COmics

A Palin Theocracy

Thursday 11 September 2008

by: Marjorie Cohn, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate has invigorated a lackluster campaign. The media can’t stop talking about her. Given McCain’s age and state of health (his medical file was nearly 1,200 pages long), Palin would indeed be a heartbeat away from becoming president. But what would a Palin administration really look like?

    Palin is a radical, right-wing, fundamentalist Christian who would love to create a theocracy. She believes we are living in the “end times” which will result in a bloody inferno from which only true Christians will be saved. Palin recently attended a service in her Wasilla Bible Church run by David Brickner, who runs Jews for Jesus, a group the Anti-Defamation League criticizes for its “aggressive and deceptive” proselytizing of Jews. Those who don’t accept Jesus as their savior will burn in Hell, according to Palin’s brand of theology.

    As governor of Alaska, Palin asked her congregation to pray for the natural gas pipeline, which she characterized as “God’s will.” She thinks the war in Iraq is a “task that is from God.” Palin has pushed for creationism to be taught in schools, and she opposes stem cell research.

    Palin’s choice to have a Down syndrome child and her teenage daughter’s choice to continue her pregnancy have made right-wing evangelical Christians ecstatic. But while she chose pregnancy, Palin would deny a woman victimized by rape or incest the right to choose abortion, and then criminally punish both the woman for having one and her doctor for performing it.

    McCain would also love to inject a heavy dose of Christianity into his administration. A year ago, he declared, “The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.” Just about the only issue on which McCain has not flip-flopped is his opposition to abortion rights. The next president will almost certainly make at least one appointment to the Supreme Court. McCain has pledged to appoint judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito; these would also be Palin’s preferred judges. Another conservative on the court would mean that Roe v. Wade would be overruled. That would return us to back-alley abortions with coat hangers.

    Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, said that “this election is not about issues … This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.” The Republicans know they will lose if they really focus on issues such as the economy, the war, healthcare, education and the environment. They are hoping that pro-choice women who supported Hillary Clinton will gravitate to Palin because she’s a feisty - albeit anti-choice - woman. They are also banking on support from people who cannot bring themselves to vote for a black man.

    But those non-evangelicals who back the McCain-Palin ticket do so at their peril. Not only will they continue to suffer four more years of the disastrous Bush policies; they will also find themselves living in a Christian theocracy.

    ——–

    (The views expressed in this article are solely those of the writer; she is not acting on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild or Thomas Jefferson School of Law.)

»

Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She is the author of “Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law.” Her new book, “Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent” (co-authored with Kathleen Gilberd), will be published this winter. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.  Used with permission from truthout.org

The Corporate Control of Water Takes an Unexpected Twist

By Jon Keesecker, AlterNet. Posted September 9, 2008.

In one U.S. city, a mayor is putting the city’s water systems up for sale in exchange for money for eduction.

During an otherwise unexceptional State of the City address in February 2008, Mayor Donald Plusquellic put before the residents of Akron, Ohio, a proposal to sell the city’s sewer system. The still-nascent plan, news even to some in the mayor’s administration, involved handing over the city’s system to a private company in return to for a roughly $200 million fee.

In the United States, about 85 percent of people on community water systems get their water from a publicly owned utility. But in recent years, as federal funding for water infrastructure has fallen, corporations have tried to buy up or privately manage more and more municipal water systems. And the result for communities has been higher rates and lower services.

However, in the case of Akron, things are shaping up a little differently. The purpose of the transfer, the mayor explained, is not so much to improve system operations — the finances of the utility are in relatively good standing — but rather to finance a scholarship program for Akron youth, modeled after a program in Kalamazoo, Mich. The Kalamazoo program, unveiled in 2005, was funded not by the sale of a city asset but by anonymous, private donors.

In the weeks following the speech, Plusquellic defended his proposal in radio, television and newspaper interviews. Despite blanket enthusiasm around the goal of funding higher education, the response of Akron residents to privatizing the water system ranged from apprehension to outright skepticism.

On radio show phone calls and in comments on the Web site of the Akron Beacon Journal, doubts about the plan multiplied. While few doubted the value of subsidizing higher education, many wondered: Would the jobs of more than 100 sewer utility employees be secure under a private operator? Could privatization lead to enormous rate increases like those sought by privately owned Water & Sewer LLC in nearby Richfield? Most importantly, what oversight would the public retain, and might the plan open the door to privatization of other public services? Some even worried that the scholarship funds might be siphoned off for other purposes.

By early March, community activists and the Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee were drawing 80 to 200 participants to public forums to discuss the mayor’s plan. Their concerns focused on the prospect of rate increases, staff cuts, neglected capitol improvements and poorer service, all of which had been suffered in other privately operated water systems, as well as the ability of Plusquellic — a skilled politician and 20-year incumbent — to push through projects without bona fide public input. Many also worried that the mayor’s will could become law before being subjected to a thorough public vetting process.

Why Akron Residents Have Reason for Concern

It is uncertain whether the citizens of Akron, even Plusquellic, knew the debate the city would soon enter when privatizing the city’s water system was first proposed in early February.

A historically minor — though not entirely absent — participant in U.S. water service, private water companies have attempted major inroads into the U.S. water market in the past 10 years.

Decades of cuts in federal assistance to public water utilities, coupled with a 1997 tax code change encouraging privatization, laid the groundwork for the entry of multinationals into the U.S. market in the late 1990s. Major water companies like Paris-based Veolia Environment and Suez Environment quickly seized the opportunity to purchase domestic water companies and expand into new markets.

The result: a slew of large privatization proposals in major U.S. cities like Milwaukee (1998), Atlanta (1999) and New Orleans (2000). The same companies initiated a concurrent public relations campaign involving fiscal sponsorship of bodies like the U.S. Conference of Mayors (to which Plusquellic was elected president in 2004). Credit it to a certain discomfort about handing a private company the keys to life’s most precious resource; it is no wonder that the privatization push quickly inspired a backlash among U.S. consumers.

In 2003, just four years into a 20-year contract, Suez was booted from Atlanta for poor maintenance and failure to achieve expected cost savings. Two years later, efforts to privatize New Orleans’ water system collapsed and nearly a dozen communities were engaged in fierce public buybacks of water utilities acquired by Germany-based RWE after its purchase of American Water in 2001.

Growing awareness of the risks of water privatization continues to blacken the eye of major water multinationals in the United States and abroad. In April, RWE ended its brief stint in the U.S. water market with a less-than-spectacular American Water IPO geared toward divesting the company. In June, the world’s two largest water companies — Veolia Environment and Suez Environment — were ousted from their own backyards (both are Paris-based) when the city decided not to renew those contracts. The decision was a stinging rebuke to the private water giants.
But the most informative story for Akronites is that of Stockton, Calif., a city of roughly the same size. In 2003, Stockton Mayor Gary Podesto successfully pushed a $600 million contract with OMI-Thames to operate the city’s water utilities for 20 years. Community opposition to the contract, led by a local citizens coalition, had spawned a vigorous campaign for a voter initiative that would subject all water privatization contracts over $5 million to a public vote. But in February of 2003, two short weeks before the initiative was set to hit the ballot, the Stockton City Council chose to expedite the contract process and take up the mayor’s proposal. In a City Hall packed to the doors, the council voted 4-3 to accept the contract, delivering a defeat to the citizens coalition. Two weeks later, the initiative would pass with a 60 percent margin, but it was too late.

In Stockton, the rush to beat the initiative would eventually doom the water contract. In March of this year, the City of Stockton regained control of its water utility after a court determined it had failed to adequately complete an environmental impact statement.

Today, a similar risk faces Akron. But there is evidence that Akronites have learned from other communities, especially Stockton, whose drama was the subject of the 2004 film (and later book) “Thirst”.

In the film, 65-year-old orthodontist and Stockton resident Dale Stocking offers the following advice:
What I’m telling people is when you hear the first indication toward privatization, start a community. Start a grassroots activity. And if it appears you’re being railroaded into something, or a small group is in control of an issue, then the citizens immediately have to move to an initiative to require public participation and a public vote.
The residents of Akron took the advice very seriously. On May 3, local labor, faith and community groups — notably AFSCME Ohio Council 8, which represents many of the sewer workers whose jobs would be impacted — formed a coalition under the name Citizens to Save Our Sewers and Water (Citizens SOS) to launch a voter initiative to amend the city’s charter. Stated simply, the amendment would require that any action by the mayor or City Council to sell or lease a city utility be approved by a majority of voters in Akron. Within six weeks, Citizens SOS collected more than twice the needed signatures, and on Aug. 18 the initiative was ordered to the November ballot.

A New, Riskier Model of Water Privatization

While Akron and Stockton exhibit some distinct parallels, and Akron stands to learn much from that Northern California privatization failure, Akronites face much more than a simple replay of that earlier drama. With even more moving parts, their story is in some ways even more epic and could offer a new framework for viewing the privatization of local water systems.

For starters, the contract proposed by Plusquellic appears to be the first of its kind in the United States. Most cities of Akron’s size that have privatized their water systems have pursued operation and maintenance contracts wherein the city pays the private company to run the water system. However, in hopes of drawing funds for a scholarship program, the mayor has proposed signing a lease contract whereby a private company would pay money to the city in return for operation responsibilities and any profits made. With advocates of the plan pointing to the privatization of the Chicago Skyway and Indiana Toll Road and as precursors, Akron stands to be the first large U.S. city to attempt a contract of this type for water service. However, such arguments fail to recognize the notably different businesses of highway and wastewater management and upkeep.

The Chicago Skyway and Indiana Toll Road leases are themselves hardly without detractors. Public disapproval of the toll road deal was 2-to-1 at the time the deal was penned. Still relatively experimental, the skyway and the toll road leases — of 99 and 75 years respectively — have raised concerns about the impact of lengthy leases on rates and usage. To ensure the Indiana Toll Road lease would stick, shortly before that deal was struck the state nearly doubled tolls for cars, the first increase in 20 years. A Business Week article last month estimated that car tolls on the Chicago Skyway could rise from $2 to $5 between 2005 and 2017.

A second noteworthy element of the Akron episode is the developing role of investment banks in promoting the privatization of U.S. water systems. As the unavoidable improvement of water infrastructure proves an undeniable opportunity for investors burned by the current credit crisis, major financial players like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs have lent the weight of their massive financial resources to the privatization of water systems. In a measure certain to introduce new elements of risk into the business of water delivery, these banks have in recent years established and begun managing funds for investors interested in throwing billions of dollars at the privatization of water infrastructure.

Equally as important, in Akron and elsewhere, investment banks are at the same time brokering privatization deals, lubricating the privatization process as it passes through the corridors of City Hall. According to a June article in the trade publication The Bond Buyer, Akron recently retained Morgan Stanley as a financial adviser for the deal. Goldman Sachs performed a similar function in the privatization of the Indiana Toll Road and the Chicago Skyway — in the latter instance nabbing $9 million in advisory fees, according to a January article in Mother Jones.

Together, these unique elements throw the Akron proposal into a new category of privatization deals rife with new risks, both for water utilities and the consumers they serve. And as Citizens SOS has pointed out, these elements provide even more reason for a measured and rigorous public vetting process.

Upsetting the Political Establishment

As the citizens coalition in Akron prepares to campaign for its initiative in November, the challenge it faces is formidable. In addition to the muscle provided by Morgan Stanley, Plusquellic enters his third decade in office with a keen ability to marginalize his political opponents — he has already attempted to brand them “the born-against” — and few on the City Council are willing to oppose him.

As in Stockton, there are indications that the privatization plan may be on a fast track. In late July, after only two short months, an “advisory group” assembled by the mayor to study his proposal returned a favorable opinion of the deal. Some in the citizens coalition worry that the group’s blanket endorsement, issued without an actual contact, may signal a go-ahead for the mayor to cut a deal in advance of the November ballot initiative.

Meanwhile, the mayor has also lobbied the City Council to send his own proposal to ballot this fall. The mayor’s proposal — outlining only abstractly his privatization plan — asks voters to pre-approve the privatization of Akron’s sewer system. The proposal will appear on the same ballot as the Citizens SOS initiative and, if approved, could arguably pre-empt its effects.

But if the odds seem stacked against Citizens SOS and those who would slow the political and economic machinery bent on privatization, the end to this story is far from written. In 1998, a coalition of much the same composition passed Akron’s first and only successful ballot initiative. Against the will of the mayor, and with the support of only two of 13 council members, voters decided to reform campaign finance in Akron. With one ballot victory under its belt, and a model in the efforts of Stockton residents to retain public control of their water utility, Citizens SOS could once again upset the entrenched political establishment in Akron.

And while no issue boils down to a single ballot initiative, a victory for the citizens’ coalition in Akron could prove to be yet another stake in the heart of water profiteers. On the heals of the re-municipalization of Paris’ utilities, the poor American Water IPO, and the decision in Stockton, a victory in Akron could quickly become the next benchmark in a public backlash against the corporate control of water.

USED with permission from Alternet.org

With our current war on terror; it is a Democratic farse that the Democrats can not get anything done, or actually stand up for them selves. The days of Kennedies and other honorible strong democrats are obviously over. Now we are saddled with weak democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Barak Obama and, Hillary Clinton. Do you remember Al I own stock in Phillips Petrolieum Gore; That wanna be environmentalist.

   Most people can see right through the Democratic party they are absolutly bought and sold by industry, they are bought by oil industry, paid for by the Defense industry. Is their any wonder why our country is the way it is. I mean we have these uncle tom Democrats that suck at the oil industry tit running our country. What happend to honorible Jessy Jackson, Ralph Nader like Democrats. What happend to Democrats who were like Dennis Kucinage or Robert Kennedy now theirs a Democrat I would have at my dinner table. Robert Kennedy started programms like Head start, he had gotten America heading towards the direction of ending hunger “in a country lush with wealth such as ours hunger should be a thing of the past”. What about Dennis Kucinage, as mayor he turned around Cleveland, brought jobs back to the city. Cleaned up Clevelands Rivers and lakes, air. Oh wow thats a Democrat we can not have in office.

        With few exceptions most Democrats today are just like Republicans. And we allow them to run our congress, we allow these Democrats to elect candidates such as Obama, Hillary Clinton “their is big looser.” Hillary was completely bought by the oil industry, beef industry etc.

       We need more politicians like Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinage, Jessy Jackson, Robert Kennedy; who have all done very good by the American public. We need to get out their and rid our selves of these uncle tom Democrats.

The comic is created to fill in gaps for my other comic, but the comic will  stand on its own

In Basra, Elections, Oil Drive Conflict
    By Maya Schenwar and Christopher Kuttruff
    t r u t h o u t | Report    Wednesday 26 March 2008

    Fighting in Iraq’s southern city, Basra, initiated by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Iraqi Army, has left at least 45 dead and 225 wounded over the past two days. Clashes have also spread to Sadr City in Baghdad, where 20 were killed and at least 115 injured, as well as in the cities of Kut and Hilla, near the Iranian border.

    This instability threatens the cease-fire declared by Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in August, which has contributed to the much-touted decline in violence across Iraq.

    Today Maliki issued an ultimatum to Sadr’s followers: surrender to government control within 72 hours or face even sharper consequences.

    As the conflicts swell in Basra and Baghdad, the Maliki government, supported by the Bush administration, claims it is subduing terrorism and cracking down on militia violence. However, attacks on the Sadr forces may be primarily motivated by electoral politics and oil control, according to policy experts following Iraq’s civil conflict closely.

    “Election, Iraqi-style”

    The eruption of violence comes on the heels of the Iraqi presidential council’s approval of the “provincial law,” which clears the way for elections within Iraq’s 18 provinces. Maliki’s decision to order troops to Basra may well have been prompted by the law’s passage Monday, as it sets the ball rolling for a decision on whether Iraq will be partitioned or remain a unified state, according to Raed Jarrar, Iraq consultant to the American Friends Service Committee.

    ”It’s a reaction to the provincial law,” Jarrar told Truthout. “Separatist Shiites want to make sure nationalist Shiites won’t win the election - by killing them. In other places, the candidates use TV advertisements. But this is an election, Iraqi-style.”

    The separatists - allied with the Maliki government and the Bush administration - support the partitioning of Iraq, the privatization of oil and a continued US presence in the country. The nationalists - including the followers of Moqtada al-Sadr and much of the Iraqi Parliament - support a unified, sovereign Iraq. Jarrar compares the split to the two sides of the US Civil War - with the notable exception that the US was not under the influence of an occupying force.

    Under the new law, after provisional governments are elected, those representatives will vote in October on whether to join one of three “regions” (partitioning the country) or remain a separate province, part of one united country.

    Maliki has initiated fighting, in part, to marginalize the Sadr movement as much as possible before elections begin, according to Dahr Jamail, author of “Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq.” Public opinion in Iraq reflects that view, according to Ali al-Fahdily, a correspondent from Baghdad and Fallujah. Fahdily told Truthout that, despite the American press’s portrayal of the conflict as a push against terrorists and militants, many Iraqis see it as a partisan battle to “establish a firm base before the elections.”

    As the voting draws closer, Jamail says, the conflict will continue to build, with the cease-fire disintegrating.

    ”This is just the beginning - we should expect this to be the kick-off of hostilities,” Jamail told Truthout. “There’s been a long series of Maliki provocations of the Sadr movement. It’s been an ongoing battle for months and months, if not years. Now the jig is up.”

    A Petroleum Battle

    Underlying the confrontation in Basra is a heightening struggle for control over the country’s oil resources, according to Juan Cole, president of the Global Americana Institute.

    It makes sense that Maliki would initially send troops to Basra: it’s the oil hub of Iraq, and thus the key to the Iraqi economy. About 20 percent of the entire Middle East’s oil reserves lie in Basra Province.

    What’s more, Basra is a port city, with 90 percent of Iraq’s petroleum leaving from its docks. Militias in Basra have long been fighting for oil smuggling rights, which translate into profits of billions of dollars.

    ”For Maliki, losing Basra would be like allowing New York to be taken over by the five mafia families,” Cole told Truthout. “The fighting is all about petroleum security for the government.”

    As the fighting began Tuesday in Basra, Maliki himself traveled to Basra to oversee military operations - a move prompted by the city’s all-important oil status, according to Jamail, who added that Basra’s oil was most likely a primary motivation for the US’s immediate support of the initiative.

    ”The US and Maliki want personal control of Basra,” Jamail said, “and oil is probably the driving factor.”

    Protests Quashed

    One of the Maliki administration’s most remarkable patterns is its consistent use of violence to quell civil disobedience and nonviolent protest, according to Jarrar, a trend exemplified in the past few days’ conflict.

    Despite rising tensions, Sadr maintains that his cease-fire holds, and has attempted to use acts of civil disobedience to elicit support for his demands on US and Iraqi troops: to stop their raids against Sadrists; release Sadrist detainees, and apologize to the families and tribal sheiks of those who’ve been detained, injured or killed.

    On Monday, Sadr called for a sweeping sit-in protest across western Baghdad. Sadrists shut down shops in the area and used loudspeakers to urge residents into the streets to participate, according to McClatchy reports. If his demands are not met, Sadr said in a statement on Tuesday, he will call for “general civil disobedience in Baghdad and the Iraqi provinces.”

    However, if current trends continue, those areas may be so torn by violence that peaceful action would prove hopeless.

    Moreover, the Maliki government warned on Monday that any threats or intimidation used to enforce the sit-in would be considered violations of anti-terrorism laws, and would be “dealt with.”

    That position could be used to classify virtually any act of civil disobedience as terrorism, according to Jarrar.

    ”They can accuse anyone who is participating or organizing [a protest] of ‘threatening’ others,’” he said. “When Iraqis choose nonviolent civil disobedience, the Iraqi government responds by calling it terrorism. The US and Iraqi government policies are removing nonviolence as an option and pushing Iraqis to choose armed resistance.”

    The Sadr movement has attempted nonviolent resistance at various points throughout the occupation, but has consistently been met by force, according to Jamail.

    ”It’s another classic case of the occupation stoking the fires of violence,” he said. “[The Sadrists] use civil disobedience against US troops, and they get run over by tanks. Ninety-nine out of 100 times, civil disobedience is dealt with violently.”

    The US Role

    The Bush administration maintains that it is assuming merely an advisory role in the conflict, allowing Iraqi police and Army forces to handle the fighting.

    White House spokeswoman Dana Perino called the offensive a “bold decision” to root out “terrorists and insurgents that have infested the area.”

    ”This is what we have been wanting to see the Iraqis do,” she said. “[It] is one of the first times that they’ve had such an entrenched battle and we’ll be there to support them if they need it.”

    Despite Perino’s characterization of the fighting as an “Iraqi-led and Iraqi-initiated operation,” the US is providing monetary and political support every step of the way, according to Jamail.

    ”Sadr has the numbers,” Jamail said, noting that the cleric controls huge swathes of Baghdad and much of southern Iraq. “If Maliki didn’t have the US behind him, he wouldn’t be able to pick this fight.”

    Although the ground troops in the current conflict are overwhelmingly Iraqi, the US is providing air support. Plus, US troops have been heavily involved in enforcing the curfews hastily imposed on many southern towns yesterday.

    Much of the Bush administration’s rationale for supporting the current initiative stems from an alleged link between members of the Sadr movement and Iran, according to Perino’s statements on Tuesday. However, Cole says, the nationalistic Sadrists have few links with their eastern neighbor, while the Islamic Supreme Council, one of Maliki and Bush’s foremost allies, maintains close ties with Iran’s ayatollahs.

    The latest conflict underscores the fact that the Maliki administration is a “minority government,” supported by the US but opposed by popular will, according to Cole.

    ”If this were Britain, Maliki would [be removed through] a ‘vote of no confidence’ in the parliament,” he said.
Thus, any reports of efforts by Maliki’s “Iraqi Army” to root out “militiamen” and “terrorists” must be taken with several grains of salt. Who comprises this “army,” and which Iraqis do they represent?

    “No Iraqi Army”

    The “Iraqi Army” that initiated fighting in Basra on Tuesday is primarily composed of three former militias: those of two Shiite parties and one Kurdish party, according to Raed Jarrar. The army, he says, has no coherent identity except its opposition to the nationalists and its support by the US.

    ”When these three militias came together, they just took off their militia outfits and put on their army outfits,” Jarrar said. “There is no ‘Iraqi Army’ with a national identity. Basically, the US is supporting one militia over another militia.”

    Few army members have shed their former allegiances, according to Jamail, and nine out of ten are members of either a militia or a criminal gang. So, while the army has the support of the United States and Iraq’s “minority government,” it is not representative of - or unitedly loyal to - the Iraqi people.

    Fueled by this divide between the US-Maliki government and the citizens, the current fighting in Basra, Baghdad and beyond is not an isolated instance, but a portent, according to Jamail.

    ”The Sadr movement has the power - on the streets, in reality,” he said. “If the government doesn’t meet at least some of Sadr’s demands, this is going to explode.”

    Christopher Kuttruff is a frequent contributor to Truthout.org.

    Maya Schenwar is an assistant editor and reporter for Truthout.  ——- used with permission from truthout.org