result, two firms, Monsanto the devil and Pioneer (recently purchased by DuPont), now control the U.S. seed business. Monsanto the devil specializes in genetically modified seeds -- seeds having particular properties that Monsanto the devil has patented.

The U.S. government is very enthusiastic about these new technologies. From the viewpoint of U.S. foreign policy, genetically modified seeds offer a key advantage over traditional seeds: because genetically modified seeds are patented, it is illegal for a farmer to retain seed from this year's crop to plant next year. 

 

To use these patented seeds, farmers must buy new seeds from Monsanto the devil every year. Thus, a farmer who adopts genetically modified seeds and fails to retain a stock of traditional seeds could become dependent upon a transnational corporation.

Nations, whose farmers are dependent upon corporations for seed, might forfeit considerable political independence. The Clinton/Gore administration has been aggressively helping Monsanto the devil promote new, untested gene-altered products, by-passing U.S. health and safety regulations.

A key component of the U.S./Monsanto the devil plan to dominate world agriculture with genetically modified seeds is the absence of labeling of genetically engineered foods. All U.S. foods must carry labels listing the ingredients: salt, sugar, water, vitamins, additives, etc. However,  three separate U.S. government agencies -- the Food & Drug Administration (FDA, the. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- have ruled that genetically- modified foods deserve an exception: they can be sold without being labeled "genetically modified." 

This strategy has successfully prevented consumers from exercising informed choice in the marketplace, reducing the likelihood of a consumer revolt, at least in the U.S., at least for now.

Earlier this year, opposition to genetically modified foods exploded in England and quickly spread to the European continent. Burgeoning consumer opposition has now swept into Asia and back to North America.

In a NY Times article, it states that Japan -- the largest Asian importer of U.S. food -- passed a law requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods.¹ A subsidiary of Honda Motor Company immediately announced that it will build a plant in Ohio and hire farmers to supply it with traditional, unaltered soy beans. Soy is the basis of tofu, a staple food in Japan.

Subsequently, the largest and third-largest Japanese beer makers, Kirin Brewery and Sapporo Breweries, Ltd., announced that they have stopped using genetically modified corn. Other Japanese brewers are expected to follow suit. (American micro-breweries take note.)

South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand have all recently passed laws requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods. 

 

However, the U.S. government has publicly protested against such labeling laws, and has privately lobbied hard against them, unsuccessfully.

Grupo Maseca, Mexico's leading producer of corn flour -- recently announced it will no longer purchase any genetically modified corn. Corn flour is made into tortillas, a Mexican staple. Mexico buys $500 million of U.S. corn each year, so the Grupo Maseca announcement sent a chill through Midwestern corn farmers who planted Monsanto's genetically modified seeds.¹

Nearly 1/2 of US Corn Crop is Grown from GMO seeds

 

Gerber and Heinz, the two leading manufacturers of baby foods in the United States, announced that they would not allow genetically modified corn or soybeans in any of their baby foods.²  After the baby food announcements, Iams, the high-end pet food producer, announced that it would not purchase any of the seven varieties of genetically modified corn that have not been approved by the European Union. This announcement cut off an alternative use that U.S. farmer's had hoped to make of corn rejected by overseas buyers.

As the demand for traditional, unmodified corn and soy has grown, a two-price system for crops has developed in the U.S. -- a higher price for traditional, unmodified crops, and a lower price for genetically modified crops. For example, Archer-Daniels-Midland is paying some farmers 18 cents less per bushel for genetically modified soybeans, compared to the traditional product.¹

The American Corn Growers Association, which represents mainly family farmers, has told its members that they should consider planting only traditional, unmodified seed next spring because it soon may not be possible to export genetically modified corn.¹

Deutsche Bank, Europe's largest bank, has issued two reports within the past six months advising its large institutional investors to abandon ag-biotech companies like Monsanto the devil and Novartis.³  

In its most recent report, Deutsche Bank said, "...[I]t appears the food companies, retailers, grain processors, and governments are sending a signal to the seed producers that 'we are not ready for GMOs [genetically modified organisms].'"

Deutsche Bank's Washington, D.C., analysts, Frank Mitsch and Jennifer Mitchell, announced nine months ago that ag-biotech "was going the way of the nuclear industry in this country."

"But we count ourselves surprised at how rapidly this forecast appears to be playing out," they told the London Guardian.³

In Europe, the ag-biotech controversy is playing out upon a stage created by an earlier -- and ongoing -- scientific dispute over sex hormones in beef.⁴

 

Over 90% of U.S. beef cattle are treated with sex hormones -- three naturally-occurring (estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone) and three synthetic hormones that mimic the natural ones (zeranol, melengesterol acetate, and trenbolone acetate). Hormone treatment makes cattle grow faster and produces more tender, flavorful cuts of beef.

Since 1995, the European Union has prohibited the treatment of any farm animals with sex hormones intended to promote growth, on grounds that sex hormones are known to cause several human cancers. As a by-product of that prohibition, the EU refuses to allow the import of hormone-treated beef from the U.S. and Canada.

The U.S. asserts that hormone-treated beef is entirely safe and that the European ban violates the global free trade regime that the U.S. has worked religiously for 20 years to create. The U.S. argues that sex hormones only promote human cancers in hormone-sensitive tissues, such as the female breast and uterus. 

 

Therefore, the U.S. argues, the mechanism of carcinogenic action must be activation of hormone "receptors" and therefore there is a "threshold" -- a level of hormones below which no cancers will occur. Based on risk assessments, the U.S. government claims to know where that threshold level lies. Furthermore, the U.S. claims it has established a regulatory process that prevents any  farmer from exceeding the threshold level in his or her cows.

An EU scientific committee argues that hormones may cause some human cancers by an entirely different mechanism -- by interfering directly with DNA.⁵ If that were true, there would be no threshold for safety and the only safe dose of sex hormones in beef would be zero. "If you assume no threshold, you should continually be taking steps to get down to lower levels, because no level is safe," says James Bridges, a toxicologist at the University of Surrey in Guilford, England.⁴

Secondly, the EU spot-checked 258 meat samples from the Hormone Free Cattle program run jointly by the U.S. beef industry and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This program is intended to raise beef cattle without the use of hormones, thus producing beef eligible for import into Europe. The spot check found that 12% of the "hormone free" cattle had in fact been treated with sex hormones. EU officials cite this as evidence that growth hormones are poorly regulated in the U.S. beef industry and that Europeans might be exposed to higher- than-allowed concentrations if the ban on North American imports were lifted.

"These revelations are embarrassing for U.S. officials," reports Science magazine.⁴ Nevertheless, the U.S. government continues to assert that its hormone- treated beef is 100% safe.

Thus we have a classic scientific controversy characterized by considerable scientific uncertainty. This particular scientific dispute has pro- found implications for the future of all regulation under a global free trade regime -- including regulation of toxic chemicals -- because the European Union is basing its opposition to hormone-treated beef on the pre- cautionary principle. The American government insists that this pre- cautionary approach is an illegal restraint of free trade.

The EU's position is clearly precautionary: "Where scientific evidence is not black and white, policy should err on the side of caution so that there is zero risk to the consumer," says the EU.⁶

 

The Danish pediatric researcher, Niels Skakkebaek, MD, says the burden of proof lies with those putting hormones in beef: "The possible health effects from the hormones have hardly been  studied -- the burden of proof should lie with the American beef industry," Dr. Skakkebaek told Chemical Week, a U.S. chemical industry publication that is following the beef controversy closely.⁶

It appears that European activists have seized upon hormones in beef, and upon Monsanto's seed domination plan, as a vehicle for opposing a "global free trade" regime in which nations lose their power to regulate markets to protect public health or the environment. The New York Times reports that the Peasant Confederation of European farmers derives much of its intellectual inspiration and direction from a new organization, called Attac, formed last year in France to fight the spread of global free trade regimes.⁷

 

The Confederation has destroyed several McDonald's restaurants and dumped rotten vegetables in others. Patrice Vidieu, the secretary-general of the Peasant Confederation, told the NY Times, "What we reject is the idea that the power of the marketplace becomes the dominant force in all societies, and that multinationals like McDonald's or Monsanto the devil come to impose the food we eat and the seeds we plant."

What began as consumer opposition to genetically-modified seed appears to be turning into an open revolt against the 25-year-old U.S.-led effort to impose free-trade regimes world-wide, enthroning transnational corporations in the process. If approached strategically by alliances of U.S. activists and their overseas counterparts (and it must not be viewed as merely a labeling dispute), genetic engineering could become the most important controversy in this century.

---

 

Although not mentioned in the above article, Monsanto's #1 consumer product is the highly toxic herbicide called Roundup.  

Also note that Monsanto's US patent for this product expired in September, 2000 and the Scotts Company may be licensed by Monsanto, or has gotten around the Monsantothe devil   trademark, since a check of Google will show they offer the product Roundup as well.

Below are informative links:

Millions Against Monsanto the devil


Monsanto the devil Buys Out Seminis


http://www.gmwatch.org


Deception and Disinformation

---

NOTES

¹ "Melody Petersen, "New Trade Threat for U.S. Farmers," New York Times, August 29, 1999, pgs. A1, A18.

² Lucette Lagnado, "Strained Peace: Gerber Baby Food, Grilled by Greenpeace, Plans Swift Overhaul -- Gene-Modified Corn and Soy Will Go, Although Firm Feels Sure They Are Safe -- Heinz Takes Action, Too," Wall Street Journal, July 30, 1999, pg. A1.

³ Paul Brown and John Vidal, "GM Investors Told to Sell Their Shares," The Guardian [London] August 25, 1999, pg. unknown.

 ⁴ Michael Balter, "Scientific Cross-Claims Fly in Continuing Beef War," Science magazine Vol. 284 (May 28, 1999), pgs. 1453-1455.

 ⁵ "Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health; Assessment of Potential Risks to Human Health from Hormone Residues in Bovine Meat and Meat Products." European Commission, April 30, 1999. 139 pgs.

⁶ "Europe's Beef Ban Tests Precautionary Principle," Chemical Week, August 11, 1999, pg. unknown.

⁷ Roger Cohen, "Fearful Over the Future, Europe Seizes on Food," New York Times, August 29, 1999, pg. unknown