Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Non-Jewish Holocaust Victims - the Five Million Others
http://holocaustforgotten.com/
As all are aware, I am no fan of George the Second, but to compare Bush's invasion of Iraq to Hitler's invasion of Poland does an enormous injustice to those 6.5 mil Poles who perished by Hitler's program of genocide, and their families.
The Nazis exterminated 6.5 mil people in Poland, approx 3 mil Jews and 3.5 mil non-Jews - predominantly Christians. Those 3.5 mil who perished in Poland are often called the "forgotten victims", and that in itself is an atrocity. No one should be forgotten. No on should "forget"...
Poland's Holocaust:
A Family Chronicle of Soviet and Nazi Terror
Poland's tragic fate during WW II, particularly the Holocaust, is well known, including the fact that 6.5 million Polish citizens perished, of whom close to 3 million were Jews. This web site documents the horrors of Nazism, but as importantly it is a study of a chapter of history long misunderstood and even denied: Poland's suffering under Stalinism and Communism.
Hitler and Stalin divided Poland between themselves in 1939, subjecting Poles to a double reign of terror. Under the Soviet occupation of Poland (September 1939 to June 1941) over 100,000 Poles were killed, including 27,000 Polish officers at Katyn and other sites.
During WW II, as many as 2 million Poles were deported to Siberia and other points in the USSR, half of whom died. Even after the war, between 1945-1955, tens of thousands more were imprisoned and executed by the Communist regime in Poland installed by Moscow.
Letters of Natalia and Wanda Sulkowska
Page 1 1940: Stary Suchotin, Kazakhstan, USSR.
Page 2 1941: Stary Suchotin, Kazakhstan, USSR.
Page 3 1942 - 1945: Stary Suchotin, Kazakhstan, USSR; Kijaly, Kazakhstan, USSR.
Page 4 1946 - 1947: Biala Podlaska, Poland.
Letters of Felicja Gladun
Page 1 1941 - 1942: Posiolek Juznoje, Kazakhstan, USSR.
Page 2 1942 - 1951: Posiolek Juznoje, Kazakhstan, USSR; Poland; Bedzin, Poland.
Letters of Jan Sulkowski
Page 1 1941: Turynski Sowhoz, Sverdlovsk, USSR.
Page 2 1942: Invalid's Hospital, Bukhara, USSR; In transit to Persia from USSR.
Page 3 1943 - 1946: Teheran, Persia; Bombay, India.
Page 4 1947 - 1948: Bombay, India; Valivade-Kolhapur, India; Polish Hospital, Diddington Camp, England.
Introduction
A Family Chronicle of Soviet and Nazi Terror
Poland's Holocaust
My Toronto Star article describing the tragedy of my parents in WWII has grown into a family tribute, and a victims' eyewitness account of a part of History still largely unacknowledged - Chris Gladun.
My mother Janina joined the Polish underground in 1939 to fight the Soviets and Nazis, for which she was tortured by the NKVD and deported to the Gulag, as were her family and friends--a number of whom were murdered. Miraculously she survived the Gulag, only to face permanent exile and separation from loved ones. She dedicated her life to finding her loved ones and honouring their memory.
My father Leon was one of the few survivors of Katyn where all of his comrades were murdered on Stalin's orders in one of the greatest crimes of history. He went on to fight the Germans in Italy, but he could not return to a Poland that was handed over to the Soviets by the very Allies he fought for.
I have spent years translating and researching my family dairies, letters, documents, as well as conducting interviews with relatives and survivors. My mother left an extensive chronicle of her Gulag odyssey including award-winning memoirs, while my father started a POW diary which he kept through the entire war.
The family letters written amid terror and deprivation, in prisons, camps and exile, ranging from Soviet and Nazi-occupied Poland, to Siberia, India and England, provide a victim's testimony and eyewitness account that no historian can match.
My father records the first battles against the blitzkrieg and Red Army in 1939, to VE-Day in Italy in 1945. Leon trained and fought in Poland, the USSR, the Middle East and Italy. As a Soviet prisoner-of-war he records one of the great crimes of the war: Katyn, in which most of his friends perished. Leon Gladun was one of only 448 who survived the murder of 27,000 Allied POW's by Stalin.
World War Two Letters of the Sulkowski/Gladun Family
A Gulag and Holocaust Memoir of Janina Sulkowska-Gladun
I would very much like to hear from those who are interested in this topic, particularly from survivors and veterans, and their children or family (in English/Po Polsku):
chrisgladun@yahoo.com
Contents
The accounts, memoirs and letters are an interconnected chronicle of a family and a national tragedy, and should be read in their totality. Links and cross-references are provided.
A great myth developed that only the fascist enemy was capable of genocide, of mass crime. If the crimes of the Soviet Union were to be
put into the same category as those of the Nazis, the whole moral story
of why we fought the Second World War would have been ruined.
We now know that during the war, Stalin actually killed more of
his own people than Hitler killed during the Holocaust.
-- Norman Davies
http://www.polandsholocaust.org/intro.html
"Never Forget" the extermination of nearly 10 mil innocent people... There is no comparison between Bush's Iraq policy, and Hilter's Genocidal programs which were nothing short of Pure Evil...
Sen. Robert Byrd: Text of floor remarks made to the US Senate on June 24, 2003
The Road to Coverup Is the Road to Ruin
By Sen. Robert Byrd
June 25, 2003
The following is the text of floor remarks made to the US Senate on June 24, 2003 by Sen. Robert Byrd.
Mr. President, last fall, the White House released a national security strategy that called for an end to the doctrines of deterrence and containment that have been a hallmark of American foreign policy for more than half a century.
This new national security strategy is based upon pre-emptive war against those who might threaten our security.
Such a strategy of striking first against possible dangers is heavily reliant upon interpretation of accurate and timely intelligence. If we are going to hit first, based on perceived dangers, the perceptions had better be accurate. If our intelligence is faulty, we may launch pre-emptive wars against countries that do not pose a real threat against us. Or we may overlook countries that do pose real threats to our security, allowing us no chance to pursue diplomatic solutions to stop a crisis before it escalates to war. In either case lives could be needlessly lost. In other words, we had better be certain that we can discern the imminent threats from the false alarms.
Ninety-six days ago [as of June 24], President Bush announced that he had initiated a war to "disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." The President told the world: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly – yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." [Address to the Nation, 3/19/03]
The President has since announced that major combat operations concluded on May 1. He said: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." Since then, the United States has been recognized by the international community as the occupying power in Iraq. And yet, we have not found any evidence that would confirm the officially stated reason that our country was sent to war; namely, that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction constituted a grave threat to the United States.
We have heard a lot about revisionist history from the White House of late in answer to those who question whether there was a real threat from Iraq. But, it is the President who appears to me to be intent on revising history. There is an abundance of clear and unmistakable evidence that the Administration sought to portray Iraq as a direct and deadly threat to the American people. But there is a great difference between the hand-picked intelligence that was presented by the Administration to Congress and the American people when compared against what we have actually discovered in Iraq. This Congress and the people who sent us here are entitled to an explanation from the Administration.
On January 28, 2003, President Bush said in his State of the Union Address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [State of the Union, 1/28/03, pg. 7] Yet, according to news reports, the CIA knew that this claim was false as early as March 2002. In addition, the International Atomic Energy Agency has since discredited this allegation.
On February 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." [Remarks to UN Security Council, 2/5/03, pg. 12] The truth is, to date we have not found any of this material, nor those thousands of rockets loaded with chemical weapons.
On February 8, President Bush told the nation: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." [Radio Address, 2/8/03] Mr. President, we are all relieved that such weapons were not used, but it has not yet been explained why the Iraqi army did not use them. Did the Iraqi army flee their positions before chemical weapons could be used? If so, why were the weapons not left behind? Or is it that the army was never issued chemical weapons? We need answers.
On March 16, the Sunday before the war began, in an interview with Tim Russert, Vice President Cheney said that Iraqis want "to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." He added, "...the vast majority of them would turn [Saddam Hussein] in in a minute if, in fact, they thought they could do so safely." [Meet the Press, 3/16/03, pg. 6] But in fact, Mr. President, today Iraqi cities remain in disorder, our troops are under attack, our occupation government lives and works in fortified compounds, and we are still trying to determine the fate of the ousted, murderous dictator.
On March 30, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, during the height of the war, said of the search for weapons of mass destruction: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." [This Week, 3/30/03, pg. 8] But Baghdad fell to our troops on April 9, and Tikrit on April 14, and the intelligence Secretary Rumsfeld spoke about has not led us to any weapons of mass destruction.
Whether or not intelligence reports were bent, stretched, or massaged to make Iraq look like an imminent threat to the United States, it is clear that the Administration's rhetoric played upon the well-founded fear of the American public about future acts of terrorism. But, upon close examination, many of these statements have nothing to do with intelligence, because they are at root just sound bites based on conjecture. They are designed to prey on public fear.
The face of Osama bin Laden morphed into that of Saddam Hussein. President Bush carefully blurred these images in his State of the Union Address. Listen to this quote from his State of the Union Address: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." [State of the Union, 1/28/03, pg 7] Judging by this speech, not only is the President confusing al Qaeda and Iraq, but he also appears to give a vote of no-confidence to our homeland security efforts. Isn't the White House, the brains behind the Department of Homeland Security? Isn't the Administration supposed to be stopping those vials, canisters, and crates from entering our country, rather than trying to scare our fellow citizens half to death about them?
Not only did the Administration warn about more hijackers carrying deadly chemicals, the White House even went so far as to suggest that the time it would take for U.N. inspectors to find solid, 'smoking gun' evidence of Saddam's illegal weapons would put the U.S. at greater risk of a nuclear attack from Iraq. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice was quoted as saying on September 9, 2002, by the Los Angeles Times, "We don't want the 'smoking gun' to be a mushroom cloud." [Los Angeles Times, "Threat by Iraq Grows, U.S. Says," 9/9/02] Talk about hype! Mushroom clouds? Where is the evidence for this? There isn't any.
On September 26, 2002, just two weeks before Congress voted on a resolution to allow the President to invade Iraq, and six weeks before the mid-term elections, President Bush himself built the case that Iraq was plotting to attack the United States. After meeting with members of Congress on that date, the President said: "The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.... The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material, could build one within a year."
These are the President's words. He said that Saddam Hussein is "seeking a nuclear bomb." Have we found any evidence to date of this chilling allegation? No.
But, President Bush continued on that autumn day: "The dangers we face will only worsen from month to month and from year to year. To ignore these threats is to encourage them. And when they have fully materialized it may be too late to protect ourselves and our friends and our allies. By then the Iraqi dictator would have the means to terrorize and dominate the region. Each passing day could be the one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX - nerve gas - or some day a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally." [Rose Garden Remarks, 9/26/02]
And yet, seven weeks after declaring victory in the war against Iraq, we have seen nary a shred of evidence to support his claims of grave dangers, chemical weapons, links to al Qaeda, or nuclear weapons.
Just days before a vote on a resolution that handed the President unprecedented war powers, President Bush stepped up the scare tactics. On October 7, just four days before the October 11 vote in the Senate on the war resolution, the President stated: "We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy – the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade." President Bush continued: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses.... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."
President Bush also elaborated on claims of Iraq's nuclear program when he said: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' – his nuclear holy warriors.... If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." [Cincinnati Museum Center, 10/7/02, pg. 3-4]
This is the kind of pumped up intelligence and outrageous rhetoric that were given to the American people to justify war with Iraq. This is the same kind of hyped evidence that was given to Congress to sway its vote for war on October 11, 2002.
We hear some voices say, but why should we care? After all, the United States won the war, didn't it? Saddam Hussein is no more; he is either dead or on the run. What does it matter if reality does not reveal the same grim picture that was so carefully painted before the war? So what if the menacing characterizations that conjured up visions of mushroom clouds and American cities threatened with deadly germs and chemicals were overdone? So what?
Mr. President, our sons and daughters who serve in uniform answered a call to duty. They were sent to the hot sands of the Middle East to fight in a war that has already cost the lives of 194 Americans, thousands of innocent civilians, and unknown numbers of Iraqi soldiers. Our troops are still at risk. Hardly a day goes by that there is not another attack on the troops who are trying to restore order to a country teetering on the brink of anarchy. When are they coming home?
The President told the American people that we were compelled to go to war to secure our country from a grave threat. Are we any safer today than we were on March 18, 2003? Our nation has been committed to rebuilding a country ravaged by war and tyranny, and the cost of that task is being paid in blood and treasure every day.
It is in the compelling national interest to examine what we were told about the threat from Iraq. It is in the compelling national interest to know if the intelligence was faulty. It is in the compelling national interest to know if the intelligence was distorted.
Mr. President, Congress must face this issue squarely. Congress should begin immediately an investigation into the intelligence that was presented to the American people about the pre-war estimates of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the way in which that intelligence might have been misused. This is no time for a timid Congress. We have a responsibility to act in the national interest and protect the American people. We must get to the bottom of this matter.
Although some timorous steps have been taken in the past few days to begin a review of this intelligence – I must watch my terms carefully, for I may be tempted to use the words "investigation" or "inquiry" to describe this review, and those are terms which I am told are not supposed to be used – the proposed measures appear to fall short of what the situation requires. We are already shading our terms about how to describe the proposed review of intelligence: cherry-picking words to give the American people the impression that the government is fully in control of the situation, and that there is no reason to ask tough questions. This is the same problem that got us into this controversy about slanted intelligence reports. Word games. Lots and lots of word games.
Well, Mr. President, this is no game. For the first time in our history, the United States has gone to war because of intelligence reports claiming that a country posed a threat to our nation. Congress should not be content to use standard operating procedures to look into this extraordinary matter. We should accept no substitute for a full, bipartisan investigation by Congress into the issue of our pre-war intelligence on the threat from Iraq and its use.
The purpose of such an investigation is not to play pre-election year politics, nor is it to engage in what some might call "revisionist history." Rather it is to get at the truth. The longer questions are allowed to fester about what our intelligence knew about Iraq, and when they knew it, the greater the risk that the people – the American people whom we are elected to serve – will lose confidence in our government.
This looming crisis of trust is not limited to the public. Many of my colleagues were willing to trust the Administration and vote to authorize war against Iraq. Many members of this body trusted so much that they gave the President sweeping authority to commence war. As President Reagan famously said, "Trust, but verify." Despite my opposition, the Senate voted to blindly trust the President with unprecedented power to declare war. While the reconstruction continues, so do the questions, and it is time to verify.
I have served the people of West Virginia in Congress for half a century. I have witnessed deceit and scandal, cover up and aftermath. I have seen Presidents of both parties who once enjoyed great popularity among the people leave office in disgrace because they misled the American people. I say to this Administration: Do not circle the wagons. Do not discourage the seeking of truth in these matters.
Mr. President, the American people have questions that need to be answered about why we went to war with Iraq. To attempt to deny the relevance of these questions is to trivialize the people's trust.
The business of intelligence is secretive by necessity, but our government is open by design. We must be straight with the American people. Congress has the obligation to investigate the use of intelligence information by the Administration, in the open, so that the American people can see that those who exercise power, especially the awesome power of preemptive war, must be held accountable. We must not go down the road of cover-up. That is the road to ruin.
© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. Reproduction by Syndication Service only.
You better tell the Brits!... Tony Blair is in the hot seat, big time!! :)
So we blew up the country for documents??... That's not what the Admin told us. Nor is it what they told Congress....
This what the Admin told us:
"During his constitutionally mandated State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Mr. Bush said, "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
HR 260:
Resolved, That the President is requested to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 4 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution documents or other materials in the President's possession that provides specific evidence for the following claims relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction:
(1) On August 26, 2002, the Vice President in a speech stated: `Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . What he wants is time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons.'
(2) On September 12, 2002, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, the President stated: `Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.'
(3) On October 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, the President stated: `It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.'
(4) On January 7, 2003, the Secretary of Defense at a press briefing stated: `There is no doubt in my mind but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons.'
(5) On January 9, 2003, in his daily press briefing, the White House spokesperson stated: 'We know for a fact that there are weapons there Iraq.'
(6) On March 16, 2003, in an appearance on NBC's `Meet The Press', the Vice President stated: `We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong.'
(7) On March 17, 2003, in an Address to the Nation, the President stated: `Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.'
(8) On March 21, 2003, in his daily press briefing the White House spokesperson stated: `Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.'
(9) On March 24, 2003, in an appearance on CBS's `Face the Nation', the Secretary of Defense stated: `We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.'
(10) On March 30, 2003, in an appearance on ABC's `This Week', the Secretary of Defense stated: `We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.'"
The Dog Ate My WMDs
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1142184
"After UNSCOM, after UNMOVIC, after the war, after the US Army inspectors, after all the satellite surveillance, it is difficult in the extreme to imagine how one million pounds of anything could refuse to be located. Bear in mind, also, that this one million pounds is but a part of the Iraqi weapons arsenal described by Bush and his administration.
Maybe we went to war on a big lie, one that killed over 3,500 Iraqi civilians to date, one that killed some 170 American soldiers, one that has been costing us one American soldier's life per day"
For rich, foreign aid is a tool of persuasion
A study finds countries like the US and Japan reward nations that support them at the UN with generous 'aid'
By David R. Francis / Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Foreign aid often is likened to charity. A rich nation gives money to poor countries with the goal of meeting humanitarian needs and speeding economic development - at least in theory.
In reality, when the United States, Japan, or European nations give aid, they generally have important political and security motivations.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0626/p14s02-wogi.html
What happened to the 1,000,000 (1 MILLION!) pounds of sarin nerve gas? They hid it??...
"Saddam Hussein, and the Sorcerers Stone"
by JK Rowlings (& George Bush)
Great Fiction !!! :)
We have a nasty habit of laying down with dogs.....
Oil causes us to continually meddle in the region, and George is a big oil man...It is never about human rights, but Americans like to believe it is. Another example of "cultural superiority", or believing we are "better than others"?? Like your explanation of Southerners??... :)
I don't know... George has to "get" Osama, and many think he's in Pakistan. I thought Pakistan is a terrorist hub. I know it's a Moslem country. This country have favorable immigration terms for folks from India, most of whom are Hindu or Sikh and were subject to religious persecution by Moslems. India is a secular country. Or at least that was my understanding.
The US has an embarrassing history of supporting whacked out countries and regimes in the region...
Pakistan has nuclear capability and a horrible human rights record - but we pay Pakistan.
Arrogance or elitism... I have known people like that. :)
I don't understand us bankrolling Pakistan either. Isn't Pakistan a pretty radical Moslem country?
And aren't they continually threatening India, a more secular country, with nukes?
Troops in Iraq for 5 YEARS with American taxpayers footing the huge cost of rebuilding??....
US senators want price tag on huge Iraq rebuilding
Reuters, 06.25.03, 5:59 PM ET
WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - The United States faces a huge task rebuilding Iraq and restoring security and the White House needs to spell out how much it will cost, two senior senators just back from the Middle East said on Wednesday.
"No one back here understands how monumental this job is going to be," Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden from Delaware said, fresh from a bipartisan fact-finding mission to Iraq, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana.
U.S. bombs hammered Iraq's infrastructure during the war and looters stripped many public buildings afterward. The United States has yet to set up an interim government and police work and civil administration is largely handled by U.S. military forces.
Expected oil exports will generate revenue well short of covering Iraq's needs, including its heavy debt load and its damaged infrastructure, Biden said.
By the end of 2004, Iraq will likely generate $19 billion from oil exports, Biden said, warning the country's needs in that period would be about five times greater.
"There's a massive bill that's going to land in the laps of somebody, most likely the American people," said Biden, the most senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
At a briefing on Capitol Hill, Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he wants to know where the money for the continued U.S. mission in Iraq would come from and how it would be disbursed.
While in Baghdad, the Senate delegation predicted U.S. forces would remain in Iraq for another five years.
The Bush administration has said it would remain in Iraq as long as necessary, but "not a day longer."
"We need to get over that rhetoric," Lugar said. "We must reorganize our military to be there a long time."
Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service
That's what we went to war for??... It looks like a door knob.
Are we supposed to feel safer now??.... :)
An interesting character, huh.. I like to think the human race has learned something over the last 40 or 50 years, but who knows. Maybe we just swap intolerances...
I knew nothing of Maddox until today. But I wonder why it seems the South is so much less "progressive", socially, than the North? ("Progressive" -- for lack of a better word, and not intended to offend those I don't have on ignore - honestly...) Is it a cultural difference, or something else? Or is it not a "difference" at all - ie we just think we're more "progressive", socially?...
It's interesting. Maddox was an "interesting" character, I guess....
Orwell was a radical for all reasons
By Jeffrey M. Landaw
Sun Staff
Originally published June 25, 2003
George Orwell, born 100 years ago today, achieved so much in so little time (he died at age 46 in 1950) that he's become the subject of an intellectual parlor game: "What would Orwell say?"
The game attracts so many players because, as the late British writer John Wain observed, Orwell "was born into an age in which the really suffocating nonsense was talked by reactionaries, and lived on into an age in which it was talked by progressives." That makes it possible for almost anybody to pick and choose something in Orwell's work that fits his prejudices.
Orwell was an intellectual who distrusted intellectuals and built his political faith on "the native decency of the common man." He was an unbeliever who saw that the decline of religion had landed the world in "a cesspool full of barbed wire" and was buried, at his request, according to the rites of the Church of England. He disliked prigs and Puritans but lived a life of what essayist Christopher Hitchens calls "almost ostentatious austerity" - and may have died young because of it.
Culturally, Orwell was a conservative who appreciated "naughty" postcards, music-hall bawdiness and James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence and even Henry Miller. ("As usual I cannot quote any of the best passages," he wrote of Miller's Black Spring, "... but if you can get hold of a copy, have a look at the passage between pages 50 and 64, for instance. It is the kind of prose which ... makes me feel that I should like to fire a salute of 21 guns.")
Most famously, Orwell was a political radical who found his lasting ideal in revolutionary Barcelona, but whose opposition to Stalinism and pacifism got him taken up by the Right. Hitchens' book Why Orwell Matters, published last year, is partly a response to Norman Podhoretz's notorious claim of 1983 that "if Orwell were alive today, he would be taking his stand with the neoconservatives and against the Left."
Why should it matter what Orwell might have thought more than half a century after he died, and more than a decade after the Soviet Union - the obvious target of his two most famous books, Animal Farm and 1984 - fell apart? One reason is that the kind of folly, cowardice and corruption he fought against is still with us; which also explains why Orwell couldn't have kept himself out of the conservatives' book of familiar quotations if he'd wanted to.
Orwell anticipated the revolutionary fantasies that bloomed in the late 1960s and still haunt the imaginations of many academics, intellectuals and journalists with the line about Spain: "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot."
When Tony Kushner, the gay Marxist playwright, announced that he'd become a vegetarian, he invited the world to quote the famous complaint in Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier: "One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England." People rejected socialism because leftist intellectuals seemed to be "pouring European civilization down the sink at the command of Marxist prigs"; they still do.
The conditions Orwell observed in 1943 haven't changed - or changed enough: "... western civilization has given the intellectual security without responsibility, and in England, in particular, it has educated him in skepticism while anchoring him almost immovably in the privileged class. He has been in the position of a young man living on an allowance from a father whom he hates. The result is a deep feeling of guilt and resentment, not combined with any genuine desire to escape. But some psychological escape ... there must be, and one of the most satisfactory is transferred nationalism."
What Orwell offers is a way of looking at the world that he called "a power of facing unpleasant facts" and we might call character. There is nothing too contradictory to one's preconceptions to admit, nothing that mustn't be true.
Another important trait of Orwell's is even scarcer than it was in his time. It's the spirit that kept him from shooting an enemy soldier in Spain who was running from the latrine with his pants down. The same spirit led him to trade verse polemics over pacifism with Alex Comfort (yes, the future author of The Joy of Sex) and then to admit to Comfort afterward that his poem was superior; and to give authors like T.S. Eliot and Rudyard Kipling, who stood for everything Orwell detested, artistic and moral credit where it was due.
Orwell, in fact, resembles his own picture of Charles Dickens: "... a man who is always fighting against something, but who fights in the open and is not frightened, the face of a man who is generously angry."
That kind of character, scarce as it will always be, is why The Economist says Orwell's voice "speaks as urgently to our times as it did to his." It's why Joseph Epstein, the critic and essayist, says Orwell was "a less great writer" - less great than Tolstoy, James, Chekhov, Conrad; Orwell surely would have agreed - "who was a very great man."
Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun
Some quotes from former Georgia Gov. Lester Maddox
The Associated Press
6/25/03 9:27 AM
Some quotations from former Georgia Gov. Lester Maddox, who died Wednesday:
"If anybody asks me about the Negro problem -- and it is a problem -- I restate my views on that matter. Those views are the same as those of Governor George Wallace, of Alabama, and his lovely wife, Lurleen." -- During Maddox's 1966 campaign, three years after Wallace made stand against desegregating the University of Alabama.
"I'm still a segregationist. I just told you I'm a segregationist. I've told you that 15 times. When are you going to start believing me?" -- In 1973, a year before he ran for governor again.
"Students should continue to go back to their old schools and not get on the first durn bus. They ought to flatten the tires. Somebody ought to let the air out of them." -- On school desegregation and busing in a south-central Georgia county.
"If you see any good I did as governor, give the credit for that to God and blame whatever else you find on Lester." -- On his gubernatorial career.
"When I was growing up, we looked for Santa Claus on Christmas. Now the people want him every day and they call him Uncle Sam. I think that's the whole difference. Our country has grown more immoral and amoral." -- On changes in America during his lifetime.
"I'm not surprised that it happened because Uncle Sam has turned into Uncle Sucker. What do we do when an enemy attacks us? Rebuild their countries, take care of their people." -- On the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"Challenges strengthen you, build you. When you dig out of a ditch on your own, you know what it is when you get to the peak." -- On adversity.
Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Al-Qaeda May Be Planning Terror Attack in Texas, Chronicle Says
June 24 (Bloomberg) -- The al-Qaeda terrorist network may be planning an attack on energy facilities in the Houston area sometime during the July 4 weekend, the Houston Chronicle reported, citing unidentified federal officials.
That would confirm a report published in Newsweek magazine that said intelligence operatives had listened to an Internet conversation in which a suspected al-Qaeda member said an attack was planned for early July and that terrorists in the U.S. were awaiting the go-ahead from ``the Sheik,'' the newspaper said.
The Department of Homeland Security passed the information, on to Texas, the paper said, citing an unidentified department official. The information didn't specify a target, time or type of attack.
Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, acknowledged the threat, though she declined to give further details. Texas is particularly concerned about gas and oil facilities and pipelines, the paper said. Homeland Security recently pledged $30 million in grants to upgrade security at ports in Houston and Beaumont, the paper said.
(HC 2-27)
Last Updated: June 24, 2003 11:29 EDT
With constant claims that Iraq possessed a very sinister WMD program, and insinuations that there was an Iraq/9.11 nexis, did the Admin use fear to "terrorize" the American people into supporting a war against Iraq??
The Dog Ate My WMDs
By William Rivers Pitt, TruthOut.com
June 16, 2003
After several years teaching high school, I've heard all the excuses. I didn't get my homework done because my computer crashed, because my project partner didn't do their part, because I feel sick, because I left it on the bus, because I had a dance recital, because I was abducted by aliens and viciously probed. Houdini doesn't have as many tricks. No one on earth is more inventive than a high school sophomore backed into a corner and faced with a zero on an assignment.
No one, perhaps, except Bush administration officials forced now to account for their astounding claims made since September 2002 regarding Iraq's alleged weapons program.
After roughly 280 days worth of fearful descriptions of the formidable Iraqi arsenal, coming on the heels of seven years of UNSCOM weapons inspections, four years of surveillance, months of UNMOVIC weapons inspections, the investiture of an entire nation by American and British forces, after which said forces searched "everywhere" per the words of the Marine commander over there and "found nothing," after interrogating dozens of the scientists and officers who have nothing to hide anymore because Hussein is gone, after finding out that the dreaded 'mobile labs' were weather balloon platforms sold to Iraq by the British, George W. Bush and his people suddenly have a few things to answer for.
You may recall this instance where a bombastic claim was made by Bush. During his constitutionally mandated State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Mr. Bush said, "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." Nearly five months later, those 500 tons are nowhere to be found. A few seconds with a calculator can help us understand exactly what this means.
500 tons of gas equals one million pounds. After UNSCOM, after UNMOVIC, after the war, after the US Army inspectors, after all the satellite surveillance, it is difficult in the extreme to imagine how one million pounds of anything could refuse to be located. Bear in mind, also, that this one million pounds is but a part of the Iraqi weapons arsenal described by Bush and his administration.
Maybe the dog ate it. Or maybe it was never there to begin with, having been destroyed years ago by the first UN inspectors and by the Iraqis themselves. Maybe we went to war on a big lie, one that killed over 3,500 Iraqi civilians to date, one that killed some 170 American soldiers, one that has been costing us one American soldier's life per day thus far.
If you listen to the Republicans on Capitol Hill, however, this is all just about "politics." An in-depth investigation into how exactly we came to go to war on the WMD word of the Bush administration has been quashed by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Closed-door hearings by the Intelligence Committee are planned next week, but an open investigation has been shunted aside by Bush allies who control the gavel and the agenda. If there is nothing to hide, as the administration insists, if nothing was done wrong, one must wonder why they fear to have these questions asked in public.
The questions are being asked anyway. Thirty five Representatives have signed House Resolution 260, which demands with specificity that the administration back up its oft-repeated claims about the Iraqi weapons arsenal with evidence and fact. The guts of the Resolution are as follows:
Resolved, That the President is requested to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 4 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution documents or other materials in the President's possession that provides specific evidence for the following claims relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction:
(1) On August 26, 2002, the Vice President in a speech stated: `Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . What he wants is time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons.'
(2) On September 12, 2002, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, the President stated: `Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.'
(3) On October 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, the President stated: `It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.'
(4) On January 7, 2003, the Secretary of Defense at a press briefing stated: `There is no doubt in my mind but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons.'
(5) On January 9, 2003, in his daily press briefing, the White House spokesperson stated: 'We know for a fact that there are weapons there Iraq.'
(6) On March 16, 2003, in an appearance on NBC's `Meet The Press', the Vice President stated: `We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong.'
(7) On March 17, 2003, in an Address to the Nation, the President stated: `Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.'
(8) On March 21, 2003, in his daily press briefing the White House spokesperson stated: `Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.'
(9) On March 24, 2003, in an appearance on CBS's `Face the Nation', the Secretary of Defense stated: `We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.'
(10) On March 30, 2003, in an appearance on ABC's `This Week', the Secretary of Defense stated: `We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.'
On June 10, 2003, Representative Henry Waxman transmitted a letter to Condoleezza Rice demanding answers to a specific area of concern in this whole mess. His letter goes on to repeat, in scathing detail, the multifaceted claims made by the Bush administration regarding an Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and deconstructs those claims with a fine scalpel. "What I want to know is the answer to a simple question: Why did the President use forged evidence in the State of the Union address?" the letter concludes. "This is a question that bears directly on the credibility of the United States, and it should be answered in a prompt and forthright manner, with full disclosure of all the relevant facts."
It is this aspect, the nuclear claims, that has led the Bush administration to do what many observers expected them to do for a while now: They have blamed it all on the CIA. A report in the June 12, 2003 edition of the Washington Post cites an unnamed Bush administration official who claims that the CIA knew the evidence of Iraqi nuclear plans had been forged, but that CIA failed to give this information to Bush. The Post story states, "A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of 'extremely sloppy' handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein."
Ergo, it wasn't the dog who ate the WMDs. It was the CIA. Unfortunately for Bush and his people, this blame game will not hold water.
Early in October of 2002, Bush went before the American people and delivered yet another vat of nightmarish descriptions of what Saddam Hussein could do to America and the world with his vast array of weaponry. One week before this speech, however, the CIA had publicly stated that Hussein and Iraq were less of a threat than they had been for the last ten years.
Columnist Robert Scheer reported on October 9, 2002, that, "In its report, the CIA concludes that years of U.N. inspections combined with U.S. and British bombing of selected targets have left Iraq far weaker militarily than in the 1980s, when it was supported in its war against Iran by the United States. The CIA report also concedes that the agency has no evidence that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons."
Certainly, if citizen Scheer was able to read and understand the CIA report on Iraq's nuclear capabilities, the President of the United States could easily do so as well.
The scandal that laid Bill Clinton low centered around his lying under oath about sex. The scandal which took down Richard Nixon was certainly more profound, as he was accused of misusing the CIA and FBI to spy on political opponents while paying off people to lie about his actions. Lying under oath and misusing the intelligence community are both serious transgressions, to be sure. The matter of Iraq's weapons program, however, leaves both of these in deep shade.
George W. Bush and his people used the fear and terror that still roils within the American people in the aftermath of September 11 to fob off an unnerving fiction about a faraway nation, and then used that fiction to justify a war that killed thousands and thousands of people.
Latter-day justifications about 'liberating' the Iraqi people or demonstrating the strength of America to the world do not obscure this fact. They lied us into a war that, beyond the death toll, served as the greatest Al Qaeda recruiting drive in the history of the world. They lied about a war that cost billions of dollars which could have been better used to bolster America's amazingly substandard anti-terror defenses. They are attempting, in the aftermath, to misuse the CIA by blaming them for all of it.
Blaming the CIA will not solve this problem, for the CIA is well able to defend itself. Quashing investigations in the House will not stem the questions that come now at a fast and furious clip.
They lied. Period. Trust a teacher on this. We can spot liars who have not done their homework a mile away.
William Rivers Pitt is the author of two books – "War On Iraq" available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," now available from Pluto Press at SilenceIsSedition.com. Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.
© 2003 Independent Media Institute.
Less Than Zero
How next week's Fed interest-rate cut will jostle $2 trillion in money-market investments.
By Daniel Gross
Posted Friday, June 20, 2003, at 1:39 PM PT
http://slate.msn.com/id/2084672/
"Such a cut is supposed to do what the Fed's 12 other cuts since January 2001 were supposed to have done: reduce borrowing costs, stimulate the economy, and encourage investors to move cash out of low-yielding bonds and into stocks. The Fed is taking interests rates to depths unseen. Not only do the rates raise the danger of a liquidity trap and deflation, the coming attempt to lower the rates could jeopardize a crucial but frequently neglected $2 trillion corner of the investment world: money-market mutual funds. As Greg Ip notes in today's Wall Street Journal lead, "too low a rate would imperil money-market mutual funds, for instance, because they might no longer clear enough money to cover expenses and pay a return to investors."
Veil of Secrecy Around Village Hit in U.S. Raid
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/international/worldspecial/25CONV.html?ex=1057118400&en=b29036...
.."Two villagers were killed, a young woman, Hakima Khalil, and her infant daughter, Maha, in an aerial assault that began just after 1 a.m. Thursday."....
Greenpeace in 'nuclear disaster' warning
By Gillian Tett in London
Published: June 25 2003 5:00 / Last Updated: June 25 2003 5:00
Environmental activists from Greenpeace yesterday handed over to US forces in Iraq alleged abandoned radioactive material, and accused the military administration of failing to prevent a "nuclear disaster" in the region.
The US made no initial comment on the incident, involving canisters of radioactive "yellow-cake" from the Iraqi nuclear complex at Tuwaitha, about 25km south of Baghdad.
Greenpeace said the canisters, containing uranium oxide concentrate, had been looted from the site since the US-led war and abandoned nearby, threatening to spread radiation.
Officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have been granted limited access to the Tuwaitha complex, which was visited a number of times by its inspectors before the war. Yesterday they completed a three-week mission to Iraq: no details have been released of their findings.
The apparent release of radioactive material is likely to fuel criticism of the US over continued insecurity in Iraq. But the Greenpeace allegations also come as the IAEA skirmishes with the US military administration over Washington's refusal to let the Vienna-based watchdog analyse the risks from potentially hazardous radioactive material in Iraq.
Radioactive material is found in many modern industries, ranging from the oil sector to health. Iraq is believed to have tapped multiple sources of such material in recent years.
The IAEA had initially hoped to use its visit to investigate the status of 3,000 barrels of low-enriched uranium which Iraq was using for industrial purposes, as well as monitor an estimated 1,000 additional radioactive sources in Iraq, of which some 400 lie around Tuwaitha. It was also hoping to survey the health and safety risks posed to the population by the abandoned nuclear material.
The US permitted the IAEA to check on the status of the low-enriched uranium as this was legally required under international nuclear treaties. However, it blocked IAEA attempts to conduct the second two operations.
The US government is believed to have trained personnel who could conduct this research. However, diplomats and environment activists say this does not appear to have been done.
"If this had happened in the UK, the US or any other country, the villages around Tuwaitha would be swarming with radiation experts and decontamination teams," complained Mike Townsley of Greenpeace.
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2003.
The Times, with all their recent troubles, does dare to practice investigative journalism and raise questions. Too many US media outlets do not! Fox bashes the heck out of the NY Times on a daily basis. Ultra-neocon Willie Kristol is a regular talking head on Fox. Imagine, these are the people telling Americans what to think on a daily basis.... Scary!
It is amazing that so much of the Iraq Story was a completely fictional, and passed off as truth...
But America love great fiction, with evil villains, sorcerers, evil potions, etc. Look at the success of Harry Potter...
Maybe JK Rowlings will write the Saddam Story, Bush Version....
I saw story that on Fox. One can only wonder what would (or would not) have been if the Admin had not suffered from Saddam tunnel vision pre & post 9/11...
edit: I agree we have to demand much higher standards of gov and ethics, especially of those public servants we elect to serve America's highest levels of gov. But how??.. This gov is very "secretive" and controlling. And Americans don't care, not really. Too many take freedom and democracy for granted. Complacency is a threat to democracy. If cable news tells Americans that Bush & Cheney are good guys, and Iraq was a good war, Americans believe... The Founding Fathers must be turning over in the graves...
GLOBAL JIHAD
Al-Qaida targets Texas for terror?
Intelligence agencies eavesdrop on discussion about July 4 attack
Posted: June 24, 2003
1:32 p.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33234
No trace yet of missing Boeing
June 25, 2003
Keeping track of aircraft over central Africa is problematic at the best of times, Sapa-AP reports.
In a brazen act, two men climbed aboard an idle Boeing 727 jet in Angola last month and flew off into the African sky without a trace.
The disappearance touched off searches across the continent and, in the post-September 11 2001 era, prompted worries about why the plane was taken.
US investigators and civil aviation officials in Africa said the plane - which had been converted into a fuel tanker - was probably taken for a criminal endeavour such as drug or weapons smuggling.
But they have not ruled out the possibility it was stolen for use in a terrorist attack.
"There is no particular information suggesting the disappearance of the aircraft is linked to terrorists or terrorism, but it's still something that obviously we would like to get to the bottom of," said US state department spokesman Philip Reeker.
US officials speaking on condition of anonymity said a variety of investigative and intelligence-gathering methods were being used to search for the plane across Africa. They declined to provide details.
But experts said that even in the age of satellites and other
hi-tech search methods, just a new coat of paint and a stolen registration number would make tracking the plane nearly impossible.
"Let's assume (the pilot) did arrive in some place like Nigeria . . . a couple of thousand dollars change hands and the aircraft is put in a hangar. The chances it is seen before satellites get a chance are zip," Chris Yates, editor of Jane's Aviation and Security, said in a telephone interview from London.
"It has happened before in African aviation," he said.
The plane, with tail number N844AA, left Luanda airport on Wednesday May 25. The transponder was turned off, so the plane's position could not be monitored by air traffic control, US officials said.
Keeping track of aircraft over Africa's vast and often desolate terrain is problematic at best anyway.
Richard Cornwell, a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria, said radar coverage of African skies was virtually non-existent.
"Pilots talk about flying the gauntlet between South Africa and North Africa.
"There is no (air) control, even on commercial levels," he said.
After the September 11 2001 assault on the US, fears of airborne attacks remain high.
Last month US authorities said they had uncovered an Al-Qaida plot to crash an explosives-laden small aircraft into the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. The US homeland security department issued an advisory saying Al-Qaida had a "fixation" on using aircraft in attacks.
The fact that the missing 727 had been converted into a fuel tanker has added to the worries.
"If you fill that up with however many gallons of jet air
fuel and stick a couple of suicide pilots on, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out you could fly into an American or British embassy, or another target they want to strike against - it could be a huge bomb," said Yates, the Jane's Aviation and Security editor.
US analysts, however, believe the plane was stolen for a criminal gang or perhaps taken in a business or insurance dispute.
There also is the possibility of a crash.
According to media reports, the plane's last radio contact was to ask for landing permission in the Seychelles in the Indian Ocean east of Africa, but it never arrived.
US Federal Aviation Association records show the aircraft was most recently owned by Aerospace Sales and Leasing Company of Miami, Florida. The company's listed phone number in Miami has been disconnected.
Helder Preza, director of Angola's civil aviation authority, said the 727 was leased by Air Angola and had been grounded for a year because it lacked proper documentation for its conversion to a tanker.
Preza said an American named Ben Padilla approached authorities a month before the plane disappeared, saying the owner wanted to take the plane out of Angola.
"We said 'no problem'," Preza said, "as long as Padilla first paid US$50 000 (R400 000) in fees for the year the aircraft sat in Angola and provided proof Air Angola approved."
Padilla asked airport authorities to do maintenance on the plane in the meantime, Preza said, and it was during maintenance work that Padilla and another man were seen boarding the plane just before it took off.
According to Padilla's family in Florida, he was hired to repossess the jet after Air Angola failed to make lease payments.
His sister, Benita Padilla-Kirkland, told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel newspaper she feared the plane had crashed or that Padilla, 51, was being held against his will.
Air Angola has been in financial distress since a peace accord last year ended 25 years of civil war and brought an end to lucrative military transportation contracts.
Phone calls to the airline's office in Luanda were not answered. - Sapa-AP
©2003 The Mercury. All rights reserved.
"Read My Lips": Tenet is the fall guy for our Commander-in-Chief...
Kind of like Enron's Ken Lay blaming his bookkeeper...
I don't know about censorship, but we all have the ignore feature. I've used it with yayaa and a few others...
I think SoxFan hit the nail on the head:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1133768
It's one thing to debate a well founded, opposing opinion, but Yayaa's absolute "faith" in George absent logical basis was a bit much. Like I said, a knat at a summer barbeque, imo. :)
Do Rate Cuts Help?
By Matt Richey (TMF Matt)
June 24, 2003
Will it be 25 or 50 basis points? That's the question most of the financial media is hovering over in anticipation of tomorrow's policy announcement from the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee. So far, Fed watchers are torn over which outcome is more likely.
The more important question, however, is this: How long will the financial markets hang their hopes on yet another rate cut? We've already had 12 cuts since January 2001, and the federal fund rates is at a measly 1.25%. Short-term interest rates are already lower than anytime since 1958. Let's face it, the rate-cut lighter fluid just isn't stoking any economic flames.
The problem isn't a lack of credit, but too much credit. Easy and abundant credit has caused the economic logs to be inexorably soaked with excess capacity. You can see this in the capacity utilization figures, which recently have been stuck at a 20-year low of less than 75% (where anything below 80% prevents new investment). There's no amount of easy money that can inspire businesses to build what's already been over-built.
What the economy really needs is a reduction in capacity via bankruptcies of marginal companies. Obviously, such a notion is politically unspeakable, but it's the destructive side of capitalism that frees resources to fuel the business cycle's next constructive phase. As it stands now, though, marginal players can't go out of business because so much easy money is sloshing around.
Everyday, we hear about companies "strengthening their balance sheets" through lower-rate financing, as if that's supposed to be good. It's good to a point, but not when it allows companies that should go bankrupt to stay alive. When less-efficient companies stay alive, their more-efficient competitors get less business. For any given industry where this dynamic is at play, the result is less efficient, overall average production. Extended economy-wide, inefficient production leads to below-potential output, or subpar economic growth.
Nevertheless, the Fed is committed to its course of trying to stimulate demand rather than allow supply to contract. One can only hope that the Fed's easy-money policies begin to work before zero-interest rate scenarios come into play. If interest rates go to zero, the Fed won't have any traditional arrows left in its quiver. And the last thing anyone should hope for is the use of unconventional (that's a kind word) policies such as those recently explored by the Dallas Fed.
Most Recent Articles by Matt Richey
06/24/2003 - Do Rate Cuts Help?
06/23/2003 - Your Most Important Financial Decision
06/19/2003 - Micron: Speculative Plaything
06/17/2003 - An Economic Stat Worth Watching
06/16/2003 - Time for Deep Value Again
The Motley Fool is investors writing for investors
Blair under fire as troops die in Iraq
Gideon Long
London, June 24: Six British troops were killed and eight wounded on Tuesday in two separate incidents in eastern Iraq, adding another blow to PM Tony Blair’s latest spate of post-war blues.
It was not immediately clear whether the six were killed as a result of hostile fire or an accident, but the eight were wounded when a British helicopter came under attack.
The incident was the single bloodiest blow to US or British forces in Iraq since March 23, three days after the start of the US-led war to topple Saddam Hussein.
Blair’s spokesman said both incidents occurred near the city of Amarah, around 200 km north of Iraq’s second city, British-controlled Basra. The six were the first British soldiers to die in Iraq since Saddam fell.
The Defence Ministry said that one of the incidents involved an attack on a patrol of soldiers from the first battalion of the Parachute Regiment.
‘‘The patrol took one casualty and two vehicles were destroyed,’’ the ministry said in a statement. ‘‘In responding to the incident, an RAF Chinook helicopter carrying a quick reaction force came under fire as it landed,’’ the ministry said. ‘‘Seven personnel on board the helicopter were wounded, three of them seriously. All were extracted by helicopter and are receiving treatment.’’
The ministry said it was investigating whether the incidents were related.
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon was due to make a statement to Parliament. US forces, who have faced a string of attacks, have sustained 19 casualties after the war. (Reuters)
Questions over injury to
Syrian guards in attack
WASHINGTON/BAGHDAD, JUNE 24
A NUMBER of Syrian border guards were wounded when American special forces in Iraq attacked a convoy of suspected high-profile members of Saddam Hussein’s toppled government, US officials said on Monday. ‘‘It’s not clear how they were injured, whether they were caught in a crossfire or what. But we are, I believe, still treating three of them,’’ said one official.
The US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the attack occurred last Wednesday in a remote area near Iraq’s western city of Qaim close to the Syrian border and that ‘‘some Syrian guards were injured.’’ US officials did not say whether US forces, acting on intelligence and backed by aircraft, crossed into Syria and were vague on how Syrian guards were involved. The convoy was apparently attempting to escape into Syria, the officials said. Reuters
© 2003: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd. All rights reserved throughout the world
9.11.01
ONE YEAR LATER
AN AMERICAN PORTRAIT
Sept. 11 - Sept. 10
U.S. mosque's turbulent times
Jersey City worship center -- and former base for jailed cleric -- stands as symbol of free speech
Jonathan Curiel, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, September 10, 2002
Jersey City, N.J. -- Since Sept. 11, the nation has grappled with what it means to be an American in the wake of a historic tragedy. Our staff is traveling across the U.S. and the spectrum of the American experience for American Portraits, which will appear through Wednesday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Masjid Al-Salam -- which means "mosque of peace" in Arabic -- has garnered attention out of proportion to its size and membership.
Usually, no more than 300 people crowd into the third-floor space where Mohammed Mousa delivers his Friday prayers. Bigger, more established mosques can be found throughout New Jersey and even elsewhere in Jersey City, a multicultural hub of 240,000 people across the Hudson River from Manhattan.
To authorities, the mosque gained notoriety for serving as a former base for Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind, bearded cleric now jailed for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But to Jersey City's sizable Muslim community, even those who don't pray at the mosque, the Masjid Al-Salam is a potent symbol of an important American value: free speech.
Many longtime worshipers at the mosque say they condemn the attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Osama bin Laden's anti-West jihad and any messages of violence uttered by Abdel Rahman. But mosque members are critical of U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and they say it's unfair to judge their anger. They are tax-paying Americans who have all the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, they remind people who visit the small mosque.
Masjid Al-Salam was first established around 1980 by poor and working-class Muslims who immigrated from Egypt. As more Egyptians moved to the United States and chose to settle in Jersey City because of its Egyptian American community, cheap rents and proximity to New York (some even jokingly call Jersey City "Little Egypt"), the mosque became known not just to Muslims in the area, but to Muslims in Egypt and other countries.
With donations from worshipers and other Muslims, mosque members were able to buy the mosque's building -- a dream of ownership that was fulfilled with dedication and hard work, they say. Anyone who is Muslim can pray there.
"This mosque," boasts Ahmed El-Ganainy, a longtime worshiper, "now belongs to the community."
The Masjid Al-Salam occupies the top two floors of an old brick building on a commercial street where liquor and music stores compete with restaurants and other establishments for shoppers' attention.
It's on the highest floor that Mousa, the mosque's current imam, orates to those who attend Friday prayers. Like Abdel Rahman, Mousa is Egyptian, studied at Cairo's Al-Azhar University and rails animatedly against immorality, frequently using the Arabic word haram ("forbidden") in his weekly talks.
But Mousa, who is in his 30s and has had the job for only a year, apparently prefers to keep politics out of his deliveries, leaving it to worshipers to voice their opinions about the Middle East, President Bush's war on terrorism and life in America since Sept. 11.
Sultan Al-Gawly, a longtime mosque member who owns a nearby grocery store, bristles when asked whether he supported Osama bin Laden. Just the question, he says, is offensive and indicative of the public's and government's presumptuous attitude about Muslims and the Masjid Al-Salam.
"The government here makes every Muslim a terrorist, but we're not," says Al-Gawly.
As evidence of this, mosque members point to the arrests last Sept. 12 of two Muslims who prayed at the Masjid Al-Salam and were suspected of involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. Syed Gul Mohammed Shah and Mohammed Azmath were taken from a Texas-bound Amtrak train after authorities found them with box cutters, hair dye and several thousand dollars.
Shah and Azmath had taken a Sept. 11 flight from Newark, N.J., to San Antonio that was grounded in St. Louis before they boarded the train. A months- long investigation cleared them of any connection to the Sept. 11 tragedy -- they were on their way to look for new jobs in Texas -- although both were charged with credit card fraud and both pleaded guilty.
"There is such real hate against the Muslim religion," says El-Ganainy, a 53-year-old limousine driver.
Some members of Jersey City's community fear the Masjid Al-Salam is still a breeding ground for the kind of extremist views that Abdel Rahman uttered there in the early 1990s, when he was a regular speaker at the mosque. Men like El-Ganainy -- working-class, Arabic-speaking natives of Egypt -- went to see the cleric and listened to his fiery diatribes about overthrowing governments.
"He talked about jihad, and that everyone who has the ability to go to Afghanistan should go," said El-Ganainy, as he stood on the sidewalk in front of the mosque one recent day.
El-Ganainy, who has lived in the United States for 22 years, says he never considered going to Afghanistan, despite Abdel Rahman's implorings.
"No," he said, "if I went, I will get killed."
A year ago, hours after the Sept. 11 attacks leveled the World Trade Center buildings and killed thousands, an armed and uniformed Jersey City police officer stood in front of the mosque's doorway to make sure no one tried to retaliate against worshipers or the mosque itself.
The police presence continued for the next 40 days, though it didn't keep some passers-by from approaching members of the mosque and yelling out epithets like "killer" and "terrorist."
On the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, El-Ganainy and other longtime Masjid Al-Salam worshipers say they aren't worried about a re-emergence of those verbal assaults, but their sentiment is belied by the white, hand-lettered piece of paper that's taped conspicuously on the mosque's second floor.
"Warning," says the note, which greets anyone who climbs the stairs from the street-level entrance. "If you are not part of this community, you will be prosecuted."
Flyers are posted throughout the Masjid Al-Salam that advertise fund- raisers for Palestinian causes and show photos of leveled Palestinian villages and grieving Palestinian families.
The women in the photos all have their hair covered by Muslim head scarves called hijab, just like the women who attend the Masjid Al-Salam. The mosque's strict separation of men from women -- women worship in a room downstairs from the main prayer area -- is in accordance with the Salafi beliefs of those who help run the Masjid Al-Salam. Salafis advocate the Muslim law of sharia and want to return to a pure state of Islam that is close to that practiced by the prophet Mohammed.
Members of the Masjid Al-Salam say they ignore what they have to about the United States and incorporate that which will help their lives. All of those interviewed -- Mousa was among those who refused to talk -- say they prefer life in the United States over their countries of birth. Because many worshipers were raised in countries that prohibit wide dissent, they say they can almost tolerate the verbal sniping they endured after Sept. 11.
"If (the attacks) had happened in Egypt, Iran or Saudi Arabia, people would have reacted even harsher," says Salah Mansour, an Egyptian-born pharmacist who prays at the Masjid Al-Salam and whose store is on the same block. "Here in America, we have the opportunity to express our views."
They also have the opportunity to raise funds. At the end of Friday prayers,
Masjid Al-Salam members pass around a container for donations that will be used for upkeep and repair of the building and to establish Arabic and religious classes. Worshipers toss in small bills that mosque leaders count on the new green carpet that stretches across most of the third floor.
While every part of the upper level has been refurbished -- from the parquet wood to the mini-grandfather clocks that announce the time -- the second floor has misshapen carpet, the outside of the building looks neglected,
and even the mosque's sign could use replacing.
The Masjid Al-Salam is a work in progress, but members say they have time to make it better. America is their new and permanent home, they say. Their eyes reveal pride as they talk about the Masjid Al-Salam, and their words reveal a slice of the United States that is very much Muslim.
"I went to the mosque the first day it opened," says Al-Gawly, who immigrated from Port Said, Egypt, in 1968. "Islam is the same everywhere -- whether it's in Egypt or the United States."
E-mail Jonathan Curiel at jcuriel@sfchronicle.com.
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
Yayaa, IGNORED, VERY IGNORED...
Kind of like a knat at a barbeque...
I think Sox Fan said it best yesterday.
HD of VT seems to have seriously ruffled conservative feathers... The mud is flying early and viscerally this season.
That can only be viewed as a very positive sign for the Dean Campaign. Kudos! It would be nice to have a Prez from the NE. VT is SUCH a beautiful place. Burlington, on the news yesterday, is a very eclectic little city, fun, a great place to shop, and visit, and have fun. UVM and St Michaels are in Burlington. Skiing is awesome! Have you ever been to VT? If not, I would highly recommend it. :)
What is yours??...
Actually there is a woman in my town who does have "perfect kids"! :) And I am totally in awe of her....
3 girls, straight A students, "a pleasure to have in class", happy, pretty, well adjusted kids....
I see her in the school parking lot and stare in awe... I can only wonder what it must be like ~ to be her...
Even for ONE day! 8~}
Actually, very nice people w/great kids!.. :)
Prescott supported the Nazis, and made mega bucks that have supported the family dynasty.
Do you know who Prescott is??... How 'bout Brotha Neal, and the great Silverado heist?...
GW has others to do his dirty work, and no doubt they will try to have Tenet fall on the sword...
Just like Martha is supposed to fall on the sword for Wallstreets dubious deeds!
I guess they think we're stupid.....
In Iraq??.. Al Qaeda members are right here in New Jersey, in our own "backyards"!! Members of Al Qaeda are in every third world country in the world... All or most of the 9/11 Al Qaeda hijackers were from NJ. The 1993 WTC bombing was masterminded in a NJ mosque, will all participants residents of NJ. Do you suggest "liberating" NJ, and all third world countries where Al Qaeda members are known to exist... The list is very, very long...
And it does not offend you that the Bush Admin may have lied or, at best, embellished info to justify taking the world to war??...
I reiterate -- the way this Admin has exploited the tradegy of September 11th show profound moral bankrupcy....
"With so many truly good and exceptional people having selflessly given their lives in the hopes of saving others, how do we allow the Bush Administration to use the tragedy of September 11th to promote a bogus war on an unrelated country under false pretenses? It is totally unconscionable"...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1136354