The corporate media usually don't give much coverage to stories which suggest that politicians should move towards the left. That's why this item on one of ABC News' blogs was quite refreshing. (bolding mine)

Here’s how: Current estimate is that 90 million people voted. Exit poll says 45 percent were Obama voters in 2008. That’s 40.5 million voters.

In 2008, Obama won 69.5 million votes. So about 29 million Obama voters did not show up in 2010.

Exit poll also says 45 percent of people who voted yesterday were McCain voters in 2008, again 40.5 million. That, vs. his nearly 60 million in 2008, means about 19.5 million McCain voters did not show up.

So Obama had nearly 10 million more no-shows.

Does this surprise anyone? Let's look at some things Obama did which discouraged Democrats and Democratic leaning independents from showing up to vote.

1) Continuing to practice torture at Guantanamo and throughout the world.

2) Dragging out the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

3) Fighting for the military ban and for DOMA in court, even to the point of making appeals that the Administration was under no legal or ethical obligation to make.

4) Comparing homosexuality to bestiality and necrophilia in court briefs defending DOMA.

5) Making banksters a much higher priority than jobs.

6) Refusing to prosecute criminals merely because they were rich and well connected (e.g., Bush Regime war criminals, banksters, brokesters).

7) Siding with British Petroleum against the environment and the people in the Gulf Coast.

8) Pushing through the same brutal wealthcare plan that the GOP would have passed if they were in control of Congress and the White House.

9) Doing nothing to protect the right to choose on abortion.

10) Expanding Bush's unconstitutional office of hate based initiatives.

11) Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in Cabinet level appointments.

12) Participating in the National Hate Breakfast and pandering to fundamentalist hate mongers like Rick Warren.

13) Sabre rattling with Iran and Venezuela.

14) Putting Global Warming on the backburner and making roads a higher priority than rail in the stimulus plan.

I could go on endlessly about the GOP policies that the President has continued or expanded on, but you get the point. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the DC "Democrats" did everything they could to send a message to Democratic voters and liberal independents that voting makes absolutely no difference.

Roughly 29,000,000 Obama voters got that message.

 

Now, the peace movement has faced the fact that it cannot rely on the Obama Administration to stop the wars. At the same time, our economy is still in terrible shape, though it no longer is in free fall like it was in 2008.

Here's a great video from the Veterans for Peace conference, shot by the Punk Patriot, where a peace activist from CODEPINK connects the dots between our wars and the financial and social costs the American people are paying at home. (Hat Tip: Bruce Gagnon)



There is another connection between the wars and what ails our country: corporations corrupting our political system. (I originally had the Freudian typo, "poolitical system.") The efforts to keep us at war are supported by corporate interests who buy the politicians with big money campaign contributions. Under the oligarchic Citizens United ruling, those corporations now can run their own political ads. Media owned by huge corporations and advertised on by more huge corporations (the latter also applies to NPR) propagandize ruthlessly on behalf of the bloodshed, regardless of the economic devastation and loss of lives caused by these wars.

And, the vast majority of Christian churches side with these corrupt wars, engaging in a Christian jihad against Islam abroad, a jihad which is being extended to attacks on mosque construction here at home. These same churches, with corrupt and greedy leaders, oppose Wall St. regulation and taxes for the rich because the preachers want to keep speculating on church funds they have bilked from their congregations. They attack government spending on the poor at home because poor people are good excuses for church fundraising, almost none of which actually goes to helping the poor. Yes, there are a few honest preachers who don't do this, but the are, by far, the exception to the rule.

This isn't limited to Christianity or the United States. The mullah's in Iran who assault democracy and freedom there, as the Christian preachers want to do here, also are robbing their country blind. Their Revolutionary Guard have gotten themselves neck deep in corporate interests there. Religion, oligarchy, oppression, and violence have been common combos throughout world history. It doesn't really matter which country, faith, or time in history.

Corportions, churches, lies, corruption, and war are part of a vicious cycle which is destroying the country.

 

British Petroleum is still an incredibly evil corporation. The alleged end of the Gulf oil spill may have moved them out of many of the headlines, but their behavior hasn't improved. They still deserve to be boycotted and put out of business. Here are some examples of why.

British Petroleum Weaseling Out of Cleanup Commitment

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu had some recent comments that suggest that British Petroleum is poised to renege on what little they were doing to clean up their oil spill. (CNN 8/19/10)

Landrieu said the spill and cleanup efforts were a continuing threat to New Orleans and other Louisiana coastal areas. "BP and others are acting like this is the beginning of the end. It is not," he said.
"We have no confidence in the claims that much of the oil is gone." In fact, he said, a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released Tuesday "found 70 percent of the oil is still in the ecosystem. This is the beginning of the beginning," he said.

Remember when the Obama administration was shilling for British Petroleum, parroting their lies about most of the oil being gone? Even the Obama administration has given up on that one. If British Petroleum gets itself out of the headlines, they will take advantage of the lack of spotlight to avoid cleaning up their mess.

Much of British Petroleum's Spill Losses Will Be Subsidized by the US Treasury

If you want an example of just how corrupt our tax system can be, look at how British Petroleum plans to write off their spill costs, avoiding taxes on the taxable portion of that money. Oil companies already are some of the worst examples of corporations not paying anywhere near their fair share in taxes, even without this latest outrage. How much will British Petroleum claim on their taxes, according to Public Citizen, the figure is roughly $10 billion.

Thanks to big money campaign contributions, our government has all the money in the world for this corruption, but Social Security supposedly must be reigned in. How about reigning in the corruption instead?

British Petroleum Used Corporate Ad Money to Overtly Control and Censor the Press

Corporations have used all sorts of pressure to censor unfavorable coverage, but British Petroleum was one of the first to use ad pulling to shut down unfavorable coverage at least as early as 2005. (Advertising Age 5/24/05)

Days after financial services giant Morgan Stanley informed print publications that its ads must be automatically pulled from any edition containing "objectionable editorial coverage," global energy giant BP has adopted a similar press strategy.

Zero tolerance
According to a copy of a memo on the letterhead of BP's media-buying agency, WPP Group's MindShare, the global marketer has adopted a zero-tolerance policy toward editorial coverage it is not informed about in advance, "regardless of whether editorial is deemed positive or negative."

The memo cites a new BP policy document entitled "2005 BP Corporate-RFP" that demands that ad-accepting publications inform BP in advance of any news text or visuals they plan to publish that directly mention the company, a competitor or the oil-and-energy industry.

British Petroleum was already spending $95 million in ads in this country, showing that there has been real power behind this policy.

Not too long after knowledge of the 2010 spill become public, the corporation's multimillion dollar ad campaign featuring the irritatingly smug Tony Hayward was labeled as a failure that had backfired by many media analysts.

However, the real purpose of the ad buy wasn't to directly influence public opinion. It was to position British Petroleum as an even more important advertiser in order to influence corporate media coverage. It worked. Corporate news outlets spun spill stories much more to the oil giant's favor than they had done before.

British Petroleum's Role in Bringing About Iran's Islamic Fundamentalist Regime

British Petroleum did incredibly evil things under its original name, Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and did it with the assistance of a pliable and corrupt US government. This time it was the Eisenhower administration. First, their greed and thievery caused them problems in Iran. From LA Progressive 6/24/10:

With exclusive rights to extract, refine, export, and sell Iran’s rich oil resources, the company reaped enormous profits. Meanwhile, it shared only a tiny fraction of the proceeds with the Iranian government. Similarly, although the company’s British personnel lived in great luxury, its Iranian laborers endured lives of squalor and privation.

In 1947, as Iranian resentment grew at the giant oil company’s practices, the Iranian parliament called upon the Shah, Iran’s feudal potentate, to renegotiate the agreement with Anglo-Iranian. Four years later, Mohammed Mossadeq, riding a tide of nationalism, became the nation’s prime minister. As an enthusiastic advocate of taking control of Iran’s oil resources and using the profits from them to develop his deeply impoverished nation, Mossadeq signed legislation, passed unanimously by the country’s parliament, to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

The British government lashed out at the people getting screwed over by this corporation, imposing a trade embargo against Iran. Britain then tried to overthrow Mossadeq, but they were unable to do it because President Truman refused to cooperate. President Eisenhower's incredibly corrupt Sec. of State, John Foster Dulles, happily changed that policy.

To the delight of Anglo-Iranian, it received a much friendlier reception from the new Eisenhower administration. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had worked much of his life as a lawyer for multinational corporations, and viewed the Iranian challenge to corporate holdings as a very dangerous example to the world. Consequently, the CIA was placed in charge of an operation, including fomenting riots and other destabilizing activities, to overthrow Mossadeq and advance oil company interests in Iran.

Organized by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt in the summer of 1953, the coup was quite successful. Mossadeq was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life, the power of the pro-Western shah was dramatically enhanced, and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was once again granted access to Iran’s vast oil resources. To be sure, thanks to the key role played in the coup by the U.S. government, the British oil company—renamed British Petroleum—henceforth had to share the lucrative oil extraction business in Iran with U.S. corporations. Even so, in the following decades, with the Iranian public kept in line by the Shah’s dictatorship and by his dreaded secret police, the SAVAK, it was a very profitable arrangement—although not for most Iranians.

If not for the brutality and thieving of the Shahs and their corporate overlords, there never would have been an Iranian Revolution against them, and the world's first militant Islamist republic wouldn't have happened. This action also discredited the US throughout the world, especially US rhetoric about supporting democracy, the effects of which were felt most acutely in the Middle East.

If a pliable US administration going along with the same reprehensible corporation that was involved in past corruption and misdeeds sounds familiar, it should.

Update:

The Punk Patriot is still speaking out forcefully on the issue.



 

Photo: Muffett

Barack Bush's Cat Food Commission is being marketed as a "deficit commission." The sales strategy is to claim that slashing Social Security and Medicare are necessary to reduce deficits and are the only options.

That is absolute nonsense. Here are some of the far superior options for deficit reduction that are off the table for the Cat Food Commission, proving what a lie the whole thing is.

- Repealing corporate controlled trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and the GATT agreement that created the WTO which reduce tariff revenues (Tariffs traditionally have been major sources of revenue for governments.)

- Repealing the tax cuts for the rich that passed under Reagan, Carter, and Kennedy

- An immediate and full withdrawal from Iraq

- An immediate and full withdrawal from Afghanistan/Pakistan

- An end to covert operations in Iran

- End of all aid to Israel

- End of aid and support for the fascist dictatorship in Colombia

- Eliminating tax deductions which only rich people can take advantage of

- Closing most military bases abroad

- Legalization of Marijuana

- Sentencing crack like other cocaine

- Repealing cuts in corporate taxes that have passed in recent decades

- Taxing capital gains (other than primary home sales) like income actually earned by working

- Cut back on wasteful military spending

- Cut back on wasteful and unconstitutional homeland security spending

- Instituting a luxury tax

- Legalization of gambling

- Legalization of prostitution

Somehow, these options for deficit reduction never get considered by "deficit hawks" in DC and in the corporate media. Their beloved Cat Food Commission is all about robbing the middle class and poor and giving money to the rich.

 

That's the kind of headline you should be seeing in every major newspaper in this country. No one can honestly dispute it on a factual level. However, racism and the influence of corporate interests such as arms merchants and Big Oil keep the corporate media spinning Israel's latest heinous act of terrorism, just as they spin every terrorist act by Israel. Here's the lead paragraph from Alternet (5/31/10), an independent news source, that takes facts and journalistic integrity seriously.

Days of tension between Israel’s hawkish government and the organizers of the Freedom Flotilla carrying 700 peace activists and 10,000 tons of desperately needed supplies to Gaza culminated in grisly carnage after a deadly pre-dawn attack by Israeli commandos. The operation left between nine and 19 international activists dead and dozens more injured and bleeding on the decks of the civilian vessels.

Hillary Clinton and other war hawks here in the US go on about how Iran supposedly sponsors terrorism in efforts to try to incite an attack and eventual invasion of that country, but they refuse to acknowledge the fact that Israel commits more acts of terrorism than Iran is accused of sponsoring. Iran must not have a nuclear weapon, according to this narrative, but it is perfectly OK for the terrorist state of Israel to have nuclear weapons, despite the fact that they got their nuclear capabilities by launching a terrorist attack against a US naval ship. There is no excuse for our government to provide foreign aid to the terrorist regime in Israel.

Enough!

 

Hat tip to at-Largely (Warning: the footage is graphic.):





The brutality of the corrupt, fundamentalist government in Iran reminds us of why we must resist the Christian Right.

 

Before the election rigging in Iran, Iranian President Ahmedinejad had a lot in common with George W. Bush. Like Bush was, Ahmedinejad is:

- A religious extremist

- Horribly corrupt

- Heterosexist

- Belligerent

- Supremely arrogant

- Misogynistic

- Subordinate to more powerful leaders

- Nutty right wing

- Happy to demagogue

- A poser, pretending to be a man of the people

- In bed with the nuclear power industry

If Ahmedinejad illegally occupies the presidency of Iran, he will be even more like his idol.

 

The Lesbian Said What? has an excellent point. I don't know if she coined the term, sexual cleansing, but it is an excellent descriptor for what is happening in the world.

Here is how she defines sexual cleansing.

Sexual Cleansing is using extreme measures to suppress gays and lesbians. Hitler did it. During World War II he rounded up gays and put a pink triangle on them and sent them to concentration camps.

Sexual Cleansing is occurring today in Iraq and other countries. In Iraq there are death squads that shoot, hang, and torture people they suspect of being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. Some Islamic clerics sanction these death squads. The fatwa, available on Sistani’s official Web site, puts it this way, “The people involved [in homosexuality] should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.”

In Nepal the police have beaten people who are transgendered. It is because they have deemed being transgendered immoral. The transgendered are called metis in Nepal. The police arrest them, beat them, make them strip off all their cloths and mock them while holding their genitals.

In South Africa a lesbian football (soccer) player was gang raped and murdered. In another incident a mob of men chased down and murdered a lesbian.

The example of the largest magnitude in my lifetime of sexual cleansing is how the Christian Right, Reagan, the Bushes, and Bill Clinton have used their AIDS policies to maximize the number of deaths of gay and bisexual men to their politically acceptable limits.

She also keeps us from letting our country off the hook.

It goes on all over the world. Lets not be so naïve that it doesn’t happen here in the United States in some form. Brandon Tina, Matthew Shepard, Paul Broussard, Lawrence King, Julianne M. Williams and Laura S. “Louie” Winans are some of the names of people who have been murdered in the Untied States for being gay, transgendred, or lesbian.

Some other countries should could have mentioned are Iran, Russia, India, and Saudi Arabia where sexual cleansing is all too common.

 

United for Peace and Justice is selling this stickers, which make a terribly important point.

CNN calls the economy the #1 issue, but disconnects the economy from the Iraqtastrophe that is sabotaging it. Other corporate media outlets take a similarly surreal approach to coverage of our crapped out economy. With weapons manufacturers and Big Oil as major advertisers, I can't say I'm shocked.

United for Peace and Justice has a store on their website which promotes products that say F it to the war.

Check the store out.

This isn't exactly a traditional hat tip, but this posting is inspired by Pagan Sphinx's "Don't Attack Iran" graphic.

 

In case you haven't heard of him, John Podhoretz is a wingnut who works for the fascist propaganda rag, Commentary. His latest bit of silliness is to try to start a pissing contest with Time Magazine's Joe Klein, a conservative commentator who just isn't willing to be crazy enough to satisfy the neocons. (Note: "neocon" is really just a euphemism for "fascist.")

Podhoretz is one for wild flurries of rhetoric as was the case recently on his blog:

It is the view of Time magazine’s leading political columnist, and a former friendly acquaintance of mine, that bloggers on this site are more dangerous and threatening to the future of the world than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Our intention in highlighting the words spoken by Iran’s president, he says, is to scare his parents in Florida and thereby achieve our vicious foreign policy aims. And he does not wish to accuse us of dual loyalty, but, darn it, he just can’t help himself, as he does it three times.

Klein defends himself from this nuttiness here.

However, connoisseurs of unintentional humor can have a field day with what Pohhoretz says without Klein's help. Pohhoretz's rant certainly is an overly dramatic reading of what Klein actually says. You would think that Klein is out to get Israel, something the extreme right always claims when anyone, including Jewish people like Klein, question the dangerous and foolish policies of the far right government in that country.

The underlying assumption is really funny too. We all are supposed to be obligated to believe that the policies of the right in Israel must be flawless. Never mind the fact that the right's policies here in the US have been ruinous for our country.

Pohhoretz's dramatic passage also is silly because it insists that Ahmadinejad is a threat "to the future of the world," a claim that sounds like it is out of a bad 50s scifi movie. In the real world, Ahmadinejad is not much of a threat to anyone for the simple reason that he isn't in charge of Iran. The Supreme Leader, not the President calls the shots in that country.

Just because we have a powerful president here in the US does not mean we should assume things work that way everywhere. In most countries, presidents are largely figureheads. In Iran, presidents have some administrative powers, especially on domestic issues. However, the notion that an Iranian president would have the power to decide whether or not that country goes to war is laughable.

How can a magazine like Commentary hope to be taken seriously by anyone but dittoheads when their writers show such incredible ignorance on the most important foreign policy issues of the day? You have to wonder what's next. Will they claim that Andorra has weapons of mass destruction, and we need to start bombing immediately?

The only thing about this that isn't funny is that the writers at Commentary have had some access to the Bush regime because their rhetoric provides a cover for the corporate interests and Christian religious extremism that drives the Mideast policy of the crooks who illegally occupy the executive branch.

 

I found this linked on the United for Peace and Justice website, which is a good example of peace groups with different viewpoints cooperating to promote common goals.

StopWarOnIran.org is the coordinating site for a collection of actions in over 20 states so far. The efforts are on or around August 2.

Find an Action Close to You!

Here is a description of the New York action and a call for similar efforts around the world.

MASS MARCH IN NYC

SATURDAY, AUGUST 2
Assemble 12 p.m. at Times Square

43rd St. & Broadway

AN APPEAL TO ORGANIZERS AND ACTIVISTS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD:

Consider as soon as possible if you can organize a STOP WAR ON IRAN protest in your locality during the weekend of August 2 – 3. Let us know so that your protest can be listed.

YET ANOTHER U.S. WAR?

The U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is hated by the people there. These wars have no support at home and are ruining the domestic economy. Instead of pulling out, the Bush administration is preparing for still another war—this time against Iran . This must be stopped!

AGRESSION TOWARDS IRAN IS ESCALATING

On June 4, George Bush, with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at his side, called Iran a “threat to peace.” Two days before, acting as a proxy for the Pentagon, Israel used advanced U.S. fighter planes to conduct massive air maneuvers, which the media called a “dress rehearsal” for an attack on Iran ’s nuclear facility. Under pressure from the U.S. , the European Union announced sanctions against Iran on June 23; a bill is before Congress for further U.S. sanctions on Iran and even a blockade of Iran .

IRAN “THREATS” A HOAX

Iran as a “nuclear threat” is as much a hoax as Bush’s claim of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq used to justify the war there. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which inspects Iran ’s nuclear facilities, says it has no weapons program and is developing nuclear power for the days when its oil runs out. Even Washington ’s 16 top spy agencies issued a joint statement that said Iran does not have nuclear weapons technology!

U.S. and Israel are the real nuclear danger. The Pentagon has a huge, nuclear-capable naval armada in the Persian/Arabian Gulf, with guns aimed at Iran . Israel , the Pentagon’s proxy force in the Middle East , has up to 200 nuclear warheads and has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran did sign it.

WAR HURTS U.S. ECONOMY

While billions of dollars go to war, at home the unemployment rate had the biggest spike in 23 years. Home foreclosures and evictions are increasing; fuel and food prices are through the roof. While the situation is growing dire for many, Washington ’s cuts to domestic programs continue. A new U.S. war will bring only more suffering.

WHAT WE DO RIGHT NOW CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

While the summer is a difficult time to call protests, the August recess of Congress gives the White House an opportunity for unopposed aggression against Iran . We must not let this happen! From the anti-war movement and all movements for social change, to religious and grassroots organizations, unions and schools, let us join forces to demand “No war on Iran, U.S. out of Iraq, Money for human needs not war! “

This call to action is issued by StopWarOnIran.org, a network of thousands of concerned activists and organizations fighting to stop a new war against Iran since March 2006.

 

The YouTube page has a description that makes an important point.

The Bush Administration's mindless threats to use nuclear bunker busters against Iranian nuclear research facilities could, if implemented, wipe out 2.6 million people in Iran, Pakistan, and India, and expose another 10.5 million to nuclear fallout.

If you think there are too many terrorists now, think of how many terrorists such an attack would recruit.

Why is it that there are so few politicians in either the GOP or the Democratic Party that actually show any common sense or common decency? Kucinich should not be the rare exception to the dismal rule of politicians. The rest of Congress should be following his lead, not trying to marginalize him because corporate and wealthy donors don't like what he has to say.

 

The corporate media are claiming that Barack Obama has "moved to the center" after defeating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, but he already was in the center. His shift is starting to make him sound disturbingly right wing. For instance, here are some comments from his infamous AIPAC speech on 6/4/08.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

But just as we are clear-eyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today's policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran - the hardliners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

First, let's correct the factual errors:

1) There is no evidence to support the view that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology, and they have not even suggested "a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists."

2) Iran does not pose a "grave threat to Israel." Israel, unlike Iran, is a nuclear power with an enormous military, paid for by you and me.

3) The main threat of an arms race in the Middle East is Israel's enormous military, not Iran.

Setting aside the factual errors for a moment, there is something more dangerous about Obama's rhetoric. It could help the corporate media create an impression of a broad consensus in our society for an American or Israeli attack on Iran, when no such consensus exists. It also encourages Iranian hardliners to press for a more militaristic stance against our country and to plan retaliation.

The consequences for queer Iranians are terrible. Whenever countries face foreign threats, the right always pushes for cultural conservatism and suppression of dissent. It happened in the time after 911 here, and it currently is happening in Iran.

The US already is in a terribly vulnerable position in the Middle East. We have tens of thousands of troops stuck in Iraq, a country with incredibly strong religious and cultural ties to Iran. Nearly every major Shi'ite and Kurdish political party is an Iranian ally, as are their corresponding militias. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis already support military attacks against the US troops occupying their country. The Bush regime and General "Betray Us" are pursuing an anti-Shi'ite policy in Iraq at the behest of the Saudi Royal Family, which is creating even greater animosity among the majority of the population.

Also, rising petroleum prices already are devastating the US economy. Oil closed at $142.97 on Friday. That means that crude oil prices went up 4% in just one week.

Obama's hyperbolic and irresponsible rhetoric on Iran is only adding to fears of disruption of world oil markets caused by the Bush regime's hyperbolic and irresponsible rhetoric on Iran. A lot of people blame speculators for the rise in oil prices, but the Iraq War, saber rattling with Venezuela, and saber rattling with Iran are giving investors a highly substantial basis for valuing petroleum higher.

This isn't quite the "bubble" the corporate media are telling you it is.

If Iran, one of the world's most important oil producers, is attacked, this will terribly disrupt world oil prices. Such a disruption would be even greater in the highly likely event that Iran retaliated against an attack on its sovereignty. A modest estimate of oil prices would be $250-300 per barrel.

If you don't like gas prices and our economy now...

When you add in the strain on our already overextended military, the Obama/Bush line on Iran is hugely irrational and irresponsible. Our military already is fighting two wars. It would crazy to up the ante to three wars, with the third country much more powerful than the first two combined. You don't have to have any fondness for the heterosexist, rightist, fundamentalist regime in Iran to see that there needs to be a lowering of rhetorical temperature between the US and Iran.

It's nice that Obama is still criticizing the entrance into the war in Iraq, but given his movement towards a pro-war/pro-occupation position in the future, even that is woefully insufficient.

 

This AP piece on the MSNBC website is typical of how most of the coverage of soaring gas prices mentions little about causes and censors the biggest ones. Here is the lonely paragraph on the rise in oil prices on the world market.

Skyrocketing oil prices are largely to blame for the surge. Soaring demand in Asia and elsewhere ensures global supplies remain tight even as Americans cut back; recent figures from the U.S. Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration showed U.S. gasoline demand actually fell 1.4 percent over the last four weeks.

Here is the single graph from the CNN.com story.

The $10.75 gain was the biggest one-day advance in dollar value ever, nearly doubling the previous mark of $5.49 set Thursday. Weakness in the dollar, geopolitical concerns and an analyst's prediction of $150-a-barrel oil by July 4 helped spur Friday's advance.

The specific nature of the "geopolitical concerns" were left to the reader's imagination.

Although the San Jose Mercury is usually a relatively good newspaper, their reporting of the story omitted any mention of some of the specific causes of rising crude oil prices, and thus gas prices.

Why aren't these top causes of rising fuel prices getting mentioned?

1) The War in Iraq

2) Bush's saber-rattling with Iran.

3) Bush's saber-rattling with Venezuela.

4) Israel's government's threat to attack Iran. (They are backing away somewhat from it now.)

One interesting thing is that news prepared for business audiences is a bit more honest. This iStockAnalyst.com story, for instance has the title OIL SURGE:Iran-Israel Tensions To Keep Weighing On Oil-Experts. You don't see much of this kind of coverage in corporate media stories targeting general audiences:

Israel's Transportation Minister, Shaul Mofaz, said in a newspaper report that the country will have "no choice" but to attack Iran if it doesn't stop its nuclear program, sparking fears of a military strike. The statements came as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated Tuesday that Israel is "doomed to go." The remarks, combined with Iran's push to develop a nuclear program, triggered new fears the country could launch a nuclear bomb on Israel if it is in a position to do so.

Amidst these statements, current U.S. president George W. Bush, U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama and his Republican counterpart, Sen. John McCain, all said in recent days that Iran's nuclear program poses a threat to global security - also sparking speculation the U.S. could back an attack on Iran.

Such an attack would trigger dramatic jitters in international oil supplies. The Islamic Republic is the second largest exporter in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. In addition, experts have feared that Iran may close the Strait of Hormuz - the southern end of the Persian Gulf through which 20% of the world's oil supply travels - were it to enter into a direct military confrontation with the U.S. A U.S. government study earlier this decade concluded that a shutdown of the Strait would cut off about 17 million barrels a day of crude supply.

This is an example of why people who don't own stock need to follow the business news. You need to in order to find out what corporate interests and their government flunkies are doing.

 

The fabulous women from CODEPINK have started a campaign to build an important platform for opposing the Bush regime's lunatic idea of attacking Iran. Peace Action has supported it too.

Dear Friends,

CODEPINK has started a new effort to get mayors around the country to sign a resolution against going to war with Iran. The resolution will be presented at the US Conference of Mayors on June 20 in Miami. It is cosponsored by 11 mayors, and we are seeking more sponsors. Below is a copy of the resolution and a sample cover letter. Please consider sending this to your mayor and following up with a call encouraging him/her to sign on. The passage of a resolution against war with Iran on behalf of mayors nationwide will send a strong message to the White House and Congress that the American people want diplomacy, not war!

Sincerely,

Kevin Martin/Peace Action

Here is the wording of the resolution.

RESOLUTION OPPOSING MILITARY INTERVENTION IN IRAN
SUBMITTED TO THE US CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

1. WHEREAS, the President and members of his Administration have alleged that Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States, U.S. troops in the Middle East and U.S. allies; and

2. WHEREAS, these allegations are similar to the lead-up to the Iraq War and U.S. occupation, with the selective use of information and unsubstantiated accusations about Iran's nuclear program and its supply of weapons to Iraqi forces as centerpieces of a case to the American people for aggression against Iran; and

3. WHEREAS, Iran has not threatened to attack the United States, and no compelling evidence has been presented to document that Iran poses a real and imminent threat to the security and safety of the United States that would justify an unprovoked unilateral pre-emptive military attack; and

4. WHEREAS, we support the people of Iran who are struggling for freedom and democracy, and nothing herein should be misconstrued as support for the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it should be understood that a unilateral, pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran could well prove counterproductive to the cause of promoting freedom and democracy there; and

5. WHEREAS, a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), representing the consensus view all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran froze its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and an earlier NIE concluded that Iran’s involvement in Iraq “is not likely to be a major driver of violence” there; and

6. WHEREAS, an attack on Iran is likely to cause untold thousands of American and Iranian casualties, lead to major economic dislocations, and threaten even greater destabilization in the Middle East; and

7. WHEREAS, a pre-emptive U.S. military attack on Iran would violate international law and our commitments under the U.N. Charter and further isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world; and

8. WHEREAS, an attack on Iran is likely to inflame hatred for the U.S. in the Middle East and elsewhere, inspire terrorism, and lessen the security of Americans; and

9. WHEREAS, the Iraq war and occupation has already cost the lives of over 4,000 American soldiers, the maiming and wounding of over 38,000 American soldiers, the death and maiming of over one million Iraqi civilians; and

10. WHEREAS, the Iraq War and occupation has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $500 billion, depriving our cities of much-need funds for services and infrastructure; and

11. WHEREAS, except at our peril, we cannot ignore the history of U.S. government misinformation used to inspire U.S. aggression in Vietnam and again in Iraq, as embodied in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and more recently in the what we know now as false claims of weapons of mass destruction; and

12. WHEREAS, any conflict with Iran is likely to incur far greater costs and divert more precious national resources away from critical human needs,

13. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors hereby urges the Bush Administration to pursue diplomatic engagement with Iran on nuclear issues and ending the violence in Iraq; and

14. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors urges Congress to prohibit the use of funds to carry out any military action against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization; and

15. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that suitable copies of the resolution be forwarded to President George W. Bush and all members of Congress.

CODEPINK has provided a copy of the resolution and a sample cover letter.

I was thinking when I read about this that the above campaign also sounds like a good idea for nonbinding resolutions for City Councils to pass. It turns out CODEPINK was way ahead of me, and they have a page on their website with just such an action. Oakland already has passed just such a resolution.

Go forth and kick ass.

 

We often are encouraged to disregard wisdom accumulated by elders by corporate media, both news and entertainment. The wealthy and the CEOswould much rather us blindly follow the boob tube than learn real lessons about life. This is one of many areas where we could learn a lot from the indigenous peoples' of this continent.

One group of elders we should all learn from is the Granny Peace Brigade. In addition to their website, they have a blog which keeps up with their activities to resist the Iraq war, promote peace, and defy complacency.

They show us a model of strength, compassion, and concern while managing to keep a sense of humor about themselves. Their use of parodies of songs from the days of their youth provides a way for them to get peoples' attention in an era of information overload.

They even let me sing with them once at Union Square a while back.

Of course, they don't just sing. They picket, march, and use a particularly pragmatic tactic to get people to call their congresscritters, PHONE-A-THONS.

Keep the pressure on Congress!
Response to our Phone-a-Thons has been so enthusiastic that we are repeating them regularly in different locations. We ask people to call Congress on the spot (using our phones) and urge their Senators and Representatives to stop the war by stopping the funding.

YouTube video of their singing at a recent Phone-A-Thon.


Here are links to a couple of their flyers (PDF - quarter sheet):

- Stop Funding the War

- Impeach Cheney Before He Attacks Iran

- Filibuster War Spending

They also have a great page that you shouldn't miss:

Resources for Lobbying Congress

 

This is a follow up to a previous post on George Galloway's homophobic comments on the Kazemi case. Hat tip to Blazing Indiscretions. From the Independent UK 5/21/08:

Gay student who faced execution in Iran granted asylum in Britain

By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Wednesday, 21 May 2008

A gay man who faces the death penalty in Iran has won asylum in the UK after protests prompted the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, to reconsider his case.

Family and supporters of Mehdi Kazemi, now 20, welcomed the decision yesterday not to send him back to Iran where his boyfriend was arrested by the state police and executed for sodomy.

Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Southwark and Bermondsey, said: "I am delighted by the Home Office decision that my constituent Mehdi Kazemi can now stay in this country. This is great news for a very decent guy."

Mr Kazemi came to London to study in 2005, but in April 2006 discovered his gay partner had been arrested and named him as his boyfriend before his execution. Fearing he might suffer the same fate if he returned, Mr Kazemi decided to seek asylum in Britain. His claim was refused and he fled to the Netherlands where he also failed to win asylum before returning to Britain last month.

His case won support from MPs and peers who signed petitions supporting his claim for refugee status in this country, prompting a surprise intervention by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, who agreed to reconsider the case.

In an open letter to the British Government, Mr Kazemi told the Home Secretary: "I wish to inform the Secretary of State that I did not come to the UK to claim asylum. I came here to study and return to my country. But in the past few months my situation back home has changed. The Iranian authorities have found out that I am a homosexual and they are looking for me."

Yesterday, the UK Border Agency said it had decided to allow him asylum, granting him leave to remain for five years. A spokesman for the agency said: "We keep cases under review where circumstances have changed and it has been decided that Mr Kazemi should be granted leave to remain."

I just hope that five years is long enough or that his asylum is renewed. It is terrible enough that his boyfriend was murdered by the heterosexist, fundamentalist regime in Iran. It would be even worse if Kazemi was murdered too.

Read Kazemi's Thank You Note to His Supporters

 

It's official. Hillary Clinton is a batshit crazy Republican.

From ABC News 5/4/08:

ABC News' Mary Bruce reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., defended this morning her comments that she would "obliterate" Iran if Iran ever attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"Why would I have any regrets?" she asked in an exclusive appearance on a special edition of "This Week" from Indianapolis, Ind. "I'm asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for, for all kinds of reasons. And, yes, we would have massive retaliation against Iran.

"I don't think they will do that, but I sure want to make it abundantly clear to them that they would face a tremendous cost if they did such a thing," she added.

Rival candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has said her comments are reflective of George W. Bush and could further harm America's reputation abroad.

Obama is absolutely correct in comparing Hillary Clinton to Bush. Last year, I blogged about some of the many similarities between Clinton and Bush.

There is just no excuse for any Democrat to continue supporting Hillary Clinton.

 

If you live in New York as I do, please Contact Schumer, and tell him to drop Clinton and support Obama.

The way that Ms. Clinton and her campaign have conducted themselves has been dishonest, horribly racist, and destructive to the Democratic Party as an institution. There is no way that Hillary Clinton can win a majority of the legitimate delegates. Her only chance of being the nominee is stealing the nomination via a superdelegate scam. If she pulls that off, she will face the fate of the last sleazebag who stole a Democratic nomination: Walter Mondale.

Clinton's long-standing support for the Iraq War is reprehensible. Her saber-rattling with Iran only makes her 2007 vote for a war with that country even more dangerous. Her threats of nuclear attacks against Iran raise serious questions about her judgement, her temperament, and her very sanity.

I've just contacted my non-Clinton senator and asked him to do what is best for the country and the party, not what is best for the Clintons.

Contact Schumer Now!

 

From a Peace Action West Action Alert:

Tensions continue between the US and Iran. In early March, the US voted in favor of the third UN resolution imposing sanctions against Iran for continuing to enrich uranium.

Representative Barbara Lee (D - CA) has introduced the Iran Diplomatic Accountability Act of 2008 (HR 5056) to begin direct and unconditional diplomatic negotiations between the US and Iran. This bill would allow the president to appoint a high-level representative of the US or a special envoy for Iran to help ease tensions between our two countries.

We are now in the sixth year of the war in Iraq, and it is important for all of us to speak up in favor of exercising diplomacy to prevent future conflicts.

US insistence that Iran suspend uranium enrichment as a precondition for direct talks is counter-productive to the ultimate goal of ensuring nuclear non-proliferation. To prevent an escalation of hostilities, the US should engage directly with the Iranian government. Real diplomacy is a tool that shouldn’t be used only to reward one’s allies.

The longer negotiations are postponed, the more likely it is that there will be a war between Iran and the United States.

An attack on Iran would put our troops in Iraq in an even more deadly situation, given that Iran has missles capable of reaching them, and the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ites who have strong religious and cultural ties to Iran.

In a world which even Bush admits is "addicted to oil," a war with Iran would be devastating to an already weak global economy. The losses of Iranian, Iraqi, and American lives would be inexcusable.

Take Action!