War has always been an obscene and horrifying enterprise, sugar coated by the ruling elites and their lackeys in the media as a matter of 'honor' and 'glory', fought by 'heroes.'
Modern weapons give lie to any 'glory' or 'honor' -- or they would if the corporate media ever truly gave the public an honest look at what they do.
Depleted uranium, napalm, cluster bombs -- the list seems endless.
In a story that won't get any significant play in the corporate American media, 46 nations have called for a 2008 treaty ban on cluster bombs because they kill and maim long after wars end and inflict "unacceptable harm" on civilians, particularly children.
I'm not sure what "acceptable harm" is.
The U.S., Israel, China and Russia, of course, didn't even attend the conference. Of the 49 nations attending, Poland, Romania and Japan did not approve the final text.
Cluster bomblets are packed by the hundreds into artillery shells, bombs or missiles which scatter them over vast areas, with some failing to explode immediately. The unexploded bomblets can then lie dormant for years until they are disturbed, usually by civilians, often children.
As many as 60 percent of the victims in Southeast Asia are children, the Cluster Munition Coalition campaign group said. The weapons have recently been used in Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon. The U.N. estimated that Israel dropped as many as 4 million cluster bomblets in Lebanon during last year's war, with as many as 40 percent failing to explode on impact.
War is glorious -- for those safe in the White House anyway.
The Bush budget is an amazing document, Matt Taibbi says at smirkingchimp.com: "It envisions a complete repeal of the Estate Tax, which mainly affects only those who are in the top two-tenths of the top one percent of the richest people in this country."
He gives some examples, which he got from Senator Bernie Sanders office, of how much some families will save in taxes and basically how Bush plans to pay for it.
"If the Estate Tax were to be repealed completely, the estimated savings to just one family -- the Walton family, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune -- would be about $32.7 billion dollars over the next ten years. The Bush budget propose reductions to Medicaid over the same time frame? $28 billion."
He gives some other examples:
* Cox family receives $9.7 billion tax break while education would get $1.5 billion in cuts
* Nordstrom family receives $826.5 million tax break while Community Service Block Grants would be eliminated, a $630 million cut
* Ernest Gallo family receives a $468.4 million cut while LIHEAP (heating oil to poor) would get a $420 million cut.
And he notes:
"... the family of former Exxon/Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, who received a $400 million retirement package, would receive about $164 million in tax breaks. Compare that to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which Bush proposes be completely eliminated, at a savings of $108 million over ten years. The program sent one bag of groceries per month to 480,000 seniors, mothers and newborn children."
But you won't see any discussion of this in the mainstream corporate media. They are far more interested in Britney Spears.
The whole Matt Taibbi article can be found at:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/5641#comment-41024
Our water increasingly contains some scary contaminants. Most people who are aware of this opt for bottled water. But commondreams.org has a piece with some fascinating statistics about the price about water, that is, the price to the community
Bottled water can cost 240 to 10,000 times more than tap water. For the price of one bottle of Evian, for example, a San Franciscan can receive 1,000 gallons of tap water.
The bigger problem is what it costs the environment. Transporting bottled water involves burning massive quantities of fossil fuels. Just supplying Americans with plastic water bottles for one year consumes more than 47 million gallons of oil, enough to take 100,000 cars off the road and 1 billion pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, the Common Dreams article says.
It goes on to say, "more than 1 billion plastic water bottles end up in the California's trash each year, taking up valuable landfill space, leaking toxic additives, such as phthalates, into the groundwater and taking 1,000 years to biodegrade."
(if you want to read the whole article, go to:
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0218-05.htm )
Okay, if bottled water is such a bad deal for you and for the environment, what can you do?
I answered that for myself a couple of years ago by buying a small water distiller. It's about the size of the coffee maker, is easier to use, and gives us absolutely pure water.
It's rather noisy when it's running, which annoys Alma. But I usually run it in the morning before she wakes up.
We declared war on drugs and drugs won. It’s time to admit defeat and recall the troops.
But then it never really was a ‘War on Drugs.’ It always has been a war on the American people, a war on the Bill of Rights, and a war on the poor and minorities — especially a war on the poor and minorities.
It has brought rampant corruption of cops and judges, politicians and bankers; it is outrageously costly, and downright immoral; it encourages foreign intervention and wars; it is selectively applied to drugs currently out of favor — e.g. marijuana — while ignoring or encouraging others — e.g. nicotine and alcohol.
And, of course, it always was, and is, unwinnable: there is no shortage of drugs and demand remains high.
An increasing number of Americans realize this and are willing to entertain the idea that something should be done. They vote for ballot initiatives that legalize marijuana for cancer patients and that mandate treatment not prison for some offenders, for example. But those measures are like applying a bandaid to an amputated leg.
It’s time to get the government out of the drug business entirely by legalizing or at least decriminalizing drug use.
.
It’s not exactly the mouse that roared, but the Democrats are least squeaking.
Rep. John Murtha started the ball rolling when he said that a toothless measure in the House that expresses “disapproval” of President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq, may be changed to prohibit any military action against Iran without specific congressional approval.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined in and said that, “I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran." That’s a vague wish, however, not a resounding declaration that Congress is taking back its sole right to make war.
And if Congress does assert itself, and Bush ignores them?
Well, Congress can always pass another nonbinding resolution scolding him.
Redundant
"I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake," a New Hampshire voter* asked Hillary Clinton.
With a lot of nuance, Clinton answered, "knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it,"
Oh, hell., that wasn't nuance -- it was, in essence, a lie.
What we 'know now', we knew then. Only a moron, or a politician, could have believed the bullshit coming out of the Bush administration at the start of the Iraq war.
I said 'only a moron or a politician.' But I wonder, is there any difference?
*Roger Tilton, 46, a financial adviser from Nashua, N.H.
House Democrats rolled out their resolution opposing President Bush's troop surge in Iraq. It says that the House "disapproves" of the troop buildup.
Oh My God! The White House must be trembling. Cheney is likely to have another heart attack; Bush will need his teddy bear tonight; Condoleezza Rice will have to go shopping for some more shoes.
How cruel! How can the Democrats be so mean?
I mean, after all, Clinton was impeached for the horrible crime of getting a blow job. All Bush has done is start an illegal war that has killed 3000 or so Americans and 650,000 Iraqis, destroyed the bill of rights, approved torture, and a few little things like that.
And for that they are going to express disapproval? Unbelievable!
In a nutshell
"...the defense budget can better be described as hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have, to buy weapons we don't need, to fight enemies that don't exist." -- Bill Bonner
I get a lot of e-mails from progressive groups -- e.g. ActForChange.com, MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, etc. -- wanting me to sign petitions for various progressive causes, to write or call my congressmen, make donations, and so on.
I used to do much of what they asked. But no longer.
With the White House and the neocons running rings around the Democrats now theoretically in charge in Congress, it's clear that nothing serious will be done until they do the one thing that is essential -- impeach Bush and Cheney.
And if the progressive groups, and the Democrats don't recognize that soon, we will not only be fighting a war in Iraq forever, but we will soon be in an utterly disastrous war with Iran.
Impeachment is no longer just a matter of bringing Bush and Cheney to account for their crimes, it is essential for our survival as a democracy.
Note to progressive groups: Don't bother to contact me until you're serious about impeachment.
I get a lot of e-mails from progressive groups -- e.g. ActForChange.com, MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, etc. -- wanting me to sign petitions for various progressive causes, to write or call my congressmen, make donations, and so on.
I used to do much of what they asked. But no longer.
With the White House and the neocons running rings around the Democrats now theoretically in charge in Congress, it's clear that nothing serious will be done until they do the one thing that is essential -- impeach Bush and Cheney.
And if the progressive groups, and the Democrats don't recognize that soon, we will not only be fighting a war in Iraq forever, but we will soon be in an utterly disastrous war with Iran.
Impeachment is no longer just a matter of bringing Bush and Cheney to account for their crimes, it is essential for our survival as a democracy.
Note to progressive groups: Don't bother to contact me until you're serious about impeachment.
We can have an empire or we can have democracy; we can't have both.
At the moment, we are still trying. To maintain our empire, we keep troops in more than 700 military bases in 130 countries.
To maintain our democracy, we hold elections -- then don't pay any attention to them. In the last election, for example, people clearly voted against the war in Iraq. But President Bush is not only continuing the war, he is extending it -- and he is likely to start a new war with Iran on top of it, whatever silly halfhearted measures Congress takes to stop him.
Chalmers Johnson thinks the erosion of our democracy has gone too far to be stopped now. But, he says, we do have a choice. "We could, like the British Empire after World War II, keep our democracy by giving up our empire." It wasn't easy, he said, and there was some backsliding, "But the overall thrust of postwar British history is clear: the people of the British Isles chose democracy over imperialism."
I wish we would do the same. I don't think it is going to happen.
Chalmers Johnson's take on this is interesting -- and frightening. You can read more about it at:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/indexprint.mhtml?pid=160594