Daily Voice «

» Press Clips «

by Ward Harkavy | email: wharkavy@villagevoice.com

update notifications

email

subscribe
unsubscribe


Bush Beat
is morphing into
Press Clips
because …


Bush is leaving,
but bad news will
always stick around!


LINKS
categories

U.S. Dams Iraq While Damning Iowa

Posted by Harkavy at 8:56 AM, June 18, 2008

Desperately needed funds for new levees in U.S. Midwest have been diverted to flood control in Iraq.

How many more floods of Biblical proportions will it take for Americans to realize what the government is not doing?

The Bush regime and Congress have refused to spend money on upgrading levees in the U.S. while spending hundreds of millions of dollars on levees and dams in Iraq.

The first disaster was Hurricane Katrina. Now we have the Iowa floods, which will have even more impact worldwide because of their impact on food prices.

I thought Bush was a big Bible reader. So why is he ignoring prophecy about floods? The AP's Jim Salter reported on May 12 that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers didn't even know how many levees there were in the country, let alone the sad shape of them. Salter wrote:

"We have to get our arms around this issue and understand how many levees there are in the country, who's watching over them, what populations and properties are behind them," Eric Halpin, the corps' special assistant for dam and levee safety, said in an interview last month. "What is the risk posed to the public?"

Asked and answered when it comes to Iraq. The Bush regime diverted flood-control money from New Orleans to try to win the propaganda war in Iraq. (Go to this 2007 Bush Beat item for facts and links.)

Same situation in the Midwest. While the waters were still ominously rising last month, the AP's Salter wrote:

Corps levees in Missouri and Illinois that are supposed to protect against a 500-year flood fall short of even 100-year protection, said Col. Lewis Setliff III, commander of the corps district in St. Louis. Getting those nine levees up to standard would cost an estimated $200 million.

Last year, Congress passed the National Levee Safety Act, which for the first time directed the corps to inventory all private levees. But so far, Congress hasn't provided funding and won't likely do so until 2009 at the earliest.

$200 million would pay off your mortgage, but it's really not that much money in the big picture. As I wrote in September 2005:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is mighty proud of its $100 million water project in Erbil, in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq. But that's just one of its thousands of reconstruction projects in Iraq.

In contrast, the entire 2005 construction budget for all Corps of Engineers projects in its New Orleans District was $94.3 million.

While the corpses of elderly people were floating and bloating in New Orleans in September '05, the Defense Department was also bragging on its "Defend America" website about spending money on Mosul Dam, the largest in Iraq, to keep floodwaters from potentially — potentially — flooding Baghdad:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 9, 2005 — Stabilization of the Mosul Dam continues with an additional $20 million in Iraq Reconstruction and Relief Funds allocated this week for that purpose. The Iraq Ministry of Water Resources and the Ministry of Electricity have made the dam a top priority for the region.

Not that the Mosul Dam project worked out well, mind you. Two years after the DOD crowed about its work on the dam, Stuart Bowen, the courageous special inspector general in the Iraq Debacle, pointed to the facts, as NPR noted in October 2007:

Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, reports on 21 contracts totaling $27 million that the government awarded to repair the Mosul Dam in northern Iraq.

The crumbling structure threatens to flood Iraq's two largest cities, and Bowen calls grouting work on the dam unsatisfactory and U.S. oversight of the contracts weak.

For more, read this Washington Post story, which says in part:

A U.S. reconstruction project to help shore up the dam in northern Iraq has been marred by incompetence and mismanagement, according to Iraqi officials and a report by a U.S. oversight agency to be released Tuesday. The reconstruction project, worth at least $27 million, was not intended to be a permanent solution to the dam's deficiencies.

Rather that a corrupt flood-control project be undertaken in this country instead of Iraq. At least it would have partially helped defend America.
.

The Obama Vice-President Committee 'Controversy': Has the Press Forgotten About Cheney?

Posted by Harkavy at 9:13 AM, June 11, 2008

The new fuss over Barry Obama's choice as chair of his veep-selection committee shows that the U.S. media have already dropped Dick Cheney into the memory hole.

Sure, many people want to forget the two terms of our de facto president, but even the best reporters are ignoring history.

How can anyone forget Cheney? He has run the presidency — into the ground. Using 9/11 as an excuse, he has encased us in Iraq the way various mastodons got trapped in the La Brea tar pits. He has hastened the dismantling of New Deal protections for the common folk.

Cheney achieved this by his appointment eight years ago as the chair of George W. Bush's veep-selection committee. Who did Cheney, the ultimate D.C. insider, pick? Himself.

Yet the banner headlines this morning, especially in the Washington Post, are that Obama's choice of James A. Johnson as chair of his veep-selection committee is controversial because of insider status and his lucrative consulting deals.

Wasn't Cheney the CEO of Halliburton before he was vice president? Didn't Vice President Cheney wind up making billions for Halliburton — which continued to pay him after he moved into the White House? (See my October 2005 post "Over a Barrel.")

This morning's Washington Post story "Obama's Choice of Insider Draws Fire: Republicans Assail Head of VP Vetting" doesn't even mention Cheney. One sentence would have been enough to at least jog people's memories and put this relative non-fuss over Johnson into context.

But normally excellent reporter Jonathan Weisman's story (co-authored with David S. Hilzenrath) blew it.

They had space to quote a GOP flack but they didn't even mention how Cheney came to rule the White House?

Of course, to even mention Cheney would have made today's A1 splash a relatively non-story, because Johnson is a piker compared with pre-veep Cheney, the classic insider.

The Post's first four paragraphs this morning:

Last month, Sen. Barack Obama turned to James A. Johnson, a former Fannie Mae chief executive and Washington insider since the Carter administration, to lead the vetting of potential running mates for the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee.

But four years earlier, as Johnson was angling for a job if Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) was elected president, Fannie Mae did some vetting of its own. Company executives had grown so worried about the lucrative consulting deal they had cut with their former CEO that they considered enlisting an outside investigator to comb through the deal "in light of issues that could come up during Senate confirmation . . . or White House review of the consulting contract," according to company documents unearthed by federal regulators.

For Republicans seeking to tarnish Obama's image as a squeaky-clean outsider hoping to clean up Washington -- not to mention divert attention from questions about lobbyists working in Sen. John McCain's campaign -- Obama's embrace of Johnson has been a gift.

"He's tagged himself as a different kind of politician," said Republican strategist Mark Corallo. "He's supposed to transcend party, transcend politics. He's exploited that more than anyone in recent memory, and it becomes demoralizing to all the starry-eyed Obamaphiles who are saying, 'I thought he was different.' "

Obama has proven that he's different. Bush has been eminently quotable as a malaprop waiting to happen. Obama is quotable in a far different way. For example, the Post notes:

[T]he questions surrounding Johnson's past suggest the difficulties Obama will face as his campaign expands from an underdog insurgency to a general-election operation. He has little choice but to pick up experienced political insiders -- and the baggage they bring with them.

"This is a game that can be played," Obama told reporters in St. Louis. "Everybody who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters."

Juicy, eloquent, witty quote. John McCain, a skilled schmoozer with reporters, is the same way.

No matter who wins the presidency, he'll be a good quote, though not in the way Bush has been.

In the meantime, though, don't forget Cheney. He was a terrible quote most of the time because access to him was severely limited to staged events and he was too clever to accidentally put his foot in his mouth.

In his unguarded moments, however, Cheney was eminently quotable. Cheney's "fuck yourself" to Pat Leahy is particularly memorable — the Post itself wrote an unexpurgated story about that episode in June 2004:

A brief argument between Vice President Cheney and a senior Democratic senator led Cheney to utter a big-time obscenity on the Senate floor this week.

On [June 22, 2004], Cheney, serving in his role as president of the Senate, appeared in the chamber for a photo session. A chance meeting with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, became an argument about Cheney's ties to Halliburton Co., an international energy services corporation, and President Bush's judicial nominees. The exchange ended when Cheney offered some crass advice.

"Fuck yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency.

Leahy's spokesman, David Carle, yesterday confirmed the brief but fierce exchange. "The vice president seemed to be taking personally the criticism that Senator Leahy and others have leveled against Halliburton's sole-source contracts in Iraq," Carle said.

More important — and more obscured by the passage of time — is Cheney's 1998 speech to a bunch of Amarillo oilmen. As I noted in August 2004:

Set the Wayback Machine to June 13, 1998, in Amarillo, Texas. As the CEO of Halliburton, Cheney spoke at the annual meeting of an influential group of oilmen, the Panhandle Producers and Royalty Owners Association.

Greg Rohloff, a business writer for the Amarillo Globe-News, covered the speech and wrote at the time that "the current hot spots for the major oil companies are the oil reserves in the Caspian Sea region." Rohloff's story continued:

The potential for this region turning as volatile as the Persian Gulf does not concern Cheney.

"You've got to go where the oil is," he said. "I don't worry about it a lot."

Almost exactly 10 years later, Cheney's attempt to grab the Caspian oil has failed miserably, and he has piled up 4,000 bodies in a futile grab for Iraq's oil.

The job of "worrying about it" has fallen to others.

Rotten Tomatoes: Republicans Defeat Windfall Oil Profits Tax

Posted by Harkavy at 3:36 PM, June 10, 2008

"Fill it up" still refers to oil companies' coffers.

Even if you have to walk to the store because you can't afford gas, buy some of those dangerous tomatoes.

Don't eat them — throw them at the Republican senators who today stymied a windfall profits tax aimed at oil companies.

Here's the story, from David Ivanovich of the Houston Chronicle, deep in the heart of oil-bidness country:

Senate Republicans today successfully blocked a vote on a Democratic-written energy package intended to slap the major oil companies with a new windfall profits tax and roll back other tax breaks the industry now enjoys.

While motorists may be clamoring for relief from gasoline prices now topping $4 a gallon nationwide, Senate Democrats were unable to muster enough votes to move forward with debate on an energy package that contained a number of provisions that already have received veto threats from President Bush.

With the White House threatening a veto of the bill, the Senate voted 51-43 to close debate, well shy of the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster.

You're probably wondering how Barack Obama and John McCain voted:

They didn't. From this afternoon's New York Times story:

Senate Democratic leaders were reportedly resigned to defeat on the oil-tax bill and did not ask Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, who just completed their monthslong competition for the presidential nomination, to show up for the vote. The other four absentees were John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee for president; Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Democrats who have been ill.

And which Republicans were bold enough to buck their party line?

Six Republicans voted “yes” on the oil-tax bill. They were Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, John W. Warner of Virginia, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Susan M. Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, both of Maine. Only two Democrats voted “no,” Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Harry Reid of Nevada. Mr. Reid, the majority leader, may have voted “no” in a parliamentary move to preserve his right to bring up the proposal again.

We know where the presumptive prexy candidates stand, however. Obama has pledged support of taxing the oil industry's windfall profits. From today's Brisbane Times in Australia comes this background:

Meanwhile, the Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, lost no time in beginning his campaign with a focus on economic issues. He told supporters in the hard-hit state of North Carolina that it was time for a different economic prescription.

"We did not arrive at the doorstep of our current economic crisis by some accident of history," he said. "This was not an inevitable part of the business cycle that was beyond our power to avoid. It was the logical conclusion of a tired and misguided philosophy that has dominated Washington for far too long."

He accused his rival, the Republican nominee John McCain, of having an economic plan that amounts to "a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies".

Senator Obama pledged to seek a windfall profits tax on US oil companies if elected.

Senator McCain responded by accusing Senator Obama of embracing the usual Democratic agenda of taxing and spending to solve the nation's problems.

The current futile Senate bill was just the latest of many attempts to rein in the historically pampered oil industry.

I know about the sense of entitlement that's standard in the oil bidness, having been raised in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, when it was the headquarters of both Phillips 66 (now Conoco-Phillips in Houston) and Citgo (now owned by Venezuela and controlled by Hugo Chavez).

In general, Okies consider unbridled oil profits as a birthright (along with hickory-smoked BBQ, cousin-snugglin', and meaningful relationships with barnyard animals).

That aside, this particular bill had some far-reaching provisions for Americans struggling with gas at $4 a gallon while oil execs and speculators make out like bandits. Here's more on it from the Chronicle:

Calling for "oil company accountability" and "energy price relief," Democrats wanted to hit the five largest oil companies with a new 25 percent windfall profits tax. The oil companies would only be able to lower that tax burden by hiking investments in renewable energy, refining capacity and production capability.

The Democratic plan would hit the oil companies further by gutting $17 billion worth of tax breaks they received back in 2004 and 2005.

The bill also would have tried to rein in speculation in the oil markets by preventing traders from routing transactions through offshore markets and requiring oil traders to put down more money to trade in futures contracts.

The legislation also would have made price gouging a federal crime and branded as illegal efforts by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to control world oil prices.

Yeah, good luck with that plan to rein in not only the U.S. oil companies but also OPEC.

Goodnight Moon and Goodnight Bush

Posted by Harkavy at 2:20 PM, June 3, 2008

Not just for kids: a parody of the self-parody administration

Cheney-goodnight-moon395.jpg

Little, Brown (tip of the hat to Michelle Aielli)

Fight off your recession and read this requiem for a lightweight: Goodnight Bush, a parody to end all self-parody presidencies.

It's almost time to say "good night" to George W. Bush, and Erich Origen and Gan Golan pronounce the laugh rites over the administration.

Bush's favorite kiddie book in times of crisis may be The Pet Goat, but mine is now Origen and Golan's Goodnight Bush, which sends the regime up to the moon in the same way that Ralph Kramden was always threatening to do to wife Alice.

This is a very funny book, even if it may induce nightmares instead of sweet dreams. Cute illustrations abound: a refinery plume, piggy war profiteers, a spilt glass of water with Katrina victims floating in it.

The text is warm and fuzzy — not as fuzzy as Bush's brain but warmer than Cheney's heart:

"Goodnight toy world
And the flight costume

Goodnight ballot box
Goodnight FOX"

See Dick run. See Dick run away. See Dick run away finally.

And see the book's website here.

Change is in the Air

Posted by Harkavy at 5:54 PM, March 31, 2008

But real money for those of us in the bottom 90 percent of incomes? Forget it.

If "change" is this presidential campaign's catchword, then let me ask: Can you spare any?

I'm not asking for myself, because I'm one of the lucky ones. But I am a member of the bottom 90 percent of Americans in income. In other words, I make less than $105,000 a year.

Income disparity in the U.S. is shocking not because it exists but because it's getting worse. How about some newly released factoids from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a serious and respectable D.C. think tank? From the CBPP's March 27 report by Aviva Aron-Dine on income concentration:

Between 2005 and 2006, the average income (before taxes) of the top 1 percent of households increased by $73,000 (or 7 percent), after adjusting for inflation, while the average income of the bottom 90 percent of households increased by just $20 (or 0.1 percent). (In 2006, the top 1 percent of households were those with incomes above about $375,000.)

2006 marked the fourth straight year in which income gains at the top outpaced those among the rest of the population. Since 2002, the average income of the top 1 percent of households has risen 44 percent, or $335,000, after adjusting for inflation. The average income of the bottom 90 percent of households has risen about 3 percent, or about $1,000.

The share of the nation’s income flowing to the top 1 percent has increased sharply, rising from 15.8 percent in 2002 to 20.3 percent in 2006. Not since 1928, just before the Great Depression, has the top 1 percent held such a large share of the nation’s income. In 2000, at the peak of the 1990s boom, the top 1 percent received 19.3 percent of total income in the nation.

And let's get even more personal with these fun facts churned out the same day in another report by the CBPP's Aron-Dine:

New Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data show that the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the very highest incomes pay only 18 percent of their income, on average, in federal individual income taxes. . . . While the incomes of those at the top have skyrocketed, their tax rates have fallen significantly, with the largest reductions occurring after the capital gains tax cuts of 1997 and 2003.

This ain't the America in which the baby-boom generation grew up. Today's economy, run to hell by the all-growed-up baby-boom generation, holds out little hope to today's whippersnapper. Just another reason not to trust people over 30. Or under 30, for that matter.

No Joy in Mudville

Posted by Harkavy at 11:58 AM, March 31, 2008

In D.C., a new baseball stadium opens amid the same old staggering poverty and inequality

Oh, they're so happy over on ESPN because of the Washington Nationals' new baseball stadium, which opened last night when George W. Bush threw up the first pitch.

The doofus POTUS was wild with his throw to Nats' manager Manny Acta. Strange, isn't it, that Bush's battery mate was Acta instead of the Nats' catcher, Paul Lo Duca. But the ex-Met is ensnared in the steroids scandal, so his PR quotient is below the Mendoza Line.

Funnier still was during the game itself, when Bush showed up in the broadcast booth to say of the steroids scandal, "I hope the players fix it." He didn't say "the commissioner" or "the owners." Only "the players."

The broadcast crew noted that Bush is a former baseball owner. But that's only technically true. Before he was even Texas governor, Bush was trotted out before the public as the "owner" of the Texas Rangers. But Tom Hicks was the real owner; Bush put up a minuscule amount of money but was only the front man for Hicks and the rest of the real ownership group so they could get a stadium and other parts of a sweet deal with Arlington, the home of the team. When the Rangers were later sold, Bush cashed in for a lot of dough.

Years later, Bush became Dick Cheney's front man, where he's been even more dangerous.

Too bad D.C. isn't making out as well as Bush. The new stadium was a point of contention when D.C. didn't even have a team and its luxury boxes were only a dream in the minds of politicians and lobbyists.

Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post kicked ass on that story in 2004, pointing out D.C. residents' terrible plight when the decision was finally made by Major League Baseball to put a team back in the U.S. capital.

As I noted at the time in "Playing Ball in D.C." [October 25, 2004]:

Baseball's execs have spread some money around, and they've probably quelled forever all threats from Congress to repeal baseball's fortunate exemption from antitrust laws now that they've placed a team in D.C., the former Montreal Expos. Just another toy for the congressmen to play with, starting next year. Think of their being entertained by corporations and their lobbyists in the new D.C. stadium's skyboxes.

Way down below them will be the average D.C. resident. The U.S. leads the world in wealth inequality, and the gap is continually widening. And income inequality in the District of Columbia is wider than in any other major U.S. city.

Yes, way down below them, if they could afford tickets in the cheap seats, will be the average D.C. resident. Bleacher bums? No. Just bums.

Since 2000, the gap between rich and poor has widened throughout the country. But D.C. was in terrible shape even during the Clinton years. From an analysis of census data by the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute before Bush even took office:

The study found that the average income of the top fifth of DC’s households equaled $186,830 in 1999. This was 31 times higher than the average income of the bottom fifth of households—$6,126.

While Atlanta and Miami have income gaps similar to DC’s, income inequality is much less pronounced in most other cities. In the typical city in the analysis—which includes central cities of the nation’s 40 largest metro areas—the income of the top fifth of households is 18 times the income of the bottom fifth.

Well, maybe things are better since Bush became president. Yeah, right. Here's what the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute had to say last October:

Despite dramatic improvements in the District’s economy over the past decade, economic conditions have actually worsened for many residents, according to a new report by the DC Fiscal Policy Institute.

The study, entitled DC’s Two Economies: Many Residents Are Falling Behind Despite the City’s Revitalization — examines trends in employment, wages, income, and poverty. One of its most striking findings is that while the number of jobs in the District has grown every year since 1998, the percentage of African Americans who are employed has actually fallen, as has the employment rate among residents with no more than a high school diploma. For both groups, employment rates are near 30-year lows.

"It is surprising — and deeply troubling — that large numbers of DC residents are falling behind when so many of the city’s economic indicators are at their best levels in decades,” said Ed Lazere, executive director of the DC Fiscal Policy Institute. “The District’s well-known economic disparities are getting even worse."

And how about that earning gap between rich and poor?

The earnings gap between DC’s highest (top 20 percent) and lowest (bottom 20 percent) earners is at its widest level since 1979. Inflation-adjusted earnings have increased just 6 percent for low-wage workers in that period, while jumping 40 percent for workers at the top.

Trying to stem the out-of-control crime in poverty-stricken D.C., district officials enacted a strict gun law that the Supreme Court just got finished hearing arguments on. (See this L.A. Times editorial that lays out the arguments.)

Guns aren't the only problem of course. There's also butter. Only the pols and lobbyists can afford the high-priced spreads.

Meanwhile, even the baseball owners called the plan to finance the bonds for D.C.'s new stadium the sweetest sweetheart deal they'd ever seen.

The baseball owners and Congress were the ones playing ball. As of last night, the luxury boxes are now occupied by lobbyists and their lackey pols, while D.C.'s poor continue their everyday drudgery.

Wonder if there's a Larry Craig Memorial Bathroom in the joint?

Charlie Wilson's War Is Over. He Lost.

Posted by Harkavy at 10:33 AM, January 23, 2008

That's GM's former boss, "Engine Charlie" Wilson. And we're the victims.

"What's good for General Motors is good for the country." OK, so GM's big boss in the '50s, "Engine Charlie" Wilson, was quoted somewhat out of context when he said something like that during his confirmation hearings as Ike's Secretary of Defense in 1953.

As it turns out more than 50 years later, as GM goes down the tubes, so is the rest of the U.S. economy. So Wilson was actually right, whether or not he was misquoted.

Witness the Fed's panicky interest-rate reduction. Are we headed toward a recession? Probably not. It may well be a depression.

Only a few months ago, I would have given good odds that I would fall into another one of my major depressions before the country did. But my mental health seems to be stronger than the country's economic health. Believe me, that should cause great concern among all Americans.

Apparently, "Engine Charlie" Wilson was asked back in '53 whether he could make decisions as the war secretary that would be bad for GM, and he replied that such a situation was unthinkable "because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa." Reporters picked up on part of his quote, turned it around and mis-recorded it for posterity.

No matter, really. What was once unthinkable last century is now a 21st century reality: The long-ailing auto giant has taken another step toward oblivion.

Word is just out that GM has lost his long, long grip as the world's largest automaker. Agence France-Presse reports this morning:

General Motors Corp., which has reigned for 76 years as the world's top automaker, ended 2007 in a virtual tie with Japanese rival Toyota Motor Corp., sales figures from the US giant showed Wednesday.

GM, which has faced a steady loss of market share in its key home market, reported global sales of 9,369,524. Toyota earlier this month reported it sold 9.370 million vehicles for the year.

The Detroit firm's sales grew three percent in 2007 while Toyota sales increased six percent.

GM has been the world's best-selling automaker since 1931 with an all-time record of selling 9.55 million vehicles in 1978.

For a comprehensive look at GM's woes, check out Carol Loomis's February 2006 Fortune piece "The Tragedy of General Motors."

She blames GM's bloated pension plans for helping drag down the company. Actually, it's the insane investment games played by the trustees of the pension fund that may be more to blame. But she's a damned good writer and is known for being prescient. As Loomis pointed out then, the company was on a seemingly inexorable path toward bankruptcy:

Bankruptcy isn't going to occur next week. But down the road — say, past 2006 — its probability is high.

And two years later, it's higher than ever. Meanwhile, the Fed's interest-rate cut, prompted by a panic in the Asian markets, means that you'll be able to get even more credit cards at lower rates. You'd be crazy to assume more debt, of course. But going crazy is what descending into a major depression is all about.

Top-Down Geekonomics, Bottom-Up Democracy

Posted by Harkavy at 2:24 PM, January 8, 2008

The mainstream press can marginalize Ron Paul all it wants, but that there Texas maverick Libertarian is virtually the best presidential candidate online, especially of the Republicans.

No matter what happens to Paul's candidacy — and it's scary to see how many otherwise progressive kids are supporting his partially wack ideas — Paul has set the standard among the current candidates for Web savvy and pointed the way for the even more intense use of the Web for future races. Check out the figures at techpresident.com.

What's more of a sure sign of our flawed democracy: the anachronistic 18th century Electoral College or the 21st century Facebook/My Space "friends" personality contest?

Both are absurd, but they're not as scary as the dreams of Bill Gates. If Ron Paul is the bottom-up small-D democratic standard bearer of technology, Gates continues to be the top-down daddy of totalitarian IT.

As Computerworld's Elizabeth Montalbano wrote yesterday of Gates's Sunday night star turn at the annual Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas:

The Microsoft Corp. chairman fictionally portrayed his last day of full-time work in a video at CES that had everyone from presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to The Daily Show host Jon Stewart turning him down for a job, and music mogul Jay-Z and film actor Matthew McConaughey patiently enduring his painful attempts at new extracurricular activities — rapping and hitting the gym.

Even less funny — in fact, downright scary — was what happened later in Gates's shtick:

Toward the end of Gates's keynote, he and Microsoft President Robbie Bach demonstrated a prototype device from Microsoft Research that seemed to represent the culmination of the company's connected-device strategy. The device used visual recognition to identify people and places in its line of "sight," and remind a user of events related to them. For example, when Gates aimed the device at Bach, the device identified him and reminded Gates that Bach owed him US$20. However, information neither Gates nor Bach could provide was how long it would take for such a device to be fully developed and released.

Yeah, we can't wait for Microsoft to develop this. That's all we need: a tool that the government and corporations and cops and marketers can use to track us in line of sight and peddle shit about us and to us.

Gates is obsessed with this top-down approach to the future. Creepshow stuff, and no doubt the code will be kept proprietary instead of open source, so the general public of geeks will have a tougher time combatting such intrusions on our privacy.

Let's see: In future presidential campaigns, the candidates' staffs will aim their devices at us to see who we support or what we've read lately. And such a device would really come in handy for cops to use during protests.

If we're lucky, though, this new tool will also come with the usual Microsoft Blue Screen of Death.

Houston to Dubai: A Nonstop Flow of Money

Posted by Harkavy at 9:19 AM, December 6, 2007

cheney-white-sheikh399.jpg

Great news for the war profiteers of Cheney's Halliburton

While you're financing the trillion-dollar Iraq debacle, the execs at Halliburton got some good news today from the United Arab Emirates: The UAE's airline, Emirates, is now offering nonstop service to Houston, Dubai's news service reports.

New York already has three flights daily to Dubai. But why now Houston? Halliburton is moving its headquarters to Dubai. And with that move, huge bundles of taxpayer cash are exiting the U.S.

Now it will be easier for Halliburton's execs to shuttle their money to Dubai.

This great news for Halliburton comes on the heels of its championship performance in the Center for Public Integrity's "Windfalls of War" series. The CPI's Bill Buzenberg compiled a list of the top 100 private contractors in the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles.

KBR, which Halliburton is in the process of spinning off for a huge profit, is by far No. 1 with a bullet. Tallying U.S. government contracts for fiscal years 2004 to 2006, Buzenberg reveals that KBR got $16 billion in contracts.

DynCorp was a rich second at $1.8 billion. Shoot, Blackwater was only 12th, garnering a meager $495 million.

Dick Cheney was getting a salary from Halliburton until last year, and he did well by his company. Halliburton's financial picture was shaky until after 9/11, when the Iraq debacle infused it with these huge bundles of taxpayer money. KBR's success helped its parent finance other operations, and spinning off KBR will profit Halliburton as it sells off its shares of the former subsidiary.

Meanwhile, Halliburton has now planted its big feet where the action is.

And Dubai is just the kind of place that Cheney would like. As I wrote in June, our own State Department has catalogued the UAE's notoriously repressive laws, noting:

"The law permits indefinite routine prolonged incommunicado detention without appeal."

A Bundler Blunders

Posted by Harkavy at 6:57 AM, October 29, 2007

Merrill's Stan O'Neal wasn't ready for subprime time, but he was a record-setting fundraiser for Bush

stanley-o%27neal170.jpgMerrill Lynch's ouster of CEO E. Stanley O'Neal is good timing for the financial behemoth, but it comes a few years too late for America and for thousands of Merrill employees.

He's being driven out for his reckless bundling of subprime mortgages into shaky securities that Merrill aggressively peddled and that are now shaking Wall Street's foundations. Yes, these big financial institutions play funny money with your monthly payments, making millions while you don't see a dime from their monopoly tactics.

Not that this is anything new. The explosion in subprime mortgages is caused in large part by predatory lending practices, which are particularly aimed at black people (O'Neal used to be one of those) and other minorities.

More on O'Neal in a minute, but as I wrote in April 2001 about this financiopathic scheme — "From the Subprime to the Ridiculous" — when the War of Terror was still being waged almost entirely on the domestic front by banks and companies like Merrill:

A guerrilla war that has dealt serious defeats to predatory lenders has spread from states like North Carolina and Massachusetts to big cities like Chicago and Philadelphia, which recently passed ordinances aimed at ending unfair banking practices. So why hasn't the fight against what some have called "financial apartheid" spread to the biggest city of all?

State regulators in Albany adopted new restrictions on finance companies late last year, but activists say the victims of those profiteers still lack meaningful protection—help that could come from city officials. In New York, Mayor Giuliani has taken no action against predatory lending, say community organizers, and the City Council has done practically nothing.

But the big banks are worried about Giuliani's potential successors. Citigroup has already laid big cash on the campaign coffers of prominent Democrats. …

Public Advocate Mark Green can say he probably was the first of the four Democratic mayoral candidates to make a big splash about the serious problem of blacks, Latinos, and the elderly being targeted by abusive lending practices. But neither he nor the other three Democrats have taken strong action to protect the poor from signing their lives away in unfairly structured loans.

Green saw it coming back in 1993, when his Consumer Affairs Office released a report pointing out a growing number of predatory loans in the city. Since then, Wall Street has financed a huge surge in the so-called subprime market, and more people than ever are being seduced into high-cost refinancing plans and shady home-improvement loans that are sending them toward bankruptcy. … Green isn't eager to enact new regulations.

In those days, Stan O'Neal, while firing thousands of Merrill employees, was recklessly expanding Merrill's subprime bidness.

In 2003, as I previously noted, O'Neal, the highest-ranking black man on Wall Street, was a reckless bundler in another way: He set a fundraising record for George W. Bush's campaign by sending out a letter that generated $279,750 from other rich people in less than three weeks' time, the most in such a such a short period.

O'Neal, one of the nine Bush "Rangers" on Wall Street, was a prime bundler before the term hit its current vogue.

As this moneychanger is being driven from the temple, he'll be dragging along a big bag of cash. Details of that aren't immediately known, but, like most CEOs, he had one helluva deal. For instance, as the New York Times's Eric Dash noted this past April, O'Neal had a particularly sweet clause in his Merrill deal just in case the big company wobbled so much that it fell under the control of another big company:

E. Stanley O’Neal could walk away with $251.4 million if a merger sets off a change-in-control payout.

Hell, that was incentive for him to be reckless enough take Merrill into the toilet. If he had stayed around long enough to really ruin the company to the extent that some other behemoth would take control, he would have gotten a quarter of a billion.

Now O'Neal joins the ranks of former Merrill employees. He probably won't be asked to join them for commiseration drinks. He fired more than 25,000 of them during his tenure.

Our Slave Labor in California, Iraq

Posted by Harkavy at 8:38 AM, October 8, 2007

Lettuce have your huddled masses: Work force becomes truly globalized.

Beset by an immigration war on one front and just plain war on another front, government officials in the U.S. are frantically seeking more illegals for necessary farm work here and longer stays in Baghdad for shanghaied foreigners to build the unnecessary supermax American embassy.

As Nicole Gaouette of the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday,

With a nationwide farmworker shortage threatening to leave unharvested fruits and vegetables rotting in fields, the Bush administration has begun quietly rewriting federal regulations to eliminate barriers that restrict how foreign laborers can legally be brought into the country.

The effort, urgently underway at the departments of Homeland Security, State and Labor, is meant to rescue farm owners caught in a vise between a complex process to hire legal guest workers and stepped-up enforcement that has reduced the number of illegal planters, pickers and middle managers crossing the border.

Meanwhile in Baghdad, workers from the Philippines and other countries who were shanghaied by U.S.-hired contractors to build the supermax U.S. embassy will probably be roped into staying longer as that project falls behind and its cost soars toward $1 billion. Check out the testimony at intrepid California congressman Henry Waxman's July hearing for details on the shanghai gestures.

Without addressing the issue of the original trickery that landed many of those foreign workers in Baghdad against their will, Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post reported yesterday:

The embassy, which will be the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in the world, was budgeted at $592 million. The core project was supposed to have been completed by last month, but the timetable has slipped so much that the State Department has sought and received permission from the Iraqi government to allow about 2,000 non-Iraqi construction employees to stay in the country until March.

As I wrote on August 8:

Shanghaied to build to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Working on the construction site without safety equipment — or even shoes. The story of the alleged kidnapping of Filipino workers who thought they were going to Dubai but instead were flown to Baghdad to help build the $500 million embassy is stunning.

That story was broken by others, including David Phinney of Inter Press Service in June, who noted that contractor First Kuwaiti has reaped $2 billion from U.S. taxpayers for construction of military camps and the embassy. Phinney wrote:

Because of allegations of labour trafficking and other abuses, First Kuwaiti is also being investigated by the U.S. Justice Department, an action precipitated by U.S. citizens claiming that company workers loaded onto planes in Kuwait were handed boarding passes for Dubai before flying directly to Baghdad. The passengers were mostly low-wage Asian migrant labourers earning as little as 250 dollars a month.

Wait a sec. As Phinney also notes, Filipino laborers at the new embassy are making much more than that:

The agreement also lays out salary: 346 dollars a month for eight-hour days, seven days a week, plus 104 dollars a month for mandatory two hours overtime every day.

Pay is marginally better in our fields. Gaouette's Times story mentions almost by the way that "almost three-quarters of farmworkers are thought to be illegal immigrants."

The percentage of people who mow our lawns is probably even higher, but anyway, Gaouette notes that the White House is extremely concerned about this aspect of the free-market economy:

"It is important for the farm sector to have access to labor to stay competitive," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. "As the southern border has tightened, some producers have a more difficult time finding a workforce, and that is a factor of what is going on today."

The push to speedily rewrite the regulations is also the Bush administration's attempt to step into a breach left when Congress did not pass an immigration overhaul in June that might have helped American farms.

These are truly salad days for government officials in the U.S. as they quietly chew on these labor-force problems. Gaouette noted:

The administration has pursued the project discreetly. The issue of immigration has generated friction between President Bush and the conservative wing of the Republican Party, which has strongly opposed many of the initiatives that Bush has pursued.

Pursued not for the sake of the workers but of the corporate farms that depend on cheap labor.

Slave work in Baghdad or California — take your pick. Farmworkers don't get health benefits, and the embassy is going to have a full-time psychiatrist for counseling and drugs, so Iraq seems the better bet: At least your boss in Iraq will be medicated.

Bad Guys at Ground Zero

Posted by Harkavy at 9:32 AM, September 21, 2007

This oily business of dealing with evil foreign leaders.

reagan-taliban399.jpg

Cold War, warm feelings: Reagan chats with the Taliban in the White House in 1983.

New York's tabloids and assorted pols came unglued yesterday about the very idea of Iran's crackpot hardliner Mahmoud Ahmedinejad wanting to visit Ground Zero.

Where were they when Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov, whose regime boils people to death, was courted by George W. Bush and Mayor Mike Bloomberg?

Don't let your own blood boil at the thought of a bad guy visiting our sacralized 9/11 site. Condemn it, if you want, but Ahmedinejad was just trying to score political points, as our own pols do all the time at Ground Zero. He got what he wanted: The angry U.S. reaction will play well back home in Tehran, especially with the radical mullahs who really run Iran and like to stir up hatred for the "Great Satan."

Do we even have to say that in international politics, enemies today are pals tomorrow, and vice versa, and that the reasons almost always have to do with greed for money and natural resources?

On the other hand, it would be nice if our press at least reported these events. The Uzbek despot Karimov laid a wreath at Ground Zero in 2002, and there was literally not one word in the U.S. press about it at the time — I'm not talking about criticism or praise but any words at all. Nothing.

So Karimov is not a bad enough guy to get you worked up? Saddam Hussein was brown-nosed by Don Rumsfeld in December 1983. There's no reason to condemn Rumsfeld for that; it was just oil politics — just like the oil politics that Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney played when they seized upon the 9/11 attacks to justify invading Iraq.

After all, when Texas oil execs questioned Cheney in 1998, when he was still at Halliburton, about the physical dangers of pursuing oil in turbulent parts of Asia, the future vice president and de facto commander in chief told them:

"You've got to go where the oil is. I don't worry about it a lot."

Saddam is gone, but we still don't really have Iraq's oil. We do, however, have such evil people as the Taliban to deal with, right? Well,