By DANIEL SHEA, Associated Press Writer Daniel Shea, Associated Press Writer 7 mins ago
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Well over a million people shivered in ice-bound homes across the country Wednesday, waiting for warmer weather and for utility crews to restring power lines brought down by a storm that killed 23 as it took a snowy, icy journey from the Southern Plains to the East Coast.
But with temperatures plunging, utility officials warned that it could be mid-February before electricity is restored to some of the hardest-hit places. The worst of the power failures were in Kentucky, Arkansas and Ohio.
Just getting to their source was difficult for utility crews. Ice-encrusted tree limbs and power lines blocked glazed roads, and cracking limbs pierced the air like popping gunfire as they snapped.
On Wednesday night, President Barack Obama declared federal emergencies in Arkansas and Kentucky, clearing the way for the two states to receive federal aid.
In Kentucky, National Guard soldiers were dispatched to remove the debris. Oklahoma, already struggling to restore power there, planned to send crews to help in Arkansas later in the week.
"It looks like a tornado came through, but there wasn't a path; it was everywhere," said Mel Coleman, the chief executive officer of the North Arkansas Electric Cooperative in Salem. The power is out at his house, too, and he spent Tuesday night in a chair at his office.
The storm was "worse than we ever imagined," he said.
In Arkansas — where ice was 3 inches thick in some places — people huddled next to fireplaces, wood-burning stoves and portable heaters powered by generators. When it got too cold, they left for shelters or relatives' homes that weren't hit as badly.
"We bundled up together on a bed with four blankets. It's freezing," said Pearl Schmidt of Paintsville, in eastern Kentucky. Her family endured 32-degree weather Wednesday morning before leaving their house for a shelter.
Kyle Brashears' family rode out the storm in their Mountain Home, Ark., home before fleeing to relatives after half an ice-caked oak tree fell into their home.
"It caved the roof in and ripped the gutter off, although it didn't penetrate inside," he said. "I was walking around outside until about 1 a.m. and it was just a nonstop medley of tree limbs cracking off."
The number of homes and businesses without power totaled around 1.3 million Wednesday evening, in a swath of states from Oklahoma to West Virginia. Arkansas had more than 350,000 customers in the dark; Kentucky had about a half-million. The actual number of people affected the power failures could be much higher.
In Kentucky, the power outages produced by the ice storm were outdone only by the remnants of Hurricane Ike, which lashed the state with fierce winds last year, leaving about 600,000 customers without power. Gov. Steve Beshear said he was seeking a federal emergency disaster declaration, a key step in securing federal assitance for storm victims.
"We've got lots of counties that do not have any communication, any heat, any power," he said.
Various charities opened shelters across the region, but with the power out nearly everywhere — including at some radio stations — it was difficult to spread the word. Some deputies went door to door and offered to drive the elderly to safety.
Meanwhile, some community leaders buckled down for a long haul. Kentucky Public Protection Cabinet spokesman Dick Brown urged people to conserve water because power failures could limit supplies in some areas.
Since the storm began building Monday, the weather has been blamed for at least six deaths in Texas, four in Arkansas, three in Virginia, six in Missouri, two in Oklahoma, and one each in Indiana and Ohio. Some parts of New England were expected to see well over a foot of snow as the storm kept moving northeast, but because it turned to snow, ice-related power failures weren't as big of a concern.
That didn't mean a trouble-free day for commuters. Delays or cancellations were reported at airports including those serving Columbus, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New York and Boston. Commuters on highways encountered a slushy mess.
Tracey Ramey of Waynesville, Ohio, a village about 20 miles southeast of Dayton, said her husband left for his job as a plow operator late Monday with an overnight bag and hasn't been able to return. He did call her Wednesday morning to caution her not to go to her data-entry job.
"He said, 'There's 2 inches of ice on the road and there's no way you're going to make it to work,'" she said.
___
Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Kantele Franko in Columbus, Ohio; Justin Juozapavicius in Tulsa, Okla.; Bruce Schreiner in Louisville, Ky.; Rick Callahan in Indianapolis; Ben Feller in Washington; Ben Greene in Baltimore; Dan Sewell in Cincinnati; and John Raby in Charleston, W.Va.; and Patrick Walters in Philadelphia.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_re_us/winter_storm/print
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
ACLU Tests Obama With Request for Secret Bush-Era Memos
Published on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 by the McClatchy Newspapers
by Marisa Taylor
WASHINGTON — Dozens of secret documents justifying the Bush administration's spying and interrogation programs could see the light of day because of a new presidential directive.
The American Civil Liberties Union asked the Obama administration on Wednesday to release Justice Department memos that provided the legal underpinning for harsh interrogations, eavesdropping and secret prisons.
For years, the Bush administration refused to release them, citing national security, attorney-client privilege and the need to protect the government's deliberative process.
The ACLU's request, however, comes after President Barack Obama last week rescinded a 2001 Justice Department memo that gave agencies broad legal cover to reject public disclosure requests. Obama also urged agencies to be more transparent when deciding what documents to release under the Freedom of Information Act.
The ACLU now sees a new opening.
"The president has made a very visible and clear commitment to transparency," said Jameel Jaffer, the director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "We're eager to see that put into practice."
The collection of memos, written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, are viewed as the missing puzzle pieces that could help explain the Bush administration's antiterrorism policies.
Critics of the prior administration also see the release of the documents as necessary to determine whether former administration officials should be held accountable for legal opinions that justified various antiterrorism measures, including the use of waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.
Attorney General nominee Eric Holder recently denounced waterboarding as torture, but details about how the method was used have remained secret.
"We don't have anything resembling a full picture of what happened over the last eight years and on what grounds the Bush administration believed it could order such methods," Jaffer said. "We think the OLC memos are really central to that narrative."
Even though some key memos have been released or leaked to the media, at least 50 memos remain secret, Jaffer said, including a dozen memos related to the warrantless wiretapping program.
In one case, the ACLU found out about a memo because it was cited in a footnote. The government has refused to elaborate on the 2002 document, other than to describe it as a discussion of the Fourth Amendment's application to domestic military operations.
Jaffer said that it could reveal whether the Justice Department was advising the National Security Agency that the Fourth Amendment didn't apply to its eavesdropping program, but he's not certain. The amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure.
"There are about a dozen memos where we just have one or two lines about the subject matter and that's it," he said. "When you put it all together you realize how much is still being held secret."
The ACLU originally sought the documents by filing a series of lawsuits under FOIA.
Federal judges have ordered the release of some records, including thousands of pages documenting the FBI's concerns about the interrogation program.
The Bush administration, however, fought the release of most of the records.
In September 2007, U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy rejected the government's claim of secrecy and ordered the Justice Department to submit surveillance documents for his review.
The ACLU has asked another judge to find CIA officials in contempt after revelations that videotapes of CIA interrogations had been destroyed. A criminal investigation is ongoing.
Since Obama's directive on disclosure, Melanie Ann Pustay, the director of Justice's Office of Information and Privacy, instructed federal officials that they should process requests for records with a "clear presumption in favor of disclosure, to resolve doubts in favor of openness, and to not withhold information based on 'speculative or abstract fears.'"
In another indication that the ACLU may get its way, the nominee to head the OLC, Dawn Johnsen, has previously indicated she thinks that such memos should generally be released.
Before her nomination, Johnsen wrote in an article for Slate, the internet magazine, that the central question in the debate was whether OLC could issue "binding legal opinions that in essence tell the president and the executive branch that they need not comply with existing laws — and then not share those opinions and that legal reasoning with Congress or the American people? I would submit that clearly the answer to that question must be no."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/01/28-1
by Marisa Taylor
WASHINGTON — Dozens of secret documents justifying the Bush administration's spying and interrogation programs could see the light of day because of a new presidential directive.
The American Civil Liberties Union asked the Obama administration on Wednesday to release Justice Department memos that provided the legal underpinning for harsh interrogations, eavesdropping and secret prisons.
For years, the Bush administration refused to release them, citing national security, attorney-client privilege and the need to protect the government's deliberative process.
The ACLU's request, however, comes after President Barack Obama last week rescinded a 2001 Justice Department memo that gave agencies broad legal cover to reject public disclosure requests. Obama also urged agencies to be more transparent when deciding what documents to release under the Freedom of Information Act.
The ACLU now sees a new opening.
"The president has made a very visible and clear commitment to transparency," said Jameel Jaffer, the director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "We're eager to see that put into practice."
The collection of memos, written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, are viewed as the missing puzzle pieces that could help explain the Bush administration's antiterrorism policies.
Critics of the prior administration also see the release of the documents as necessary to determine whether former administration officials should be held accountable for legal opinions that justified various antiterrorism measures, including the use of waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.
Attorney General nominee Eric Holder recently denounced waterboarding as torture, but details about how the method was used have remained secret.
"We don't have anything resembling a full picture of what happened over the last eight years and on what grounds the Bush administration believed it could order such methods," Jaffer said. "We think the OLC memos are really central to that narrative."
Even though some key memos have been released or leaked to the media, at least 50 memos remain secret, Jaffer said, including a dozen memos related to the warrantless wiretapping program.
In one case, the ACLU found out about a memo because it was cited in a footnote. The government has refused to elaborate on the 2002 document, other than to describe it as a discussion of the Fourth Amendment's application to domestic military operations.
Jaffer said that it could reveal whether the Justice Department was advising the National Security Agency that the Fourth Amendment didn't apply to its eavesdropping program, but he's not certain. The amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure.
"There are about a dozen memos where we just have one or two lines about the subject matter and that's it," he said. "When you put it all together you realize how much is still being held secret."
The ACLU originally sought the documents by filing a series of lawsuits under FOIA.
Federal judges have ordered the release of some records, including thousands of pages documenting the FBI's concerns about the interrogation program.
The Bush administration, however, fought the release of most of the records.
In September 2007, U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy rejected the government's claim of secrecy and ordered the Justice Department to submit surveillance documents for his review.
The ACLU has asked another judge to find CIA officials in contempt after revelations that videotapes of CIA interrogations had been destroyed. A criminal investigation is ongoing.
Since Obama's directive on disclosure, Melanie Ann Pustay, the director of Justice's Office of Information and Privacy, instructed federal officials that they should process requests for records with a "clear presumption in favor of disclosure, to resolve doubts in favor of openness, and to not withhold information based on 'speculative or abstract fears.'"
In another indication that the ACLU may get its way, the nominee to head the OLC, Dawn Johnsen, has previously indicated she thinks that such memos should generally be released.
Before her nomination, Johnsen wrote in an article for Slate, the internet magazine, that the central question in the debate was whether OLC could issue "binding legal opinions that in essence tell the president and the executive branch that they need not comply with existing laws — and then not share those opinions and that legal reasoning with Congress or the American people? I would submit that clearly the answer to that question must be no."
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/01/28-1
'Wake Up, World!' - SOS From the Amazon
Published on Wednesday, January 28, 2009 by Inter Press Service
by Mario Osava
BELÉM, Brazil - A human banner made up of more than 1,000 people, seen and photographed from the air, sent the message "SOS Amazon" to the world, in the first action taken by indigenous people hours before the opening in northern Brazil on Tuesday of the 2009 World Social Forum (WSF).
"We are raising our voices as a wake-up call to the world, especially the rich countries that are hastening its destruction," said Edmundo Omoré, a member of the Xavante indigenous community from the west-central state of Mato Grosso on the border between the Amazon region and the Cerrado, a vast savannah region in the centre of the country.
Both men belong to the Coordinating Committee of Indigenous Organisations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB), which joined the Quito-based Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organisations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) to create their "message from the heart of the Amazon."
Nearly 1,300 indigenous people from about 50 countries, although mainly from Brazil, plan to raise the issues of their rights as original peoples and environmental preservation at this year's edition of the WSF, which runs through Sunday in Belém, a city of 1.4 million people and the northeastern gateway to the Amazon.
Indigenous people have participated in the WSF in previous years, but this time a much larger presence was sought. The aim was for 2,000 to take part, but transport costs and financial difficulties prevented many participants from coming from other countries and from remote areas within Brazil itself.
In addition to indigenous groups, original peoples at the WSF include Quilombolas (members of communities of Afro-Brazilian descendants of escaped slaves) and other native peoples.
The key location chosen for the WSF, and the various global crises that are occurring, have created "a special moment" for original peoples to take a leading role, according to Roberto Espinoza, an adviser to the Andean Coordination of Indigenous Organisations (CAOI).
"A crisis of civilisation" is under way, said Espinoza, who described the serious economic, energy and food problems, as well as climate change, as part of the same phenomenon.
In this situation, indigenous people should have political participation as of right, not "as folklore or as a merely cultural contribution," Espinoza, one of the coordinators of the indigenous peoples' presence at the WSF, told IPS.
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, approved by the United Nations General Assembly, is of paramount importance here, he said. It should not be seen as a "utopian" document; rather, its provisions should be binding, like those of the International Labour Organisation's Convention 169 on indigenous and tribal peoples.
Espinoza said he hoped this WSF would produce an agreement for global demonstrations similar to those held in 2003 against the United States' invasion of Iraq.
This time around, the goal would be to mobilise "in defence of Mother Earth and against the commercialisation of life," added to specific causes championed by each nation, such as the fight against hydroelectric power stations in Brazil that flood vast areas of Amazon rainforest and displace riverbank dwellers, he said.
The voices of indigenous people are bound to have a greater impact on environmental matters when "the risk of catastrophic climate change in the near future and disputes over natural resources are threatening the survival not only of indigenous peoples, but of humanity itself," Espinoza said.
Indigenous and environmental issues will be even more visible on Wednesday, which is to be dedicated entirely to the Amazon region in an attempt to revitalise the PanAmazon Social Forum, inactive since 2005.
Launching a campaign led by the peoples of the Amazon, who "want a society that values them and understands the value that the land has for them," is a proposal for discussion at the WSF, according to Miquelina Machado, a COIAB leader belonging to the Tukano ethnic group.
This is necessary for "a greater balance with nature," at a time when Brazil's plans for economic growth and the physical integration of South America are fuelling projects which have "strong negative impacts on the Amazon and Andean regions," she told IPS.
"The hydroelectric dams flood the land and destroy biodiversity," she said, while lamenting the fact that attempts to block the building of highways, that cause immense deforestation, have been frustrated in the courts, "which have more power."
The presence at the WSF of presidents of Amazon region countries like Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, as well as Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo, should increase the impact of the event, hopefully benefiting the peoples of the Amazon, Machado concluded.
Indigenous peoples' voices should be heard, because "we are the ones who were born and raised in the middle of the forest, and who lead a lifestyle that contrasts with the ambition of capitalism, which does not bring benefits to all," said Omoré.
Furthermore, "we are the first to suffer the effects" of climate change. Rich people can cool themselves down with air conditioners and buy food in supermarkets, but "we depend on the fish in the river and the animals in the forest, so we are concerned about the future that belongs to everyone," added Batista.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/01/28-8
by Mario Osava
BELÉM, Brazil - A human banner made up of more than 1,000 people, seen and photographed from the air, sent the message "SOS Amazon" to the world, in the first action taken by indigenous people hours before the opening in northern Brazil on Tuesday of the 2009 World Social Forum (WSF).
"We are raising our voices as a wake-up call to the world, especially the rich countries that are hastening its destruction," said Edmundo Omoré, a member of the Xavante indigenous community from the west-central state of Mato Grosso on the border between the Amazon region and the Cerrado, a vast savannah region in the centre of the country.
Both men belong to the Coordinating Committee of Indigenous Organisations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB), which joined the Quito-based Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organisations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) to create their "message from the heart of the Amazon."
Nearly 1,300 indigenous people from about 50 countries, although mainly from Brazil, plan to raise the issues of their rights as original peoples and environmental preservation at this year's edition of the WSF, which runs through Sunday in Belém, a city of 1.4 million people and the northeastern gateway to the Amazon.
Indigenous people have participated in the WSF in previous years, but this time a much larger presence was sought. The aim was for 2,000 to take part, but transport costs and financial difficulties prevented many participants from coming from other countries and from remote areas within Brazil itself.
In addition to indigenous groups, original peoples at the WSF include Quilombolas (members of communities of Afro-Brazilian descendants of escaped slaves) and other native peoples.
The key location chosen for the WSF, and the various global crises that are occurring, have created "a special moment" for original peoples to take a leading role, according to Roberto Espinoza, an adviser to the Andean Coordination of Indigenous Organisations (CAOI).
"A crisis of civilisation" is under way, said Espinoza, who described the serious economic, energy and food problems, as well as climate change, as part of the same phenomenon.
In this situation, indigenous people should have political participation as of right, not "as folklore or as a merely cultural contribution," Espinoza, one of the coordinators of the indigenous peoples' presence at the WSF, told IPS.
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, approved by the United Nations General Assembly, is of paramount importance here, he said. It should not be seen as a "utopian" document; rather, its provisions should be binding, like those of the International Labour Organisation's Convention 169 on indigenous and tribal peoples.
Espinoza said he hoped this WSF would produce an agreement for global demonstrations similar to those held in 2003 against the United States' invasion of Iraq.
This time around, the goal would be to mobilise "in defence of Mother Earth and against the commercialisation of life," added to specific causes championed by each nation, such as the fight against hydroelectric power stations in Brazil that flood vast areas of Amazon rainforest and displace riverbank dwellers, he said.
The voices of indigenous people are bound to have a greater impact on environmental matters when "the risk of catastrophic climate change in the near future and disputes over natural resources are threatening the survival not only of indigenous peoples, but of humanity itself," Espinoza said.
Indigenous and environmental issues will be even more visible on Wednesday, which is to be dedicated entirely to the Amazon region in an attempt to revitalise the PanAmazon Social Forum, inactive since 2005.
Launching a campaign led by the peoples of the Amazon, who "want a society that values them and understands the value that the land has for them," is a proposal for discussion at the WSF, according to Miquelina Machado, a COIAB leader belonging to the Tukano ethnic group.
This is necessary for "a greater balance with nature," at a time when Brazil's plans for economic growth and the physical integration of South America are fuelling projects which have "strong negative impacts on the Amazon and Andean regions," she told IPS.
"The hydroelectric dams flood the land and destroy biodiversity," she said, while lamenting the fact that attempts to block the building of highways, that cause immense deforestation, have been frustrated in the courts, "which have more power."
The presence at the WSF of presidents of Amazon region countries like Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, as well as Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo, should increase the impact of the event, hopefully benefiting the peoples of the Amazon, Machado concluded.
Indigenous peoples' voices should be heard, because "we are the ones who were born and raised in the middle of the forest, and who lead a lifestyle that contrasts with the ambition of capitalism, which does not bring benefits to all," said Omoré.
Furthermore, "we are the first to suffer the effects" of climate change. Rich people can cool themselves down with air conditioners and buy food in supermarkets, but "we depend on the fish in the river and the animals in the forest, so we are concerned about the future that belongs to everyone," added Batista.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/01/28-8
Pentagon Nominee May Make $500,000 on Raytheon Stock
by the Associated Press
Ex-lobbyist exempt from Obama order
WASHINGTON - The man nominated to be the Pentagon's second-in-command could make at least a half-million dollars next month with vested stock he earned as a lobbyist for military contractor Raytheon.
William J. Lynn, who was chosen to be deputy defense secretary despite an Obama administration order against "revolving door" lobbyists who become public officials, has pledged to sell his stock in the Waltham-based company before taking the job.
[This is an undated photo provided by the U.S. Department of Defense of William J. Lynn then Under Secretary of Defense. President-elect Barack Obama appointed William J. Lynn III, a defense contractor's lobbyist, Thursday Jan. 8, 2009 to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, a choice that appeared to break with his self-imposed rules to keep lobbyists at arm's length. Lynn, former Raytheon lobbyist nominated to be deputy defense secretary despite President Barack Obama's ban on hiring lobbyists, will sell his stock in the military contracting firm. (AP Photo/DOD, File)]This is an undated photo provided by the U.S. Department of Defense of William J. Lynn then Under Secretary of Defense. President-elect Barack Obama appointed William J. Lynn III, a defense contractor's lobbyist, Thursday Jan. 8, 2009 to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, a choice that appeared to break with his self-imposed rules to keep lobbyists at arm's length. Lynn, former Raytheon lobbyist nominated to be deputy defense secretary despite President Barack Obama's ban on hiring lobbyists, will sell his stock in the military contracting firm. (AP Photo/DOD, File)
Financial disclosure documents obtained yesterday by the Associated Press show Lynn owns Raytheon "incentive" stock valued between $500,001 and $1 million that is set to vest in February, plus "unvested restricted stock" valued between $250,001 and $500,000.
The documents also show Raytheon also gave Lynn a 2008 cash bonus of between $100,001 and $250,000 to be paid in March of this year. Lynn received a salary of $369,615 last year as a senior vice president at Raytheon, where he began working in August 2002.
As a Raytheon lobbyist until last year, Lynn worked on matters with far reach across the Pentagon, including contracting policy, the military's use of space, missile defense, munitions and artillery, sensors and radars, and advanced technology programs. Raytheon is one of the military's top contractors, with $18.3 billion in US government business in 2007.
Initially, Senate Democrats and Republicans alike balked at Lynn's nomination, citing concerns about a potential conflict of interest in running the massive department he lobbied for six years. Shortly after taking office last week, President Obama issued ethics requirements prohibiting individuals from working for government agencies they have lobbied in the past two years.
But last week, the Obama administration gave the Senate Armed Services Committee a waiver exempting Lynn from two specific sections: a two-year prohibition on employees from participating in decisions related to their former employers and a more specific section banning individuals from taking jobs in the agencies they recently lobbied.
Instead, Lynn's dealings at the Defense Department will be subject to ethics reviews for one year. Lynn's nomination is expected to move forward.
Testifying before the Senate panel yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said stringent ethics rules are a major reason it is difficult to fill top posts at the Pentagon and said it was time to ensure we are not "cutting off our nose to spite our face."
Gates sought Lynn as his deputy and did not want him to have to recuse himself outright from all decisions involving Raytheon because it would severely limit his ability to do his job.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/01/28-3
Ex-lobbyist exempt from Obama order
WASHINGTON - The man nominated to be the Pentagon's second-in-command could make at least a half-million dollars next month with vested stock he earned as a lobbyist for military contractor Raytheon.
William J. Lynn, who was chosen to be deputy defense secretary despite an Obama administration order against "revolving door" lobbyists who become public officials, has pledged to sell his stock in the Waltham-based company before taking the job.
[This is an undated photo provided by the U.S. Department of Defense of William J. Lynn then Under Secretary of Defense. President-elect Barack Obama appointed William J. Lynn III, a defense contractor's lobbyist, Thursday Jan. 8, 2009 to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, a choice that appeared to break with his self-imposed rules to keep lobbyists at arm's length. Lynn, former Raytheon lobbyist nominated to be deputy defense secretary despite President Barack Obama's ban on hiring lobbyists, will sell his stock in the military contracting firm. (AP Photo/DOD, File)]This is an undated photo provided by the U.S. Department of Defense of William J. Lynn then Under Secretary of Defense. President-elect Barack Obama appointed William J. Lynn III, a defense contractor's lobbyist, Thursday Jan. 8, 2009 to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, a choice that appeared to break with his self-imposed rules to keep lobbyists at arm's length. Lynn, former Raytheon lobbyist nominated to be deputy defense secretary despite President Barack Obama's ban on hiring lobbyists, will sell his stock in the military contracting firm. (AP Photo/DOD, File)
Financial disclosure documents obtained yesterday by the Associated Press show Lynn owns Raytheon "incentive" stock valued between $500,001 and $1 million that is set to vest in February, plus "unvested restricted stock" valued between $250,001 and $500,000.
The documents also show Raytheon also gave Lynn a 2008 cash bonus of between $100,001 and $250,000 to be paid in March of this year. Lynn received a salary of $369,615 last year as a senior vice president at Raytheon, where he began working in August 2002.
As a Raytheon lobbyist until last year, Lynn worked on matters with far reach across the Pentagon, including contracting policy, the military's use of space, missile defense, munitions and artillery, sensors and radars, and advanced technology programs. Raytheon is one of the military's top contractors, with $18.3 billion in US government business in 2007.
Initially, Senate Democrats and Republicans alike balked at Lynn's nomination, citing concerns about a potential conflict of interest in running the massive department he lobbied for six years. Shortly after taking office last week, President Obama issued ethics requirements prohibiting individuals from working for government agencies they have lobbied in the past two years.
But last week, the Obama administration gave the Senate Armed Services Committee a waiver exempting Lynn from two specific sections: a two-year prohibition on employees from participating in decisions related to their former employers and a more specific section banning individuals from taking jobs in the agencies they recently lobbied.
Instead, Lynn's dealings at the Defense Department will be subject to ethics reviews for one year. Lynn's nomination is expected to move forward.
Testifying before the Senate panel yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said stringent ethics rules are a major reason it is difficult to fill top posts at the Pentagon and said it was time to ensure we are not "cutting off our nose to spite our face."
Gates sought Lynn as his deputy and did not want him to have to recuse himself outright from all decisions involving Raytheon because it would severely limit his ability to do his job.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/01/28-3
Unemployment rose in every state in December
Manufacturing particularly hit, analyst sees trend continuing through year
The Associated Press
updated 10:10 a.m. CT, Wed., Jan. 28, 2009
WASHINGTON - Rising unemployment spared no state last month, and 2009 is shaping up as another miserable year for workers from coast to coast.
Jobless rates for December hit double digits in Michigan and Rhode Island, while South Carolina and Indiana notched the biggest gains from the previous month, the Labor Department said Tuesday. A common thread among these states has been manufacturing industry layoffs tied to consumers' shrinking appetite for cars, furniture and other goods.
With tens of thousands of layoffs announced this week by well-known employers such as Pfizer Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Home Depot Inc., the unemployment picture is bound to get worse in every region of the country, economists say.
The government said Wednesday the number of layoffs involving 50 or more workers across the country jumped by one-third in 2008 from the previous year, and the pace of job cuts appears to have quickened since then.
"We won't see a light at the end of the tunnel until 2010," said Anthony Sabino, a professor of law and business at St. John's University.
The number of newly laid off Americans filing claims for state unemployment benefits has soared to 589,000, while people continuing to draw claims climbed to 4.6 million, the government said last week. There's been such a crush that resources in New York, California and other states have run dry, forcing them to tap the federal government for money to keep paying unemployment benefits.
Aside from manufacturing, jobs in construction, financial services and retailing are vanishing — casualties of the housing, credit and financial crises.
The Labor Department said Wednesday 21,137 mass layoffs took place last year, up from 15,493 in 2007. That's the highest annual total since 2001, the last time the economy was in recession, and the second-highest since the department began tracking mass layoffs in 1995.
The department says more than 2.1 million workers were fired as a result of last year's mass layoffs.
Clobbered by problems at Detroit's auto companies, Michigan's unemployment rate soared to 10.6 percent in December. Rhode Island's jobless rate hit 10 percent, the highest on records dating back to 1976.
Those states — along with eight others and the District of Columbia — registered unemployment rates higher than the nationwide average of 7.2 percent, a 16-year high.
South Carolina and Indiana posted the biggest bumps in their monthly unemployment rates. Each state logged a 1.1 percentage point rise in unemployment from November to December.
In South Carolina, the unemployment rate bolted to 9.5 percent as laid-off textile, clothing and other factory workers found it difficult to find new jobs.
"The money I was making, I'd be hard-pressed to find a job paying that," said Gregory Smalls, a 49-year-old Columbia, S.C., resident who lost his more than $50,000-a-year job as a truck body shop manager when his department merged with a dealership's service department.
Indiana's jobless rate soared to 8.2 percent in December as workers were hit by layoffs in manufacturing — including at engine maker Cummins Inc. — as well as in construction and retail.
Many Indiana counties with high jobless rates are in the northern part of the state, which has been battered by layoffs in the recreational vehicle industry. Hundreds of workers have lost their jobs at RV makers such as Monaco Coach Corp., Keystone RV Co. and Pilgrim International.
Gayle Glaser, who owns the Shortstop Inn restaurant in Wakarusa, Ind., said those job losses have hurt her business, too.
"We just don't have the traffic here from the plants," she said. "All my customers coming in — they're all laid off."
States that have been spared the worst of the recession's pain tend to benefit from energy and agriculture production, while also having relatively minimal exposure to the housing and manufacturing busts.
Wyoming posted the lowest unemployment rate, 3.4 percent in December. It was followed closely by North Dakota at 3.5 percent and South Dakota at 3.9 percent.
In 2008, the country lost 2.6 million jobs, and in 2009 at least 2 million more jobs are forecast to disappear.
Minneapolis-based retailer Target Corp. said Tuesday that it will cut an undisclosed number of workers at its headquarters. Elsewhere, specialty glass company Corning Inc. said it would cut 3,500 jobs, or 13 percent of its work force, as demand slumped for glass used in flat-screen televisions and computers. And chemical company Ashland Inc. said it would eliminate 1,300 jobs, freeze wages and adopt a two-week furlough program.
Roughly 40,000 layoffs were announced on Monday by a string of companies, including Pfizer, Caterpillar and Home Depot.
To stimulate job growth and the broader economy, President Barack Obama and Congress are racing to enact a $825 billion package of tax cuts and increased federal spending, including money for big public works projects.
The U.S. has been mired in a recession since December 2007. It is on track to be the longest downturn since World War II.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28882024/
The Associated Press
updated 10:10 a.m. CT, Wed., Jan. 28, 2009
WASHINGTON - Rising unemployment spared no state last month, and 2009 is shaping up as another miserable year for workers from coast to coast.
Jobless rates for December hit double digits in Michigan and Rhode Island, while South Carolina and Indiana notched the biggest gains from the previous month, the Labor Department said Tuesday. A common thread among these states has been manufacturing industry layoffs tied to consumers' shrinking appetite for cars, furniture and other goods.
With tens of thousands of layoffs announced this week by well-known employers such as Pfizer Inc., Caterpillar Inc. and Home Depot Inc., the unemployment picture is bound to get worse in every region of the country, economists say.
The government said Wednesday the number of layoffs involving 50 or more workers across the country jumped by one-third in 2008 from the previous year, and the pace of job cuts appears to have quickened since then.
"We won't see a light at the end of the tunnel until 2010," said Anthony Sabino, a professor of law and business at St. John's University.
The number of newly laid off Americans filing claims for state unemployment benefits has soared to 589,000, while people continuing to draw claims climbed to 4.6 million, the government said last week. There's been such a crush that resources in New York, California and other states have run dry, forcing them to tap the federal government for money to keep paying unemployment benefits.
Aside from manufacturing, jobs in construction, financial services and retailing are vanishing — casualties of the housing, credit and financial crises.
The Labor Department said Wednesday 21,137 mass layoffs took place last year, up from 15,493 in 2007. That's the highest annual total since 2001, the last time the economy was in recession, and the second-highest since the department began tracking mass layoffs in 1995.
The department says more than 2.1 million workers were fired as a result of last year's mass layoffs.
Clobbered by problems at Detroit's auto companies, Michigan's unemployment rate soared to 10.6 percent in December. Rhode Island's jobless rate hit 10 percent, the highest on records dating back to 1976.
Those states — along with eight others and the District of Columbia — registered unemployment rates higher than the nationwide average of 7.2 percent, a 16-year high.
South Carolina and Indiana posted the biggest bumps in their monthly unemployment rates. Each state logged a 1.1 percentage point rise in unemployment from November to December.
In South Carolina, the unemployment rate bolted to 9.5 percent as laid-off textile, clothing and other factory workers found it difficult to find new jobs.
"The money I was making, I'd be hard-pressed to find a job paying that," said Gregory Smalls, a 49-year-old Columbia, S.C., resident who lost his more than $50,000-a-year job as a truck body shop manager when his department merged with a dealership's service department.
Indiana's jobless rate soared to 8.2 percent in December as workers were hit by layoffs in manufacturing — including at engine maker Cummins Inc. — as well as in construction and retail.
Many Indiana counties with high jobless rates are in the northern part of the state, which has been battered by layoffs in the recreational vehicle industry. Hundreds of workers have lost their jobs at RV makers such as Monaco Coach Corp., Keystone RV Co. and Pilgrim International.
Gayle Glaser, who owns the Shortstop Inn restaurant in Wakarusa, Ind., said those job losses have hurt her business, too.
"We just don't have the traffic here from the plants," she said. "All my customers coming in — they're all laid off."
States that have been spared the worst of the recession's pain tend to benefit from energy and agriculture production, while also having relatively minimal exposure to the housing and manufacturing busts.
Wyoming posted the lowest unemployment rate, 3.4 percent in December. It was followed closely by North Dakota at 3.5 percent and South Dakota at 3.9 percent.
In 2008, the country lost 2.6 million jobs, and in 2009 at least 2 million more jobs are forecast to disappear.
Minneapolis-based retailer Target Corp. said Tuesday that it will cut an undisclosed number of workers at its headquarters. Elsewhere, specialty glass company Corning Inc. said it would cut 3,500 jobs, or 13 percent of its work force, as demand slumped for glass used in flat-screen televisions and computers. And chemical company Ashland Inc. said it would eliminate 1,300 jobs, freeze wages and adopt a two-week furlough program.
Roughly 40,000 layoffs were announced on Monday by a string of companies, including Pfizer, Caterpillar and Home Depot.
To stimulate job growth and the broader economy, President Barack Obama and Congress are racing to enact a $825 billion package of tax cuts and increased federal spending, including money for big public works projects.
The U.S. has been mired in a recession since December 2007. It is on track to be the longest downturn since World War II.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28882024/
UN official: Enough evidence to prosecute Rumsfeld for war crimes
01/26/2009 @ 8:51 pm
Filed by David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
Monday, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak told CNN's Rick Sanchez that the US has an "obligation" to investigate whether Bush administration officials ordered torture, adding that he believes that there is already enough evidence to prosecute former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
"We have clear evidence," he said. "In our report that we sent to the United Nations, we made it clear that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld clearly authorized torture methods and he was told at that time by Alberto Mora, the legal council of the Navy, 'Mr. Secretary, what you are actual ordering here amounts to torture.' So, there we have the clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but, nevertheless, he ordered torture."
Asked during an interview with Germany's ZDF television on Jan. 20, Nowak said: "I think the evidence is on the table."
At issue, however, is whether "American law will recognize these forms of torture."
A bipartisan Senate report released last month found Rumsfeld and other top administration officials responsible for abuse of Guantanamo detainees in US custody.
It said Rumsfeld authorized harsh interrogation techniques on December 2, 2002 at the Guantanamo prison, although he ruled them out a month later.
The coercive measures were based on a document signed by Bush in February, 2002.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/UN_official_Enough_evidence_to_prosecute_0126.html
Filed by David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
Monday, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak told CNN's Rick Sanchez that the US has an "obligation" to investigate whether Bush administration officials ordered torture, adding that he believes that there is already enough evidence to prosecute former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
"We have clear evidence," he said. "In our report that we sent to the United Nations, we made it clear that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld clearly authorized torture methods and he was told at that time by Alberto Mora, the legal council of the Navy, 'Mr. Secretary, what you are actual ordering here amounts to torture.' So, there we have the clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but, nevertheless, he ordered torture."
Asked during an interview with Germany's ZDF television on Jan. 20, Nowak said: "I think the evidence is on the table."
At issue, however, is whether "American law will recognize these forms of torture."
A bipartisan Senate report released last month found Rumsfeld and other top administration officials responsible for abuse of Guantanamo detainees in US custody.
It said Rumsfeld authorized harsh interrogation techniques on December 2, 2002 at the Guantanamo prison, although he ruled them out a month later.
The coercive measures were based on a document signed by Bush in February, 2002.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/UN_official_Enough_evidence_to_prosecute_0126.html
Birth control funding stripped from stimulus
01/28/2009 @ 9:59 am
Filed by John Byrne
Obama concedes contraception measure
In an apparent effort to appease House Republicans, President Barack Obama has stripped funding for birth control from the $825 billion stimulus package.
According to the White House, while Obama “believed that the policy of increased funding for family planning was the right one ... he didn’t believe that this bill was the vehicle to make that happen,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
The decision to cut birth control funding from the stimulus package comes on the heels of a victory for pro-choice advocates, who won a reprieve from the so-called "global gag rule," which prohibited countries and organizations receiving US aid from offering programs discussing abortion options for women. But the gag rule had been previously stripped by Democratic presidents and reinstated by Republican presidents, so the decision to scrap the gag rule didn't come as a surprise.
Obama called House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) to formally nix the birth control funds, according to Politico. The bill is slated to go to a vote today.
House Republicans had bemoaned the provision.
“How you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-OH) remarked last week. “How does that stimulate the economy?”
The birth control measure was part of a $300 million package intended to slow the spread of STDs. The United States has the highest STD rate among industrialized nations in the world.
The proposal sought to cut costs for states by making it easier for them to pay for contraception for women under Medicaid.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was criticized by Republicans after recently claiming that "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government".
Boehner then complained to Fox News, "Regardless of where anyone stands on taxpayer funding for contraceptives and the abortion industry, there is no doubt that this once little-known provision in the congressional Democrats' spending plan has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and creating more American jobs."
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Birth_control_funding_stripped_from_stimulus_0128.html
Filed by John Byrne
Obama concedes contraception measure
In an apparent effort to appease House Republicans, President Barack Obama has stripped funding for birth control from the $825 billion stimulus package.
According to the White House, while Obama “believed that the policy of increased funding for family planning was the right one ... he didn’t believe that this bill was the vehicle to make that happen,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
The decision to cut birth control funding from the stimulus package comes on the heels of a victory for pro-choice advocates, who won a reprieve from the so-called "global gag rule," which prohibited countries and organizations receiving US aid from offering programs discussing abortion options for women. But the gag rule had been previously stripped by Democratic presidents and reinstated by Republican presidents, so the decision to scrap the gag rule didn't come as a surprise.
Obama called House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) to formally nix the birth control funds, according to Politico. The bill is slated to go to a vote today.
House Republicans had bemoaned the provision.
“How you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-OH) remarked last week. “How does that stimulate the economy?”
The birth control measure was part of a $300 million package intended to slow the spread of STDs. The United States has the highest STD rate among industrialized nations in the world.
The proposal sought to cut costs for states by making it easier for them to pay for contraception for women under Medicaid.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was criticized by Republicans after recently claiming that "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government".
Boehner then complained to Fox News, "Regardless of where anyone stands on taxpayer funding for contraceptives and the abortion industry, there is no doubt that this once little-known provision in the congressional Democrats' spending plan has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and creating more American jobs."
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Birth_control_funding_stripped_from_stimulus_0128.html
Three men indicted for burning black church on election night
Jeremy Gantz
Published: Tuesday January 27, 2009
Just hours after Barack Obama was elected president last November, three men set ablaze a predominantly African-American church in Massachusetts to "interfere" with the civil rights of its congregants, the U.S. Department of Justice said Tuesday.
Benjamin Haskell, 22, Michael Jacques, 24, and Thomas Gleason, 21, all of Springfield, Mass., burned Macedonia Church of God in Christ to the ground in the early hours of Nov. 5th as payback for the election of the country’s first African-American president, the department's indictment alleges.
The three men were released Monday on $100,000 bail each, the Springfield Republican reported, after spending 11 days in federal custody.
"These allegations of racial violence connected with the presidential election are serious and disturbing," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King. "The Justice Department will aggressively prosecute individuals who conspire to commit such acts of violence and intimidation."
Before they burned the Pentecostal church, the construction of which was 75 percent complete, the men used racial slurs to express anger with Obama's victory and discussed burning the new church building because the church members, congregants and bishop were African-American, according to the indictment.
After finding gasoline, the trio poured it on the interior and exterior of the 18,000 square-foot building and set it ablaze, the department said, which ended up injuring firefighters.
Haskell, Jacques and Gleason face a maximum prison sentence of 10 years If convicted. The department did not say when a trial would begin.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Three_men_indicted_for_burning_black_0127.html
Published: Tuesday January 27, 2009
Just hours after Barack Obama was elected president last November, three men set ablaze a predominantly African-American church in Massachusetts to "interfere" with the civil rights of its congregants, the U.S. Department of Justice said Tuesday.
Benjamin Haskell, 22, Michael Jacques, 24, and Thomas Gleason, 21, all of Springfield, Mass., burned Macedonia Church of God in Christ to the ground in the early hours of Nov. 5th as payback for the election of the country’s first African-American president, the department's indictment alleges.
The three men were released Monday on $100,000 bail each, the Springfield Republican reported, after spending 11 days in federal custody.
"These allegations of racial violence connected with the presidential election are serious and disturbing," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King. "The Justice Department will aggressively prosecute individuals who conspire to commit such acts of violence and intimidation."
Before they burned the Pentecostal church, the construction of which was 75 percent complete, the men used racial slurs to express anger with Obama's victory and discussed burning the new church building because the church members, congregants and bishop were African-American, according to the indictment.
After finding gasoline, the trio poured it on the interior and exterior of the 18,000 square-foot building and set it ablaze, the department said, which ended up injuring firefighters.
Haskell, Jacques and Gleason face a maximum prison sentence of 10 years If convicted. The department did not say when a trial would begin.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Three_men_indicted_for_burning_black_0127.html
Behind the Executive Orders
January 25, 2009
On Thursday, President Barack Obama consigned to history the worst excesses of the Bush Administration’s “war on terror.” One of the four executive orders that Obama signed effectively cancelled seven years of controversial Justice Department legal opinions authorizing methods of treating terror suspects so brutal that even a top Bush Administration official overseeing prosecutions at Guantánamo, Susan Crawford, recently admitted that they amounted to torture. According to some of those opinions, many of which remain classified, President Bush could authorize U.S. officials to capture, interrogate, and indefinitely imprison terror suspects all around the globe, outside of any legal process.
The Obama Administration’s reforms may have seemed as simple as the stroke of a pen. But, on Friday afternoon, the new White House counsel, Greg Craig, acknowledged that the reversal had been gestating for more than a year. Moreover, Craig noted in his first White House interview that the reforms were not finished yet and that Obama had deliberately postponed several of the hardest legal questions. Craig said that, as he talked with the President before the signing ceremony, Obama was “very clear in his own mind about what he wanted to accomplish, and what he wanted to leave open for further consultation with experts.”
The steps already taken amount to a stunning political turnaround. One of the executive orders places all terror suspects held abroad unambiguously under the protection of the Geneva Conventions, which outlaw any cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Obama also unilaterally closed the C.I.A.’s “black sites,” and set a one-year deadline for closing the military prison camp at Guantánamo. He decreed that, from now on, the International Committee for the Red Cross must have access to all detainees in U.S. custody; the Bush Administration barred the Red Cross from seeing prisoners held by the C.I.A.
Sitting at a spotless conference table in an undecorated West Wing corner office up a narrow flight of stairs from the Oval Office, Craig, who is sixty-three, seemed boyish and energized. He explained that Obama’s bold legal moves were the result of a “painstaking” process that started in Iowa, before the first Presidential caucus. It was there that Obama met with a handful of former high-ranking military officers who opposed the Bush Administration’s legalization of abusive interrogations. Sickened by the photographs from Abu Ghraib and disheartened by what they regarded as the illegal and dangerous degradation of military standards, the officers had formed an unlikely alliance with the legal-advocacy group Human Rights First, and had begun lobbying the candidates of both parties to close the loopholes that Bush had opened for torture.
Obama was “very excited” that day in Iowa, one participant in the off-the-record meeting recalled, “because he had just gotten polls showing that he was ahead,” but he didn’t seem particularly “comfortable” with the military delegation. The group of military men, which included the retired four-star generals Dave Maddox and Joseph Hoar, lectured Obama about the importance of being Commander-in-Chief. In particular, they warned him that every word he uttered would be taken as an order by the highest-ranking officers as well as the lowliest private. Any wiggle room for abusive interrogations, they emphasized, would be construed as permission.
Obama “asked smart questions, but didn’t seem inspired by it. He totally understood the effect that Abu Ghraib had on America’s reputation,” the participant said. But, in general, “he was very businesslike. He didn’t flatter the officers,” as most of the other candidates had. In addition, Obama’s staff, the participant said, approached the meeting with the retired officers with less urgency than some of the other campaigns had. “But,” the participant said, in retrospect, “it started an education process.”
Last month, several members of the same group met with both Craig, who by then was slated to become Obama’s top legal adviser, and Attorney General-designate Eric Holder. The two future Obama Administration lawyers were particularly taken with a retired four-star Marine general and conservative Republican named Charles (Chuck) Krulak. Krulak insisted that ending the Bush Administration’s coercive interrogation and detention regime was “right for America and right for the world,” a participant recalled, and promised that if the Obama Administration did what he described as “the right thing,” which he acknowledged wouldn’t be politically easy, he would personally “fly cover” for them.
Last week, as Obama signed the executive order, sixteen retired generals and flag officers from the same group did just that. Told on Monday that they were needed at the White House, they flew to the capital from as far away as California, a phalanx of square-jawed certified patriots providing cover for Obama’s announcement.
Shortly before the signing ceremony, Craig said, Obama met with the officers in the Roosevelt Room, along with Vice-President Biden and several other top Administration officials. “It was hugely important to the President to have the input from these military people,” Craig said, “not only because of their proven concern for protecting the American people—they’d dedicated their lives to it—but also because some had their own experience they could speak from.” Two of the officers had sons serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of them, retired Major General Paul Eaton, stressed that, as he put it later that day, “torture is the tool of the lazy, the stupid, and the pseudo-tough. It’s also perhaps the greatest recruiting tool that the terrorists have.” The feeling in the room, as retired Rear Admiral John Hutson later put it, “was joy, perhaps, that the country was getting back on track.”
Across the Potomac River, at the C.I.A.’s headquarters, in Langley, Virginia, however, there was considerably less jubilation. Top C.I.A. officials have argued for years that so-called “enhanced” interrogation techniques have yielded lifesaving intelligence breakthroughs. “They disagree in some respect,” Craig admitted. Among the hard questions that Obama left open, in fact, is whether the C.I.A. will have to follow the same interrogation rules as the military. While the President has clearly put an end to cruel tactics, Craig said that Obama “is somewhat sympathetic to the spies’ argument that their mission and circumstances are different.”
Despite such sentiments, Obama’s executive orders will undoubtedly rein in the C.I.A. Waterboarding, for instance, has gone the way of the rack, now that the C.I.A. is strictly bound by customary interpretations of the Geneva Conventions. This decision, too, was the result of intense deliberation. During the transition period, unknown to the public, Obama’s legal, intelligence, and national-security advisers visited Langley for two long sessions with current and former intelligence-community members. They debated whether a ban on brutal interrogation practices would hurt their ability to gather intelligence, and the advisers asked the intelligence veterans to prepare a cost-benefit analysis. The conclusions may surprise defenders of harsh interrogation tactics. “There was unanimity among Obama’s expert advisers,” Craig said, “that to change the practices would not in any material way affect the collection of intelligence.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/tny/2009/01/behind-the-executive-orders.html?printable=true
On Thursday, President Barack Obama consigned to history the worst excesses of the Bush Administration’s “war on terror.” One of the four executive orders that Obama signed effectively cancelled seven years of controversial Justice Department legal opinions authorizing methods of treating terror suspects so brutal that even a top Bush Administration official overseeing prosecutions at Guantánamo, Susan Crawford, recently admitted that they amounted to torture. According to some of those opinions, many of which remain classified, President Bush could authorize U.S. officials to capture, interrogate, and indefinitely imprison terror suspects all around the globe, outside of any legal process.
The Obama Administration’s reforms may have seemed as simple as the stroke of a pen. But, on Friday afternoon, the new White House counsel, Greg Craig, acknowledged that the reversal had been gestating for more than a year. Moreover, Craig noted in his first White House interview that the reforms were not finished yet and that Obama had deliberately postponed several of the hardest legal questions. Craig said that, as he talked with the President before the signing ceremony, Obama was “very clear in his own mind about what he wanted to accomplish, and what he wanted to leave open for further consultation with experts.”
The steps already taken amount to a stunning political turnaround. One of the executive orders places all terror suspects held abroad unambiguously under the protection of the Geneva Conventions, which outlaw any cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Obama also unilaterally closed the C.I.A.’s “black sites,” and set a one-year deadline for closing the military prison camp at Guantánamo. He decreed that, from now on, the International Committee for the Red Cross must have access to all detainees in U.S. custody; the Bush Administration barred the Red Cross from seeing prisoners held by the C.I.A.
Sitting at a spotless conference table in an undecorated West Wing corner office up a narrow flight of stairs from the Oval Office, Craig, who is sixty-three, seemed boyish and energized. He explained that Obama’s bold legal moves were the result of a “painstaking” process that started in Iowa, before the first Presidential caucus. It was there that Obama met with a handful of former high-ranking military officers who opposed the Bush Administration’s legalization of abusive interrogations. Sickened by the photographs from Abu Ghraib and disheartened by what they regarded as the illegal and dangerous degradation of military standards, the officers had formed an unlikely alliance with the legal-advocacy group Human Rights First, and had begun lobbying the candidates of both parties to close the loopholes that Bush had opened for torture.
Obama was “very excited” that day in Iowa, one participant in the off-the-record meeting recalled, “because he had just gotten polls showing that he was ahead,” but he didn’t seem particularly “comfortable” with the military delegation. The group of military men, which included the retired four-star generals Dave Maddox and Joseph Hoar, lectured Obama about the importance of being Commander-in-Chief. In particular, they warned him that every word he uttered would be taken as an order by the highest-ranking officers as well as the lowliest private. Any wiggle room for abusive interrogations, they emphasized, would be construed as permission.
Obama “asked smart questions, but didn’t seem inspired by it. He totally understood the effect that Abu Ghraib had on America’s reputation,” the participant said. But, in general, “he was very businesslike. He didn’t flatter the officers,” as most of the other candidates had. In addition, Obama’s staff, the participant said, approached the meeting with the retired officers with less urgency than some of the other campaigns had. “But,” the participant said, in retrospect, “it started an education process.”
Last month, several members of the same group met with both Craig, who by then was slated to become Obama’s top legal adviser, and Attorney General-designate Eric Holder. The two future Obama Administration lawyers were particularly taken with a retired four-star Marine general and conservative Republican named Charles (Chuck) Krulak. Krulak insisted that ending the Bush Administration’s coercive interrogation and detention regime was “right for America and right for the world,” a participant recalled, and promised that if the Obama Administration did what he described as “the right thing,” which he acknowledged wouldn’t be politically easy, he would personally “fly cover” for them.
Last week, as Obama signed the executive order, sixteen retired generals and flag officers from the same group did just that. Told on Monday that they were needed at the White House, they flew to the capital from as far away as California, a phalanx of square-jawed certified patriots providing cover for Obama’s announcement.
Shortly before the signing ceremony, Craig said, Obama met with the officers in the Roosevelt Room, along with Vice-President Biden and several other top Administration officials. “It was hugely important to the President to have the input from these military people,” Craig said, “not only because of their proven concern for protecting the American people—they’d dedicated their lives to it—but also because some had their own experience they could speak from.” Two of the officers had sons serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of them, retired Major General Paul Eaton, stressed that, as he put it later that day, “torture is the tool of the lazy, the stupid, and the pseudo-tough. It’s also perhaps the greatest recruiting tool that the terrorists have.” The feeling in the room, as retired Rear Admiral John Hutson later put it, “was joy, perhaps, that the country was getting back on track.”
Across the Potomac River, at the C.I.A.’s headquarters, in Langley, Virginia, however, there was considerably less jubilation. Top C.I.A. officials have argued for years that so-called “enhanced” interrogation techniques have yielded lifesaving intelligence breakthroughs. “They disagree in some respect,” Craig admitted. Among the hard questions that Obama left open, in fact, is whether the C.I.A. will have to follow the same interrogation rules as the military. While the President has clearly put an end to cruel tactics, Craig said that Obama “is somewhat sympathetic to the spies’ argument that their mission and circumstances are different.”
Despite such sentiments, Obama’s executive orders will undoubtedly rein in the C.I.A. Waterboarding, for instance, has gone the way of the rack, now that the C.I.A. is strictly bound by customary interpretations of the Geneva Conventions. This decision, too, was the result of intense deliberation. During the transition period, unknown to the public, Obama’s legal, intelligence, and national-security advisers visited Langley for two long sessions with current and former intelligence-community members. They debated whether a ban on brutal interrogation practices would hurt their ability to gather intelligence, and the advisers asked the intelligence veterans to prepare a cost-benefit analysis. The conclusions may surprise defenders of harsh interrogation tactics. “There was unanimity among Obama’s expert advisers,” Craig said, “that to change the practices would not in any material way affect the collection of intelligence.”
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/tny/2009/01/behind-the-executive-orders.html?printable=true
Obama picks BSA's antipiracy enforcer for high-level post
Posted by Declan McCullagh
January 23, 2009 12:00 AM PST
For his vice president, Barack Obama chose Joe Biden, a senator with a long history of aiding the Recording Industry Association of America. Then Obama picked the RIAA's favorite lawyer, Tom Perrelli, for a top Justice Department post.
Now, as one of his first official actions as president, Obama has selected the Business Software Alliance's top antipiracy enforcer and general counsel, Neil MacBride, for a senior Justice Department post. Among other duties, MacBride has been responsible for the BSA's program that rewarded people for phoning in tips about suspected software piracy.
Neil MacBride, vice president of antipiracy and general counsel to the Business Software Alliance, Obama's pick for associate deputy attorney general. MacBride was also an aide to Vice President Joe Biden.
(Credit: BSA.org)
All of these choices are well-qualified for their jobs, of course, and there's little reason to believe that Obama's copyright-litigator-turned-DOJer will have to leap any real Senate hurdles. (MacBride was appointed as associate deputy attorney general, a position does not require Senate confirmation, and previously worked on copyright and other issues as chief counsel to then-Sen. Biden.)
Still, the elevation of RIAA and BSA lawyers must feel like a poke in the eye to the copyleft and progressive crowd, who spent over a year showering Obama with praise. Public Knowledge called Obama's election an "important" victory, while Free Press lauded it as "a sea change in leadership that allows us to go from playing defense to offense." Stanford professor Larry Lessig--probably the best known "free culture" proponent--went so far as to plead for all of his friends to "do something this time" by voting for Obama over his Republican rival.
"Neil MacBride will serve the country well in his new position at the Justice Department," Robert Holleyman, BSA's president, said in a statement on Thursday.
BSA has opposed changes to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention section, once saying that legislation to allow backup copies of DVDs or video games would provide a "safe harbor for pirates who could easily claim that the 'intent' of their actions were legal." Early in the campaign, Obama told CNET News that he would support such a law, but hedged it by saying his support was "in concept" only. (He also claimed at the time to oppose retroactive immunity for telcos that illegally opened their networks to the National Security Agency, and we know how that turned out.)
Obama has fulfilled some of his campaign promises with surprising rapidity. On Wednesday, he ordered government agencies to be more open and Internet-friendly. On Thursday, he announced that the Guantanamo Bay prison would be closed within a year.
But copyright policy is far from Guantanamo, either in symbolic import or in partisan divisiveness. It's no coincidence that the most-loathed copyright bill in recent memory was written by a Democrat, or that a Hollywood Democrat pushed through yet another expansion of copyright law last year.
Nor is it a coincidence that the president of the RIAA gives money only to Democratic causes and politicians, or that Bill Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act into law by saying he was "pleased" to sign a measure preventing "piracy in the digital age." (Trivia for Democrats: Clinton used the same type of signing statement that Bush became famous for, saying "I will construe" the legislation in a way that enhanced the power of the executive branch.)
Obama's most important copyright pick likely will be the so-called White House IP czar, created by the new Pro-IP Act. Speculation has included lobbyist Hal Ponder of the American Federation of Musicians; Michele Ballantyne of the RIAA (who has ties to Obama transition chief John Podesta); or Alec French of NBC Universal.
It's likely that the incoming IP czar--the full title is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator and it requires Senate confirmation--will be influential in intra-administration copyright debates. But it would be foolhardy to deny the influence of the world's largest law firm, also known as the Justice Department, which has tossed around its considerable bulk in recent policy spats.
Some examples: A Justice Department official said in 2002 that the agency could begin to prosecute peer-to-peer pirates, and it still has the power to do so today. The department intervened in the RIAA's civil lawsuit against Jammie Thomas on the side of the record labels. It published an extensive report in 2004 calling for more powers and a law permitting lawsuits against companies that sell products that "induce" copyright infringement. In 2007, it proposed sweeping new legislation to outlaw "attempted" but unsuccessful copyright infringement.
This is where Obama is sending the RIAA (Tom Perrelli) and BSA (Neil MacBride) lawyers.
Two days into an administration is far too soon to evaluate its policies, of course, especially when important vacancies exist. But it may be possible that when Candidate Obama offered the usefully vague promise that he would "reform our copyright and patent systems," he had in mind something rather different than what many of his most enthusiastic Internet supporters did.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10148807-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
January 23, 2009 12:00 AM PST
For his vice president, Barack Obama chose Joe Biden, a senator with a long history of aiding the Recording Industry Association of America. Then Obama picked the RIAA's favorite lawyer, Tom Perrelli, for a top Justice Department post.
Now, as one of his first official actions as president, Obama has selected the Business Software Alliance's top antipiracy enforcer and general counsel, Neil MacBride, for a senior Justice Department post. Among other duties, MacBride has been responsible for the BSA's program that rewarded people for phoning in tips about suspected software piracy.
Neil MacBride, vice president of antipiracy and general counsel to the Business Software Alliance, Obama's pick for associate deputy attorney general. MacBride was also an aide to Vice President Joe Biden.
(Credit: BSA.org)
All of these choices are well-qualified for their jobs, of course, and there's little reason to believe that Obama's copyright-litigator-turned-DOJer will have to leap any real Senate hurdles. (MacBride was appointed as associate deputy attorney general, a position does not require Senate confirmation, and previously worked on copyright and other issues as chief counsel to then-Sen. Biden.)
Still, the elevation of RIAA and BSA lawyers must feel like a poke in the eye to the copyleft and progressive crowd, who spent over a year showering Obama with praise. Public Knowledge called Obama's election an "important" victory, while Free Press lauded it as "a sea change in leadership that allows us to go from playing defense to offense." Stanford professor Larry Lessig--probably the best known "free culture" proponent--went so far as to plead for all of his friends to "do something this time" by voting for Obama over his Republican rival.
"Neil MacBride will serve the country well in his new position at the Justice Department," Robert Holleyman, BSA's president, said in a statement on Thursday.
BSA has opposed changes to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention section, once saying that legislation to allow backup copies of DVDs or video games would provide a "safe harbor for pirates who could easily claim that the 'intent' of their actions were legal." Early in the campaign, Obama told CNET News that he would support such a law, but hedged it by saying his support was "in concept" only. (He also claimed at the time to oppose retroactive immunity for telcos that illegally opened their networks to the National Security Agency, and we know how that turned out.)
Obama has fulfilled some of his campaign promises with surprising rapidity. On Wednesday, he ordered government agencies to be more open and Internet-friendly. On Thursday, he announced that the Guantanamo Bay prison would be closed within a year.
But copyright policy is far from Guantanamo, either in symbolic import or in partisan divisiveness. It's no coincidence that the most-loathed copyright bill in recent memory was written by a Democrat, or that a Hollywood Democrat pushed through yet another expansion of copyright law last year.
Nor is it a coincidence that the president of the RIAA gives money only to Democratic causes and politicians, or that Bill Clinton signed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act into law by saying he was "pleased" to sign a measure preventing "piracy in the digital age." (Trivia for Democrats: Clinton used the same type of signing statement that Bush became famous for, saying "I will construe" the legislation in a way that enhanced the power of the executive branch.)
Obama's most important copyright pick likely will be the so-called White House IP czar, created by the new Pro-IP Act. Speculation has included lobbyist Hal Ponder of the American Federation of Musicians; Michele Ballantyne of the RIAA (who has ties to Obama transition chief John Podesta); or Alec French of NBC Universal.
It's likely that the incoming IP czar--the full title is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator and it requires Senate confirmation--will be influential in intra-administration copyright debates. But it would be foolhardy to deny the influence of the world's largest law firm, also known as the Justice Department, which has tossed around its considerable bulk in recent policy spats.
Some examples: A Justice Department official said in 2002 that the agency could begin to prosecute peer-to-peer pirates, and it still has the power to do so today. The department intervened in the RIAA's civil lawsuit against Jammie Thomas on the side of the record labels. It published an extensive report in 2004 calling for more powers and a law permitting lawsuits against companies that sell products that "induce" copyright infringement. In 2007, it proposed sweeping new legislation to outlaw "attempted" but unsuccessful copyright infringement.
This is where Obama is sending the RIAA (Tom Perrelli) and BSA (Neil MacBride) lawyers.
Two days into an administration is far too soon to evaluate its policies, of course, especially when important vacancies exist. But it may be possible that when Candidate Obama offered the usefully vague promise that he would "reform our copyright and patent systems," he had in mind something rather different than what many of his most enthusiastic Internet supporters did.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10148807-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Karl Rove Subpoenaed By John Conyers: 'Time To Talk'
The Huffington Post | Rachel Weiner | January 26, 2009 05:10 PM
On Monday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) issued a subpoena to Karl Rove, requiring him to testify regarding his role in the Bush Administration's politicization of the Department of Justice, including the US Attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. The subpoena calls for Rove to appear at deposition on Monday, February 2, 2009.
Rove has previously refused to appear in response to a Judiciary Committee subpoena, claiming that even former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress. That "absolute immunity" position was supported by then-President Bush, but it has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates. President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as "completely misguided."
"I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today's action is an important step along the way," said Rep. Conyers. Noting that the change in administration may impact the legal arguments available to Mr. Rove in this long-running dispute, Mr. Conyers added, "Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk."
The AP write-up:
The House Judiciary Committee chairman subpoenaed former White House adviser Karl Rove on Monday to testify about the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys and prosecution of a former Democratic governor.
The subpoena by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., continues a long-running legal battle with ex-President George W. Bush's former White House political director. Rove previously refused to appear before the panel, contending that former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress.
The subpoena commanded Rove to appear for a deposition on Feb. 2 on the firings of U.S. attorneys for political reasons. Conyers also demanded testimony on whether politics played a role in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat.
Bush upheld Rove's legal position, but Conyers said times have changed.
Story continues below
"That 'absolute immunity' position ... has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates and President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as 'completely misguided,'" Conyers said in a statement.
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, did not immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment.
"I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today's action is an important step along the way," Conyers said.
The change in administrations may affect the legal arguments available to Rove, Conyers said.
"Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk," Conyers said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/26/conyers-subpoenas-karl-ro_n_161044.html
On Monday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) issued a subpoena to Karl Rove, requiring him to testify regarding his role in the Bush Administration's politicization of the Department of Justice, including the US Attorney firings and the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. The subpoena calls for Rove to appear at deposition on Monday, February 2, 2009.
Rove has previously refused to appear in response to a Judiciary Committee subpoena, claiming that even former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress. That "absolute immunity" position was supported by then-President Bush, but it has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates. President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as "completely misguided."
"I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today's action is an important step along the way," said Rep. Conyers. Noting that the change in administration may impact the legal arguments available to Mr. Rove in this long-running dispute, Mr. Conyers added, "Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk."
The AP write-up:
The House Judiciary Committee chairman subpoenaed former White House adviser Karl Rove on Monday to testify about the Bush administration's firing of U.S. attorneys and prosecution of a former Democratic governor.
The subpoena by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., continues a long-running legal battle with ex-President George W. Bush's former White House political director. Rove previously refused to appear before the panel, contending that former presidential advisers cannot be compelled to testify before Congress.
The subpoena commanded Rove to appear for a deposition on Feb. 2 on the firings of U.S. attorneys for political reasons. Conyers also demanded testimony on whether politics played a role in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a Democrat.
Bush upheld Rove's legal position, but Conyers said times have changed.
Story continues below
"That 'absolute immunity' position ... has been rejected by U.S. District Judge John Bates and President Obama has previously dismissed the claim as 'completely misguided,'" Conyers said in a statement.
Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, did not immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment.
"I have said many times that I will carry this investigation forward to its conclusion, whether in Congress or in court, and today's action is an important step along the way," Conyers said.
The change in administrations may affect the legal arguments available to Rove, Conyers said.
"Change has come to Washington, and I hope Karl Rove is ready for it. After two years of stonewalling, it's time for him to talk," Conyers said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/26/conyers-subpoenas-karl-ro_n_161044.html
Turley: Obama 'Accessory' To War Crimes If No Prosecution
By David Edwards and Ron Brynaert
January 27, 2009 "Raw Story" -- - A few weeks ago, George Washington University Constitutional Law professor Jonathan Turley, while appearing on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, essentially said that the Obama administration would "own" any war crimes -- such as the reported waterboarding of 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- if it chose to look the other way. On Monday's show Turley went a little further and suggested that if Obama impedes investigations or prosecution that he wouldn't just be an "apologist," but also an "accessory."
Olbermann started the segment by reading a statement released by the Obama administration in response to last week's allegations from a former NSA analyst that President Bush's national security agency targeted news organizations for surveillance and even pried into personal records like finance and travel."
The response stated, "As the president made clear [last week] his administration is ensuring that all programs are conducted in accordance with our values and the rule of law. There will be no exceptions."
Olbermann noted that that was similar to claims made by Bush the last few years, insisting that "all programs were conducted consistent with our values and rule of law," even though most experts have pointed out that methods such as waterboarding are considered torture, inhumane and against the law.
"How much daylight might there be between that and any of the analogs from the Bush White House?" Olbermann asked Turley, who immediately responded, "Not much."
Turley pointed out that the Obama administration response was written "in the future tense. You weren't asking whether he would do these things. Nobody thinks that Obama is George Bush. I think we believe that he's better than these past programs. But people are not asking about the future. We are asking about the past."
"It takes a lot to avoid a very simple truism," Turley argued. "That, if true, these would be crimes and we prosecute crimes. We call people criminals who commit them. It is very easy to say. All you need is the principals and the courage to say it."
Turley said that he had "very little sympathy for the people that committed this torture. I've heard President Obama say we don't want talented people at the CIA looking over their shoulders. Well those talented people in this circumstance would be torturers."
"But in reality nobody thinks that they're going to be prosecuted," Turley continued. "They have something called the estoppel defense where they can say that they were told by people like John Yoo and others that what they did was legal. That does not protect the president and the vice president, and they're the ones and the people just below them who deserve to be investigated and they must be prosecuted if they've committed war crimes or we will shred four treaties and at least four statutes."
[Turley has more background about the estoppel arguments at his blog.]
"And the problem here is it wouldn't make Obama an apologist it would make him an accessory," Turley argued. "He would be preventing the investigation of war crimes. How could he go from that and say that he's all about the rule of law?"
Referring to the fresh Rove subpoena, Turley said that "we could have an interesting fight where George Bush comes in and says 'I'm still claiming executive privilege' when the current president is saying we don't recognize it. Indeed. Obama's people could prosecute Rove and others and I think that the federal courts would give much greater rate to the man currently in the Oval Office than the man who just left it."
Olbermann agreed that "the current executive is the one who gets to decide what executive privilege is."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21857.htm
January 27, 2009 "Raw Story" -- - A few weeks ago, George Washington University Constitutional Law professor Jonathan Turley, while appearing on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, essentially said that the Obama administration would "own" any war crimes -- such as the reported waterboarding of 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- if it chose to look the other way. On Monday's show Turley went a little further and suggested that if Obama impedes investigations or prosecution that he wouldn't just be an "apologist," but also an "accessory."
Olbermann started the segment by reading a statement released by the Obama administration in response to last week's allegations from a former NSA analyst that President Bush's national security agency targeted news organizations for surveillance and even pried into personal records like finance and travel."
The response stated, "As the president made clear [last week] his administration is ensuring that all programs are conducted in accordance with our values and the rule of law. There will be no exceptions."
Olbermann noted that that was similar to claims made by Bush the last few years, insisting that "all programs were conducted consistent with our values and rule of law," even though most experts have pointed out that methods such as waterboarding are considered torture, inhumane and against the law.
"How much daylight might there be between that and any of the analogs from the Bush White House?" Olbermann asked Turley, who immediately responded, "Not much."
Turley pointed out that the Obama administration response was written "in the future tense. You weren't asking whether he would do these things. Nobody thinks that Obama is George Bush. I think we believe that he's better than these past programs. But people are not asking about the future. We are asking about the past."
"It takes a lot to avoid a very simple truism," Turley argued. "That, if true, these would be crimes and we prosecute crimes. We call people criminals who commit them. It is very easy to say. All you need is the principals and the courage to say it."
Turley said that he had "very little sympathy for the people that committed this torture. I've heard President Obama say we don't want talented people at the CIA looking over their shoulders. Well those talented people in this circumstance would be torturers."
"But in reality nobody thinks that they're going to be prosecuted," Turley continued. "They have something called the estoppel defense where they can say that they were told by people like John Yoo and others that what they did was legal. That does not protect the president and the vice president, and they're the ones and the people just below them who deserve to be investigated and they must be prosecuted if they've committed war crimes or we will shred four treaties and at least four statutes."
[Turley has more background about the estoppel arguments at his blog.]
"And the problem here is it wouldn't make Obama an apologist it would make him an accessory," Turley argued. "He would be preventing the investigation of war crimes. How could he go from that and say that he's all about the rule of law?"
Referring to the fresh Rove subpoena, Turley said that "we could have an interesting fight where George Bush comes in and says 'I'm still claiming executive privilege' when the current president is saying we don't recognize it. Indeed. Obama's people could prosecute Rove and others and I think that the federal courts would give much greater rate to the man currently in the Oval Office than the man who just left it."
Olbermann agreed that "the current executive is the one who gets to decide what executive privilege is."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21857.htm
Jimmy Carter's Wise Counsel
By Ivan Eland
January 21, 2009
Editor’s Note: The Washington Establishment is divided among those who want President Barack Obama to pursue the “realist” foreign policy of George H.W. Bush, those who favor the neo-liberal policies of Bill Clinton and those who still want George W. Bush’s neocon approach (albeit a bit toned-down).
However, in this guest essay, the Independent Institute’s Ivan Eland says Obama would be well advised to seek advice from another former President, Jimmy Carter:
At the request of President-elect Barack Obama, President George W. Bush convened an awkward meeting of all living former presidents at the White House to meet, and presumably give advice and encouragement to, the new guy.
The body language of the participants in the summit photo, taken in the Oval Office, said it all.
The President-elect was amiably chatting with George H.W. Bush, the current President’s father. Could it be that Obama was complimenting the elder Bush on his “realist” foreign policy — of which Obama claims to be a fan?
Right next to these two political lovebirds were another harmonious duo. Also visibly enjoying each other’s company were the modern-day champions of U.S. military interventionism on the left and right — Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Clinton was a Wilsonian liberal who was the titleholder in terms of numbers of military adventures, most of them for ostensibly “humanitarian” reasons. He intervened militarily or threatened to use force in Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and North Korea.
The younger Bush, a neoconservative (a right-wing Wilsonian), was the champion in terms of deeply enmeshing the United States in two unnecessary nation-building quagmires simultaneously — Iraq and Afghanistan.
Standing apart from the others in the summit photo — and looking mighty uncomfortable — was Jimmy Carter. Could it be that the interventionism, actual or professed, of all the others made him a little squeamish?
While not perfect, Carter — in keeping with the original vision of the nation’s Founders — exhibited more restraint militarily than the rest. Although he began giving aid to the Afghan mujahadeen, his objective was to annoy the Soviets and give them another Vietnam.
(Ronald Reagan, Carter’s successor, later opened the floodgates to massive aid, tried to win the war, and thus much more significantly enabled a future threat to the United States.)
Carter’s only overt military foray, which ended in failure because of the incompetence of the U.S. military, was the attempted rescue of U.S. hostages at the U.S. embassy in Iran.
Even this mission exhibited restraint; when the hostage-takers stormed the U.S. embassy, under international law this action was the same as attacking American soil.
Although Carter could have conducted a retaliatory military assault against Iran, he correctly surmised that the diplomatic hostages would have been killed.
Although the rescue mission failed, the hostages were eventually freed without the Carter administration having made any concessions to their captors (unlike the macho Ronald Reagan’s astonishing sale of heavy weapons to this same radical Iranian regime, which was a state sponsor of terrorism, to ransom U.S. hostages in Lebanon).
Carter is the most underrated modern president — in fact, he usually gets bad reviews. Yet people have trouble remembering many specifics about why he was so awful.
You cannot have prosperity and liberty if you are always at war. Whereas other recent presidents have seemed oblivious to this fact, the Vietnam experience seems to have made Carter realize it.
Carter consciously used military power reluctantly and only as a last resort. The Founders would have been pleased. He also gave the Canal Zone — a U.S. colonial chunk of Panama — back to its rightful owners.
On the domestic front, Carter did make some mistakes, but he also inherited stagflation caused by the Vietnam War and past presidents’ poor economic policies.
At first, he made it worse but then nominated Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Volcker restricted the money supply and drove inflation out of the economy; and this tight-fistedness contributed greatly to the prosperity of the Reagan and Clinton years. (Regrettably, it was disastrously abandoned in the George W. Bush era.)
In addition, Carter was able to reduce government spending as a portion of GDP and increase economic efficiency by deregulating the transportation, communication, energy, and financial services industries.
In short, maybe Carter stood apart in the summit photo because he stood above the rest of the men in performance while in office.
Obama seems headed toward pursuing the socialist policies of George W. Bush at home and the realist policies of George H.W. Bush abroad.
Although realist policies are better than the Wilsonian interventionist policies of Clinton and George W. Bush, Obama looks like he will pursue a maximalist, rather than a minimalist, version of that school’s policies.
He is already doubling down in the Afghan quagmire and is making noises about doing more militarily in Darfur.
But Obama seems open to outside advice. Instead of just sending Jimmy Carter on peace and humanitarian missions overseas, Obama should invite Carter to a one-on-one session in the Oval Office and learn from the modern master at practicing the Founders’ preferred policy of military restraint.
Obama might also learn that domestic benefits might accrue from eliminating U.S. overextension abroad — for example, improvement in the nation’s finances and economy.
Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland has spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His books include The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.
http://consortiumnews.com/2009/012109a.html
January 21, 2009
Editor’s Note: The Washington Establishment is divided among those who want President Barack Obama to pursue the “realist” foreign policy of George H.W. Bush, those who favor the neo-liberal policies of Bill Clinton and those who still want George W. Bush’s neocon approach (albeit a bit toned-down).
However, in this guest essay, the Independent Institute’s Ivan Eland says Obama would be well advised to seek advice from another former President, Jimmy Carter:
At the request of President-elect Barack Obama, President George W. Bush convened an awkward meeting of all living former presidents at the White House to meet, and presumably give advice and encouragement to, the new guy.
The body language of the participants in the summit photo, taken in the Oval Office, said it all.
The President-elect was amiably chatting with George H.W. Bush, the current President’s father. Could it be that Obama was complimenting the elder Bush on his “realist” foreign policy — of which Obama claims to be a fan?
Right next to these two political lovebirds were another harmonious duo. Also visibly enjoying each other’s company were the modern-day champions of U.S. military interventionism on the left and right — Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Clinton was a Wilsonian liberal who was the titleholder in terms of numbers of military adventures, most of them for ostensibly “humanitarian” reasons. He intervened militarily or threatened to use force in Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and North Korea.
The younger Bush, a neoconservative (a right-wing Wilsonian), was the champion in terms of deeply enmeshing the United States in two unnecessary nation-building quagmires simultaneously — Iraq and Afghanistan.
Standing apart from the others in the summit photo — and looking mighty uncomfortable — was Jimmy Carter. Could it be that the interventionism, actual or professed, of all the others made him a little squeamish?
While not perfect, Carter — in keeping with the original vision of the nation’s Founders — exhibited more restraint militarily than the rest. Although he began giving aid to the Afghan mujahadeen, his objective was to annoy the Soviets and give them another Vietnam.
(Ronald Reagan, Carter’s successor, later opened the floodgates to massive aid, tried to win the war, and thus much more significantly enabled a future threat to the United States.)
Carter’s only overt military foray, which ended in failure because of the incompetence of the U.S. military, was the attempted rescue of U.S. hostages at the U.S. embassy in Iran.
Even this mission exhibited restraint; when the hostage-takers stormed the U.S. embassy, under international law this action was the same as attacking American soil.
Although Carter could have conducted a retaliatory military assault against Iran, he correctly surmised that the diplomatic hostages would have been killed.
Although the rescue mission failed, the hostages were eventually freed without the Carter administration having made any concessions to their captors (unlike the macho Ronald Reagan’s astonishing sale of heavy weapons to this same radical Iranian regime, which was a state sponsor of terrorism, to ransom U.S. hostages in Lebanon).
Carter is the most underrated modern president — in fact, he usually gets bad reviews. Yet people have trouble remembering many specifics about why he was so awful.
You cannot have prosperity and liberty if you are always at war. Whereas other recent presidents have seemed oblivious to this fact, the Vietnam experience seems to have made Carter realize it.
Carter consciously used military power reluctantly and only as a last resort. The Founders would have been pleased. He also gave the Canal Zone — a U.S. colonial chunk of Panama — back to its rightful owners.
On the domestic front, Carter did make some mistakes, but he also inherited stagflation caused by the Vietnam War and past presidents’ poor economic policies.
At first, he made it worse but then nominated Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Volcker restricted the money supply and drove inflation out of the economy; and this tight-fistedness contributed greatly to the prosperity of the Reagan and Clinton years. (Regrettably, it was disastrously abandoned in the George W. Bush era.)
In addition, Carter was able to reduce government spending as a portion of GDP and increase economic efficiency by deregulating the transportation, communication, energy, and financial services industries.
In short, maybe Carter stood apart in the summit photo because he stood above the rest of the men in performance while in office.
Obama seems headed toward pursuing the socialist policies of George W. Bush at home and the realist policies of George H.W. Bush abroad.
Although realist policies are better than the Wilsonian interventionist policies of Clinton and George W. Bush, Obama looks like he will pursue a maximalist, rather than a minimalist, version of that school’s policies.
He is already doubling down in the Afghan quagmire and is making noises about doing more militarily in Darfur.
But Obama seems open to outside advice. Instead of just sending Jimmy Carter on peace and humanitarian missions overseas, Obama should invite Carter to a one-on-one session in the Oval Office and learn from the modern master at practicing the Founders’ preferred policy of military restraint.
Obama might also learn that domestic benefits might accrue from eliminating U.S. overextension abroad — for example, improvement in the nation’s finances and economy.
Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland has spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His books include The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.
http://consortiumnews.com/2009/012109a.html
Move to End "Internet Neutrality": Blow to Bloggers. "Ten Pin Strike against Political Freedom"
By Sherwood Ross
Global Research, January 26, 2009
If the cable and phone companies that transmit Internet data are allowed to charge higher rates to some producers for faster service the result will be “a ten pin strike against political freedom,” a prominent legal authority warns.
That’s because the change will enable the wealthy to “quickly take over the high speed transmissions (for their trash commercial content) just as they completely monopolize radio and TV, and just as their incredibly greedy profit-seeking has had a very deleterious effect on print journalism,” writes Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.
Velvel’s plea for “internet neutrality” comes in his new book “An Enemy of The People,” subtitled “The Unending Battle Against Conventional Wisdom(Doukathsan).” Essentially, he writes, the proposed change is an “attempt by the wealthy to make the internet into yet another repository of their power…”
Under the new scheme sought by transmission firms, Velvel writes, “large companies would pay more, no doubt a lot more, in order to have their messages, videos, audios, and any other content transmitted rapidly. The rest of us peasants, who could not afford to have our content move fast, would pay less and have it move more slowly.”
“One can be sure that the average guy with something he wants to say will be relegated to lower speed transmissions,” Velvel writes. “Blogdom, and the use of the internet by average people for political purposes, will likely be as good as dead.”
According to Save The Internet.com(STI), “The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies ---including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner---want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won’t load at all.”
“What we have here,” Velvel explained, “is a bunch of unregenerate capitalists, who think that nothing else is important except trying to make as much as they can conceivably get away with. As with the oil companies and the investments banks, huge profit margins and scores of millions annually for their chairmen and CEOs isn’t enough for them. They want more. Always more. Nothing else matters to them. The pipes (transmission) companies are no different.”
Velvel pointed out, “The average guy can’t be published in a newspaper, and cannot afford the money to pay to be on radio or television. His voice is limited. The great benefit of the internet, the reason it bade fair to be the new version of the poor man’s printing press (which is what picketing and marching were once called), is that it gave everyone a chance to have his or her say in a way that was immediately available to anyone who found it or knew of it and wanted to read it.”
“That is why tens of millions of blogs sprang up,” Velvel continued, “with (at least) many thousands of them being on political subjects, and with blogdom sometimes having major political impacts.”
Others besides Velvel have also commented on efforts to destroy net neutrality. As a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Bush Federal Communications Commission, Internet Neutrality, “the foundation of the free and open internet---was put in jeopardy,” STI says. “Now cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.”
“Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web,” STI says.
“If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected,” STI continues. “Connecting to your office could take longer if you don’t purchase your carrier’s preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.”
STI warned the consequences of abandoning Internet Neutrality would be “devastating.” “Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporate executives.”
For interviews with Dean Velvel, contact Sherwood Ross at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com. Email Dean Velvel at velvel@mslaw.edu
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Sherwood Ross, Global Research, 2009
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=12016
Global Research, January 26, 2009
If the cable and phone companies that transmit Internet data are allowed to charge higher rates to some producers for faster service the result will be “a ten pin strike against political freedom,” a prominent legal authority warns.
That’s because the change will enable the wealthy to “quickly take over the high speed transmissions (for their trash commercial content) just as they completely monopolize radio and TV, and just as their incredibly greedy profit-seeking has had a very deleterious effect on print journalism,” writes Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.
Velvel’s plea for “internet neutrality” comes in his new book “An Enemy of The People,” subtitled “The Unending Battle Against Conventional Wisdom(Doukathsan).” Essentially, he writes, the proposed change is an “attempt by the wealthy to make the internet into yet another repository of their power…”
Under the new scheme sought by transmission firms, Velvel writes, “large companies would pay more, no doubt a lot more, in order to have their messages, videos, audios, and any other content transmitted rapidly. The rest of us peasants, who could not afford to have our content move fast, would pay less and have it move more slowly.”
“One can be sure that the average guy with something he wants to say will be relegated to lower speed transmissions,” Velvel writes. “Blogdom, and the use of the internet by average people for political purposes, will likely be as good as dead.”
According to Save The Internet.com(STI), “The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies ---including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner---want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won’t load at all.”
“What we have here,” Velvel explained, “is a bunch of unregenerate capitalists, who think that nothing else is important except trying to make as much as they can conceivably get away with. As with the oil companies and the investments banks, huge profit margins and scores of millions annually for their chairmen and CEOs isn’t enough for them. They want more. Always more. Nothing else matters to them. The pipes (transmission) companies are no different.”
Velvel pointed out, “The average guy can’t be published in a newspaper, and cannot afford the money to pay to be on radio or television. His voice is limited. The great benefit of the internet, the reason it bade fair to be the new version of the poor man’s printing press (which is what picketing and marching were once called), is that it gave everyone a chance to have his or her say in a way that was immediately available to anyone who found it or knew of it and wanted to read it.”
“That is why tens of millions of blogs sprang up,” Velvel continued, “with (at least) many thousands of them being on political subjects, and with blogdom sometimes having major political impacts.”
Others besides Velvel have also commented on efforts to destroy net neutrality. As a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Bush Federal Communications Commission, Internet Neutrality, “the foundation of the free and open internet---was put in jeopardy,” STI says. “Now cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.”
“Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web,” STI says.
“If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected,” STI continues. “Connecting to your office could take longer if you don’t purchase your carrier’s preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.”
STI warned the consequences of abandoning Internet Neutrality would be “devastating.” “Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporate executives.”
For interviews with Dean Velvel, contact Sherwood Ross at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com. Email Dean Velvel at velvel@mslaw.edu
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Sherwood Ross, Global Research, 2009
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=12016
The Arctic in NATO's Crosshairs
By David Brian
Global Research, January 26, 2009
The Voice of Russia
The endless desert of snow and ice has always been a subject for dispute among politicians, diplomats and scientists. The Arctic territory has now become a subject of a military dispute.
NATO has declared it a strategically important region. The announcement was made by NATO spokesman James Appathurai who also said a meeting with the participation of high-ranking NATO officials is to take place January 28-29 in Reykjavik, Iceland.
The list of participants leaves no doubt about NATO’s real goals in the region. The decision of the Western defense alliance to declare the northern territories as strategically important will create a tense international situation in the region. The struggle for the Arctic is becoming the subject of long-term military games. Chances are very high, therefore, that they will send military units to the Arctic sooner or later.
Those, who keep an eye on the developments around the Arctic territories, will hardly fail to see that Mr. Appathurai’s remarks come hard on the heels of the initiatives outlined in the US national security directive. The document says that Washington has fundamental national interests in the Arctic region. These interests are crystal clear: missile defense, strategic deterrence, marine security operations. There are no references to terrorists or pirates, who obviously feel themselves way more comfortable in the warm waters off the coast of Somali than among the polar bears of the Far North.
The US, Canada and NATO make no secret of why they need a military group deployed in the Arctic region. Their ice-breakers will arrive in the region to defend national interests of those members of the alliance who claim their right to the natural wealth of this part of the planet. The Arctic contains about 90 billion barrels of unexplored crude and enormous reserves of natural gas, which could be comparable to those of Russia making up about 30 percent of global gas reserves. Experts say that by 2030 Russia will be using many of its Arctic gas deposits to extract about 50 percent of its natural gas. For example, the Shtokman deposit in the Barents Sea contains 4 trillion cubic meters of gas.
Fully aware of the Arctic’s strategic importance, Russia is ready to respond adequately to NATO’s claims. That is why NATO is in such a rush to stake out these claims in the region. Russia’s marine doctrine, which was signed during Vladimir Putin’s presidency, singles out the Arctic territory as one of the major directions of the country’s naval policy. Russia’s Security Council is to unveil a new strategy of Arctic development at the end of January. The key message of the document will be as follows: “Russia is not going to give the Arctic away.” Moscow also wants to considerably intensify the freight traffic activity along the Northern Seaway during the upcoming years and plans to build for this purpose six new powerful nuclear icebreakers before 2020.
About a year from now Russia will submit to the UN documents substantiating its claim to the Arctic shelf. Five countries of the Arctic Ocean – Russia, Canada, the US, Norway and Denmark – made a reasonable decision last year to carve up the Arctic region on the basis of existent conventions only.
However, NATO’s plans to add a military dimension to the Arctic dialogue may lead to drastic changes in the approach to the current issues. All this may result in a new flare point of tension on the global map…
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright David Brian, The Voice of Russia, 2009
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=12044
Global Research, January 26, 2009
The Voice of Russia
The endless desert of snow and ice has always been a subject for dispute among politicians, diplomats and scientists. The Arctic territory has now become a subject of a military dispute.
NATO has declared it a strategically important region. The announcement was made by NATO spokesman James Appathurai who also said a meeting with the participation of high-ranking NATO officials is to take place January 28-29 in Reykjavik, Iceland.
The list of participants leaves no doubt about NATO’s real goals in the region. The decision of the Western defense alliance to declare the northern territories as strategically important will create a tense international situation in the region. The struggle for the Arctic is becoming the subject of long-term military games. Chances are very high, therefore, that they will send military units to the Arctic sooner or later.
Those, who keep an eye on the developments around the Arctic territories, will hardly fail to see that Mr. Appathurai’s remarks come hard on the heels of the initiatives outlined in the US national security directive. The document says that Washington has fundamental national interests in the Arctic region. These interests are crystal clear: missile defense, strategic deterrence, marine security operations. There are no references to terrorists or pirates, who obviously feel themselves way more comfortable in the warm waters off the coast of Somali than among the polar bears of the Far North.
The US, Canada and NATO make no secret of why they need a military group deployed in the Arctic region. Their ice-breakers will arrive in the region to defend national interests of those members of the alliance who claim their right to the natural wealth of this part of the planet. The Arctic contains about 90 billion barrels of unexplored crude and enormous reserves of natural gas, which could be comparable to those of Russia making up about 30 percent of global gas reserves. Experts say that by 2030 Russia will be using many of its Arctic gas deposits to extract about 50 percent of its natural gas. For example, the Shtokman deposit in the Barents Sea contains 4 trillion cubic meters of gas.
Fully aware of the Arctic’s strategic importance, Russia is ready to respond adequately to NATO’s claims. That is why NATO is in such a rush to stake out these claims in the region. Russia’s marine doctrine, which was signed during Vladimir Putin’s presidency, singles out the Arctic territory as one of the major directions of the country’s naval policy. Russia’s Security Council is to unveil a new strategy of Arctic development at the end of January. The key message of the document will be as follows: “Russia is not going to give the Arctic away.” Moscow also wants to considerably intensify the freight traffic activity along the Northern Seaway during the upcoming years and plans to build for this purpose six new powerful nuclear icebreakers before 2020.
About a year from now Russia will submit to the UN documents substantiating its claim to the Arctic shelf. Five countries of the Arctic Ocean – Russia, Canada, the US, Norway and Denmark – made a reasonable decision last year to carve up the Arctic region on the basis of existent conventions only.
However, NATO’s plans to add a military dimension to the Arctic dialogue may lead to drastic changes in the approach to the current issues. All this may result in a new flare point of tension on the global map…
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright David Brian, The Voice of Russia, 2009
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=12044
EU Parliament Votes by Sweeping Majority to Ban Farm Pesticides
Tuesday 13 January 2009
»
by: Ian Traynor, The Guardian UK
photo
The British government is protesting an EU ban on the use of pesticides for farm crops. British farmers claim the decision could destroy their carrot crops. (Photo: ourfarmcsa.com)
British government strongly opposed to EU measures which, say critics, may put winter vegetables such as carrots at risk.
Brussels - The European parliament today voted by a sweeping majority to tighten the use of pesticides in agriculture and to ban 22 treatments, a decision that critics say could wipe out British carrots.
The British government and the Conservatives are against the legislation, but the ban and restrictions were carried by a vote of 577 to 61, putting pressure on the 27 EU member states to support the decision.
Greens celebrated the vote as a victory for environmentalism. But the farming lobby warned that the restrictions were pointless, would wipe out harvests of winter vegetables, and push up food prices during a European recession and worsening unemployment.
The proposed legislation places tight curbs on crop-spraying, bans the use of pesticides near schools and hospitals, and proscribes 22 chemicals, some said to be carcinogenic.
The Green MEP for the south-east, Caroline Lucas, hailed it as "a new milestone for environment and health protection."
"This regulation, the first of its kind in the world, will bring clear health benefits and improve both food and water quality in the EU," she said.
Critics argued that the benefits are unproven and that the harm ascribed to the banned or restricted substances was also not based on evidence. Rather, the draft legislation was based on the "what-if" or precautionary principle.
Labour, Conservative and SNP MEPs were all against the decision, which still has to be agreed by the 27 governments of the EU member states to become law. The British government is expected to oppose the ban.
Ministers still have the last say. Britain's environment secretary, Hilary Benn, said: "These regulations could hit agricultural production in the UK for no recognisable benefit to human health, and we are being asked to agree to something here when nobody knows what the impact will be. While we have managed to secure some improvements surrounding the use of certain pesticides, the UK does not support these proposals."
Robert Sturdy, a Conservative MEP on the EU parliament's environment committee, said yields of carrots, cereals, potatoes, onions and parsnips would decline. "The parliament's overzealous approach will take a vast number of products off the market," said
"This law will drive up the cost of the weekly food shop at the worst time for British families."
The National Farmers' Union, which fought the proposals, denounced the bans and curbs as damaging for British agriculture and a threat to food production at a time of potential food shortages and rising prices. The Soil Association ridiculed arguments that the pesticides were needed to maintain crop yields.
If turned into law, the tighter rules would be phased in from next year with the aim of halving toxic substances on plants by 2013.
Labour and the Conservatives are both calling for an impact assessment of the measures before the bans become law, amid claims that the legislation could see British food production fall by a quarter.
http://www.truthout.org/012709EA?print
»
by: Ian Traynor, The Guardian UK
photo
The British government is protesting an EU ban on the use of pesticides for farm crops. British farmers claim the decision could destroy their carrot crops. (Photo: ourfarmcsa.com)
British government strongly opposed to EU measures which, say critics, may put winter vegetables such as carrots at risk.
Brussels - The European parliament today voted by a sweeping majority to tighten the use of pesticides in agriculture and to ban 22 treatments, a decision that critics say could wipe out British carrots.
The British government and the Conservatives are against the legislation, but the ban and restrictions were carried by a vote of 577 to 61, putting pressure on the 27 EU member states to support the decision.
Greens celebrated the vote as a victory for environmentalism. But the farming lobby warned that the restrictions were pointless, would wipe out harvests of winter vegetables, and push up food prices during a European recession and worsening unemployment.
The proposed legislation places tight curbs on crop-spraying, bans the use of pesticides near schools and hospitals, and proscribes 22 chemicals, some said to be carcinogenic.
The Green MEP for the south-east, Caroline Lucas, hailed it as "a new milestone for environment and health protection."
"This regulation, the first of its kind in the world, will bring clear health benefits and improve both food and water quality in the EU," she said.
Critics argued that the benefits are unproven and that the harm ascribed to the banned or restricted substances was also not based on evidence. Rather, the draft legislation was based on the "what-if" or precautionary principle.
Labour, Conservative and SNP MEPs were all against the decision, which still has to be agreed by the 27 governments of the EU member states to become law. The British government is expected to oppose the ban.
Ministers still have the last say. Britain's environment secretary, Hilary Benn, said: "These regulations could hit agricultural production in the UK for no recognisable benefit to human health, and we are being asked to agree to something here when nobody knows what the impact will be. While we have managed to secure some improvements surrounding the use of certain pesticides, the UK does not support these proposals."
Robert Sturdy, a Conservative MEP on the EU parliament's environment committee, said yields of carrots, cereals, potatoes, onions and parsnips would decline. "The parliament's overzealous approach will take a vast number of products off the market," said
"This law will drive up the cost of the weekly food shop at the worst time for British families."
The National Farmers' Union, which fought the proposals, denounced the bans and curbs as damaging for British agriculture and a threat to food production at a time of potential food shortages and rising prices. The Soil Association ridiculed arguments that the pesticides were needed to maintain crop yields.
If turned into law, the tighter rules would be phased in from next year with the aim of halving toxic substances on plants by 2013.
Labour and the Conservatives are both calling for an impact assessment of the measures before the bans become law, amid claims that the legislation could see British food production fall by a quarter.
http://www.truthout.org/012709EA?print
US Missile Strikes in Pakistan Will Continue: Gates
Tuesday 27 January 2009
by: Reuters
Washington - The United States will continue to carry out missile strikes against al Qaeda militants in Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday.
Pakistani officials have complained publicly about the attacks from unmanned U.S. aircraft in tribal areas, saying they are a violation of sovereignty and increase resentment towards both Pakistan's government and the United States.
U.S. officials normally decline to comment publicly on reports of the missile strikes, but Gates made an exception when asked about Pakistan's complaints at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
U.S. drones fired missiles into the northwestern regions of North and South Waziristan late on Friday, killing 17 people, according to intelligence officials and residents, in the first such strike since Barack Obama became U.S. president, succeeding George W. Bush.
"Both President Bush and President Obama have made clear that we will go after al Qaeda wherever al Qaeda is and we will continue to pursue that," Gates said.
Asked by committee chairman Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, if that decision had been conveyed to the Pakistani government, Gates replied: "Yes, sir."
The United States, frustrated by an intensifying Afghan insurgency and what it sees as Pakistan's failure to stem the flow of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from northwest Pakistan into Afghanistan, stepped up the missile attacks last year.
It has carried out about 30 missile attacks, according to a Reuters tally, more than half of them in the last four months of the year.
-------
(Reporting by Andrew Gray, editing by Vicki Allen.)
http://www.truthout.org/012709S
by: Reuters
Washington - The United States will continue to carry out missile strikes against al Qaeda militants in Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday.
Pakistani officials have complained publicly about the attacks from unmanned U.S. aircraft in tribal areas, saying they are a violation of sovereignty and increase resentment towards both Pakistan's government and the United States.
U.S. officials normally decline to comment publicly on reports of the missile strikes, but Gates made an exception when asked about Pakistan's complaints at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
U.S. drones fired missiles into the northwestern regions of North and South Waziristan late on Friday, killing 17 people, according to intelligence officials and residents, in the first such strike since Barack Obama became U.S. president, succeeding George W. Bush.
"Both President Bush and President Obama have made clear that we will go after al Qaeda wherever al Qaeda is and we will continue to pursue that," Gates said.
Asked by committee chairman Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, if that decision had been conveyed to the Pakistani government, Gates replied: "Yes, sir."
The United States, frustrated by an intensifying Afghan insurgency and what it sees as Pakistan's failure to stem the flow of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from northwest Pakistan into Afghanistan, stepped up the missile attacks last year.
It has carried out about 30 missile attacks, according to a Reuters tally, more than half of them in the last four months of the year.
-------
(Reporting by Andrew Gray, editing by Vicki Allen.)
http://www.truthout.org/012709S
9 Christmas Gifts You Can Give to Your Mother ... Earth
By Tara Lohan, AlterNet
Posted on December 17, 2008, Printed on January 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/113131/
You'll read a lot this time of year about "green" gift guides. But are solar-powered cell phone chargers really the greenest gift we can come up with? Sure they save electricity, but what about the environmental impact of their manufacturing and shipping? If you really want to do something good this holiday season, what about putting Mother Earth at the top of your shopping list? It may help clean up the air and water, cut down on CO2 emissions, and it will save you a trip to the mall.
1. Stay Home
One of the best things you can do for the planet is fix up your own nest with holiday cheer and enjoy the festivities with loved ones near by. Airline travel is one of the biggest parts of our carbon footprint, and buses, cars and trains have big impacts as well.
As the Low Impact Living blog points out:
Our leisure travel by car alone accounts for over 9 billion gallons of fuel and 90 millions tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year. Air travel tacks on 140-plus million tons more of CO2. That's a huge amount of CO2 emissions -- taken together it represents more than the entire annual emissions of countries like Venezuela or the Netherlands!
To put this all in a personal context, if you drove roundtrip from Los Angeles to Kansas City, you'd put out 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), whereas if you flew, you'd be responsible for 2.2 tons. If you took a train, you'd contribute 0.9 tons. For you international vagabonds, if you flew from Los Angeles to Paris, you'd have put out 4.4 tons of CO2 (and yes, we know you can't drive).
Even if you recycle all your wrapping paper, you'll be hard-pressed to make up for a ton of travel miles.
2. Save a Tree
While some can make a case for the environmental benefits of tree farms, if you celebrate Christmas, think about planting a tree instead of cutting one down (or more likely, paying someone to fell it for you and truck it to the city or town where you live). There are lots of great programs abroad and in your own community. The environmental advocacy group NRDC supports a rain-forest restoration program in Costa Rica, where for just $10 you can have a tree planted. You can also make the donation in someone's name as a gift, too.
While there are a bunch of programs like this, I also think it's great to do something in your own community. Here in San Francisco, we've got an amazing group called Friends of the Urban Forest, which plants groups of trees that help clean up and green up neighborhoods. Most cities and many towns have similar programs. While you may not get to decorate these trees, you can enjoy them day after day.
3. Invest in Sustainability
The holiday season is prime fundraising time for thousands of worthy organizations, and while it is great donate to the ones that you support, you can also put your money where your heart is in another way. Consider making an investment in a community instead of a donation. The organization MicroPlace makes this super easy by giving you the opportunity to make small investments -- or loans -- to help lift people out of poverty. To a person living on a dollar a day, $20 or $50 of capital can mean the chance to build or expand small businesses and ensure income for their family. The best part is your money comes back to you over time, and you can invest again, and the gift keeps going.
Here's an example:
Consider the story of Puja Patel, a single mother who lives with her four children in a village in India. With a $50 loan, she bought a sewing machine. She made clothes, sold them for a profit and repaid the loan, with interest. She was also able to save some money to buy books and send her children to the local school. This is microfinance in action.
4. Start Valuing Water
Everyone is abuzz about energy and how much of our precious oil we have left, but a water crisis is afoot, even here in the United States, where 36 states are facing water scarcity in the next five years. And this is one liquid resource we can't find any alternatives for. There are lots of ways to save water in your home -- some that require a little more effort than others. One of the best, and most fun ways, is to collect rainwater. It's easy and and free (once you get your barrel set up), and you can use the water for your garden, plants or lawn. The EPA reports that, "Nationwide, landscape irrigation is estimated to account for almost one-third of all residential water use, totaling more than 7 billion gallons per day." You can also reuse gray water for flushing toilets.
There are also other ways you can save water, beside the usual low-flow options for sinks, toilets and showers (that should be a given by now), and that's in food and energy. According to the Stockholm International Water Institute, it takes more than 1,500 gallons of water to produce the food eaten eat day by the average American. And while we can save water by not eating lettuce grown in Arizona, we can also do really simple things like not waste our food -- according to this study, each year we throw away about $43.3 billion worth of food.
You can also cut down on your energy use, which is a huge source of water use. Over half of us in the United States get our energy from coal-burning power plants, and the Union of Concerned Scientists points out that, "a typical 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water each year from nearby water bodies such as lakes, rivers or oceans to create steam for turning its turbines. This is enough water to support a city of approximately 250,000 people."
5. Buy a CSA Share
The benefits of local food are immeasurable -- and one of the best ways to eat local is by supporting small farmers by getting a Community Support Agriculture share. Basically, you just sign up with a CSA farm to receive a weekly box of whatever is fresh -- veggies, fruit and sometimes other goodies like eggs. This way you get fresh food every week, grown by folks in your community and it travels a very short distance to get to you (According to a study from the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, "the produce in the average American dinner is trucked 1,500 miles to get to the plate, up 22 percent in the past two decades.")
Eating local food and eating lower on the food chain, like fruits and veggies, is a big plus for the environment. A report from the United Nations found that eating meat is, "one of the ... most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." And eating outside the industrial agriculture system saves on pesticides, pollution and water. Worldwide, agriculture is our biggest water guzzler, and the same is true in parts of the United States, like California.
If you're into the giving spirit you can also give a CSA share to someone as a gift -- a friend or loved one, or even a community member in need. Here's a great link to find one need you.
6. Grow Your Own Greens
Being part of CSA is fun, but if you have the space, try getting your own hands dirty by starting a food-growing garden or turning your lawn into something edible. When it comes to healthy eating, there is nothing more satisfying then being able to eat food you've grown and picked yourself. And, organic farming is a great way to combat climate change. Research from the Rodale Institute shows that "organically managed soils can store (sequester) more than 1,000 pounds of carbon per acre, while nonorganic systems can cause carbon loss."
If you currently have a lawn, considering switching to an "edible estate," as the organization and book by Fritz Haeg suggests. Here are a few facts that may make you reconsider trying to keep your green lawn:
* Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, 23 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 24 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 11 are toxic to bees and 16 are toxic to birds. (National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns)
* Homeowners use up to 10 times more chemical pesticides per acre on their lawns than farmers use on crops. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
* North Americans now devote 40,000 square miles to lawns, more than we use for wheat, corn or even tobacco. (The Lawn: North America's Magnificent Obsession by Robert Fulford)
* Americans spend $750 million a year on grass seed alone and more than $25 billion on do-it-yourself lawn and garden care. (From the exhibit at CCA, "The American Lawn: Surface of Everyday Life")
You can find great resources and photos about edible estates on their Web site.
7. Join Forces with Community Members
If you don't have a lawn or yard of your own, fear not -- there are 10,000 community gardens in the United States that you can join. And if you can't find one in your area, then consider teaming up with your neighbors to start your own. It has great "environmental, economic and social impacts on a neighborhood," as Urban Community Gardens points out.
Not only are people in communities getting together to grow food, but there are also tool-sharing networks cropping up, as well, that help people share the cost of owning tools that can be used for gardening or home improvements. Need help getting those new solar panels up? Consider asking your neighbors and working to form a tool collective.
8. Re-energize Your Home
The most popular residential renewable energy option right now is solar, although you can find other renewable energy options, here. More than 10,000 homes in the United States are completely powered by solar, and 200,000 use some type of photovoltaic solar technology.
One of the best places to use solar energy in the home is for heating water. Solar Development points out:
* The United States spends more than $13 billion a year on energy for home water heating. That is the equivalent of 11.4 barrels of oil per household, more than the amount of oil burned by a medium-sized automobile driven 12,000 miles.
* Of all of the major types of water-heating systems, solar energy systems offer the biggest potential savings to homeowners -- with owners saving 85 percent on their utility bills over the costs of electric water heating.
Realistically, not everyone can afford to buy solar systems for their homes, although the long-term savings usually outweigh the up-front costs. And of course, many people are renters and can't put capital investments into the place where they live. So how else can we save energy, and as a result, also money and water?
Here's a few ideas from Flex Your Power:
* Enable "power management" on all computers and make sure to turn them off at night. A laptop computer uses up to 90 percent less energy than bigger desktop models.
* When possible, wash clothes in cold water. About 90 percent of the energy use in a clothes washer goes to water heating.
* Turn your water heater down to 120 degrees or the "Normal" setting when home, and to the lowest setting when away. Water heating accounts for about 13 percent of home energy costs.
* Test for air leaks by holding a lit incense stick next to windows, doors, electrical boxes, plumbing fixtures, electrical outlets, ceiling fixtures, attic hatches and other locations where there is a possible air path to the outside. If the smoke stream travels horizontally, you have located an air leak that may need caulking, sealing or weather stripping.
* Add weather stripping around windows and doors to reduce drafts.
* Unplug electronics, battery chargers and other equipment when not in use. Taken together, these small items can use as much power as your refrigerator.
There are also a bunch of great resources to do a home energy audit. And if you're curious whether your home is powered by coal that comes from the destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining, then you can check this easy link at I Love Mountains to find out.
9. Stop Buying Stuff
If it's one thing the holidays can be sure to provide, it's a desire to buy lots of stuff we don't really need. Let's start with clothes. Author Stan Cox writes about how much Americans spend on clothes:
The average annual shopping haul swelled from $1,550 per household in 2002 to $1,760 last year. That spending spree was prompted in part by what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says was a 30 percent drop in real apparel prices over the past decade. With cheap imports allowing a dollar to buy more, the physical bulk of garb purchased by the average household has risen 18 percent in just five years.
All this shopping means we each discard around 68 pounds of clothing each year. This of course, stresses landfills, but as Cox points out, the most harm comes from producing clothes with pesticide-laden cotton and synthetic fabric that "consumes petroleum, blows out greenhouse gases and spews wastewater-bearing organic solvents, heavy metals and poisonous dyes and fiber treatments."
And it's not just clothes that are a problem, our consumer goods, in general have huge environmental impacts, especially because most of it comes from overseas. Cox writes:
In and near the world's ports and coastal sea lanes, emissions from oceangoing vessels caused 60,000 premature deaths in 2002. With increasing trade, the number of such deaths is projected to rise 40 percent by 2012. Ships' crews, dockworkers, truckers, other port personnel and local residents are all vulnerable.
The particulate matter produced by burning diesel has been associated with lung cancer, asthma, chronic bronchitis, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, decreased lung function in children and infant mortality.
And that's just the human impact, not withstanding the enormous cost of increased pollution and the burning of fossil fuels on global warming and air and water quality.
Clearly we've got to make changes, he writes:
Halting that growth or even making deep cuts in imports would not only help clear the air, it would make it easier to clean up the toxic water pollution that accumulates in sea lanes and ports; it would curb the noise pollution that can do serious damage to human health and interfere with communications among marine mammals; and it would stop the headlong rush to pave more land for logistics parks.
Of course there is an upside to all these grim numbers. A recent article from YES! Magazine summed up, that "The Good Life Doesn't Have to Cost the Planet." Spending less money on stuff and more money with family and friends is bound to be way more rewarding. And that seems like the best part of the holidays, anyway.
Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.
© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/113131/
Posted on December 17, 2008, Printed on January 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/113131/
You'll read a lot this time of year about "green" gift guides. But are solar-powered cell phone chargers really the greenest gift we can come up with? Sure they save electricity, but what about the environmental impact of their manufacturing and shipping? If you really want to do something good this holiday season, what about putting Mother Earth at the top of your shopping list? It may help clean up the air and water, cut down on CO2 emissions, and it will save you a trip to the mall.
1. Stay Home
One of the best things you can do for the planet is fix up your own nest with holiday cheer and enjoy the festivities with loved ones near by. Airline travel is one of the biggest parts of our carbon footprint, and buses, cars and trains have big impacts as well.
As the Low Impact Living blog points out:
Our leisure travel by car alone accounts for over 9 billion gallons of fuel and 90 millions tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year. Air travel tacks on 140-plus million tons more of CO2. That's a huge amount of CO2 emissions -- taken together it represents more than the entire annual emissions of countries like Venezuela or the Netherlands!
To put this all in a personal context, if you drove roundtrip from Los Angeles to Kansas City, you'd put out 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), whereas if you flew, you'd be responsible for 2.2 tons. If you took a train, you'd contribute 0.9 tons. For you international vagabonds, if you flew from Los Angeles to Paris, you'd have put out 4.4 tons of CO2 (and yes, we know you can't drive).
Even if you recycle all your wrapping paper, you'll be hard-pressed to make up for a ton of travel miles.
2. Save a Tree
While some can make a case for the environmental benefits of tree farms, if you celebrate Christmas, think about planting a tree instead of cutting one down (or more likely, paying someone to fell it for you and truck it to the city or town where you live). There are lots of great programs abroad and in your own community. The environmental advocacy group NRDC supports a rain-forest restoration program in Costa Rica, where for just $10 you can have a tree planted. You can also make the donation in someone's name as a gift, too.
While there are a bunch of programs like this, I also think it's great to do something in your own community. Here in San Francisco, we've got an amazing group called Friends of the Urban Forest, which plants groups of trees that help clean up and green up neighborhoods. Most cities and many towns have similar programs. While you may not get to decorate these trees, you can enjoy them day after day.
3. Invest in Sustainability
The holiday season is prime fundraising time for thousands of worthy organizations, and while it is great donate to the ones that you support, you can also put your money where your heart is in another way. Consider making an investment in a community instead of a donation. The organization MicroPlace makes this super easy by giving you the opportunity to make small investments -- or loans -- to help lift people out of poverty. To a person living on a dollar a day, $20 or $50 of capital can mean the chance to build or expand small businesses and ensure income for their family. The best part is your money comes back to you over time, and you can invest again, and the gift keeps going.
Here's an example:
Consider the story of Puja Patel, a single mother who lives with her four children in a village in India. With a $50 loan, she bought a sewing machine. She made clothes, sold them for a profit and repaid the loan, with interest. She was also able to save some money to buy books and send her children to the local school. This is microfinance in action.
4. Start Valuing Water
Everyone is abuzz about energy and how much of our precious oil we have left, but a water crisis is afoot, even here in the United States, where 36 states are facing water scarcity in the next five years. And this is one liquid resource we can't find any alternatives for. There are lots of ways to save water in your home -- some that require a little more effort than others. One of the best, and most fun ways, is to collect rainwater. It's easy and and free (once you get your barrel set up), and you can use the water for your garden, plants or lawn. The EPA reports that, "Nationwide, landscape irrigation is estimated to account for almost one-third of all residential water use, totaling more than 7 billion gallons per day." You can also reuse gray water for flushing toilets.
There are also other ways you can save water, beside the usual low-flow options for sinks, toilets and showers (that should be a given by now), and that's in food and energy. According to the Stockholm International Water Institute, it takes more than 1,500 gallons of water to produce the food eaten eat day by the average American. And while we can save water by not eating lettuce grown in Arizona, we can also do really simple things like not waste our food -- according to this study, each year we throw away about $43.3 billion worth of food.
You can also cut down on your energy use, which is a huge source of water use. Over half of us in the United States get our energy from coal-burning power plants, and the Union of Concerned Scientists points out that, "a typical 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water each year from nearby water bodies such as lakes, rivers or oceans to create steam for turning its turbines. This is enough water to support a city of approximately 250,000 people."
5. Buy a CSA Share
The benefits of local food are immeasurable -- and one of the best ways to eat local is by supporting small farmers by getting a Community Support Agriculture share. Basically, you just sign up with a CSA farm to receive a weekly box of whatever is fresh -- veggies, fruit and sometimes other goodies like eggs. This way you get fresh food every week, grown by folks in your community and it travels a very short distance to get to you (According to a study from the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, "the produce in the average American dinner is trucked 1,500 miles to get to the plate, up 22 percent in the past two decades.")
Eating local food and eating lower on the food chain, like fruits and veggies, is a big plus for the environment. A report from the United Nations found that eating meat is, "one of the ... most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." And eating outside the industrial agriculture system saves on pesticides, pollution and water. Worldwide, agriculture is our biggest water guzzler, and the same is true in parts of the United States, like California.
If you're into the giving spirit you can also give a CSA share to someone as a gift -- a friend or loved one, or even a community member in need. Here's a great link to find one need you.
6. Grow Your Own Greens
Being part of CSA is fun, but if you have the space, try getting your own hands dirty by starting a food-growing garden or turning your lawn into something edible. When it comes to healthy eating, there is nothing more satisfying then being able to eat food you've grown and picked yourself. And, organic farming is a great way to combat climate change. Research from the Rodale Institute shows that "organically managed soils can store (sequester) more than 1,000 pounds of carbon per acre, while nonorganic systems can cause carbon loss."
If you currently have a lawn, considering switching to an "edible estate," as the organization and book by Fritz Haeg suggests. Here are a few facts that may make you reconsider trying to keep your green lawn:
* Of 30 commonly used lawn pesticides, 17 are detected in groundwater, 23 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 24 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 11 are toxic to bees and 16 are toxic to birds. (National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns)
* Homeowners use up to 10 times more chemical pesticides per acre on their lawns than farmers use on crops. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
* North Americans now devote 40,000 square miles to lawns, more than we use for wheat, corn or even tobacco. (The Lawn: North America's Magnificent Obsession by Robert Fulford)
* Americans spend $750 million a year on grass seed alone and more than $25 billion on do-it-yourself lawn and garden care. (From the exhibit at CCA, "The American Lawn: Surface of Everyday Life")
You can find great resources and photos about edible estates on their Web site.
7. Join Forces with Community Members
If you don't have a lawn or yard of your own, fear not -- there are 10,000 community gardens in the United States that you can join. And if you can't find one in your area, then consider teaming up with your neighbors to start your own. It has great "environmental, economic and social impacts on a neighborhood," as Urban Community Gardens points out.
Not only are people in communities getting together to grow food, but there are also tool-sharing networks cropping up, as well, that help people share the cost of owning tools that can be used for gardening or home improvements. Need help getting those new solar panels up? Consider asking your neighbors and working to form a tool collective.
8. Re-energize Your Home
The most popular residential renewable energy option right now is solar, although you can find other renewable energy options, here. More than 10,000 homes in the United States are completely powered by solar, and 200,000 use some type of photovoltaic solar technology.
One of the best places to use solar energy in the home is for heating water. Solar Development points out:
* The United States spends more than $13 billion a year on energy for home water heating. That is the equivalent of 11.4 barrels of oil per household, more than the amount of oil burned by a medium-sized automobile driven 12,000 miles.
* Of all of the major types of water-heating systems, solar energy systems offer the biggest potential savings to homeowners -- with owners saving 85 percent on their utility bills over the costs of electric water heating.
Realistically, not everyone can afford to buy solar systems for their homes, although the long-term savings usually outweigh the up-front costs. And of course, many people are renters and can't put capital investments into the place where they live. So how else can we save energy, and as a result, also money and water?
Here's a few ideas from Flex Your Power:
* Enable "power management" on all computers and make sure to turn them off at night. A laptop computer uses up to 90 percent less energy than bigger desktop models.
* When possible, wash clothes in cold water. About 90 percent of the energy use in a clothes washer goes to water heating.
* Turn your water heater down to 120 degrees or the "Normal" setting when home, and to the lowest setting when away. Water heating accounts for about 13 percent of home energy costs.
* Test for air leaks by holding a lit incense stick next to windows, doors, electrical boxes, plumbing fixtures, electrical outlets, ceiling fixtures, attic hatches and other locations where there is a possible air path to the outside. If the smoke stream travels horizontally, you have located an air leak that may need caulking, sealing or weather stripping.
* Add weather stripping around windows and doors to reduce drafts.
* Unplug electronics, battery chargers and other equipment when not in use. Taken together, these small items can use as much power as your refrigerator.
There are also a bunch of great resources to do a home energy audit. And if you're curious whether your home is powered by coal that comes from the destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining, then you can check this easy link at I Love Mountains to find out.
9. Stop Buying Stuff
If it's one thing the holidays can be sure to provide, it's a desire to buy lots of stuff we don't really need. Let's start with clothes. Author Stan Cox writes about how much Americans spend on clothes:
The average annual shopping haul swelled from $1,550 per household in 2002 to $1,760 last year. That spending spree was prompted in part by what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says was a 30 percent drop in real apparel prices over the past decade. With cheap imports allowing a dollar to buy more, the physical bulk of garb purchased by the average household has risen 18 percent in just five years.
All this shopping means we each discard around 68 pounds of clothing each year. This of course, stresses landfills, but as Cox points out, the most harm comes from producing clothes with pesticide-laden cotton and synthetic fabric that "consumes petroleum, blows out greenhouse gases and spews wastewater-bearing organic solvents, heavy metals and poisonous dyes and fiber treatments."
And it's not just clothes that are a problem, our consumer goods, in general have huge environmental impacts, especially because most of it comes from overseas. Cox writes:
In and near the world's ports and coastal sea lanes, emissions from oceangoing vessels caused 60,000 premature deaths in 2002. With increasing trade, the number of such deaths is projected to rise 40 percent by 2012. Ships' crews, dockworkers, truckers, other port personnel and local residents are all vulnerable.
The particulate matter produced by burning diesel has been associated with lung cancer, asthma, chronic bronchitis, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, decreased lung function in children and infant mortality.
And that's just the human impact, not withstanding the enormous cost of increased pollution and the burning of fossil fuels on global warming and air and water quality.
Clearly we've got to make changes, he writes:
Halting that growth or even making deep cuts in imports would not only help clear the air, it would make it easier to clean up the toxic water pollution that accumulates in sea lanes and ports; it would curb the noise pollution that can do serious damage to human health and interfere with communications among marine mammals; and it would stop the headlong rush to pave more land for logistics parks.
Of course there is an upside to all these grim numbers. A recent article from YES! Magazine summed up, that "The Good Life Doesn't Have to Cost the Planet." Spending less money on stuff and more money with family and friends is bound to be way more rewarding. And that seems like the best part of the holidays, anyway.
Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.
© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/113131/
The Frightening New Evidence Scientists Have Just Learned About Global Warming
By Steve Connor, Independent UK
Posted on January 13, 2009, Printed on January 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/
Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen.
Climate-change researchers have found that air temperatures in the region are higher than would be normally expected during the autumn because the increased melting of the summer Arctic sea ice is accumulating heat in the ocean. The phenomenon, known as Arctic amplification, was not expected to be seen for at least another 10 or 15 years and the findings will further raise concerns that the Arctic has already passed the climatic tipping-point towards ice-free summers, beyond which it may not recover.
The Arctic is considered one of the most sensitive regions in terms of climate change and its transition to another climatic state will have a direct impact on other parts of the northern hemisphere, as well more indirect effects around the world.
Although researchers have documented a catastrophic loss of sea ice during the summer months over the past 20 years, they have not until now detected the definitive temperature signal that they could link with greenhouse-gas emissions.
However, in a study to be presented later today to the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, scientists will show that Arctic amplification has been under way for the past five years, and it will continue to intensify Arctic warming for the foreseeable future.
Computer models of the global climate have for years suggested the Arctic will warm at a faster rate than the rest of the world due to Arctic amplification but many scientists believed this effect would only become measurable in the coming decades.
However, a study by scientists from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado has found that amplification is already showing up as a marked increase in surface air temperatures within the Arctic region during the autumn period, when the sea ice begins to reform after the summer melting period.
Julienne Stroeve, of the NSIDC, who led the study with her colleague Mark Serreze, said that autumn air temperatures this year and in recent years have been anomalously high. The Arctic Ocean warmed more than usual because heat from the sun was absorbed more easily by the dark areas of open water compared to the highly reflective surface of a frozen sea. "Autumn 2008 saw very strong surface temperature anomalies over the areas where the sea ice was lost," Dr Stroeve told The Independent ahead of her presentation today.
"The observed autumn warming that we've seen over the Arctic Ocean, not just this year but over the past five years or so, represents Arctic amplification, the notion that rises in surface air temperatures in response to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be larger in the Arctic than elsewhere over the globe," she said. "The warming climate is leading to more open water in the Arctic Ocean. As these open water areas develop through spring and summer, they absorb most of the sun's energy, leading to ocean warming.
"In autumn, as the sun sets in the Arctic, most of the heat that was gained in the ocean during summer is released back to the atmosphere, acting to warm the atmosphere. It is this heat-release back to the atmosphere that gives us Arctic amplification."
Temperature readings for this October were significantly higher than normal across the entire Arctic region – between 3C and 5C above average – but some areas were dramatically higher. In the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, for instance, near-surface air temperatures were more than 7C higher than normal for this time of year. The scientists believe the only reasonable explanation for such high autumn readings is that the ocean heat accumulated during the summer because of the loss of sea ice is being released back into the atmosphere from the sea before winter sea ice has chance to reform.
"One of the reasons we focus on Arctic amplification is that it is a good test of greenhouse warming theory. Even our earliest climate models were telling us that we should see this Arctic amplification emerge as we lose the summer ice cover," Dr Stroeve said. "This is exactly what we are not starting to see in the observations. Simply put, it's a case of we hate to say we told you so, but we did," she added.
Computer models have also predicted totally ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2070, but many scientists now believe that the first ice-free summer could occur far earlier than this, perhaps within the next 20 years.
© 2009 Independent UK All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/
Posted on January 13, 2009, Printed on January 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/
Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen.
Climate-change researchers have found that air temperatures in the region are higher than would be normally expected during the autumn because the increased melting of the summer Arctic sea ice is accumulating heat in the ocean. The phenomenon, known as Arctic amplification, was not expected to be seen for at least another 10 or 15 years and the findings will further raise concerns that the Arctic has already passed the climatic tipping-point towards ice-free summers, beyond which it may not recover.
The Arctic is considered one of the most sensitive regions in terms of climate change and its transition to another climatic state will have a direct impact on other parts of the northern hemisphere, as well more indirect effects around the world.
Although researchers have documented a catastrophic loss of sea ice during the summer months over the past 20 years, they have not until now detected the definitive temperature signal that they could link with greenhouse-gas emissions.
However, in a study to be presented later today to the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, scientists will show that Arctic amplification has been under way for the past five years, and it will continue to intensify Arctic warming for the foreseeable future.
Computer models of the global climate have for years suggested the Arctic will warm at a faster rate than the rest of the world due to Arctic amplification but many scientists believed this effect would only become measurable in the coming decades.
However, a study by scientists from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Colorado has found that amplification is already showing up as a marked increase in surface air temperatures within the Arctic region during the autumn period, when the sea ice begins to reform after the summer melting period.
Julienne Stroeve, of the NSIDC, who led the study with her colleague Mark Serreze, said that autumn air temperatures this year and in recent years have been anomalously high. The Arctic Ocean warmed more than usual because heat from the sun was absorbed more easily by the dark areas of open water compared to the highly reflective surface of a frozen sea. "Autumn 2008 saw very strong surface temperature anomalies over the areas where the sea ice was lost," Dr Stroeve told The Independent ahead of her presentation today.
"The observed autumn warming that we've seen over the Arctic Ocean, not just this year but over the past five years or so, represents Arctic amplification, the notion that rises in surface air temperatures in response to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be larger in the Arctic than elsewhere over the globe," she said. "The warming climate is leading to more open water in the Arctic Ocean. As these open water areas develop through spring and summer, they absorb most of the sun's energy, leading to ocean warming.
"In autumn, as the sun sets in the Arctic, most of the heat that was gained in the ocean during summer is released back to the atmosphere, acting to warm the atmosphere. It is this heat-release back to the atmosphere that gives us Arctic amplification."
Temperature readings for this October were significantly higher than normal across the entire Arctic region – between 3C and 5C above average – but some areas were dramatically higher. In the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, for instance, near-surface air temperatures were more than 7C higher than normal for this time of year. The scientists believe the only reasonable explanation for such high autumn readings is that the ocean heat accumulated during the summer because of the loss of sea ice is being released back into the atmosphere from the sea before winter sea ice has chance to reform.
"One of the reasons we focus on Arctic amplification is that it is a good test of greenhouse warming theory. Even our earliest climate models were telling us that we should see this Arctic amplification emerge as we lose the summer ice cover," Dr Stroeve said. "This is exactly what we are not starting to see in the observations. Simply put, it's a case of we hate to say we told you so, but we did," she added.
Computer models have also predicted totally ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2070, but many scientists now believe that the first ice-free summer could occur far earlier than this, perhaps within the next 20 years.
© 2009 Independent UK All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/113354/
Is a GED More Valuable Than a PhD?
Is a GED More Valuable Than a PhD?
By Kai Ma, The Daily Beast
Posted on January 28, 2009, Printed on January 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/123101/
For six years, Rebekah slaved at Boston University for her PhD in American Studies. Her plan: work in New York as a museum curator. She pictured chatty, engrossing interviews with like-minded creative types. “Everyone would be so pleased” with her PhD, she thought. Yet eight months after graduating, Rebekah is unemployed and considering a gig at a public library that requires only a GED.
The demand for humanities PhDs has long been tight -- for four decades, the number of jobs requiring them hasn’t kept pace with the number of people earning them. But by all indications, recent university hiring freezes and evaporating grant money have reduced the world’s most elite degree to junk-bond status.
On the Modern Language Association’s Job Information List, a bellwether for PhD employment trends, the number of job postings is down 21 percent, the steepest decline in the list’s 34-year history. One attendee of last month’s annual MLA convention in San Francisco, where doctorate graduates can score interviews for tenure-track professorships, found the event rendered “somber” by the scarcity of opportunities. The same air permeated last week’s American Historical Association conference. “Job candidates who a year ago had goals of four or five interviews here were thrilled to have one,” reported InsideHigherEd.com.
“This is certainly the largest dip [in jobs] we’ve seen, percentage-wise, since we began tracking in the 1970s,” says Rosemary Feal, executive director of the MLA. “It really is disheartening to see so many well-prepared people in search of so few jobs.”
Rebekah could be a poster child for the current PhD despondency. She’s written more than a hundred networking and cover letters during her eight-month job search, and trolls 44 employment websites on a daily basis. Three jobs that fit her specialty recently opened -- then two of them were canceled when grant money dried up. “I went in for the interviews, then got word that the searches had stopped,” Rebekah says. “I do have moments of regretting [getting a PhD] because now I’m applying for assistant curator jobs that I could’ve gotten beforehand.”
She even applied for a job as an archivist for the Girl Scouts of America. “As a kid, I was kicked out of the Girl Scouts, which I obviously didn’t mention in my letter,” she says. “I never heard back. It was probably obvious that we weren’t exactly a match.”
“It took six years to write my dissertation, but getting employed feels impossible right now. There’s something a little sick about that,” says “Liz,” another freshly minted PhD who didn’t want her name used. After spending a decade earning her English PhD at UC-Berkeley, she began her job search in September by applying for 40 different tenure-track positions; she’s since received notice that those searches have been canceled. “There are a lot of folks in despair. Several PhDs I know are in counseling.”
“I’m frightened,” says a lecturer in the Boston area who earned her PhD last year and remains unemployed in her field. “These are huge numbers, all related to the economic crisis. I have thought, ‘Am I going to have to be a waitress?’ Everyone in the field thinks about what else they can do.”
Notably, many on the job market refused to provide their names for this story. In the competitive world of academia, paranoia runs high. “It’s extraordinarily insular,” says Christine Hong, a postdoctoral fellow at UC-Berkeley. “I don’t see how someone complaining about how dire things are would necessarily be fatal for them, but I understand the paranoia.”
Some new PhDs, especially those saddled with debt, are considering junking their degrees altogether.
“I have dissertation friends with kids who just wind up being stay-at-home moms,” says a humanities PhD student and mother of two. “You wind up doing Plan B, whatever that is.” She’s applied for roughly 25 tenure-track positions, only to hear back that many of the searches have been canceled. One rejection notice said the position drew 700 applications.
“Every single academic, especially in the humanities, has a tinge of buyer’s remorse” about their PhD, she says. “You see your peers in law or business school make down payments on homes and buy cars and go on vacation. But as a PhD student, you’re in your 30s, still renting an apartment and driving a ’84 Corolla. It’s not cute.”
According to former George Washington University President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, the downward spiral began when Harvard’s president, Drew Faust, announced that the troubled economy had forced the university to take “a hard look at hiring.”
“That was a catalyst,” says Trachtenberg, author of The Art of Hiring in America's Colleges & Universities. “Harvard is the North Star, and considered the richest institution in the country. So every other college president in America could then say, ‘If this is going on at Harvard, you can understand that we, too, need to be more cautious.’ It’s a trickle that has turned into a drought…In terms of the hiring freezes, I haven't seen this in a long time. And absolutely, it's related to the recession and the loss of endowment income.”
State schools with smaller budgets have always been a tougher nut for PhDs to crack. “But what’s unusual is how private schools are saying the same thing,” says Robert Townsend, assistant director for research and publications at the American Historical Association. “They’re pinching pennies on pencils -- small stuff. Candidates have plenty of reason to be upset and concerned.”
Those not giving up entirely are taking whatever they can get. Liz, like many PhDs, says she feels like she’s taking a step back by working as a teacher’s assistant, a position typically held by students who just got their bachelor's degrees. But she swallowed her pride and took the job anyway. She starts this month.
“I’m considering leaving academia,” she says, rattling off the other odd jobs she’s taken on: tutor for high-school students, a grader for the Educational Testing Service. “I never romanticized the profession. I never imagined myself at some top research institution, with assistants scurrying around doing work for me. But I did imagine that I would have a job. Sure, I haven’t bused tables yet. But I might.”
This article was reprinted with permission from the author.
Kai Ma is a writer and columnist whose work has appeared in New York magazine, Newsday, Nerve, and Time Out New York.
© 2009 The Daily Beast All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/123101/
By Kai Ma, The Daily Beast
Posted on January 28, 2009, Printed on January 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/123101/
For six years, Rebekah slaved at Boston University for her PhD in American Studies. Her plan: work in New York as a museum curator. She pictured chatty, engrossing interviews with like-minded creative types. “Everyone would be so pleased” with her PhD, she thought. Yet eight months after graduating, Rebekah is unemployed and considering a gig at a public library that requires only a GED.
The demand for humanities PhDs has long been tight -- for four decades, the number of jobs requiring them hasn’t kept pace with the number of people earning them. But by all indications, recent university hiring freezes and evaporating grant money have reduced the world’s most elite degree to junk-bond status.
On the Modern Language Association’s Job Information List, a bellwether for PhD employment trends, the number of job postings is down 21 percent, the steepest decline in the list’s 34-year history. One attendee of last month’s annual MLA convention in San Francisco, where doctorate graduates can score interviews for tenure-track professorships, found the event rendered “somber” by the scarcity of opportunities. The same air permeated last week’s American Historical Association conference. “Job candidates who a year ago had goals of four or five interviews here were thrilled to have one,” reported InsideHigherEd.com.
“This is certainly the largest dip [in jobs] we’ve seen, percentage-wise, since we began tracking in the 1970s,” says Rosemary Feal, executive director of the MLA. “It really is disheartening to see so many well-prepared people in search of so few jobs.”
Rebekah could be a poster child for the current PhD despondency. She’s written more than a hundred networking and cover letters during her eight-month job search, and trolls 44 employment websites on a daily basis. Three jobs that fit her specialty recently opened -- then two of them were canceled when grant money dried up. “I went in for the interviews, then got word that the searches had stopped,” Rebekah says. “I do have moments of regretting [getting a PhD] because now I’m applying for assistant curator jobs that I could’ve gotten beforehand.”
She even applied for a job as an archivist for the Girl Scouts of America. “As a kid, I was kicked out of the Girl Scouts, which I obviously didn’t mention in my letter,” she says. “I never heard back. It was probably obvious that we weren’t exactly a match.”
“It took six years to write my dissertation, but getting employed feels impossible right now. There’s something a little sick about that,” says “Liz,” another freshly minted PhD who didn’t want her name used. After spending a decade earning her English PhD at UC-Berkeley, she began her job search in September by applying for 40 different tenure-track positions; she’s since received notice that those searches have been canceled. “There are a lot of folks in despair. Several PhDs I know are in counseling.”
“I’m frightened,” says a lecturer in the Boston area who earned her PhD last year and remains unemployed in her field. “These are huge numbers, all related to the economic crisis. I have thought, ‘Am I going to have to be a waitress?’ Everyone in the field thinks about what else they can do.”
Notably, many on the job market refused to provide their names for this story. In the competitive world of academia, paranoia runs high. “It’s extraordinarily insular,” says Christine Hong, a postdoctoral fellow at UC-Berkeley. “I don’t see how someone complaining about how dire things are would necessarily be fatal for them, but I understand the paranoia.”
Some new PhDs, especially those saddled with debt, are considering junking their degrees altogether.
“I have dissertation friends with kids who just wind up being stay-at-home moms,” says a humanities PhD student and mother of two. “You wind up doing Plan B, whatever that is.” She’s applied for roughly 25 tenure-track positions, only to hear back that many of the searches have been canceled. One rejection notice said the position drew 700 applications.
“Every single academic, especially in the humanities, has a tinge of buyer’s remorse” about their PhD, she says. “You see your peers in law or business school make down payments on homes and buy cars and go on vacation. But as a PhD student, you’re in your 30s, still renting an apartment and driving a ’84 Corolla. It’s not cute.”
According to former George Washington University President Stephen Joel Trachtenberg, the downward spiral began when Harvard’s president, Drew Faust, announced that the troubled economy had forced the university to take “a hard look at hiring.”
“That was a catalyst,” says Trachtenberg, author of The Art of Hiring in America's Colleges & Universities. “Harvard is the North Star, and considered the richest institution in the country. So every other college president in America could then say, ‘If this is going on at Harvard, you can understand that we, too, need to be more cautious.’ It’s a trickle that has turned into a drought…In terms of the hiring freezes, I haven't seen this in a long time. And absolutely, it's related to the recession and the loss of endowment income.”
State schools with smaller budgets have always been a tougher nut for PhDs to crack. “But what’s unusual is how private schools are saying the same thing,” says Robert Townsend, assistant director for research and publications at the American Historical Association. “They’re pinching pennies on pencils -- small stuff. Candidates have plenty of reason to be upset and concerned.”
Those not giving up entirely are taking whatever they can get. Liz, like many PhDs, says she feels like she’s taking a step back by working as a teacher’s assistant, a position typically held by students who just got their bachelor's degrees. But she swallowed her pride and took the job anyway. She starts this month.
“I’m considering leaving academia,” she says, rattling off the other odd jobs she’s taken on: tutor for high-school students, a grader for the Educational Testing Service. “I never romanticized the profession. I never imagined myself at some top research institution, with assistants scurrying around doing work for me. But I did imagine that I would have a job. Sure, I haven’t bused tables yet. But I might.”
This article was reprinted with permission from the author.
Kai Ma is a writer and columnist whose work has appeared in New York magazine, Newsday, Nerve, and Time Out New York.
© 2009 The Daily Beast All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/123101/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
