Entries from February 2010 ↓

The Market For Global Warming: Green is the Color of Money

Reprinted from Andrew Syrios and http://www.swifteconomics.com/

“It’s hard to get a man to understand something when his job depends on him not understanding it.” (1)

Those are the words of Al Gore, quoting Upton Sinclair, in his Academy Award/Nobel Prize winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth. It’s the good ol’ follow-the-money line. It presupposes that American corporations oppose any measure to cap carbon emissions because it will hurt their profits. And this makes sense: if we move away from oil, oil companies will be devastated. Thus, we must push through a carbon trading scheme to offset emissions, even if, no, because corporations oppose it. Paul Krugman went so far as to call anyone who opposed such a bill a “traitor to the planet.” (2) This same sentiment is best articulated by the most liberal member of congress, Dennis Kucinich:

“[H.R. 2454, the cap-and-trade bill] is regressive. Free allocations doled out with the intent of blunting the effects on those of modest means will pale in comparison to the allocations that go to polluters and special interests. The financial benefits of offsets and unlimited banking also tend to accrue to large corporations. And of course, the trillion dollar carbon derivatives market will help Wall Street investors. Much of the benefits designed to assist consumers are passed through coal companies and other large corporations, on whom we will rely to pass on the savings.” (3)

Wait a minute Dennis, carbon trading is a regressive tax to benefit the rich, well-connected corporations? Nonsense! Or perhaps, we should go ahead and take Al Gore’s advice and follow the money. And perhaps, we should start with Al Gore’s own words, taken from the bonus material on the DVD release of An Inconvenient Truth:

“A lot of business leaders are changing their positions. New businesses and CEO’s and corporations every week are now joining this new bandwagon saying ‘we want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.’” (4)

Where did Al Gore’s skepticism go? I thought businessmen just wanted to pad their bottom line; now they want to save the planet? If we follow the money, we can see that there’s a lot of money in “being green.” Just the image of being green helps a company’s brand name, as IBM seems to have taken note of:

Saving millions on energy costs is one of those win/win things they talk about in business school so often; unfortunately, it goes deeper than that. Dennis Kucinich is right. The carbon trading scheme that passed the House and is making its way to the Senate is a new derivatives market set up at the behest of Goldman Sachs and other major Wall Street financial firms. Out of curiosity, how did the last financial derivatives market turn out? And yes, it is also a regressive tax, (Who do you think is hurt most by higher energy bills?).

While it’s true that major energy companies are not fond of having to cap their emissions, financial firms can only gain by having a new market to trade in. What people miss when looking at the corruption caused by corporations and government being in bed together is that different corporations have different goals. Many companies may oppose government health care, but companies such as GM and Ford, who are drowning in health care costs, could benefit significantly from government-run health care. Google supports net neutrality, AT&T opposes it. And on and on it goes.

So who stands to benefit from cap and trade? Well, Goldman Sachs for one. In January of 2009, Goldman Sachs bought Constellation Energy’s carbon trading operation. (5) Maybe, just maybe, they see a potential market to exploit. Even Al Gore himself is getting in on the take. Al Gore is an owner of the venture capital company Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. His company backed a small start-up firm named Silver Spring Networks, which produces equipment to make electricity grids more efficient. In October of 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy gave out $3.4 billion of “smart grid” grants; $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. (6) The Telegraph predicts that “Al Gore could become the world’s first carbon billionaire.” (7) Maybe that’s where Al Gore’s skepticism went: right to the bank.

This may seem outrageous, but that whole mess of corruption pales in comparison to the company that helped draft the initial concept for a carbon trading system: everyone’s favorite, now-defunct, energy trading firm, Enron.

In 1997, then Enron CEO, Ken Lay wrote an op-ed entitled “For Prevention’s Sake: Focus on Climate Solutions.” In it he strongly advocated the Kyoto Protocol, which would cap carbon emissions worldwide. On August 4th, 1997, Ken Lay met with Bill Clinton, Al Gore and others at the White House to discuss Kyoto. Ken Lay was an enthusiastic supporter. This may seem odd to some because George Bush was a close friend of Ken Lay, but Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Apparently, George Bush either had other special interest groups to appease, or he simply disagreed with his friend (almost certainly the former). Ken Lay never gave up, though. In 2001, Lay sent an emissary to the Bush administration to lobby for Kyoto. Why would Enron support cap and trade? The answer is the same as the answer for Goldman Sachs: it created a new energy market for them to trade in. Enron went bankrupt soon afterwards however, before it could influence any more politicians. (8)

But even though Enron is now gone, its baby lives on. Investigative Magazine, a New Zealand journal, concluded that “…without Enron there would have been no Kyoto Protocol.” (9) This may be a bit hyperbolic, but Enron did help establish and trade extensively in the $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap and trade scheme the EPA set up to deal with acid rain. Enron’s link to carbon trading is simply undeniable.

Furthermore, making money off of global warming solutions extends beyond trading carbon credits. Archer Daniels Midlands, the company TJ Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductors Corporation, calls “the pork barrel champion of all time,” (10) has made a fortune off of corn ethanol subsidies. Regardless of whether corn ethanol reduces carbon emissions (it doesn’t), it should be quite telling that Archer Daniels Midlands has received billions of dollars from the federal government to grow corn, (and you thought farm subsidies went to poor farmers and not big corporations). Does the president of ADM care whether corn ethanol is effective? Perhaps, but he certainly cares that it is effective in padding the bottom line.

Archer Daniels Midlands has consistently donated to both parties and received massive direct subsidies as well as sweetheart regulations. Dan Carney, writer for the liberal Mother Jones magazine, states “no other U.S. company is so reliant on politicians and governments to butter its bread.” (11)

ADM benefits in three ways. First are direct subsidies, which are notably the least important. The second is an enormous tariff on sugar, (at the behest of both ADM and the Fanjul family’s sugar dynasty, which has also donated consistently to both parties) (12). This makes sugar more expensive in the United States and thereby increases the demand for corn ethanol. The final relates to corn ethanol, which Dan Carney describes as follows:

“The third subsidy that ADM depends on is the 54-cent-per-gallon tax credit the federal government allows to refiners of the corn-derived ethanol used in auto fuel. For this subsidy, the federal government pays $3.5 billion over five years. Since ADM makes 60 percent of all the ethanol in the country, the government is essentially contributing $2.1 billion to ADM’s bottom line.” (13)

And while it’s true that Mother Jones is very skeptical of corporations and the free market itself (not that ADM represents a free market) it’s worth noting that the libertarian Cato Institute agreed with them completely, calling Archer Daniel Midlands a “case study in corporate welfare.” (14)

It becomes quite obvious that there’s a lot of green to be made in being green. But since we’re following the money, why stop with just corporations? Two other institutions come immediately to mind as possible global warming benefactors: the government and universities.

Government’s incentive should be obvious. If corporations all too often seek money without regards to the human cost, governments all too often seek power without regards to the human cost. An extremely short glance at the blood-soaked 20th century should be evidence enough of this. And the more of the economy that the government controls, taxes, or regulates the more power they have. European governments have gone so far as to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs. (15)

Universities are a little more complicated. It works like this: many academics are reliant on government grants to fund their research. Donald Miller, of the Science and Public Policy Institute describes how a system so reliant on government financing creates—what he refers to as—”scientific dogmas.” (16) Namely, once a “consensus” has been reached, funding dries up for any alternative theories. This is what I would refer to as the “anti-scientific method.” The scientific method involves proposing a theory and then watching as everyone and their brother attempts to obliterate said theory and make a fool out of you. If a theory can withstand the initial barrage, then it simultaneously becomes accepted while awaiting the next onslaught of skepticism. So what happens when scientific theory becomes “dogma” and scientists are reliant on government funding? It creates a major incentive for scientists to fall in line. And when that “dogma” involves a political hot-ticket, there’s major incentive to get in line for government grant money.

The recently-released emails between leading climate scientists lend a lot of creditability to this argument. For example, look at this one from climatologist, Kevin Trenberth:

“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.” (17)

Basically, Trenberth is trying to oust a scientist from a professional organization for disagreeing with him. Dogma indeed. Other emails allude to manipulating data to fit with this “dogma.” Furthermore, we have to ask whether academics and scientists proposing solutions such as cap-and-trade (a system that would give the government more power) would be more likely to receive grant money and political attention than those proposing, say, deregulating nuclear power. It may sound a bit conspiratorial, but it’s a question worth asking.

Now none of this is to say that corporate-financed research is any less biased. It would seem that smoking isn’t bad for you if you trusted the tobacco companies’ research back in the day. It’s just to say that skepticism needs to be applied everywhere. And the money needs to be followed everywhere.

And following the money leads to some interesting conclusions doesn’t it Mr. Vice President? As I illustrated in my previous article, there are plenty of other, better ways to deal with global warming than cap-and-trade, assuming it’s worth dealing with at all. Unfortunately, those methods don’t enrich the special interests. So understandably, albeit shamefully, those methods are ignored.
______________________________________________________________

(1) Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Lawrence Benders Productions, 2006
(2) Paul Krugman, “Betraying the Planet,” The New York Times, June 26, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1
(3) Dennis Kucinich, “Passing a weak bill today gives us weak environmental policy tomorrow,” Speech on House floor, June 26, 2009, http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=134813
(4) Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, Lawrence Benders Productions, 2006, the bonus section can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPem4XLr-Bc
(5) “Update 1-Constellation to sell London unit to Goldman,” Reuters, January 20, 2009, http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN2031523720090120
(6) John M. Broder, “Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor,” The New York Times, November 2, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?_r=1&em
(7) “Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire,” The Telegraph, November 3, 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
(8) See Dan Morgan, “Enron Also Courted Democrats,” Washington Post, January 13, 2002, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37287-2002Jan12?language=printer and Timothy P. Carney, The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money, Pg. 200-203, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Copyright 2006
(9) Thomas Lifson, “Enron, Kyoto, and trading pollution credits,” American Thinker, March 12, 2007, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/enron_kyoto_and_trading_pollut.html
(10) T.J. Rodgers, “The Free-Market Case for Green,” Uncommon Knowledge, September 26, 2008, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCjM2leF5F8
(11) Dan Carney, “Dwayne’s World,” Mother Jones, July/August 1995, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/07/dwaynes-world
(12) Timothy P. Carney, The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money, Pg. 56-63, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Copyright 2006
(13) (11) Dan Carney, “Dwayne’s World,” Mother Jones, July/August 1995, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/07/dwaynes-world
(14) James Bovard, “Archer Daniels Midlands: A Case Study in Corporate Welfare,” September 26, 1995, http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
(15) James Kanter, “Europe’s Ban on Old-Style Bulbs Begins,” The New York Times, August 31, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/energy-environment/01iht-bulb.html
(16) Donald Miller, “The Trouble With Government Grants,” Science and Public Policy Institute, April 21, 2008, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/gov_grant_system_truth_or_innovation.html
(17) See “ClimateGate – Climate center’s server hacked revealing documents and emails,” Examiner.com, November 20th, 2009, http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate–Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails#update

Written by Carl Herman

“The morons in Washington are pushing the envelope of nuclear war. The insane drive for American hegemony threatens life on earth. The American people, by accepting the lies and deceptions of “their” government, are facilitating this outcome.”

“Some other agenda is being served that we are not being told.” – Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts is one of the most respected conservative voices in the nation. He is the former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

His latest article, “Road to Armageddon,” details the threat that unlawful US foreign policy is rapidly escalating into a climate to initiate World War III. Mr. Roberts explains in the article what he means by, “growing body of experts.” For my article providing the pro and counter-government’s evidence, click here.

Four paragraphs from his article:

“For their own good and that of the wider world, Americans need to pay attention to the growing body of experts who are telling them that the government’s account of 9/11 fails their investigation. 9/11 launched the neoconservative plan for U.S. world hegemony. As I write the U.S. government is purchasing the agreement of foreign governments that border Russia to accept U.S. missile interceptor bases. The U.S. intends to ring Russia with U.S. missile bases from Poland through central Europe and Kosovo to Georgia, Azerbaijan and central Asia. [See Impending Explosion: U.S. Intensifies Threats To Russia And Iran, by Rick Rozoff, Global Research, February 19, 2010] U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke declared on February 20 that al Qaida is moving into former central Asian constituent parts of the Soviet Union, such as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan. Holbrooke is soliciting U.S. bases in these former Soviet republics under the guise of the ever-expanding “war on terror.”

Instructor – Alberto Portugheis

Generation after generation, whilst the rich men who own and run the world continue to make money and gain power, populations from all corners of the world continue to endure, accept even, hundreds of tragic armed conflicts, small and large, only because they have been brainwashed to accept what they are told by politicians and the corporate Press. Humankind has been educated to believe that politicians, diplomats and journalists really mean what they say.

Of course they mean what they say, but, what they mean is usually something very different from what they want populations to “understand”, imagine and believe.

Take the recent case of the capture of a Taliban military chief. Ross Lydall, chief News correspondent at London’s (UK) Evening Standard, wrote on 16 February “….. his capture may be part of a plan for a negotiated settlement with the Taliban”.

The journalist is either very naive of really thinks the reader is an idiot, who will easily take his words as something positive, ergo, a possible or imminent end to the conflict. What most readers do not realize is that, in political language, a “settlement” in this case means to agree on how much more money the Taliban is prepared to spend on weapons, for how long they can continue this game of war, started in 2003. For the sake of everybody’s business (on ”all” sides of the conflict it has to be made to last as long as possible.

How many people, soldiers or civilians, die, lose their health, their limbs, their family, etc, is of no concern whatsoever to warlords, be they politicians, diplomats, military and Church chiefs, Press and oil moguls, etc. Many of them involved, directly or indirectly, to weapon manufacturing and trade.

What is fascinating to me, is to observe how, an otherwise “thinking” population, is utterly blind when it comes to games of war. For instance, if a game of soccer was played between a team of grown-up professional players and one made up of football-playing children, everybody would “know” the first team will win the game. Equally, if there was a fight between a puma and a dog, everybody will know the dog has no chances of winning..

This type of thinking seems to be totally eroded from the minds of entire populations. You don’t even have a journalist who will question: “how can it be possible that International Armed Forces of hundreds of thousands, equipped with the most sophisticated weapons available today, with powerful air-fighters, short and long range missiles, atate of the art communication and spying equipment, spying satellites, pilot-less drones, etc., etc., cannot defeat a midget army, with no tanks, no air-figters, no war-helicopters, no warships, etc.

The answer is very simple: USA and its NATO allies DO NOT WANT to put an end to the war. Of course the same applies to Bin Laden and his cronies. They want to keep the “business” going. This is “why” not only we make sure Taliban and Al Qaeda, are continuously well supplied with weapons and bomb-making materials, but have arranged for Bin Laden to have the most extraordinary communications equipment, so that he can operate in comfort from a cave in Afghanistan.

Same in Iraq and, of course, with the Israeli/Palestine conflict, as with all countries in the world were armed conflict is rife.

The other incident that shows to what extent populations are brain-washed into thinking a certain way, is the recent assassination, in Dubai, of the Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a senior military commander.

The whole world, politicians, diplomats, journalists and masses of people interested in politics, spend time discussing whether al-Mabhouh was murdered by Mossad or by another intellegence agency. Whether or not the British Government knew the assassins would be traveling to Dubai with British passports. There are people who argue he had to be killed, others that it was wrong to kill him.

All of this is, to me, a complete waste of time. I feel the most important question – almost the only valid question – in this case, ought to be: what has the world gained by getting rid of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh? to me: the world has gained nothing. The only winners are those who got paid for carrying out the act. Why this is so? purely and simply, because for the weapon business to continue and develop, for a never-ending conflict in the Middle East, someone will have to replace al-Mabhouh. Unless politicians put a stop to weapon development, manufacturing and trade, (both conventional and nuclear) all their talk about “working for Peace, Justice, Human Rights, etc, is a lie, a BIG LIE. Alberto Portugheis

http://www.dearahed.co.uk
http://portugheis.livejournal.com
http://www.peace.orion-arts.com
http://www.apion.org.uk/ tapsim (Masterclasses)

I couldn’t decide. So much crap, so little time….I decided to do a little mashing. Have at it. Don’t gulp all this stupidity down at once, it could hurt your head. When the meter goes into the red, back off and take a break.

Freaks and Liars: The Life and Times of the Criminally Insane

US: House renews nation’s intelligence programs but not until a provision is removed that would punish CIA interrogators who “cross the line” while questioning suspected terrorists. The CIA keeps its license to kill and torture. foxnews.com-house-tries-pass-intel-controversy-cia-punishment/

UN: International Monetary Fund presses for authority to become the Federal Reserve of the world. The plan is to tie all the world’s fiat currencies together so that, when one country gets deeper in debt than the others, the IMF can rush money from frugal countries to the reckless ones. Yes, that will do it! http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100226/bs_afp/financeeconomyimfsupervise

UN: Leaked documents reveal plans for a ‘Green World Order’ by 2012, based on the global-warming myth. Globalists are stepping up efforts to expand UN power, fund it with a $45 trillion wealth-transfer program, and change ‘the economic and social order’ of the entire world. http://www.infowars.com/leaked-un-documents-reveal-plan-for-green-world-order-by-2012/

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates calls European anti-war stance a danger to peace. The word Orwellian comes to mind. http://www.thedailybell.com/837/Robert-Gates-Anti-War-EU-to-Create-a-War.html

US: Red-light cameras are being adjusted to shorten the yellow-light phase to catch more drivers in the red phase and increase revenue from fines. In California, Schwarzenegger has proposed 500 new cameras to increase revenue by $338 million a year. By the way, shorter time for yellow is causing more accidents. But don’t worry. The government is here to protect you. http://www.alternet.org/rights/145752/cities_shortening_yellow_traffic_lights_for_deadly_profit/

US: Gallup pole shows nearly 20% of workers are unemployed or underemployed. That’s more than twice the number reported by the government. http://www.cnbc.com/id/35535193

Poland: Human rights groups say they have obtained flight records and government reports confirming that CIA airplanes transported detainees to secret prisons within that country.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100222/ap_on_re_eu/eu_poland_cia_secret_flights

US: Study shows that the chemical Atrazine, applied to food crops, is responsible for a large number of birth defects. It is still designated as safe by the EPA. http://www.naturalnews.com/028222_atrazine_birth_defects.html

UK: Oxford University proposes to terminate financial aid for middle-class students so more poor students may attend. Never mind that the middle class pays the taxes to subsidize the poor. It’s collectivism at its best.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252704/Strip-middle-class-students-subsidised-tuition-fee-loans-demands-Oxford-University.html

Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security, says she now is less worried about international terrorists than “domestic extremists.” That term easily can be defined to include anyone who is opposed to government policies. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_napolitano_governors

I figured I’d post this and make sure that people knew how to access it. I haven’t read every single bit of this but there is enough here that needs done for me to support the overall idea. That overall idea is take the power from the elite. I’ll keep hammering away until we reach the tipping point. Until we get that hundredth monkey of the collective mind.

By David DeGraw, AmpedStatus Report

This is the final part of a six-part report. Click on the links below to view earlier parts. After reading this, please consider getting involved with this effort by clicking the link at the bottom of this post.

——-I: Casualties of Economic Terrorism, Surveying the Damage

——-II: The Rise of the Economic Elite

——-III: Exposing Our Enemy – Meet the Economic Elite

——-IV: The Financial Coup d’Etat

——-V: Overcoming the Divide and Conquer Strategy

——-VI: How to Fight Back and Win: Common Ground Issues That Must Be Won

Throughout this report, I have presented statistical and fact-based evidence to demonstrate that a strategic attack has been launched against 99% of Americans. Despite the efforts of the mainstream media and most current politicians, awareness of this reality is spreading throughout the United States.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that only 21% of Americans think that the government has the consent of the governed. An Opinion Research Corp. survey revealed that 86% believe “the system of government is broken.”

An overwhelming majority of the population has come to the realization that our government doesn’t effectively represent us anymore. It is just a matter of time before people start taking it upon themselves to begin organizing on a mass scale. Our survival instinct will soon overwhelm our conditioned passivity and erupt into a powerful countervailing force. However, the longer we hesitate and delay action, the harder it will be to obtain economic and political justice.

We cannot continue to stand by and watch our nation be raped and pillaged like this. We can no longer remain idle and passive while our families’ futures are destroyed as we are sentenced to a slow death.

It’s time for 99% of Americans to mobilize and aggressively move on common sense political reforms.

We will obviously have many differences on how our country should be run, but we can all come together to dismantle the Economic Elite by making several pivotal political reforms. As long as the game is rigged in favor of the Economic Elite, we will all lose. So let’s find common ground and focus on several obvious battles that we need to win, and can win:

Election Reform

“The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected. To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery.”

– Thomas Paine, Dissertation on the First Principles of Government

* Electronic Voting: First and foremost, no private corporation should be able to tell us who has won an election without providing an auditable paper trail. Many Democrats felt that Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, and many Republicans felt Obama stole the 2008 election. Of course people are going to feel that elections are stolen when you have a private corporation secretly counting the votes; it is the inevitable result when you can’t verify the election results. In the past few years companies that count the votes have been consolidating, and one company, ES&S, now secretly controls the majority of all our votes. As voting watchdog Brad Friedman stated, “With the ES&S takeover of Diebold/Premier, their nearest competitor, the privately-run election Goliath now has an un-overseeable lock on virtually every election in the United States of America.” It is common sense to say that this is way too much power to be put into one private corporation.

* Campaign Finance: The stunning ruling by the Supreme Court to allow unlimited political spending by the Economic Elite has made a bad situation even worse. We must level the playing field by enacting laws to prevent the overwhelming influence of big money interests in controlling politicians who are forced to pander to them for the ever-increasing need to raise more and more money to have any shot at winning public office. Statistics show how much the Economic Elite already dominate this process: over 90% of the time the candidate who simply spends more money on their campaign wins the election.

* The Two-Party Oligarchy: We must end the two-party system by funding and voting for alternative parties. It is absurd and completely outdated to only have two dominant political parties in a technologically advanced nation of 309 million people. The two-party paradigm is obsolete and creates a system easily manipulated, as the past decade proves with the co-option of the Democratic and Republican parties. We can give our money and support to whomever we like – Libertarians, Tea Party, Progressives, Greens, Independents and the many soon-to-be-created political groups. However, it is pivotal that we immediately cease support for both the Republican and Democratic parties. We understand that there are representatives from both parties who are fighting for our interests, but they are very few and easily marginalized by paid-off party leaders.

Read it all and join the cause at http://ampedstatus.com/part-vi-how-to-fight-back-and-win-common-ground-issues-that-must-be-won-the-economic-elite-vs-the-people-of-the-usa

Stop NATO

South Atlantic: Britain May Provoke New Conflict With Argentina

From, Rick Rozoff at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/

On February 22 two major developments occurred in the Americas south of the Rio Grande. The two-day Rio Group summit opened in Mexico and Great Britain started drilling for oil 60 miles north of the Falklands Islands, known as Las Malvinas to Argentina.

The meeting in Mexico was identified as a Unity Summit because for the first time the 24 members of the Rio Group (minus Honduras, not invited because of the illegitimacy of its post-coup regime) – Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela – were joined by the fifteen members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM): Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago. (Haiti, Jamaica and Suriname are members of both organizations.)

Ahead of the summit the Financial Times wrote, “The Mexican-led initiative, a clear sign of Latin America’s growing confidence as a region, will exclude both the US and Canada. Some observers believe it could even eventually rival the 35-member Organisation of American States (OAS), which includes the US and Canada and has been the principal forum for hemispheric issues during the past half century.” [1]

In fact on the first day of the summit Bolivian President Evo Morales called for a “a new US-free OAS,” [2] stressing Washington’s centuries-long history of perpetrating military coups, blackmail, looting of natural resources and, over the past generation, the scourge of neo-liberalism in the Americas.

In 1986 the Rio Group grew out of the four-member Contradora Group consisting of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela which was formed in response to Washington’s Contra and death squad campaigns in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s. Part of the legacy Bolivia’s Morales was referring to.

Coinciding to the day if not the hour of the beginning of the summit, the British Desire Petroleum company began exploring for oil and gas off the Falklands/Las Malvinas, seized from Argentina by Britain in 1833 and fought over by the nations in a 74-day war in 1982. “Neighbouring Argentina, which lays claim to the islands, is fiercely opposed to the drilling. Earlier this month, the Argentinian government filed a formal protest with the British government.” [3]

Britain lost 255 soldiers in the conflict, the highest wartime fatalities it had suffered since the Korean War and the Malayan conflict. The British death toll in Afghanistan recently surpassed that number.

London’s energy grab in the South Atlantic did not go unnoticed in Mexico, where 26 presidents and prime ministers were among the participants at the Unity Summit. Argentine President Cristina Fernandez denounced the British actions as “unilateral and illegal” [4] and a breach of her nation’s sovereignty.

She further stated “There continues to be systematic violation of international law that should be respected by all countries….In the name of our government and in the name of my people I am grateful…for the support this meeting has given to our demands.” [5]

Fernandez characterized the unanimous backing provided her at the summit as an “exercise in self-defence for all” [6] and blasted nations with permanent seats in the United Nations Security Council – she undoubtedly meant Britain, the United States and France – for “continuing to use that place of privilege to disregard international law.” [7]

Her Venezuelan colleague President Hugo Chavez, indicating the dangerous dimension a new British-provoked altercation with Argentina can escalate into, said, “The English are still threatening Argentina. Things have changed. We are no longer in 1982. If conflict breaks out, be sure Argentina will not be alone like it was back then.” [8]

Before the summit began he said, “We support unconditionally the Argentine government and the Argentine people in their complaints. That sea and that land belongs to Argentina and to Latin America.” [9]

He reiterated that position during his speech on February 22. While highlighting the military threat posed by Britain off the coast of Argentina, he alluded to a British submarine site in the Falklands/Las Malvinas and said “we demand not only [that] the submarine platform…be removed, but also [that] the British government…follow the resolutions of the United Nations and give back that territory to the Argentine People.” [10]

Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega, also in attendance at the summit, stated “We will back a resolution demanding that England return Las Malvinas to its rightful owner, that it return the islands to Argentina.” [11]

The Times of London quoted Marco Aurelio Garcia, foreign policy adviser to Brazil’s President Lula da Silva, as adding: “Las Malvinas must be reintegrated into Argentine sovereignty. Unlike in the past, today there is a consensus in Latin America behind Argentina’s claims.” [12]

The comments by Venezuela’s president, addressing as they did the threat of a new military confrontation between Britain and Argentina, bear particular scrutiny in light of recent actions by London and statements by its head of state.

In late December Britain conducted a two-day military operation off the coast of the Falklands/Las Malvinas which included the use of Typhoon multi-role fighters and warships. The exercises, code-named Cape Bayonet, “took place during a tour of the Falklands by British forces ahead of the start of drilling in the basin in February 2010″ and “simulated an enemy invasion….” [13]

A news report at the time added, “Britain has strengthened its military presence in the Falklands since the [1982] war and has a major operational base at Mount Pleasant, 35 miles from the capital Stanley.

“The prospect of the islands transforming into a major source of oil revenue for Britain has raised the military’s argument for more funding to beef up the forces in South Atlantic.” [14]

Four days before British drilling began off the islands, Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated “We have made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure that the Falkland Islanders are properly protected,” [15] although Argentine officials have repeatedly denied the possibility of a military response to British encroachments and provocations in the South Atlantic Ocean.

On the same day, February 18, Argentina’s Vice Minister of Foreign Relations Victorio Taccetti accused Britain of “a unilateral act of aggression and subjugation” [16] in moving to seize oil and gas in the disputed region. Buenos Aires has prohibited ships from going to and coming from the Falklands/Las Malvinas through Argentine waters.

What is at stake are, according to British Geological Survey estimates, as many as 60 billion barrels of oil under the waters off the Falklands/Las Malvinas.

In late January a Russian military analyst explained that even that colossal energy bonanza is not all that Britain covets near the Falklands/Las Malvinas and further south.

Ilya Kramnik wrote that “along with the neighboring islands controlled by the U.K., the Falklands are the de facto gateway to the Antarctic, which explains London’s tenacity in maintaining sovereignty over them and the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, as well as territorial claims regarding the South Shetland and South Orkney Islands under the Antarctic Treaty.”

Regarding Antarctica itself, “Under the ice, under the continental shelf, there are enormous mineral resources and the surrounding seas are full of bio-resources. In addition, the glaciers of Antarctica contain 90% of the world’s fresh water, the shortage of which becomes all the more acute with the growth in the world’s population.” [17]

A Chinese analysis of over two years earlier described what Britain in part went to war for in 1982 and why it may do so again: Control of broad tracts of Antarctica.

“The vastness of seemingly barren, ice-covered land is uncovered and exposed to the outside world, revealing a ‘treasure basin’ with incredibly abundant mineral deposits and energy reserves….A layer of Permian Period coal exists on the mainland, and holds 500 billion tons in known reserves.

“The thick ice dome over the land is home to the world’s largest reservoir for fresh water; holds approximately 29.3 million cubic kilometers of ice; and makes up 75% of earth’s fresh water supply.

“It is possible to say that the South Pole could feed the entire world with its abundant supplies of food [fish] and fresh water…The value of the South Pole is not confined to the economic sphere; it also lies in its strategic position.

“The US Coast Guard has long had garrisons in the region, and the US Air Force is the number one air power in the region.” [18]

The feature from which the preceding excerpts originated ended with a warning: “The South Pole Treaty points out that the South Pole can only be exploited and developed for the sake of peace; and can not be a battle ground. Otherwise, the ice-cold South Pole could prove a fiercely hot battlefield.” [19]

Two days before the May 13, 2009 deadline for “states to stake their claims in what some experts [have described] as the last big carve-up of maritime territory in history,” [20] Britain submitted a claim to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf for one million square kilometers in the South Atlantic reaching into the Antarctic Ocean.

An article in this series written five days afterward detailed the new scramble for Antarctica initiated by Britain and Australia, the second being granted 2.5 million additional square kilometers in the Antarctic Ocean in April of 2008. [21]

A newspaper in the United Kingdom wrote about London’s million-kilometer South Atlantic and Antarctic ambitions beforehand that “Not since the Golden Age of the Empire has Britain staked its claim to such a vast area of land on the world stage. And while the British Empire may be long gone, the Antarctic has emerged as the latest battleground for rival powers competing on several fronts to secure valuable oil-rich territory….The Falklands claim has the most potential for political fall-out, given that Britain and Argentina fought over the islands 25 years ago, and the value of the oil under the sea in the region is understood to be immense. Seismic tests suggest there could be about 60 billion barrels of oil under the ocean floor.” [22]

Last autumn a Russian news source warned about the exact initiative of this February 22 in stating “Many believe that the 1982 war between Britain and Argentina with almost 1,000 servicemen killed in the hostilities was all about oil and gas fields in the South Atlantic. In this sense, Desire Petroleum should certainly think twice before starting to capitalize on what was a subject of the bloodbath in 1982….”

Regarding the territorial claims submitted by Britain last May (still in deliberations at the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf), the report pointed out London’s “eagerness to expand its Falkland Islands’ continental shelf from 200 to 350 nautical miles, which would enable Britain to develop new oil fields in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands,” and ended with a somber warning:

“Given London’s unwillingness to try to arrive at a political accommodation with Buenos Aires, a UN special commission will surely have tougher times ahead as far as its final decision on the continental shelf goes. And it is only to be hoped that Britain will be wise enough not to turn the Falkland Islands into another regional hot spot.” [23]

Unlike the first South Atlantic war of 1982, when the regime of General Leopoldo Galtieri garnered no support from other Latin American nations, a future standoff or armed conflict between Argentina and Britain over the Falklands/Las Malvinas will see Latin American and Caribbean states acting in solidarity with Argentina.

If the United Kingdom succeeds in provoking a new war, it in turn will appeal to its NATO allies for logistical, surveillance and other forms of assistance, including direct military intervention if required. In addition to the U.S. and Canada, Britain’s NATO allies in the Western Hemisphere include France and the Netherlands with their possessions and military bases in the Caribbean and South America.

Britain is playing with fire and if it ignites a new conflict it could rapidly spread far beyond the waters off the southern tip of South America.

1) Financial Times, February 19, 2010
2) Prensa Latina, February 22, 2010
3) Radio Netherlands, February 22, 2010
4) Associated Press, February 22, 2010
5) Reuters, February 22, 2010
6) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, February 22, 2010
7) Ibid
The Times (London), February 23, 2010
9) Reuters, February 22, 2010
10) Xinhua News Agency, February 23, 2010
11) The Times, February 23, 2010
12) Ibid
13) United Press International, December 28, 2009
14) Ibid
15) Reuters, February 18, 2010
16) Xinhua News Agency, February 19, 2010
17) Russian Information Agency Novosti, January 28, 2010
18) People’s Daily, December 4, 2007
19) Ibid
20) Reuters, October 7, 2007
21) Scramble For World Resources: Battle For Antarctica
Stop NATO, May 16, 2009

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/scramble-for-world-resources-battle-for-antarctica

22) The Scotsman, October 23, 2007
23) Voice of Russia, September 16, 2009

By Liliana Segura

At the same time the Obama administration is talking about a dramatic “spending freeze” on any and all projects unrelated to war-making, this is exactly what’s in store, it is quietly increasing the federal budget for even more prisons.

On February 1, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the administration would request $2.9 billion for the Department of Justice 2011 budget — “a 5.4 percent increase in budget authority,” according to the DOJ. Approximately $527.5 million would go to the federal Bureau of Prisons, a chunk of which would provide “bed space” to house prisoners currently at Guantanamo Bay (and ostensibly slated for transfer to the supermax prison in Thomson, IL).

“We have an obligation to protect our country in smart, reliable ways at every level,” Holder said, invoking both the “fight against global terrorism” as well as the need to enforce “civil rights and the rule of law.”

Smart and reliable, however, aren’t words many Americans would use to describe our existing prison system, which has grown so rapidly and reached such epic proportions that serious efforts are underway across U.S. states to slash their prison populations out of sheer necessity. Once seen as too politically risky, prison reform is catching on, with more and more local politicians recognizing that locking people up at a rampant pace is untenable and counterproductive. (After all, as James Ridgeway points out at MotherJones: “Keep in mind that federal spending on prisons is dwarfed by state spending. While the BOP’s budget is over $6 billion, the United States as a whole currently spends about $68 billion a year on corrections, mostly at the state level.”)

Yet, the Obama administration appears committed to continuing the very same policies that have fueled the prison crisis, and which states are attempting to reform. Last week the D.C.-based Justice Policy Institute issued a fact sheet describing its new DOJ budget in bleak terms. The report, “More Policing, Prisons, and Punitive Policies,” warns that the “funding pattern” represented by Obama’s budget “will likely result in increased costs to states for incarceration that will outweigh the increased revenue for law enforcement, with marginal public safety benefits.”

The report zeroes in on two areas that have been earmarked for more funds: the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants and the cleverly named Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). The former, a creation of the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act (and referred to as JAG grants), are federal dollars that are awarded to state governments, ostensibly for various possible initiatives, but which, according to the JPI, usually go “to law enforcement rather than prevention, drug treatment, or community services.” The latter, a Clinton-era initiative more broadly referred to as community policing, also provides grants to local jurisdictions to “hire and train community policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge crime-fighting technologies, and develop and test innovative policing strategies,” according to the official COPS Web site, which boasts that “by the end of FY 2008, the COPS Office had funded approximately 117,000 additional officers to more than 13,000 of the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the country in small and large jurisdictions alike.”

The problem is that neither program seems to be particularly effective beyond putting more cops on the street — and both appear to contribute to the already racist nature of the American prison system. In a letter to U.S. representatives last year, which sought to discourage Congress from inserting more law enforcement spending into the stimulus in the absence of measures focusing on prevention, treatment and re-entry, organizations including the ACLU, the Sentencing Project and the National Black Police Association warned that “past Byrnes and COPS grants have had the unintended consequence of perpetuating racial disparities and civil rights abuses.”

What’s more, “Byrne Grants and COPS programs have not been shown to have a significant positive impact on public safety.” Instead, “these programs have often resulted in increased arrests and incarceration of nonviolent drug users.”

Nonviolent drug users are the very prisoners now being slated for early release in states like California, where prison overcrowding is an all too destructive — and costly — reality. In this sense, the Obama administration’s plan and that of U.S. states attempting to reform their local prison systems seem to be working at cross-purposes. As one report in USA Today pointed out earlier this month, “The federal spending plan contrasts with the criminal justice strategies pursued in many cash-strapped states, including California, Kansas and Kentucky, where officials have closed prisons or allowed for the early release of some non-violent offenders.”

Nonetheless, the Obama administration has already provided funding to these programs; $4 billion went to the DOJ via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act last year. If the $29 billion for 2011 is a pretty good indication of the administration’s priorities going forward, it looks like we’ll be seeing a recycling of some of the misguided criminal justice policies of the Clinton years.

According to the JPI, “In the 1990s, COPS grants were part of the reason for the growth in the prison population by 45 percent over 7 years and state corrections spending by 76 percent.”