Onward Christian $oldiers
More passionate than well written. But If you have the time and interest, article helps connect links and smoking guns in the military industrial complex.
Cheney, Feith, Bush, Cohen and neo con profiteers still "....marching as before".
The Inexplicable Enrichment Of
Bush Cronies
By Evelyn Pringle
20 April, 2007
Countercurrents.org
It's time for Americans to face the cold hard truth that nothing will be accomplished by allowing the daily carnage in Iraq to continue, and if Bush has his way, our young people will be dying in this war profiteering scheme until hell freezes over. Congress needs to authorize funding to pull our troops out of that deathtrap and not one dime more.
It apparent that Bush is a madman who will listen to no one. After Bush's speech on January 10, 2007, about the plan to send more troops, retired Army Col Doug McGreggor, a former advisor to Don Rumsfeld in 2003, said in a broadcast interview, "There seems to be a complete failure to understand that we have been trying to suppress a rebellion against our occupation."
"As long as we are there," he warned, "we are the number one public enemy for the Muslim-Arab world."
"We were after all," he points out, "a Christian army occupying a Muslim Arab country, something which in the Middle East, is essentially a disaster."
This decorated combat veteran says Bush's strategy will never work. "We did not go to Iraq originally," he explains, "to dismantle the state, dismantle the army, the police, and the government, to occupy the place with the object of changing the people that lived there into something they did not want to become."
After Bush's speech, military families also spoke out publicly against the decision to send more troops. "I don't have words for it," said Nancy Lessin, of Military Families Speak Out, a group of 3,100 families, including 100 who have lost a loved one in the war.
"This is a war," she said, "that should never have happened, that has wreaked so much havoc on our loved ones, Iraqi children, women and men, and now to be facing, almost four years into it, this news of an escalation of the war, is just unbearable."
An Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed that 70% of Americans opposed sending more troops, but Bush went right ahead and did it anyways. And then to make matters worse, this month he announces the plan to extend the 12-month tours to 15-months to allow his 30,000-troop buildup in Baghdad to stay for another year.
This war is going to bankrupt the US. A January 2007 study by Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, who won a Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes, estimated that the total costs of the Iraq war could be more than $2 trillion when the long-term medical costs for the soldiers injured so far are factored in.
The only people who are benefiting from Bush's war on terror are members of the Military Industrial Complex. Since 9/11, the pay for the CEOs of the top 34 defense contractors in the US has doubled, according to the August 2006 report, "Executive Excess 2006," by the Institute for Policy Studies, and the United for a Fair Economy.
The bill is rising so fast because the level of war profiteering is unprecedented. The Excess Report lists George David, CEO of United Technologies, as the top earner, making more than $200 million since 9/11, despite investigations into the poor quality of the firm's Black Hawk helicopters.
Halliburton CEO David Lesar made $26.6 million in 2005, and nearly $50 million since 9/11, an amount that even beats the $24 million that Dick Cheney received in exchange for the guarantee that Halliburton would be the number one military contractor during the Bush administration.
Cheney himself is also taking in war profits, contrary to what he told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in 2003, when he denied making any money off his former employer. "Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president," he said, "I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest."
"I have no financial interest in Halliburton," Cheney told Tim, "of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."
Those statements were proven false when financial disclosure forms showed that Cheney had received a deferred salary from Halliburton of $205,298 in 2001, $262,392 in 2002, $278,437 in 2003, and $294,852 in 2004.
In 2005, an analysis released by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), reported that Cheney continued to hold over 300,000 Halliburton stock options and said their value had risen 3,281% over the previous year, from $241,498 to more than $8 million.
"It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it," Senator Lautenberg said.
Cheney may be the most visible profiteer to those who find it difficult to follow the war on terror money trail, but many other members of the administration with insider knowledge set themselves up to profit early on as well.
For instance, there was the Undersecretary of Defense, Doug Feith, largely credited for fabricating the tales that got the US into the war to begin with, along with his fellow neocons and best buddy, Ahmed Chalabi.
Feith was a partner with Marc Zell, in the Feith & Zell, DC law firm before joining the administration. After he left for the White House, Zell renamed the firm, Zell, Goldberg & Co, and teamed up with Salem Chalabi, Ahmed nephew, to solicit contracts for clients in Iraq. This scam operated under the name, "Iraqi International Law Group."
At the time, the National Journal quoted Salem as saying that Marc Zell was the firm's "marketing consultant" and had been contacting law firms in Washington and New York to ask if they had clients interested in doing business in Iraq.
According to its web site back then, the IILG was made up of lawyers and businessmen who "dared to take the lead in bringing private sector investment and experience" to the war-torn country and offered to "be your Professional Gateway to the New Iraq."
"The simple fact is," the site stated, "you cannot adequately advise about Iraq unless you are here day in and day out, working closely with officials at the CPA, the newly constituted governing council and the few functioning civilian ministries [oil, labor and social welfare, etc]."
It is highly likely that the preceding statement was absolutely true when made because Feith helped set up the Coalition Provisional Authority in May 2003, with its leader Paul Bremer, and Feith's office and the CPA were in charge of awarding reconstruction contracts with Iraqi money.
For his part, Salem was a legal adviser to Iraq's governing council, of which his Uncle was a member, and Bremer even tried to appoint him to lead the tribunal that would try Saddam.
Uncle Chabali footprints in the profiteering racket can be traced back to September 2003, when the CPA awarded an $80 million contract to Nour USA, a company with ties to Winston Partners, which is a whole other story in itself because Winston Partners is headed by none other than Marvin Bush, the brother to the president.
In May 2003, Nour was founded by, Abul Huda Farouki, whose financial ties to Ahmed Chalabi date back to 1989, when Chalabi was CEO of the Petra Bank, and helped Farouqi finance projects around the world.
Nour's website at the time described the firm as an "international investment and development company" with more than 100 employees based in Iraq, and listed expertise in telecommunications, agribusiness, internet development, recruitment, construction materials, oil and power services, pharmaceuticals and fashion apparel.
In January 2004, Nour picked up another contract to equip the Iraqi armed forces and police worth $327 million. However, shortly thereafter, Nour came under fire when a shady deal surfaced involving the first $80 million contract and Ahmed Chalabi.
Newsday reported that Chalabi had received $2 million for helping to arrange the contract, but as it turned out, the contract was actually awarded to Erinys International, a firm set up in Iraq immediately after the invasion. The problem arose, Newsday said, because within days of receiving the contract, Erinys became a joint venture operation with Nour.
Next, the $327 million contract was in jeopardy after it was revealed that Nour had no experience providing military equipment and Nour claimed that it planned to subcontract its weapons procurement to Ostrowski Arms. However, the army soon learned that Ostowski had no license to export weapons.
The contract was finally axed in March 2004, after six of the 17 firms that bid on it complained that Nour's winning bid was impossibly low.
Following the money trail on this insider deal turned up the names of a few more suspects. According to the National Journal, a Nour executive said the Cohen Group "introduced us to people in the U.S. government who were involved in oil-industry security."
Former Republican Congressman and Secretary of Defense under President Clinton, William Cohen, sits at the helm of the Cohen Group, and according to a report by David Hilzenrath in the Washington Post on May 28, 2006, when he left office in January 2001, Cohen was saddled with debt and his final financial disclosure form, "listed tens of thousands of dollars of charge-account debts at interest rates as high as about 25 percent."
However, within a matter of weeks Cohen and his wife were residing in a $3.5 million mansion. It seems Cohen had wanted this house but was still in office and had no way to finance the purchase, so Frank Zarb, then chairman of the Nasdaq Stock Market, sold the house to Michael Ansari, chairman and CEO of defense contractor MIC Industries, in October 2000, and the Cohen took up residence in January or February of 2001, according to the Post.
From there, Cohen went on to join the board and audit committee of the Nasdaq Stock Market, and 11 days after he left office, MIC announced Cohen's appointment as chairman of its board of advisers in a press release.
In no time at all the Cohen Group was raking in mega-bucks. In applying for one contract, that earned the Group $490,000 over seven months, the firm bragged that it had helped Lockheed win a $3.6 billion contract for the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Poland, financed by the US government.
The Group's proposal said its efforts for the Lockheed deal included "advocacy with key decision-makers in the White House, Office of the Vice President, National Security Council, Department of Defense and the State Department during an 18-month campaign," according to the Post.
In regard to helping Nour get contracts in Iraq, according to the Post, where the government disclosure form for Nour asks the firm to identify "Specific lobbying issues," the Group's filings say: "Exploring overseas business opportunities."
When it comes to war profiteering, members of the Bush administration have given a whole new meaning to the "revolving door." A whole gang of thugs has been robbing us blind in Iraq since day one and nobody seems to be able to stop it.
Congress knows what's going on. Back on September 30, 2003, during the Senate debate over the first Iraq spending bill, Senator John Edwards said he refused to funnel the $87 billion to Cheney and other Bush cronies after learning that Bush's former campaign manager, Joe Allbaugh, who was later appointed to head FEMA, had quit his job 3 weeks before the bombs began to fall in Iraq to start the consulting firm, New Bridge Strategies, for clients seeking contracts in Iraq.
"First, Vice President Cheney's Halliburton receives more than $2 billion in Iraq reconstruction contracts," he said, "and now this."
He called it outrageous and disrespectful to the young people serving in Iraq. "President Bush should start addressing this credibility gap by calling on Joe Allbaugh and his friends to stop using their influence to secure government contracts in Iraq," he said.
Senator Edwards said there used to be talk about money for Iraq being a blank check but we now "know the president is writing it out to Joe Allbaugh and Halliburton and it's all endorsed by Vice President Cheney," he said.
In hindsight, Edwards should have expressed outrage at a few more people because the profiteering team at New Bridges was stacked with Republicans. The company's address was the same as a lobbying firm run by Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee that went under the name of Barbour Griffith & Rogers.
And as luck would have it, Lanny Griffith was the CEO of New Bridge, and Ed Rogers was the vice president.
The firm's initial web site told potential clients, "the opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington, D.C., and on the ground in Iraq."
And these greedy thugs were so shameless that they didn't even try to hide their elation over all the money they planned to make in Iraq. "Getting the rights to distribute Procter & Gamble products can be a gold mine," one of the firm's partners told Naomi Klein, quoted in an article in Harper's Magazine in September 2004.
"One well-stocked 7-Eleven," the partner said, "could knock out thirty Iraqi stores; a Wal-Mart could take over the country."
There were rumors that a McDonald's might open, a Starwood hotel was mentioned, and General Motors was said to be planning a factory and according to Ms Klein, Citigroup was preparing to offer loans guaranteed against future sales of Iraqi oil.
However since the war never did end, in 2004, Joe Allbaugh abandoned the quest for reconstruction gold mine in Iraq and started a consulting firm with the former director of Cheney's secret energy task force, Andrew Lundquist, and their first client was Lockheed Martin.
The marriage between the ex-campaign manager, Cheney's buddy, and Lockheed apparently worked out much better than the plan to build 7-Elevens in Iraq, because Lockheed stock value has doubled since 2001, and according to the Excess Report, the firm's CEO has made $50 million since 9/11.
It may well have been that Joe's new firm was simply an outgrowth from the many other firms set up by this same gang because Haley Barbour had already worked as a lobbyist for a Lockheed.
On thing is certain, Lockheed was not lacking for administration insiders when Allbaugh came knocking. For instance, before Cheney took over as VP, his wife, Lynne served on the board of Lockheed, receiving deferred compensation to the tune of half a million dollars in stock and fees, according to a January 16, 2007 report by Richard Cummings.
Cummings notes that Cheney's "2004 financial disclosure statement lists Lockheed stock options and $50,000 in Lockheed stock."
In addition, Cheney's son-in-law, Philip Perry, Cummings says, was appointed to serve as general counsel to the Department of Homeland Security, and he had been a registered lobbyist for Lockheed who had worked for a law firm representing Lockheed with the Department of Homeland Security.
According to Cummings, less than a month after 9/11, in October of 2001, the Pentagon announced a $20 billion contract for Lockheed for the development of the Joint Strike Fighter, called the F-35. At the time, Edward Aldridge was Undersecretary of Defense for acquisitions, technology and logistics, which was responsible for the approval of the contract. Aldridge left his government post in 2003, and he now just happens to serve on Lockheed's board of directors.
However, the most stunning revelation in the Cummings report, is that in November 2002, Stephen Hadley, deputy national security advisor at the time, called Lockheed employee, Bruce Jackson, to a meeting at the White House and told him that the US was definitely going to war in Iraq but there was one small hitch, the administration could not decide what reason to use to justify it.
So Jackson formed the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," and its mission statement said it was "formed to promote regional peace, political freedom and international security by replacing the Saddam Hussein regime with a democratic government that respects the rights of the Iraqi people and ceases to threaten the community of nations."
According to Cummings, the "pressure group began pushing for regime change - that is, military action to remove Hussein - in the usual Washington ways, lobbying members of congress, working with the media and throwing money around."
Jackson told Cummings that he did not see the point of going on about WMDs or an Al Queda link because he thought the human rights issue was enough to justify the war.
However, Hadley did not agree. "The committee's pitch," Cummings says, "or rationale as Hadley would call it, was that Saddam was a monster -- routinely violating human rights -- and a general menace in the Middle East."
Jackson said he closed down the Committee in June 2003 because its human rights rationale had been abandoned. "We were cut out," he told Cummings, "after the whole thing went to Rumsfeld," and Hadley explained that "terrorism and WMDs" were now the rationale for the war, not human rights.
However, Cummings reports that members of the war sales team that served with Jackson have done well for themselves. The president of the Committee, Randy Scheunemann, became the president of the Mercury Group, and lobbied for Lockheed and others, and then set up the firms, Scheunemann and Associates, and Orion Strategies, which, among other things, consults with companies and countries looking to do business in Iraq.
In November 2003, another Committee member, Rend Al-Rahim Francke, was appointed Iraqi ambassador to the US.
Meanwhile back in Iraq goldmine, the Iraqis have nothing to show for all the torture that they have endured for the past 4 years. On average, Iraqis still get only about two hours of electricity a day, and the situation won't be improving anytime soon because the US has not built a single major power plant.
And despite the $22 billion funneled to the war profiteers for reconstruction, a US official recently said, Baghdad may not have continuous 24-hour electricity until the year 2013.
For the people drawn to Iraq to fight against the occupation, this is not a war against Americans; it's a war against Bush. He tore this country apart for no reason and then just as the Iraqis predicted, the greedy gang of thugs swooped in and ripped everybody off.
And there is no reason to believe that the thievery has ended or the situation in Iraq will get better because an audit released on January 31, 2007, by Inspector General, Stuart Bowen, reported that the $300 billion war and reconstruction effort continues to be plagued with waste and corruption, and yet Bush now wants us to hand over another $100 billion to be funneled through Iraq to the exact same gangsters.
We will never win in Iraq no matter how long we stay because the other side will always have more people willing to die for the cause, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the number of daily attacks continues to escalate as they have for the last 4 years, the US will run out of troops before they do.
Prisoner Abuse: Who is Guilty?
It is four years and a few days since CBS News published the first photos documenting the systematic abuse, torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. The Bush administration and the American military have worked hard to firmly establish the “few bad apples” explanation of what happened. Eight low-ranking soldiers were convicted, and Staff Sargent Ivan Frederick II, who was found guilty of assault, conspiracy, dereliction of duty and maltreatment of detainees, is now halfway through his eight-year prison sentence.
But there are very good reasons to think that Frederick and the others, however despicable their actions, only did what many of us would have done if placed in the same situation, which puts their guilt in a questionable light. Can someone be guilty just for acting like most ordinary human beings?
But you and I cannot look at Frederick and the other guards as moral monsters, because none of us can know that we’d have acted differently. The evidence suggests that most of us wouldn’t have. The coercion of the social context was too powerful.
The second conclusion is that those really responsible for the abuse, on a deeper and more systematic level, still should be brought to justice. They’re in the upper tiers of the military chain of command and its civilian leadership; they’re in the White House.
Neo Con Humiliation (The Economist)
The Economist on the public humiliation of the Neo Cons.
The Economist supported the invasion of Iraq, based presumably on "ideological reasons". Still does.
Yet the world's best newsmagazine now sees a problem with the Iraq War. No longer "just poor implementation".......
"Neocons have been discredited for ideological reasons. Most of the recent mistakes can be traced back not just to flawed execution but to flawed thinking."
Unless 'thinking', strategy and ideology don't precede war (?), The Economist is sliding around.......
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9043308
Lexington
Sidelined by reality
Apr 19th 2007
From The Economist print edition
The neocons are suffering one humiliation after another
Kevin Kallaugher
THE American legal system has rediscovered the virtue of one of the most ancient forms of punishment—public humiliation. Prostitutes' “Johns” can now have their names aired on television. Mail thieves can find themselves wearing a sandwichboard giving full details of their crime. And people who deface Nativity scenes can end up parading through town accompanied by a donkey.
And neoconservatives? These too, it seems, are now being subjected to a grand exercise in public humiliation. Paul Wolfowitz is hanging on to his job at the World Bank by his fingernails (see article). Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a Wolfowitz protégé, is facing prison; Douglas Feith, who worked with Mr Wolfowitz at the Pentagon, is an “untouchable” who is floating around the margins of academia.
As for their patrons, Donald Rumsfeld, Mr Wolfowitz's patron, was sacked from the Pentagon amid accusations that he had lost the Republicans their majority. Dick Cheney is so unpopular that he has provoked protests even at Brigham Young University, a Mormon redoubt which is as conservative as they come. Conrad Black, one of the movement's most generous sugar daddies, is on trial for fraud. It seems that those whom the gods wish to punish they first make neocons.
Not all the neocons have been humiliated quite as badly as Mr Wolfowitz, let alone Mr Libby. Many of them—including Richard Perle, who is widely known as the Prince of Darkness, and David Frum, the man who co-coined the phrase “axis of evil”—are safely on board the starship American Enterprise Institute. Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol are as ubiquitous as ever in the media; indeed, Mr Kristol has been given a column in Time magazine to go along with his self-constructed platform at the Weekly Standard. Robert Kagan is in the middle of writing an ambitious history of American foreign policy.
And neoconservativism is not entirely finished as a political force. George Bush rejected the Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq, which favoured early withdrawal and diplomacy, in favour of the neocon-designed “surge”. Elliott Abrams is a deputy at the National Security Council. Mr Cheney is proving no more destructible than Lord Voldemort. John McCain is blowing loudly on the neocon trumpet; Rudy Giuliani, having flirted with “realists”, has decided to stick with neocon foreign-policy advisers.
But the movement's implosion is nevertheless astonishing. One neocon sums up the prevailing mood in the movement. The neocons are a “laughing stock”. Their “embrace of power” has been “a disaster”. Once upon a time they commanded an audience among Arab democrats and European conservatives. But now they cannot make themselves heard above the din of criticisms of Iraq. The “surge” is a desperate response to failure. Many people see Messrs Kristol and Krauthammer as exhibits in a Ripley's Believe It or Not exhibition: they marvel that they can ever have been so influential, rather than want to follow their advice again.
The neocons are being relentlessly marginalised in Washington. Condoleezza Rice is returning to her “realist” roots at the State Department, now that Mr Rumsfeld is out of her hair and Mr Cheney is weakened. She has embraced “shuttle diplomacy” in Israel-Palestine, signalled her willingness to talk to Syria and Iran, and has even been polite about the United Nations. The rising generation of policy intellectuals regards a reputation for neoconservatism as professional death.
They are also being marginalised—or at least slapped down a bit—within the conservative movement. The “paleocons” have always disliked the neocons, sometimes (disgracefully) just because they are Jewish. But now they are being joined by conservatives of almost every other stripe. Realists dislike them for their destabilising foreign policy. Small-government types dislike them for their indifference to government spending. Libertarians dislike them for their preoccupation with using the state to impose virtue. Neoconservatism could well return to where it started—the intellectual property of a handful of families called Kristol, Podhoretz and Kagan.
Why does the movement seem so discredited? Partly for practical reasons. They misread intelligence about WMD and links between al-Qaeda and Saddam (though some still believe in both notions). They bungled the war in Iraq. They had little real experience of either the Arab world or soldiering. Many of them were even poor managers. Gary Schmitt, a fellow neocon, complained of Mr Feith that he “can't manage anything, and he doesn't trust anyone else's judgment”. General Tommy Franks describes him as the “dumbest fucking guy on the planet”.
Betraying the founders
But, more important, neocons have been discredited for ideological reasons. Most of the recent mistakes can be traced back not just to flawed execution but to flawed thinking. The neocons argued that democracy might be an antidote to the Middle East's problems: but democracy proved too delicate a plant. They claimed that the assertion of American power might wipe out “Vietnam syndrome”: but it has ended up making America more reluctant to intervene abroad. They talked about linking American power with American ideals: but it turned out, at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, that power can corrupt those ideals.
The tragedy of neoconservatism is that the movement began as a critique of the arrogance of power. Early neocons warned that government schemes to improve the world might well end up making it worse. They also argued that social engineers are always plagued by the law of unintended consequences. The neocons have not only messed up American foreign policy by forgetting their founders' insights. They may also have put a stake through the heart of their own movement.
Solidarity: Korean vs Arab
A few days after 9/11, I emailed a number of Arab-American sites.
I assumed they'd be fearful, as I was. The victims came first. But what about the potential for ill considered anti Muslim reaction? I asked the sites, why so.....SILENT? A PERFECT opportunity to be part of America and its sorrow- distance themselves from Arab extremists. And, it goes without saying- help deflect ill considered racism from them and their families.
I mentioned young Japanese Americans during WWII: Though their families were often herded into concentration camps, they signed up, fought well and became among the most, if not THE most highly decorated American units in WWII.
And now, time for patriotic Arab-"Americans" to stand up and be counted. Never happened. Silence.
Interesting contrast with Korean solidarity over the tragic death of one one hundredth as many innocent Americans.
And they're not even American citizens.
Vonnegut. Again?
Sounds good to me.
"He says not only what no one is saying, but also what — as a mild young person — you know it is forbidden to say. No one nourishes the skepticism of the young like Vonnegut. In his world, decency is likelier to be rooted in skepticism than it is in the ardor of faith."
I was never a fan, probably because I was born to soon. Even in an age group the article suggests found Vonnegut a necessary antidote to conventional wisdom, that is 'adult'. For his refreshing, even enlightening skepticism about the way grown ups claim the world is.
The article suggests a reread. I'll pass. I missed out on the coming of age ritual once. Once ought to be enough.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/opinion/13fri4.html?em&ex=1176696000&en=f2ed49c5c5da7f70&ei=5087%0A
EDITORIAL OBSERVER
Kurt Vonnegut
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: April 13, 2007
If you read Kurt Vonnegut when you were young — read all there was of him, book after book as fast as you could the way so many of us did — you probably set him aside long ago. That’s the way it goes with writers we love when we’re young. It’s almost as though their books absorbed some part of our DNA while we were reading them, and rereading them means revisiting a version of ourselves we may no longer remember or trust.
Not that Vonnegut is mainly for the young. I’m sure there are plenty of people who think he is entirely unsuitable for readers under the age of disillusionment. But the time to read Vonnegut is just when you begin to suspect that the world is not what it appears to be. He is the indispensable footnote to everything everyone is trying to teach you, the footnote that pulls the rug out from under the established truths being so firmly avowed in the body of the text.
He is not only entertaining, he is electrocuting. You read him with enormous pleasure because he makes your hair stand on end. He says not only what no one is saying, but also what — as a mild young person — you know it is forbidden to say. No one nourishes the skepticism of the young like Vonnegut. In his world, decency is likelier to be rooted in skepticism than it is in the ardor of faith.
So you get older, and it’s been 20 or 30 years since you last read “Player Piano” or “Cat’s Cradle” or “Slaughterhouse-Five.” Vonnegut is not, now, somehow serious enough. You’ve entered that time of life when every hard truth has to be qualified by the sense of what you stand to lose. “It’s not that simple,” you find yourself saying a lot, and the train of thought that unfolds in your mind as you speak those words reeks of desperation.
And yet, somehow, the world seems more and more to have been written by Vonnegut and your life is now the footnote. Perhaps it is time to go back and revisit that earlier self, the one who seemed, for a while, so interwoven in the pages of those old paperbacks.
Memory Consolidation
National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health (NCBI)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=14744210&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
The neurobiology of consolidations, or, how stable is the engram?
Dudai Y.
Department of Neurobiology, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel. yadin.dudai@weizmann.ac.il
Consolidation is the progressive postacquisition stabilization of long-term memory. The term is commonly used to refer to two types of processes: synaptic consolidation, which is accomplished within the first minutes to hours after learning and occurs in all memory systems studied so far; and system consolidation, which takes much longer, and in which memories that are initially dependent upon the hippocampus undergo reorganization and may become hippocampal-independent. The textbook account of consolidation is that for any item in memory, consolidation starts and ends just once. Recently, a heated debate has been revitalized on whether this is indeed the case, or, alternatively, whether memories become labile and must undergo some form of renewed consolidation every time they are activated. This debate focuses attention on fundamental issues concerning the nature of the memory trace, its maturation, persistence, retrievability, and modifiability.
PMID: 14744210 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16563730&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum
Reconsolidation: the advantage of being refocused.
Dudai Y.
Department of Neurobiology, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel. yadin.dudai@weizmann.ac.il
Ample evidence suggests that upon their retrieval, items in long-term memory enter a transient special state, in which they might become prone to change. The process that generates this state is dubbed 'reconsolidation'. The dominant conceptual framework in this revitalized field of memory research focuses on whether reconsolidation resembles consolidation, which is the process that converts an unstable short-term memory trace into a more stable long-term trace. However, this emphasis on the comparison of reconsolidation to consolidation deserves reassessment. Instead, the phenomenon of reconsolidation, irrespective of its relevance to consolidation, provides a unique opportunity to tap into the molecular, cellular and circuit correlates of memory persistence and retrieval, of which we currently know only little.
Other links........
Rites of passage of the engram: reconsolidation and the lingering consolidation hypothesis.
[Neuron. 2004]
PMID: 15450162
Molecular bases of long-term memories: a question of persistence.
[Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2002]
PMID: 12015239
Linking new information to a reactivated memory requires consolidation and not reconsolidation mechanisms.
[PLoS Biol. 2005]
PMID: 16104829
The secret life of memories.
[Neuron. 2006]
PMID: 16675390
Amnesia or retrieval deficit? Implications of a molecular approach to the question of reconsolidation.
[Learn Mem. 2006]
PMID: 17015846
Bush Psychoprofile
From Publishers Weekly, review of Dr. Frank's book on GWB:
Bush Administration policies are not only a "great catastrophe" but the products of a disturbed mind, according to this provocative blend of psychological case-study and partisan polemic. Psychoanalyst Frank sifts through family memoirs, the writings of critics like Al Franken and David Corn and the public record of Bush's personal idiosyncrasies for clues to the President's character, interpreting the evidence in the rigidly Freudian framework of child psychoanalyst Melanie Klein. He finds that Bush, psychically scarred by an absentee father and a cold, authoritarian mother, has developed a galloping case of megalomania, characterized by a Manichaean worldview, delusions of persecution and omnipotence and an "anal/sadistic" indifference to others' pain, with removal from office the only "treatment option." The author's exegesis of Bush's personality traits-the drinking problem, the bellicose rhetoric, the verbal flailings and misstatements of fact, the religiosity and exercise routines, the hints of dyslexia and hyperactivity, the youthful cruelty to animals and schoolmates, the smirk-paints an intriguing, if exaggerated and contemptuous, portrait of a possibly troubled public figure. Indeed, if Bush's reneging on campaign promises is a form of clinical "sadism," and his budget deficits an "unconscious attack on his own parents," then Karl Rove, the Cabinet, and both houses of Congress belong in group therapy with him.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
9/11
One of 100's of videos, websites about 9/11. Yawn....
Make up your own mind. The Mall's not open yet, is it......?
http://www.tv-links.co.uk/show.do/4/1409
Like this crazy world, what a crazy guy thinks.........
1. No WMD in Iraq before US invaded.
(Everyone knows this by now.)
2. No 'yellow cake' uranium sent to the Iraqis from Nigeria.
(Everyone knows this by now.)
3. No "terrorist connection" between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Queda. Or with any other terrorist group.
(Almost everyone knows this by now.)
4. US did not invade Iraq to bring "democracy" to Iraqis. There was another reason. Strategic energy resources, distribution.
(More and more Americans now realize this.)
5. 9/11 was a controlled implosion, missile and airplane attack. By our own government, a plausible reason to invade Iraq.
(Unthinkable for almost all of us. We'd better start thinking it.)
6. US invaded Iraq to create a PERMANENT base to control middle east (and Russian) energy resources.
(Few Americans realize this, still.)
7. US invasion of Iraq- although meant to permanently occupy for control of the oil- was counterproductive.
We destroyed the only counterweight to Iran's power. Must have been a VERY good reason to give it up.
(Think tankers finally figured this out? Or did they know from the start? And the rest of us?)
8. US invasion of Iran is a gambler's "doubling up". Lose the bet? Double the next one.
US cannot support or win a war against Iran. The draft is politically unfeasible. That leaves one option, only: Nukes
US aggression against Iran will strengthen the Iranian people's support of an unpopular Tehran government.
(More and more Americans realize this.)
9. US Middle East policy catastrophe is speeding up the disastrous, almost inevitable linkage between Asian (China/India/
Japan) energy consumption grid, energy rich Russia and major Middle East energy resources.
Already, billing petroleum in Euros (or Yen) in lieu of USD has begun. This mean s financial chaos for the US.
This cannot be allowed to happen. But it IS. This is what wars are fought over.
(Hardly anyone realizes this now.)
10. And just to stop at 10 (there's much, much more....) US allies are floundering, unable to depend on the US.
ABM missile shield in East Europe is being rejected by Europe (except UK) and Russia.
Iran strengthened by US annihilation of Iraq is a MUCH stronger enemy to Israel and Europe. Iran has an
intercontinental ballistic missile almost ready.
(Everyone's too confused to realise this now.)
The tradeoff in American liberty for the (so called) War on Terrorism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C02QHS0D44&mode=related&search=
NO terrroists attacking the US since 9/11. And why not?
Because US security is so efficient? Because Bush has found a way to "protect" the US?
NO attack since 9/11 for one reason: There IS no "terrorist threat" against the USA. A Grand Hoax.
Of course there will soon be a need to have another phony "terrorist attack". The yellow/orange/red thing is so over.
'Credible, expert opinion........'
Here's one reason I'm cautious about the hysterical science-media consensus on Global Warming. Sorry,"Climate Change". (Agreed. It always does.):
Credible scientific and/or expert opinions are a dime a dozen. Often worth the same, too..........
http://www.fiction.net/tidbits/religion/predictions.html
Predictions from the past
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957
"But what ... is it good for?"
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would payfor a message sent to nobody in particular?"
David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.
"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible."
A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.
"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"
H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927.
"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper."
Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind."
"A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make."
Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies.
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."
Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.
"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this."
Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M "Post-It" Notepads.
"So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' So then we went to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got through college yet.'"
Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer.
"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."
1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work.
"You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across all of your muscles? It can't be done. It's just a fact of life. You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an unalterable condition of weight training."
Response to Arthur Jones, who solved the "unsolvable" problem by inventing Nautilus.
"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy."
Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.
"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives."
Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project.
"This fellow Charles Lindbergh will never make it. He's doomed."
Harry Guggenheim, millionaire aviation enthusiast.
"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."
Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.
"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances."
Dr. Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube and father of television.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
"Louis Pastueur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction."
Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the instrusion of the wise and humane surgeon."
Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1873
Control the Climate
http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-6173081.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news
The challenge of the "Race to Space" (as the media called it) shares a lot with the war on climate change. Or whatever it's currently called.... Just that climate control is billed as being of planetary and survival importance. While putting a man on the moon (great imagery?) was merely about national pride, not a reply to the threat of APOCALYPSE.
The feeling associated with the challenge of climate change, until they come up with a cleverer way to 'brand' it, reminds me more of the Free Speech Movement (early 60's) and the Civil Rights Movement (mid-late 60's). In their pervasive idealism, religious fervor, political urgency, universal believe in what is "right".
But climate control trumps them ALL in worldwide hysteria. But they DO need a better buzz word or phrase. "Climate control" is insipid, lacks gravitas, evokes authoritarian pretensions. What greater chutzpah can man have than to claim he can "control" the weather?
Only one: control climate!
Global Warming does have much more 'juice', is "hotter". Still, staying warm sounds sort of 'good' to much of the (developed, civilized, powerful part of the) planet. And nobody cares much about what happens outside his own back yard, does he? (the weak "Global" part).
Let's see.... Beat the Heat? Nope. The Big Burn? Promising, reverberates with The Big Bang. But still not right. Fahrenheit 1000? Better. Surviving the Sun? Too generic.
As always, my tongue's not firmly in cheek. I AM sympathetic, and it all may even be the Truth!
Think of a dark street late at night as we pass a rousing, incandescent evangelical prayer meeting. We feel drawn, a yearning to believe, participate, to feel One with our fellow men in something greater than ourselves.
Until we go lie down for awhile, anyway.
Race to Cool off the World.
http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-6173081.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news
The challenge of the "Race to Space" (as the media called it) shares a lot with the war on climate change. Or whatever it's currently called.... Just that climate control is billed as being of planetary and survival importance. While putting a man on the moon (great imagery?) was merely about national pride, not a reply to the threat of APOCALYPSE.
The feeling associated with the challenge of climate change, until they come up with a cleverer way to 'brand' it, reminds me more of the Free Speech Movement (early 60's) and the Civil Rights Movement (mid-late 60's). In their pervasive idealism, religious fervor, political urgency, universal believe in what is "right".
But climate control trumps them ALL in worldwide hysteria. But they DO need a better buzz word or phrase. "Climate control" is insipid, lacks gravitas, evokes authoritarian pretensions. What greater chutzpah can man have than to claim he can "control" the weather?
Only one: Control climate!
Global Warming is much "hotter". Still, staying warm sounds 'good' to much of the (developed, civilized, powerful part of the) planet. And nobody cares much about what happens outside his own back yard, anyway. "Global" is weak.
Let's see.... Beat the Heat? Nope. The Big Burn? Promising, reverberates with The Big Bang. But still not right. Fahrenheit 1000? Better. Surviving the Sun? Too generic.
As always, my tongue's not so firmly in cheek. I AM sympathetic, and it may even turn out to be the Truth!
Think of a dark street late at night as we pass a rousing, incandescent evangelical prayer meeting. We feel drawn, a twinge of a yearning to believe, to feel One with our fellow men, believing in something greater than ourselves.
Go lie down awhile- always a good remedy.
Human Risk Assessment (Poor)
Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior - New York Times
Morality not cultural. Genetic, and from way, way back.
Controversial, like all theories. Not an especially new one, either.
Economist War Support
In your cover article, "Next Stop Iran?" (Feb. 10, 2007), it is reassuring that your position on a potential US attack against Iran is conscientious: Caution.
What about 'last time'?
In your courageous mea culpa-cum-justification since losing the true religion along the way, we are informed ad inf. that The Economist supported the US invasion of a sovereign country to destroy both non existent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and fudged "terrorist" connections. When the first two banalities dried up and blew away, the Neo Con-Fundamentalist crusade to reform America's ex ally, bad man Saddam and his country, somehow also received your magazine's support.
"This newspaper supported America's invasion of Iraq. We believed, erroneously, that Saddam Hussein was working to acquire nuclear weapons. And we judged that the world should not allow a mass-murderer to gather such lethal power in his hands. In the case of Iran, the balance of risks points, though only just, in the other direction."
Everyone makes mistakes. But on such a scale? I am a long time admirer of The Economist. However, your reputation has suffered irreparable harm from your impetuous rush to join the fray. It is only slightly pardonable because this is not a trait with which you are normally associated. I suggest at least caution, if not better judgement the next time you seek to influence the world. Well before the planes flew, too many of us saw what you apparently did not. Too many of us recognized the hype on TV. Too many understood, if not the game below the surface, that there WAS one- that we should not call into serious question your editorial judgement. Kindly do your readership a favor: Drop further references to your excuses for supporting the worst judgement of the worst leader of the free world in our lifetime. Thank you.
Bob Beadle
Peninsula de Marau, Bahia
Brazil
www.maraupeninsula.com
Crocs® Off the Tracks
I think Croc®'s are gonna blow up. Ive just received the latest catalog. Instead of sticking to promotion of what they do best
using the Beach VBall Tour, etc, they are expanding through line extension, with all sorts of very conventional model adaptations. Line extension is a temptation, but always risky. Almost always falls flat on its face. Crocs® may be driven by fear of the knockoffs. Fear makes for mistakes. There are plenty of clones at super low price points already. Making Croc® girlie shoes wont fend them off.
Crocs® must be thinking: more models, more volume, more shelfspace in stores, more chance to block copies that don't offer the range. And just abandon cheapo outlets to the Chinese.
Major error. Facing the clones, image is way more important than price.
Although the marketing strategy is easy to understand, it is desperate. Worse, it dilutes the Crocs® 'message'. It will rob them of their unique caché if they try to be all things to all people, as the latest catalog suggests.
They're also still selling direct to retailers, instead of careful brand management through exclusive national distributors who know their markets. Retailers are whores. "Kindly whores", as Hans Diesundtot put it.
Game, Set....
So. You've built yourself an empire, eh?
Well, bully for you!
What's next, you ask? Well, now you've got to do what everybody does when they have an empire, of course. You've got to worry about it falling apart, mate!
But how to tell for sure? Let me see if I can be helpful. Here are some rules of thumb to keep in mind, thirty-six sure-fire indicators that your empire is falling apart:
You know your empire's crumbling when the folks who are gearing up their empire to replace yours start blowing up satellites in space. And then they don't bother to return your phone calls when you ring up to ask why.
You know your empire's crumbling when those same folks are cutting deals left, right and center across Asia, Latin America and Africa, while you, your lousy terms, and your arrogant attitude are no longer welcome.
You know your empire's crumbling when you're spending your grandchildren's money like a drunken sailor, and letting your soon-to-be rivals finance your little splurge (i.e., letting them own your country).
You know your empire's crumbling when it's considered an achievement to pretend that you've halved the rate at which you're adding to the massive mountain of debt you've already accumulated.
You know your empire's crumbling when you weaken your currency until it looks as anemic as a Paris runway model, and you're still setting record trade deficits. (Hint: Because you're not making anything anymore.)
You know your empire's crumbling when "the little brown ones" (thank you George H.W. Bush – certainly not me – for that lovely expression) in country after country of "your backyard" blow you off and proudly elect anti-imperialist leftist governments.
You know your empire's crumbling when you can't topple those governments and replace them with nice puppet regimes – like in the good old days – even if you wanted to. And you badly want to.
You know your empire's crumbling when one of their leaders comes to the United Nations and makes fun of your emperor, calling him the devil, and joking about smelling sulphur where he just stood. And though a few folks cringe, everybody laughs.
You know your empire's crumbling when just about your entire military land force is tied up in a worse-than-useless war launched on the basis of complete fabrications, that every day is actually making you less – not more – secure from external threat.
You know your empire's crumbling when almost half the soldiers in that war are high-paid mercenaries, and you don't dare institute a draft.
You know your empire's crumbling when you send soldiers into war with two weeks training and a lack of armor, and then you keep them there for three, four and five rotations.
You know your empire's crumbling when a member of the Axis of Evil can test missiles and explode nuclear warheads, and all you can do about it is mumble some pathetic warnings about how they better not do that again or there will be consequences.
You know your empire's crumbling when you even think that there is an Axis of Evil.
You know your empire's crumbling when a rag-tag military hodge-podge of irregulars has you pinned down in an endless fight you can't win, but also can't lose.
You know your empire's crumbling when you're too dumb to even ban Humvees as a first step toward ending your dependency on a foreign-owned crucial resource.
You know your empire's crumbling when you trade your prior moral leadership on human rights issues for global disgust at your torture, 'extraordinary rendition' (a.k.a. kidnaping for torture) and the dismantling of nine centuries worth of civil liberties progress.
You know your empire's crumbling when you blow off international law that you once helped create, and undermine the institutions of international governance that you once helped build.
You know your empire's crumbling when opinion polls confirm that every month you're more and more despised throughout the world.
You know your empire's crumbling when you can't even pull off the hanging of a tin-pot murderous former dictator without turning him into a hero.
You know your empire's crumbling when you're the richest country in the world, but nearly 50 million of your people don't have basic health care coverage.
You know your empire's crumbling when the World Health Organization ranks your healthcare system 37th 'best' in the world, just above Slovenia, and just below Costa Rica. (And far below Colombia, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia and Morocco.)
You know your empire's crumbling when instead of making it easier for citizens to obtain a higher education, you're making it harder and more expensive.
You know your empire's crumbling when your government gives tax breaks to industries as a reward for exporting your jobs elsewhere.
You know your empire's crumbling when the so-called 'opposition' party can't even turn that obscenity into a viable campaign theme and use it to clobber the worst emperor in your history.
You know your empire's crumbling when your middle class has been stagnant for three decades, while the wealth of the hyper-rich continues to climb through the roof.
You know your empire's crumbling when your reaction to that is to exacerbate the problem by enacting tax policies that massively increase further still the gap between the rich and the rest.
You know your empire's crumbling when the predatory class has taken over your government and is stripping the country of everything not bolted down to the floor. And then it sells the floor itself, as well, to your rivals.
You know your empire's crumbling when you're spending tens of billions of dollars you don't own on new nuclear warheads and space weapons that don't work, to be used against an enemy you don't have.
You know your empire's crumbling when one of your cities drowns and your government does next to nothing before, during and after.
You know your empire's crumbling when a massive environmental nightmare is looming around the corner, and your emperor not only ignores it, but claims it isn't real while taking steps to exacerbate it.
You know your empire's crumbling when your emperor is warned by a CIA briefer of an imminent terrorist attack of vast proportions, and responds by remaining on vacation and dismissing the briefer with the words: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
You know your empire's crumbling when the same emperor drops everything to fly across the country from his vacation home in order to sign a bill intervening on the wrong side of a personal medical drama involving a single family.
You know your empire's crumbling when gays and immigrants are used as diversionary issues to keep people from thinking about the pillaging of their country and their wallets actually taking place. And it works.
You know your empire's crumbling when people are getting more religious and less scientific, not the other way around.
You know your empire's crumbling when your political leaders start to be chosen by dynastic rules of succession.
And you especially know your empire's crumbling when the most idiotic child of one of the least accomplished leaders in its history is not only crowned as the next emperor, but is even revered for a time by most of the public as a great one.
Rome? Britain? Spain?
At this rate we'll be lucky to end up like Belgium.