Stop the Military Recruiters! Leaflet, Jun 03: "The Pentagon spent $2.4 billion on recruiting in 2002. Annually 200,000 young people are recruited into the military. Why are they really trying to get us to join the army? Millions of people around the globe have flooded the streets against the war and occupation of Iraq. Why? They know that this war has nothing to do with safety, security, or stopping terrorism. People are figuring out that the US government is on a global rampage to dominate the oil resources of the world and institute regime change whenever and wherever they want.
Let's be clear - their wars are for profit and empire and they need millions of kids to go off and do their dirty work for them.("Did you know that we were paid for the gulf war by Saudi Arabia and made a profit.Cash that is!Our kids still lost their lives!) Will you and your friends get suckered into doing it or will you join the movement to stop the madness?
Many soldiers on the front lines are Black, Latino, and/or poor. Most of the kids who join the army and get sent to fight and die will come from schools full of Black, Latino, Asian, American Indian, and poor kids. People of color represent 1/3 of all enlisted personnel, but only 1/8 of all officers. The American Council has attributed a drop in Black college enrollment to military recruiting. Only 35% of recruits receive any education benefits from the military. Only 12% of male and 6% of female veterans surveyed have made any use of skills they learned in the military for regular jobs. Immigrants who enlist are given citizenship only after they have been killed during service. "
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
World War III - Axis of Evil - Bush, Blair and Sharon, attempt to take over the world
World War III - Axis of Evil - Bush, Blair and Sharon, attempt to take over the world: "The full scale of the human cost already paid for the war on Iraq is only now becoming clear. Last week's estimate by investigators, using credible methodology, that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them women and children - have died since the US-led invasion is a profound moral indictment of our countries. The US and British governments quickly moved to cast doubt on the Lancet medical journal findings, citing other studies. These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.
Civilian deaths have always been a tragic reality of modern war. But the conflict in Iraq was supposed to be different - US and British forces were dispatched to liberate the Iraqi people, not impose their own tyranny of violence.
Reading accounts of the US-led invasion, one is struck by the constant, almost casual, reference to civilian deaths. Soldiers and marines speak of destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles that turned out to be crammed with civilians. US marines acknowledged in the aftermath of the early, bloody battle for Nassiriya that their artillery and air power had pounded civilian areas in a blind effort to suppress insurgents thought to be holed up in the city. The infamous 'shock and awe' bombing of Baghdad produced hundreds of deaths, as did the 3rd Infantry Division's 'Thunder Run', an armoured thrust in Baghdad that slaughtered everyone in its path.
"Of course, the US and Britain have a history of turning a blind eye to Iraqi suffering when it suits their political purposes. During the 1990s, hundreds of thousands are estimated by the UN to have died as a result of sanctions. Throughout that time, the US and the UK maintained the fiction that this was the fault of Saddam Hussein, who refused to give up his WMD. We now know that Saddam had disarmed and those deaths were the responsibility of the US and Britain, which refused to lift sanctions.
Civilian deaths have always been a tragic reality of modern war. But the conflict in Iraq was supposed to be different - US and British forces were dispatched to liberate the Iraqi people, not impose their own tyranny of violence.
Reading accounts of the US-led invasion, one is struck by the constant, almost casual, reference to civilian deaths. Soldiers and marines speak of destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles that turned out to be crammed with civilians. US marines acknowledged in the aftermath of the early, bloody battle for Nassiriya that their artillery and air power had pounded civilian areas in a blind effort to suppress insurgents thought to be holed up in the city. The infamous 'shock and awe' bombing of Baghdad produced hundreds of deaths, as did the 3rd Infantry Division's 'Thunder Run', an armoured thrust in Baghdad that slaughtered everyone in its path.
"Of course, the US and Britain have a history of turning a blind eye to Iraqi suffering when it suits their political purposes. During the 1990s, hundreds of thousands are estimated by the UN to have died as a result of sanctions. Throughout that time, the US and the UK maintained the fiction that this was the fault of Saddam Hussein, who refused to give up his WMD. We now know that Saddam had disarmed and those deaths were the responsibility of the US and Britain, which refused to lift sanctions.
"They’re asking our kids to fight and die"
This pretty much sums up my thoughts on this subject and I didn't have to write it all down. !COOL! BS
I SERVED MY COUNTRY PROUDLY AND OUR KIDS ARE SERVING PROUDLY NOW!
IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT THAT THEY DON'T REALLY KNOW WHY THEIR THERE!
IT'S OURS!
LOU PLUMMER served in the North Carolina National Guard for six years. Today, he is an antiwar activist and member of Military Families Speak Out. His son Drew has served in the Navy since June 2001 and is currently stationed aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. In March, Drew spoke out against the war on Iraq at a peace vigil in Fayetteville, N.C.--and was charged by the Navy for making "disloyal statements." After an Associated Press reporter threatened to write a story about the incident, Drew was let off with a slap on the wrist. Lou Plummer spoke with Socialist Worker’s JULIE SOUTHERLAND and CATHERINE GEARY.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
YOU COME from a military background. How did you become an antiwar activist?
I’M NOT a pacifist. For example, the American Civil War was a war that couldn't be avoided, and had I placed myself in that historical situation, then I would have been willing to fight to end slavery.
I joined the military as a 17-year-old whose dad and grandfather had done the same thing and felt the family pressure. Plus, coming from a working-class family, this was my opportunity to make money and go to college, so that's what I did.
During the entire time that I was in the military, I didn’t really disagree with its mission. After I left the military, I went to work at a correctional office. Working in the prison system, I became politically awake and realized that the government does lie, the government enforces racist policies, and that woke me up to activism.
My son joined the military when he was 17, which meant that I had to sign the papers for him to actually be able to enlist. That was his decision--he did it with an informed mind, so I let him do it.
On the other hand, there’s a place in the military for people to speak out, and my son has done that since he’s been in the service. He’s gotten in trouble for doing it. I'm proud of him for doing that. It’s not like my son is "defending our country." My son is organizing GIs.
WHY DID you get involved with Military Families Speak Out and the Bring Them Home Now Campaign?
I was a peace activist before I heard of Military Families Speak Out. This organization appealed to me right off the bat because I'm a veteran, my dad’s a vet, my grandfather’s a vet. Plus my son is on active duty. So I felt I had a voice that mattered.
I was in Chicago for the United For Peace and Justice conference, representing the community of Fayetteville, and met up with Charlie Richardson and Nancy Lessin, who founded the organization.
WHAT ARE the conditions like for U.S. soldiers in Iraq today?
THERE ARE people there who have spent 140-150 days with no hot food, the temperature there is 120 degrees, and they’re getting three liters of rationed water a day. The tools of war making are flowing in, but the basic needs of the soldiers are not. The guys are writing home saying, "Please send me toothpaste," "Please send me toilet paper." And yet, when you go to the military to ask them to comment on this, you're talking to career soldiers who say everything's fine, we’re gonna kick some Iraqi ass. And it’s just bullshit.
The majority of the troops in Iraq are reserve component soldiers. They don't have the same built-in support structure that active duty units have. Here you are, serving the richest country in the world, and you haven’t had a hot meal in four-and-a-half months.
And people say, "You don't want to talk about that--it’s going to undermine morale." How’s that going to undermine morale? It’s ludicrous. The people who are serving know what their situation is, and if they speak out, we can put pressure on the government to improve those conditions.
WE’RE TOLD we need to "Support Our Troops"?
THAT’S SOMETHING we hear a lot around here. When you guys leave here, drive to the end of the street, turn right, and there’s a big pizza sign that says, "Papa Johns: We Support Our Troops." Go in and say, "My husband’s in Afghanistan or Iraq, can I have a discount?" And they’ll say "No."
Supporting our troops mean trying to protect their lives. It means trying to support their families. It doesn't mean tying yellow ribbons.
Do I support our troops? You betcha. My son's on active duty, my brother got pulled out of medical school to go on active duty, my uncle's on active duty, I’m a vet. As a peace activist, I believe I do more to support American soldiers than any right-wing, war-loving Republican ever thought about doing.
WHAT ARE the real reasons for this war and occupation?
MOST OF us knew a long time ago that we were being lied to. Now the world knows that we were lied to. The war was pitched to us as a war that would keep Americans safe by capturing these weapons of mass destruction. And it was also to break the ties that the administration claimed existed between al-Qaeda and the nation of Iraq.
There wasn't a whole lot said in the beginning about liberating the Iraqi people, but as the war took place, and the weapons of mass destruction didn’t materialize, and we didn’t find any al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq, then it became this "war of liberation." And that worked for about two or three days until the people that we had just "liberated" started killing our kids.
I say kids because the majority of them are 18, 19, 20 years old. Last year, they were worrying about football practice and algebra tests and going to the prom, and now they’re dead, lying in a box. When you hear on the news that two American soldiers were killed by rocket fire in Afghanistan today, those are people like my kid.
And what you’re talking about is not 142 people dying. We’re talking about one person dying 142 times. That’s 142 families whose child is dead. I don't know about you, but I don’t feel one bit safer. And I think that’s a crime.
If there's one thing about this movement that’s important, it’s the fact that what we do can save somebody’s life. The people who are benefiting from this war are huge companies like Halliburton and McDonnell Douglas. The United States is the world’s richest country and spends more on the military than the next 20 countries in the world combined. The fact that we’re spending a billion dollars a week in Iraq is mind-boggling.
Then you have the "support our troops" government wanting to cut the pay of combat soldiers. They want to reduce imminent danger pay. And they wanted to start a futures market on terrorist attacks, so if you could bet that 15 American soldiers will be killed in April of 2004, you could make money on it. That’s a crime against humanity.
SOME ACTIVISTS in the antiwar movement consider this just a "Bush thing."
I LIKE to quote Michael Moore: "Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican presidents we ever had." He fought wars and called them "humanitarian wars." Unfortunately, we live in a society where the two major political parties cater to the 10 percent of people in this country who control the money. And those people by and large have investments in the defense industry.
What Bill Clinton did and what George Bush does and what whoever succeeds George Bush will do is cater to the people who have the money. I got into a debate recently with one of the pilots who was shot down in Mogadishu in 1993.
He claimed that had George W. Bush been president when he was shot down, then there would be nothing where Mogadishu is except for a big black hole. But the truth of the matter is that his entire mission was planned in the older Bush administration. Bill Clinton took over, and he had the plans approved by--guess who?--Colin Powell.
SOME PEOPLE say that soldiers volunteer for the military, so they pretty much know what they're getting into when they sign up. What do you think about this attitude?
WE HAVE a heavier operational tempo now than we did 25 years ago, when the military had double the number of active-duty troops. So we’re relying on reserve component people--folks like me who enlisted to get some college money. And we’re totally disrupting their lives. I know people in the reserve component who were farmers. Well, when you’re a farmer, and you get called to go to Bosnia for 10 months, you don't get to have a crop that year. If you have livestock, you have to sell them.
There is an economic draft in the U.S. In the entire U.S. Senate, in the entire U.S. House of Representatives, from all those parents there, they’ve managed to produce exactly one member of the armed services. I'm talking about over 500 people. But if you live in Harlem, and you want to get a job where you can make $20,000 a year and have health insurance and educational benefits and get the hell out of Harlem, your choices are pretty much to join the military, and nothing else.
That’s what’s there for you. So, they did have a choice. They had a choice to stay at home where the average life expectancy for a male person of color is about 35, where half the people of color staying in that environment end up being convicted of a felony--or joining the military.
And on the other side, you have people who say, "Okay, my dad's rich, and I’m going to decide whether I want to go to Yale, or whether I'm going to join the Marine Corps." So there's freedom of choice out there, if that's what you want to call it, but anyone can tell you that this country’s wars have always been fought by the poor. We’re asking the poor kids to fight and die so that the rich kids can have an easier life.
WHAT CAN we do to end the occupation of Iraq and bring the troops home?
THE BIGGEST thing that we can do is to speak out every day. When you wake up in the morning, if you realize that your mission that day is to save a human being’s life, then it’s a good day to write a letter, it’s a good day to get somebody else to write a letter, it’s a good day to make a phone call, it’s a good day to get in your car and drive from Greensboro to Fayetteville to talk to somebody.
We have to know the facts, and we have to keep throwing them out to people--know what’s going on, talk about it every day, and make that your mission on a daily basis, to help save these people’s lives. What we’re going to do is what happened 30-35 years ago. We’re going to make enough parents, enough wives, enough citizens angry enough to take to the streets and take to the press, and we’re going to make a difference.
I SERVED MY COUNTRY PROUDLY AND OUR KIDS ARE SERVING PROUDLY NOW!
IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT THAT THEY DON'T REALLY KNOW WHY THEIR THERE!
IT'S OURS!
LOU PLUMMER served in the North Carolina National Guard for six years. Today, he is an antiwar activist and member of Military Families Speak Out. His son Drew has served in the Navy since June 2001 and is currently stationed aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. In March, Drew spoke out against the war on Iraq at a peace vigil in Fayetteville, N.C.--and was charged by the Navy for making "disloyal statements." After an Associated Press reporter threatened to write a story about the incident, Drew was let off with a slap on the wrist. Lou Plummer spoke with Socialist Worker’s JULIE SOUTHERLAND and CATHERINE GEARY.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
YOU COME from a military background. How did you become an antiwar activist?
I’M NOT a pacifist. For example, the American Civil War was a war that couldn't be avoided, and had I placed myself in that historical situation, then I would have been willing to fight to end slavery.
I joined the military as a 17-year-old whose dad and grandfather had done the same thing and felt the family pressure. Plus, coming from a working-class family, this was my opportunity to make money and go to college, so that's what I did.
During the entire time that I was in the military, I didn’t really disagree with its mission. After I left the military, I went to work at a correctional office. Working in the prison system, I became politically awake and realized that the government does lie, the government enforces racist policies, and that woke me up to activism.
My son joined the military when he was 17, which meant that I had to sign the papers for him to actually be able to enlist. That was his decision--he did it with an informed mind, so I let him do it.
On the other hand, there’s a place in the military for people to speak out, and my son has done that since he’s been in the service. He’s gotten in trouble for doing it. I'm proud of him for doing that. It’s not like my son is "defending our country." My son is organizing GIs.
WHY DID you get involved with Military Families Speak Out and the Bring Them Home Now Campaign?
I was a peace activist before I heard of Military Families Speak Out. This organization appealed to me right off the bat because I'm a veteran, my dad’s a vet, my grandfather’s a vet. Plus my son is on active duty. So I felt I had a voice that mattered.
I was in Chicago for the United For Peace and Justice conference, representing the community of Fayetteville, and met up with Charlie Richardson and Nancy Lessin, who founded the organization.
WHAT ARE the conditions like for U.S. soldiers in Iraq today?
THERE ARE people there who have spent 140-150 days with no hot food, the temperature there is 120 degrees, and they’re getting three liters of rationed water a day. The tools of war making are flowing in, but the basic needs of the soldiers are not. The guys are writing home saying, "Please send me toothpaste," "Please send me toilet paper." And yet, when you go to the military to ask them to comment on this, you're talking to career soldiers who say everything's fine, we’re gonna kick some Iraqi ass. And it’s just bullshit.
The majority of the troops in Iraq are reserve component soldiers. They don't have the same built-in support structure that active duty units have. Here you are, serving the richest country in the world, and you haven’t had a hot meal in four-and-a-half months.
And people say, "You don't want to talk about that--it’s going to undermine morale." How’s that going to undermine morale? It’s ludicrous. The people who are serving know what their situation is, and if they speak out, we can put pressure on the government to improve those conditions.
WE’RE TOLD we need to "Support Our Troops"?
THAT’S SOMETHING we hear a lot around here. When you guys leave here, drive to the end of the street, turn right, and there’s a big pizza sign that says, "Papa Johns: We Support Our Troops." Go in and say, "My husband’s in Afghanistan or Iraq, can I have a discount?" And they’ll say "No."
Supporting our troops mean trying to protect their lives. It means trying to support their families. It doesn't mean tying yellow ribbons.
Do I support our troops? You betcha. My son's on active duty, my brother got pulled out of medical school to go on active duty, my uncle's on active duty, I’m a vet. As a peace activist, I believe I do more to support American soldiers than any right-wing, war-loving Republican ever thought about doing.
WHAT ARE the real reasons for this war and occupation?
MOST OF us knew a long time ago that we were being lied to. Now the world knows that we were lied to. The war was pitched to us as a war that would keep Americans safe by capturing these weapons of mass destruction. And it was also to break the ties that the administration claimed existed between al-Qaeda and the nation of Iraq.
There wasn't a whole lot said in the beginning about liberating the Iraqi people, but as the war took place, and the weapons of mass destruction didn’t materialize, and we didn’t find any al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq, then it became this "war of liberation." And that worked for about two or three days until the people that we had just "liberated" started killing our kids.
I say kids because the majority of them are 18, 19, 20 years old. Last year, they were worrying about football practice and algebra tests and going to the prom, and now they’re dead, lying in a box. When you hear on the news that two American soldiers were killed by rocket fire in Afghanistan today, those are people like my kid.
And what you’re talking about is not 142 people dying. We’re talking about one person dying 142 times. That’s 142 families whose child is dead. I don't know about you, but I don’t feel one bit safer. And I think that’s a crime.
If there's one thing about this movement that’s important, it’s the fact that what we do can save somebody’s life. The people who are benefiting from this war are huge companies like Halliburton and McDonnell Douglas. The United States is the world’s richest country and spends more on the military than the next 20 countries in the world combined. The fact that we’re spending a billion dollars a week in Iraq is mind-boggling.
Then you have the "support our troops" government wanting to cut the pay of combat soldiers. They want to reduce imminent danger pay. And they wanted to start a futures market on terrorist attacks, so if you could bet that 15 American soldiers will be killed in April of 2004, you could make money on it. That’s a crime against humanity.
SOME ACTIVISTS in the antiwar movement consider this just a "Bush thing."
I LIKE to quote Michael Moore: "Bill Clinton was one of the best Republican presidents we ever had." He fought wars and called them "humanitarian wars." Unfortunately, we live in a society where the two major political parties cater to the 10 percent of people in this country who control the money. And those people by and large have investments in the defense industry.
What Bill Clinton did and what George Bush does and what whoever succeeds George Bush will do is cater to the people who have the money. I got into a debate recently with one of the pilots who was shot down in Mogadishu in 1993.
He claimed that had George W. Bush been president when he was shot down, then there would be nothing where Mogadishu is except for a big black hole. But the truth of the matter is that his entire mission was planned in the older Bush administration. Bill Clinton took over, and he had the plans approved by--guess who?--Colin Powell.
SOME PEOPLE say that soldiers volunteer for the military, so they pretty much know what they're getting into when they sign up. What do you think about this attitude?
WE HAVE a heavier operational tempo now than we did 25 years ago, when the military had double the number of active-duty troops. So we’re relying on reserve component people--folks like me who enlisted to get some college money. And we’re totally disrupting their lives. I know people in the reserve component who were farmers. Well, when you’re a farmer, and you get called to go to Bosnia for 10 months, you don't get to have a crop that year. If you have livestock, you have to sell them.
There is an economic draft in the U.S. In the entire U.S. Senate, in the entire U.S. House of Representatives, from all those parents there, they’ve managed to produce exactly one member of the armed services. I'm talking about over 500 people. But if you live in Harlem, and you want to get a job where you can make $20,000 a year and have health insurance and educational benefits and get the hell out of Harlem, your choices are pretty much to join the military, and nothing else.
That’s what’s there for you. So, they did have a choice. They had a choice to stay at home where the average life expectancy for a male person of color is about 35, where half the people of color staying in that environment end up being convicted of a felony--or joining the military.
And on the other side, you have people who say, "Okay, my dad's rich, and I’m going to decide whether I want to go to Yale, or whether I'm going to join the Marine Corps." So there's freedom of choice out there, if that's what you want to call it, but anyone can tell you that this country’s wars have always been fought by the poor. We’re asking the poor kids to fight and die so that the rich kids can have an easier life.
WHAT CAN we do to end the occupation of Iraq and bring the troops home?
THE BIGGEST thing that we can do is to speak out every day. When you wake up in the morning, if you realize that your mission that day is to save a human being’s life, then it’s a good day to write a letter, it’s a good day to get somebody else to write a letter, it’s a good day to make a phone call, it’s a good day to get in your car and drive from Greensboro to Fayetteville to talk to somebody.
We have to know the facts, and we have to keep throwing them out to people--know what’s going on, talk about it every day, and make that your mission on a daily basis, to help save these people’s lives. What we’re going to do is what happened 30-35 years ago. We’re going to make enough parents, enough wives, enough citizens angry enough to take to the streets and take to the press, and we’re going to make a difference.
The Roots of the Bush-Cheney's Oil Government
The Roots of the Bush-Cheney's Oil Government: " Most frightening to me -
as it should be to all Americans - is that
our country is now RUN by oil executives
- men from the very same club to which the
ExxonMobil's Indonesian robber barons belong.Men with, it is becoming obvious,
the very same attitude. In a reined-in repeat of the Suharno Coup and post-coup
corporate feeding frenzy in which Suharto richly rewarded all those who aided
him, the Bush-Cheney consortium has lost no time handing out the prizes, seeking
to reduce regulations, promoting wholesale drilling, creating a phoney energy
crisis and driving up fuel prices, stalking unspoiled wildlands and even trying
to push for legislation to allow the fed to seize private land for energy
interests. The series of coincidental fires at oil refineries and the rolling
blackouts aren't so different from mysteriously lobbed hand-grenades.
And lest we overlook it, the basic Bush energy plan appears to have been
taken almost it for tat from the Baker Institute's 'Strategic Energy Policy
Changes for the 21st Century' report - a report created by a task force that
includes two dozen major oil/energy moguls and also Kissinger Associates. (now
McCarty Kissinger)
How can the behemoths (as one Indonesian writer described the American
corporate-fueled government) be stopped? The question that screams to be asked
is: Why are the stockholders silent on the crimes of the company in which they
hold a material interest? For that matter, why are there still any stockholders
in Exxon at all, in the face of such crimes? Is money so important that nothing
- however evil - matters any more?"
as it should be to all Americans - is that
our country is now RUN by oil executives
- men from the very same club to which the
ExxonMobil's Indonesian robber barons belong.Men with, it is becoming obvious,
the very same attitude. In a reined-in repeat of the Suharno Coup and post-coup
corporate feeding frenzy in which Suharto richly rewarded all those who aided
him, the Bush-Cheney consortium has lost no time handing out the prizes, seeking
to reduce regulations, promoting wholesale drilling, creating a phoney energy
crisis and driving up fuel prices, stalking unspoiled wildlands and even trying
to push for legislation to allow the fed to seize private land for energy
interests. The series of coincidental fires at oil refineries and the rolling
blackouts aren't so different from mysteriously lobbed hand-grenades.
And lest we overlook it, the basic Bush energy plan appears to have been
taken almost it for tat from the Baker Institute's 'Strategic Energy Policy
Changes for the 21st Century' report - a report created by a task force that
includes two dozen major oil/energy moguls and also Kissinger Associates. (now
McCarty Kissinger)
How can the behemoths (as one Indonesian writer described the American
corporate-fueled government) be stopped? The question that screams to be asked
is: Why are the stockholders silent on the crimes of the company in which they
hold a material interest? For that matter, why are there still any stockholders
in Exxon at all, in the face of such crimes? Is money so important that nothing
- however evil - matters any more?"
Bush & Environment
Bush & Environment: " Excerpts of statements made by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on the Tavis Smiley show, Tuesday September 28th 2004, relating to his latest book, Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering The Country and Hijacking Our Democracy.
Kennedy:
'I've been bipartisan for 20 years as an environmental advocate, 'cause I don't think there's any such thing as Republican children or Democratic children. I don't want the environment to become the province of a single political party. But you can't talk honestly about the environment today in any context without speaking critically of this president. This is the worst environmental president we've had in American history without any rival. If you look at The National Resources Defence Council's web site , you'll see over 400 major environmental rollbacks that have been promoted by the White House over the last 3 1/2 years as part of a deliberate, concerted attempt to eviscerate 30 years of environmental law.'
They don't want the public to know about this, because even the Republicans would turn against them, and this is what their own polling shows, and I show this in the book. And so they conceal their agenda, this radical agenda behind an Orwellian rhetoric. When they want to destroy the forest, they call it the Healthy Forest Act. When they want to destroy the air, they call it the Clear Skies Bill.
But they've -- most insidiously, they've put polluters in charge of the agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from pollution. The head of Public Lands in this country is a mining industry lobbyist who believes that public lands are unconstitutional. The head of the Forest Service is probably the most rapacious timber industry lobbyist in history, Mark Ray. The head of the air division of EPA is a utility lobbyist who spent his whole life representing the worst air polluters in America. The head of Superfund is a woman whose last job was teaching corporations how to evade Superfund. The second in command of EPA is a Monsanto lobbyist.
Kennedy:
'I've been bipartisan for 20 years as an environmental advocate, 'cause I don't think there's any such thing as Republican children or Democratic children. I don't want the environment to become the province of a single political party. But you can't talk honestly about the environment today in any context without speaking critically of this president. This is the worst environmental president we've had in American history without any rival. If you look at The National Resources Defence Council's web site , you'll see over 400 major environmental rollbacks that have been promoted by the White House over the last 3 1/2 years as part of a deliberate, concerted attempt to eviscerate 30 years of environmental law.'
They don't want the public to know about this, because even the Republicans would turn against them, and this is what their own polling shows, and I show this in the book. And so they conceal their agenda, this radical agenda behind an Orwellian rhetoric. When they want to destroy the forest, they call it the Healthy Forest Act. When they want to destroy the air, they call it the Clear Skies Bill.
But they've -- most insidiously, they've put polluters in charge of the agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from pollution. The head of Public Lands in this country is a mining industry lobbyist who believes that public lands are unconstitutional. The head of the Forest Service is probably the most rapacious timber industry lobbyist in history, Mark Ray. The head of the air division of EPA is a utility lobbyist who spent his whole life representing the worst air polluters in America. The head of Superfund is a woman whose last job was teaching corporations how to evade Superfund. The second in command of EPA is a Monsanto lobbyist.
Crimes Against Nature
Crimes Against Nature: "'You simply can't talk honestly about the environment today without criticizing this president. George W. Bush will go down as the worst environmental president in our nation's history.'
So writes Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his new book 'Crimes Against Nature,' which details how President Bush has rewritten the nation's environmental laws in favor of industry and filled his administration with former lobbyists and corporate executives who now oversee the regulation of their former industries.
A senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council and president of the grassroots Waterkeeper Alliance, Kennedy argues that the Bush administration consistently favored corporate interests over the environment and public health, assaulting the very idea of a common good. He recently spoke with MotherJones.com George W. Bush's many crimes against nature.
MotherJones.com: How has the U.S. government historically changed its approach to public 'commons' such as the air and water?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: One of the successes of the right-wing propaganda campaign has been to convince the American people that the environmental laws were new innovations passed after Earth Day. But in fact, it's always been illegal to pollute. The pollution was restricted by two ancient doctrines. One's called the Public Trust Doctrine, which says that those assets that are by their nature shared assets -- the commonwealth, the air and water, the wildlife, public lands -- are owned by the public. Everybody has a right to use them, and nobody has a right to treat them in a way that will diminish their use and enjoyment by others. The other law is Nuisance Law, which protects private property from intrusion by polluters. Nuisance law has been turned on its head by the right wing, who claim to be on the side of property rights, but"
So writes Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his new book 'Crimes Against Nature,' which details how President Bush has rewritten the nation's environmental laws in favor of industry and filled his administration with former lobbyists and corporate executives who now oversee the regulation of their former industries.
A senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council and president of the grassroots Waterkeeper Alliance, Kennedy argues that the Bush administration consistently favored corporate interests over the environment and public health, assaulting the very idea of a common good. He recently spoke with MotherJones.com George W. Bush's many crimes against nature.
MotherJones.com: How has the U.S. government historically changed its approach to public 'commons' such as the air and water?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: One of the successes of the right-wing propaganda campaign has been to convince the American people that the environmental laws were new innovations passed after Earth Day. But in fact, it's always been illegal to pollute. The pollution was restricted by two ancient doctrines. One's called the Public Trust Doctrine, which says that those assets that are by their nature shared assets -- the commonwealth, the air and water, the wildlife, public lands -- are owned by the public. Everybody has a right to use them, and nobody has a right to treat them in a way that will diminish their use and enjoyment by others. The other law is Nuisance Law, which protects private property from intrusion by polluters. Nuisance law has been turned on its head by the right wing, who claim to be on the side of property rights, but"
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Kyoto?Guess Bush does'nt speek that language!
One Small Step
Yesterday, the world took a small step toward combating climate change. The Kyoto Protocol entered into force with the largest emitter of greenhouse gases -- the United States -- refusing to participate. The BUSH Administration pulled out of the Kyoto process shortly after entering office, saying that it would hurt the economy. According to that logic, climate change's impacts on public health and agriculture -- not to mention coastal areas being hit by rising seas and more frequent powerful storms -- will help the economy. We don't think so. And neither does the insurance industry, who expects losses tied to climate change in the hundreds of billions in the next decade alone. The "hurting the economy" statement also is a disservice to the know-how, innovative spirit, and expertise of the American people to confront the climate change challenge.
For those looking for a silver bullet to the problem, Kyoto certainly isn't it -- but it is a first step in the right direction. Never before have 141 nations came together, pledging to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming. Kyoto provides a framework of international action to address the problem. Back home, the White House defends their inaction by saying "We are still learning about the science of climate change." Unfortunately, while the Bush Administration is still learning, the rest of the world is forging ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)