Monday, November 9, 2009

Cyber Resistance

by Dahr Jamail

October 25th, 2009 | T r u t h o u t

If technology has transformed warfare into a spectacle of shock and awe, its contribution to the cause of dissent has been no less remarkable. It has enabled solidarities across borders and facilitated networks and forums dedicated to impartial communication of ground realities beyond the sanitized projection of mainstream news. True, technological advances have not brought an end to either occupation, but it has certainly helped alternative voices and views to be heard.


During the Vietnam War, over 100 underground newspapers, run by soldiers themselves, sprouted across the United States. The modern version of this has taken root within the Internet, largely in the form of blogs.


Many American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have been confounded by the wall of censorship they confront, jointly constructed by the military and the corporate media. The Internet offered them a convenient and powerful channel through which to get their stories out to the public. Constrained by slow military mail service from Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention overt attempts by superiors to curtail their interaction with journalists, soldiers have long since taken to blogging, posting photographs and uploading videos online, all related to their experience of the occupations.


“Fight to Survive,” one of the first soldier blogs from Iraq, had its origin before the bloggers were deployed to the country. The site’s mission statement declares, “The E-4 Mafia was a group of soldiers deployed in Iraq between January of 2004 and March of 2005. The posts from this period are an expression of our raw emotions and thoughts while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom II. Since being honorably discharged in the summer of 2005, we’ve continued to post additional journal entries, poetry, and reflections from our time served and our current lives as veterans as we continue our fight to survive.”


Garett Reppenhagen, Jeff Englehart, Ben Schrader and Joe Hatcher were stationed in Germany, where they happened to attend a concert by a band called Bouncing Souls and befriended its members. Post-deployment they were desperate to process the grief, violence and frustration that they were experiencing in Iraq, so they started pouring their emotions into e-mails to the band members. The Bouncing Souls, impressed with the e-mails - which included powerful poetry - began posting them on their own website. In 2004, Hatcher created “Fight to Survive.”


Englehart later told a reporter, “We were opposed to the war before we went. And we got together and said, ‘You know what we should do? We should write about this shit.’”


Reppenhagen, the first active-duty soldier to have joined Iraq Veterans Against the War, was pulling a shift at Tower Guard in Fort Collins, Colorado, when Truthout phoned him. Tower Guard is an action designed to spread awareness about the occupation of Iraq. Veterans pull together scaffolding, cover it with camouflage and, donning their desert gear, take shifts atop the tower - this one twelve feet high - to maintain a presence where people can ask them questions, and in response they can provide information.


For him, the motivation for the blog had come from having to participate in an occupation he didn’t believe in. “We were already against the war before going, and didn’t know why we were going, and it didn’t look good. There was no resistance to speak of within the military. But I found a purpose with the writing. I didn’t want to let my friends down there by not serving, and nobody knew what would happen if you refused to go out, because nobody had done it yet. So the blogging began. As a high-school dropout I wasn’t a strong writer,” he explains, but I had all these ideas I just couldn’t stop, and writing them down was a huge release…. Having people read them was therapeutic. This then became my mission, to have people read about what we were doing. After a while, Joe Hatcher, whom we met in basic training, created the blog website. This was summer of 2004, and I’d never heard of a blog earlier. The idea caught on and sparked something, and as far as I know, ours was the only antiwar blog from soldiers in Iraq at the time. We used aliases; mine was “heretic” or “soldier X,” Jeff Englehart was “hEkLe,” Joe was “Joe Public.” We used these because we were unsure of the consequences of revealing our identities.”



Postings from Iraq on “Fight to Survive” ranged in content from asking people to sign petitions against stop-loss, to expressing disbelief at how persistent the military was in trying to get soldiers to renew their contracts, to posting graffiti and commenting on it. An entry posted in September 2004 by heretic titled “My Struggle For Reason” reads:


“Souls, Friends, and Conspirators,


“The temperature dropped to sixty degrees last night while I huddled in a ditch near Diyala Bridge. The breeze off the river crawled into my heart and the sudden chill reflects my current mood. I found out earlier that night that I had been extended an additional two months on top of my previous stretch. It now appears that I will be in the service until July, while my original date of release is supposed to be next month. All this, and my recent two-week taste of the civilian world on leave, is leaving me empty and detached. It is so much easier to live in slavery if you had willingly accepted your fate. I am not sure if my mental fortitude is prepared for a whole extra year in oppression. And, I still don’t have a certain time when I will be finished with this war.


“Three soldiers in our unit have been hurt in the last four days and the true number of Army-wide casualties leaving Iraq is unknown. The figures are much higher than what is reported. We get awards and medals that are supposed to make us feel proud about our wicked assignment. We feel privileged when we are given the smallest perk. Like a dog that is beaten everyday and then thankfully adores it’s owner when he skips a day of punishment. I have more trust with some of the Iraqi locals than my own command sometimes. I know that my higher chain of command hates me for my political opinions and my moral views.


“I am called a “faggot pink-o” or a “bleeding heart traitor.” It doesn’t take a liberal to realize the moral wrongs involved with this or any war. Why should I feel ashamed of caring about all of humanity, even the people that ignorantly hate me? Is wanting a better standard of living for all the world so negative? In a way, deeper than sexuality, I love my friends and brothers and for that I am labeled a deviant of some kind. Does everyone buy into this Arnold ideal of fear that they are not strong enough, so they have to over-compensate and become an asshole? I believe that all weapons should be laid down [by] choice of the individual. It is the same fear I have of my bigot neighbor that causes Americans to support a war against a possible US threat. If we are all responsible enough to handle firearms, is it not sensible to allow countries like Iran and N. Korea nuclear weapons? If we think these countries are less responsible than the drunk-driving redneck or the crack-dealing gangster, I think we need to take a longer look at American society. Sure, a nuke can destroy the world, but an automatic weapon can kill my daughter and she is the world to me. I don’t believe that taking away people’s rights is the proper step to world peace. However, we overspend on national defense and cut education when we need to be more concerned about raising a generation of problem solvers, instead of mindless warriors.


“So I finally find the drive to get out and try to make a difference in the world, and I am stuck freezing in a Middle Eastern desert. What state will the earth be in if I ever escape this combat zone? What little changes I can make, I do through the networks I have built up with my close friends. The Bouncing Souls have given us soldiers a voice and forum to express the hardships and our feelings on the Iraq occupation. All my friends, some new and some old, listen and support our efforts and they have my deepest respect and thanks. I could not survive this in any sane manner without the backing of all of you. I cannot promise that I will have a positive effect on current issues that plague our planet, but I can promise I will never give up, if you never give up on me.”




Another moving entry from August 22, 2005, titled “Finding Closure,” posted by Jeff Englehardt (hEkLe) after exiting Iraq, reads in part:


“There is nothing that I feel can alleviate the guilt for being directly involved with our illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq. I ask myself from time to time, “Why was I so afraid to resist the order to go to war? Why didn’t I object to the whole damned thing?” I have been told many times not to be ashamed for my service to this country, but I can’t help a genuine intuition that this war is not designed to promote freedom and our beautiful American way of life, but instead only carried out to proliferate Western imperialism and corporate profits every time a bullet is fired. My guilt is synonymous with the sentiment that I was indeed on the wrong side of the wire.”



* * *


As the blogging continued, the audience expanded. Radio personality Randi Rhodes, who at the time brought Air America Radio its largest audience to date, began reading their dispatches on air.


As was to be expected, the military began to crack down on the writers. “It was not difficult for them to track what base and unit the writing was coming from and they were able to narrow it down to me,” says Reppenhagen. “My sniper section leader walked into my room and asked if I was writing something stupid on the Internet. I admitted I was posting writings, but whether it was stupid depended on the readers’ views, and he told me to report to the colonel who wanted to ask me questions about this shit I was writing.”


All along, Reppenhagen felt he was leading a dual existence:


“I was living two lives, going outside the wire, but still writing on the blog, all the time looking over my shoulder. I was afraid of our e-mails being monitored, and there was a lot of isolation.” He rarely crossed paths with the other members of the E-4 Mafia, and knew that he would have to deal with the colonel alone. From his perch on the tower, he recounted, “I did the whole thing, saluting him, doing the full pivot, and coming to at-ease, and he has a stack of everything we had written, and copies of personal e-mails I had written. He asked me if I had written it and I said yes. He told me I should stop writing, that I was going to be investigated by Military Intelligence and if found to have violated operational security, I would be tried for treason. I was scared.”



Undeterred, he kept blogging and was soon summoned by the colonel once again.



“I told him I had a right to continue. They pulled my computers, tried to limit my access, took me off sniper duty, and put me on guard duty of Iraqis on base. The last two months were lonely and difficult for me. I was afraid I would be court-martialed. In the end, it was determined that nothing I wrote had violated operational security and that I had committed no treason and, since there were no rules prohibiting blogging, I had broken no rules either. But I was continually hazed by my superiors as long as I was there…. They were constantly looking for ways to trap me. I was made to fill sandbags and do other menial jobs. However, I was finally awarded an honorable discharge in May 2005, and gained a lot of respect from most of my fellow soldiers. Many would give me the peace sign as they passed me by.”



Reppenhagen dove headlong into activism after being discharged. He took a job with Veterans for America, in Washington, DC, and volunteered at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Coming full circle, Reppenhagen had one of his poems set to music by the Bouncing Souls. They called it “Letter from Iraq.”


In 2007, he moved to Green Mountain Falls, Colorado, and enrolled in a community college to study to become a history teacher.


He shares his plans: “I continue now to work at helping veterans get the mental and physical health care they deserve. And I want to teach history in high school…. One of my dreams is to teach on a Native American reservation. After coming back from Iraq, I traveled around a lot, and saw many reservations, and saw this grinding poverty there similar to what I saw in Iraq, and decided that that is where I can help the most.”


On being discharged, the other E-4 Mafia members also moved to Colorado: Schrader to Fort Collins, Hatcher to Cascade and Englehart to Denver. They continue blogging, alongside antiwar activism.


* * *


Casey J. Porter, a specialist from Austin, Texas, served one year in Iraq and in fall 2008 was on his second deployment after having been stop-lossed. His contract ended January 21, 2008, but he was redeployed on March 9, although diagnosed with PTSD by a civilian doctor. As he says on a YouTube video, “I am making the best of it by making short films about what really goes on over here.”


A post from him on a blog called “Soldier Voices” reads: “Some of you might already know me through my films. I am a Stop-Lossed Soldier currently in Iraq.” There is a website for his work: http://www.youtube.com/caseyjporter.”



Porter’s films feature raw footage coupled with a compelling background score. Scenes include mortar attacks against bases, military personnel running for cover during mortar attacks as explosions echo in the background, gun battles, destroyed Humvees and soldiers talking about their low morale. One film, “Area of Operations,” reveals a new weapon of the Iraqi resistance, Lob-Bombs, which are created by cutting open an oxygen tank and packing it with ball bearings, screws and bolts as shrapnel before welding it back together and pressurizing. The film also shows a Lob-Bomb attack that killed two soldiers, which the Associated Press reported as having been caused by small-arms fire. Truthout spoke with Porter by telephone when he was at Forward Operating Base Rustamiyah. He said there were two versions in the military and corporate media reportage of the deaths: “One reported it as small-arms fire and the other as indirect fire. Indirect fire is obviously a very general term, so the Army can say, ‘Oh, it is indirect fire, it’s not an accurate weapon.’ But when the public hears of indirect fire, they think some guy is shooting at you with a machine gun.”


There is a clip in the film that has audio recordings from military radios after the attack. It presents a soldier saying, “The K.I.A. [killed in action], I can’t tell you who they are, they’re in pieces, break …”


Later in the film, a soldier in Iraq says to the camera, “Would this country be the way it is right now had we done anything close to what we promised before we came over? The Humvees we drive, they are not doing the drive over here as protection … not even the slightest. The MRAP [mine resistant, ambush protected] still won’t stop an EFP [explosively formed penetrator]. But it’s a big vehicle and makes a lot of noise and that’s what the American people want, apparently.” The camera goes on to show Humvees destroyed by roadside bombs, then returns to the soldier who says, “I won’t be surprised if they turn this place into a duty station. I mean look at all the nations that we’ve liberated. Look at Germany, Korea. I’m pretty sure at one time somebody thought, ‘Hey, we’re only going to be here for a couple of months.’”


Another of Porter’s films, “What War Looks Like,” shows scenes of destroyed military hardware. Pictures of blown-up tanks and Humvees crushed by roadside bombs are seen flashing across the screen. Other scenes show burnt-out Bradley fighting vehicles atop transport trucks, decomposed bodies of fighters, and then the names and photos of “friends we lost,” US soldiers killed in Iraq. After photos of a body being loaded for shipment back to the United States, the screen goes black as the text reads, “It’s not politics, it is saving soldiers’ lives, bring us home now.”


Truthout asked Porter what had made him decide to make the films.


He said, “After coming back from my first tour, I was so against the war that I started speaking out and showing videos I’d made from footage I’d shot during my first deployment. Then when I got stop-lossed, I decided I’m not going to be another American who complains about the situation and then does nothing. Going AWOL wasn’t a realistic option for me, so instead of being complacent about something I feel is wrong, I decided to make films to show people what they’re not seeing on television, and to show people that I’m not the only soldier that feels this way. Along with very realistic combat footage, I showed real threats facing soldiers, some of the financial traps, and other issues they must deal with during deployment.”


Porter talks of the morale in Iraq being poor and more soldiers than ever beginning to question the mission. However, he added, “One thing that disappoints me about American soldiers is the apathy, the ‘what can you do?’ mentality. But they are more or less speaking their minds by not reenlisting though they are afraid of the consequences of actively speaking up. More of them are doing it, but still not as many as should. The Army seems like such a big giant, and the threat of, well, if you do this we’re going to punish you, and we own you, and all this and that. Then this gets into soldiers’ heads.”


* * *


Iraq war veteran and former Marine Adam Kokesh also maintains a blog, “Revolutionary Patriot” where he has written about being assaulted by undercover FBI agents in Washington, DC, about his thoughts on the Democratic and Republican National Conventions in 2008, and about dealing with PTSD.



Not a shy man, Kokesh did not hesitate to upload onto his blog a video of his speech during a march in DC, where he is seen exhorting a boisterous crowd, “The time is now. The threat is clear. The bands of tyranny are tightening around America. It is our duty to resist!”


Kokesh was part of a team of vets who met with Representative John Conyers in July 2008 to push Conyers to file Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush. In a video of the meeting posted on his blog, Kokesh used his time at the microphone to tell Conyers, who was undecided about filing the articles:


“And I get the feeling that what you’re doing and what the Democratic Party is doing is telling this country, as we are being bled dry by tyrants, that we’re just going to be OK. That the only promises we get from Democrats are Band-Aids over these far deeper wounds that anyone is willing to admit to publicly. I hear one of the arguments against impeachment, that it would harm the Democrats in the upcoming elections. And I hope that you realize, because you didn’t communicate this when I asked you the question, that there are real consequences to not impeaching that are far, far worse than not having Democrats in the Congress or Senate, or a Democrat in the White House. You said you’ve made thousands of decisions, many of them very respectable, many of them very courageous. But by your own admission, it seems that what is holding you back from this one is your own indecision. You said that I might be surprised by your plans. You haven’t put forth any. And frankly, I’m not surprised.”


Aside from blogging, testifying to representatives, leading marches and getting arrested, Kokesh has participated in Operation First Casualty (OFC), a tactic of street theater in which vets don their camouflage and take to the streets of US cities to carry out public patrols, realistic mock arrests, home raids and tower watches to raise awareness of the occupation. After an OFC action on March 19, 2007, the fourth anniversary of the invasion, he received an e-mail from the Marine Corps Mobilization Command that oversees the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) to which Kokesh reported.


The e-mail accused him of violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by wearing his uniform during a political event. “I was like, wait a second, I’m in the IRR, the UCMJ doesn’t apply. This is bullshit.” The scathing response that Kokesh sent back is posted on his blog. It concludes:


“I fail to see how reminding me of my ‘obligations and responsibilities’ helps you achieve either of these. It seems that while accomplishing our mission in Iraq, every corner we turn sends us further down the spiral, but there is still much that you can do to bring our fellow Marines home alive.


“So no, I am not replying to your email in order to acknowledge my understanding of my obligations and responsibilities, but rather to ask you to please, kindly, go fuck yourself.”


In the chain of events that followed, the military threatened to give him a less than honorable discharge, which would affect his education benefits, but so far the military has not followed through. His case was helped by appearing on several major media programs, including “Good Morning America.”


Kokesh thinks the future of GI resistance holds great possibility for social change. He told Truthout, “It’s kind of a battle for the hearts and minds of the troops between resistance and obedience. And if the military power structure keeps fucking up and putting people off, then resistance is going to start winning a lot more hearts and minds, you know, and we’re doing what we can to further that.” Yet he is realistic.



“The forces at play here are far greater than any organization, bigger even than the military itself. It’s social, it’s cultural … and I think it is great in terms of what we can do to foster a broader civilian resistance, and develop a culture of questioning authority…. Whether the GI resistance movement is actually going to be enough to end the war, I don’t think you can consider it in those absolute terms. We’re building pressure. And there are a lot of forces maintaining pressure to keep the war going. If nothing else, we need to be a countervailing force to those and, who knows, maybe that’s going to stop the next war.”

Dahr Jamail Speaks to Physicians for Social Responsibility

Derrick Jensen Q and A

Friday, November 6, 2009

U.S. jobless rate hits 10.2 percent

Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:23am EST

By Lucia Mutikani

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. jobless rate unexpectedly jumped to a 26-1/2-year high of 10.2 percent last month, adding to pressure on the Obama administration to do more to tackle unemployment even as signs of recovery mount.

The Labor Department said on Friday that employers cut 190,000 jobs in October, more than the 175,000 markets had expected but fewer than the 219,000 lost in September.

Taking some of the sting out of the report, job losses for August and September were revised to show 91,000 fewer jobs were lost than previously reported.

While that hinted at some improvement in labor market conditions, economists had looked for the jobless rate to rise to 9.9 percent from September's 9.8 percent.

"Unfortunately, the problem is becoming deeper and more protracted," Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive of bond giant Pacific Investment Management told Reuters. "It's not just the increase in the headline number. ... It's also about the longer-term nature of unemployment, the increase in underemployment, and the prospect for only a very gradual recovery."

Stocks erased early losses on the heels of the report, somewhat heartened by a lessening in the pace of monthly job losses. The report lifted prices for U.S. government bonds and the flight to safer assets initially boosted the U.S. dollar, but it later fell back.

President Barack Obama has called job creation priority No. 1, but his scope to take further steps to lift the economy is limited by record budget deficits.

Mounting unemployment could pose problems for the Democrats who control Congress as they head into congressional elections in November 2010. This week, Republicans wrested control of two state governorships away from Democrats in races where the weak economy figured prominently.

"President Obama promised jobs during his campaign for president, and the elections in Virginia and New Jersey on Tuesday were a clear referendum on his failure to deliver on this promise," said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

ECONOMY GROWING, BUT LABOR MARKET LAGS

The U.S. economy grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate in the third quarter, likely ending the most painful U.S. recession in 70 years, but employers appear wary of the prospects for a strong, sustained recovery.

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday held overnight interest rates close to zero and said it would keep them extraordinarily low as long as excess economic slack and a lack of inflation warning signs prevailed.

Interest rate futures prices showed traders reduced their bets the Fed will begin raising rates in the middle of next year. The implied chances of a rate hike by the mid-2010 slipped to about 66 percent from 84 percent late on Thursday.

"I don't know how in the heck the Fed could justify tightening policy with the unemployment rate over 10 percent unless we have an imminent inflation danger, which based on everything I see is absent," said Keith Hembre, chief economist at First American Funds in Minneapolis.

A wider measure of labor-market slack, which includes both the officially unemployed and people who want work but who have given up searching, hit a record high of 17.5 percent.

The Labor Department's survey of households showed a loss of 589,000 jobs last month, leading to the big jump in the unemployment rate. Its larger survey of employers, however, found far fewer positions were cut.

Economist generally regard the survey of employers as a more trustworthy measure of the state of the labor market, although some argue that the household gauge may be offer a better reflection when the economy is climbing from recession.

Employer payrolls have declined for 22 consecutive months now and 7.3 million people have lost work since December 2007, when the recession started.

However, the pace of layoffs has slowed sharply from early this year. In January alone, nearly three-quarters of a million jobs were lost.

Job losses in October were widespread across almost all sectors, with education and health services and professional and business services bucking the trend.

Manufacturing employment fell 61,000 last month, while construction industries payrolls dropped 62,000.

The service-providing sector cut 61,000 workers in October and goods-producing industries slashed 129,000 positions. Education and health services added 45,000 jobs, while government employment was flat.

Offering one small glimmer of hope, the report showed an increase of 34,000 temporary help jobs, suggesting companies needed extra hands even if they were not prepared to hire permanently. It was the biggest increase in temporary help jobs since the economy fell into recession.

The average workweek, which closely correlates with overall output and gives clues on when firms will start hiring, was steady at 33 hours in October. Average hourly earnings rose to $18.72 from $18.67 in September.

(Additional reporting by Nick Olivari, Richard Leong and Jennifer Ablan in New York; Editing by Neil Stempleman)

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSN0243717320091106

Central banks lead subtle shift away from dollar

Tue Nov 3, 2009 4:31pm EST

By Steven C. Johnson - Analysis

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Central banks with trillions of dollars in reserves that are already stepping up euro and yen purchases will likely continue doing so in coming years, driven by worries over the stability of the greenback.

A record U.S. budget gap and the rise of dynamic developing economies like China suggest the dollar, down over 20 percent since 2002 on a trade-weighted basis, has further to fall.

Of course, the dollar comprises some two-thirds of global reserves and will remain dominant in most holdings, as attempts to dump it would destroy the value of central bank portfolios.

But with the speed of reserve accumulation increasing after a crisis-induced lull late last year, policy makers can choose to park more new cash in euros and yen without having to sell existing dollar assets.

"I think 2009 will be remembered as a watershed moment for currencies," said Neil Mellor, strategist at BNY Mellon, which has some $20 trillion in assets under custody. "I don't think there will be an imminent move, but it is quite clear there's a plan to shift reserves to a more balanced portfolio."

Barclays Capital research showed that central banks that report reserve breakdown put 63 percent of new cash coming into their coffers between April and July into non-U.S. currencies.

"There's an incipient desire to reduce the dollar share of reserves, and central banks will use any opportunity to do it, provided it doesn't cause the dollar to fall out of bed," said Steven Englander, chief U.S. currency strategist at Barclays.

International Monetary Fund data shows the dollar's share of known world reserves has been declining since it stood at 72 percent in 1999, the year the euro was introduced. As of the second quarter of 2009, it accounted for 62.8 percent.

To be sure, some of that shift is driven by the dollar's decline against a basket of currencies over that period.

But the Barclays data, which removes valuation effects, shows the second quarter was the only one in which central banks accumulated more than $100 billion in reserves and put less than 40 percent into dollars, down from a 70 percent quarterly average back to 2006.

Overall reserves rose 4.8 percent to $6.8 trillion in the second quarter, the IMF said, the first increase in a year.

CATCHING UP TO THE DOLLAR

Policy makers acknowledge the dollar will remain a linchpin of global finance for many years to come. But it has fallen steadily on a trade-weighted basis over the last decade, a troubling sign for China, Russia, India and other big U.S. creditors holding trillions of dollars of U.S. Treasury debt.

Worries about record deficits, run up as the United States borrowed hundreds of billions to stimulate an economy ravaged by financial crisis, has further diminished foreign demand for U.S. assets, making it likely the dollar will weaken further.

For a graphic of the dollar's declining share of known reserves and rising U.S. budget deficit, see: here

And as others catch up to the United States, the dollar will share the stage with other currencies, said Barry Eichengreen, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

"The big beneficiary in the short run will be the euro, as only it has the requisite liquidity," he said. "But there's no reason why we shouldn't look forward to the advent of a multipolar reserve currency system."

The euro's share of known reserves hit 27.5 percent in the second quarter, from 18 percent in late 2000, IMF data showed. Analysts say it could exceed 30 percent in coming years.

The yen and sterling also stand to gain, while currencies from commodity exporters such as Australia may see more buying, Mellor said, particularly by energy-hungry emerging economies such as China, which holds $2.3 trillion in reserves.

Barclays' data showed claims in "other currencies" beyond the big four -- dollar, euro, yen, sterling -- rose more than 10 percent between April and July.

China does not report currency composition but is widely thought to hold around 70 percent in dollars.

Russia, the third biggest reserve holder with $419 billion in its war chest, says it holds some 47 percent in dollars and 40 percent in euros but wants to buy more of other currencies.

Central banks are also turning to gold, which Wells Fargo global economist Jay Bryson said may partly explain gold's surge to record highs.

Taiwan, the fourth largest reserve holder, has said it is considering buying more gold, while China said in April it had increased gold holdings by 75 percent since 2003. This week, India bought 200 tones of gold from the IMF for $6.7 billion.

DON'T COUNT DOLLAR OUT

Central banks do face limits on how they diversify their reserve holdings. Most currencies are simply not deep enough to accommodate massive sudden inflows and outflows.

Even a big shift from dollars to euros begs the question of which country's debt to buy. No European government bond market is as deep as the U.S. Treasury market, and bonds with the highest yields are from countries with the weakest economies.

"If you buy a 30-year Italian government bond, is Italy still going to be in the euro zone 30 years from now?" said Bryson. "Probably, but there is a risk there."

And while China's economy is on track to one day become the world's biggest, the yuan won't be a viable reserve candidate until China loosens controls and lets foreigners invest freely.

"That is a matter of decades, not years," said Anne Krueger, a former IMF deputy director now at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.

Edwin Truman, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former Federal Reserve economist, says it's "not so much a drift away from the dollar as it is a drift to other currencies."

"Will the dollar share of reserves be lower five years from now?" he asked. "If I had to guess, I'd say, 'yes.' Will it be because of a massive stampede out of dollars? Probably not."

(Editing by Leslie Adler)

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5A25KO20091103

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Pentagon pursuing new investigation into Bush propaganda program

By Brad Jacobson
Thursday, November 5th, 2009 -- 8:40 am

[Read Part I, Part II and Part III of this series.]

The Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General is conducting a new investigation into a covert Bush administration Defense Department program that used retired military analysts to produce positive wartime news coverage.

Last May, the Inspector General’s office rescinded and repudiated a prior internal investigation’s report on the retired military analyst program, which had been issued by the Bush administration, because it “did not meet accepted quality standards for an Inspector General work product.” Yet in recent interviews with Raw Story, Pentagon officials who took part in the program were still defending it by referencing this invalidated report.

Gary Comerford, Inspector General spokesman for the Defense Department, told Raw Story last week that his office is conducting an investigation into the retired military analyst program and confirmed that the investigation began during the summer.

Asked when his office expects to conclude the investigation, Comerford said, “As a matter of policy we do not set deadlines since any number of variables or factors could result in a delay.”
Story continues below...

He did confirm that investigators in his office have read Raw Story’s recent articles on the topic.


Congressman John F. Tierney (D-MA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, issued a press release (cache link) this past June, announcing that Pentagon Inspector General Gordon Heddell had begun the new investigation.



Yet Raw Story and Comerford could find no news outlet that has yet reported on the matter.


Rep. Tierney confirmed that Inspector General Heddell had reassured him that he was continuing to pursue a new investigation.


“I spoke with Gordon Heddell about his investigation of the DOD ‘Pentagon Pundits’ program yesterday, and he assured me that his office is making good progress on its investigation,” Tierney said in a recent statement to Raw Story. “I again expressed my expectation that his office pursue this investigation with all diligence and speed.”


“I look forward to receiving updates on his progress as well as his final report,” Tierney added. “I, along with my staff, will remain in close contact with the IG’s office as the investigation continues.”


Pentagon officials defend program by citing rescinded report


Former Pentagon public affairs chief Lawrence Di Rita and current deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations Bryan Whitman continue to defend the retired military analyst program by referencing the discredited Pentagon Inspector General’s report released in the final days of the Bush administration.


In an interview with Raw Story, Di Rita, now a chief spokesperson for Bank of America, called the Pentagon propaganda project “an important program” and asserted that “there’s nothing related to it that’s worth talking about” because the “IG’s report debunked” and “utterly invalidated” the findings of David Barstow’s New York Times expose.



Di Rita then incorrectly suggested that this investigation and report had been conducted and released by the Obama administration.


In fact, the Inspector General’s report that Di Rita cited as evidence exonerating the program and discrediting Barstow’s reporting was not only later rescinded after an internal audit but also removed from the Defense Department’s website.


In a May 5, 2009 memorandum, Pentagon Inspector General deputy director Donald Horstman wrote, “The internal review concluded that the report did not meet accepted quality standards for an Inspector General work product.” It found inadequacies in “the methodology used to examine RMA [retired military analysts] relationships with Defense contractors” and “a body of testimonial evidence that was insufficient or inconclusive.”


“In particular,” Horstman added, “former senior DoD officials who devised and managed the outreach program refused our requests for an interview” and that only “7 out of 70” military analysts were interviewed during the investigation.


Investigators also failed to interview retired Army General and military analyst Barry McCaffrey, the conspicuous subject of David Barstow’s 5,000-plus-word follow-up Times expose on the military analyst program, whom Barstow proved “consistently advocated wartime policies and spending priorities that are in line with his corporate interests.”



In the internal audit’s conclusion, Horstman stated expressly, “We are notifying you of the withdrawal of this report so that you do not continue to rely on its conclusions. The report has been removed from our website.”


Nevertheless, Di Rita flatly denied these facts when Raw Story brought them to his attention.


Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman -- who Raw Story revealed was a senior official and active participant in the program – also attempted to downplay the Bush Pentagon’s report’s inaccuracies and omissions. He failed as well to acknowledge that the document has been invalidated.


Additionally, Whitman reaffirmed his assertion that the “intent and purpose of the [program] is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people.”


In defending the program, Whitman also cited the Government Accountability Office’s report, which was released last July.


The report acknowledged that “[c]learly, DOD attempted to favorably influence public opinion with respect to the Administration’s war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan through the RMOs [retired military officers],” but “did not violate the ban” against domestic propaganda.



A central supporting point for drawing that conclusion, however, was “[w]e found no evidence that DOD attempted to conceal from the public its outreach to RMOs or its role in providing RMOs with information, materials, access to department officials, travel, and luncheons.”


The key evidence cited to support this conclusion was an April 2006 New York Times article, “Pentagon Memo Aims to Counter Rumsfeld Critics,” which was based on a leak.


The article noted that the memorandum had been sent to “a group of former military commanders and civilian analysts,” offering “a direct challenge to the criticisms made by retired generals about Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.”


But much of the article’s focus was fixed on the political drama swirling around Rumsfeld’s fight to retain his job amid a growing firestorm of criticism.


In fact, Defense Department officials at the time, such as then-press secretary Eric Ruff, rushed to spike any notion that the Pentagon had fed military analysts talking points. The idea that there might be an elaborate, systematic Pentagon talking points operation involving the retired generals was never specifically raised in the article.


Ruff told the Times the memo was simply a “fact sheet” and that, as the Times paraphrased Ruff saying, “In no way was it meant to enlist retired officers to speak out on behalf of Rumsfeld.”



Mazzetti and Rutenberg reported: “One retired general who regularly attends the Pentagon meetings said Saturday that he found it unusual for the Pentagon to send such a memorandum in the middle of a heated debate, because it was almost certain to appear politically motivated.”


This account also suggested to readers that supplying Pentagon-approved talking points for the retired generals to disseminate on the airwaves would have been out of the ordinary when, in fact, records would later show that’s exactly what was happening.


Records would also eventually reveal Pentagon officials working behind-the-scenes to stamp out this fire before it had time to spread and to ensure that it could be contained.


In an email (p. 117) the day after the Times article was published, Dallas Lawrence, then director of the community relations office, warned a colleague (whose name is redacted) that “this is very very sensitive now. I need you to be protected. This email directly contradicts something Larry [Di Rita] said to a reporter, you’d have no way of knowing that unless you checked with me.”


When the Defense Department’s Office of the Inspector General issued the May memorandum invalidating the Bush Pentagon’s investigation of the military analyst program, it also noted that no further probe would occur because the program “has been terminated and responsible senior officials are no longer employed by the Department.”


Yet Raw Story’s months-long investigation has revealed that some “responsible senior officials,” including Whitman, are still employed by the Defense Department and that the retired military analyst program may not have been terminated.



Brad Jacobson is a contributing investigative reporter for Raw Story. Additional research was provided by Ron Brynaert.

Justifying What You Know Can't Be True

By: Emily Badger print Print


President Obama has had a hard time dislodging misperceptions about his health care proposal — those stubborn beliefs that there are death panels and free care for illegal aliens that don't actually exist in the legislation. Recent research about the way people defend their faith in false information, though, suggests calling out the inaccuracies may not be all that effective in converting the suspicious.



Sociologists at the University of North Carolina and Northwestern University examined an earlier case of deep commitment to the inaccurate: the belief, among many conservatives who voted for George W. Bush in 2004, that Saddam Hussein was at least partly responsible for the attacks on 9/11.


Of 49 people included in the study who believed in such a connection, only one shed the certainty when presented with prevailing evidence that it wasn't true.


The rest came up with an array of justifications for ignoring, discounting or simply disagreeing with contrary evidence — even when it came from President Bush himself.


"I was surprised at the diversity of it, what I kind of charitably call the creativity of it," said Steve Hoffman, one of the study's authors and now a visiting assistant professor at the State University of New York, Buffalo.


The voters weren't dupes of an elaborate misinformation campaign, the researchers concluded; rather, they were actively engaged in reasoning that the belief they already held was true.


This type of "motivated reasoning" — pursuing information that confirms what we already think and discarding the rest — helps explain why viewers gravitate toward partisan cable news and why we tend to see what we want in The Colbert Report. But when it comes to justifying demonstrably false beliefs, the logic stretches even thinner.



By the time the interviews were conducted, just before the 2004 election, the Bush Administration was no longer muddling a link between al-Qaeda and the Iraq war. The researchers chose the topic because, unlike other questions in politics, it had a correct answer.


Subjects were presented during one-on-one interviews with a newspaper clip of this Bush quote: "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al-Qaeda."


The Sept. 11 Commission, too, found no such link, the subjects were told.


"Well, I bet they say that the commission didn't have any proof of it," one subject responded, "but I guess we still can have our opinions and feel that way even though they say that."


Reasoned another: "Saddam, I can't judge if he did what he's being accused of, but if Bush thinks he did it, then he did it."


Others declined to engage the information at all. Most curious to the researchers were the respondents who reasoned that Saddam must have been connected to Sept. 11, because why else would the Bush Administration have gone to war in Iraq?


The desire to believe this was more powerful, according to the researchers, than any active campaign to plant the idea.



Such a campaign did exist in the run-up to the war, just as it exists today in the health care debate.


"I do think there's something to be said about people like Sarah Palin, and even more so Chuck Grassley, supporting this idea of death panels in a national forum," Hoffman said.


He won't credit them alone for the phenomenon, though.


"That kind of puts the idea out there, but what people then do with the idea ... " he said. "Our argument is that people aren't just empty vessels. You don't just sort of open up their brains and dump false information in and they regurgitate it. They're actually active processing cognitive agents."


That view is more nuanced than the one held by many health care reform proponents — that citizens are only ill-informed because Rush Limbaugh makes them so. (For the record, the authors say justifying false beliefs extends equally to liberals, who they hypothesize would behave similarly given a different set of issues.)


The alternate explanation raises queasy questions for the rest of society.



"I think we'd all like to believe that when people come across disconfirming evidence, what they tend to do is to update their opinions," said Andrew Perrin, an associate professor at UNC and another author of the study.


That some people might not do that even in the face of accurate information, the authors suggest in their article, presents "a serious challenge to democratic theory and practice."


"The implications for how democracy works are quite profound, there's no question in my mind about that," Perrin said. "What it means is that we have to think about the emotional states in which citizens find themselves that then lead them to reason and deliberate in particular ways."


Evidence suggests people are more likely to pay attention to facts within certain emotional states and social situations. Some may never change their minds. For others, policy-makers could better identify those states, for example minimizing the fear that often clouds a person's ability to assess facts and that has characterized the current health care debate.


Hoffman's advice for crafting such an environment: "The congressional town hall meetings, that is a sort of test case in how not to do it."



Sign up for our free e-newsletter.


Are you on Facebook? Become our fan.


Follow us on Twitter.


Add our news to your site.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

"They love everything about Indigenous Peoples, except the people"

A talk by Gord Hill


"'The government wants to say it's all great here. We have a great relationship with Indigenous peoples.' We're saying no, that's false. That's a lie that the governments, the corporations and the Olympics are perpetrating."

These are some of the words of Gord Hill, member of the Kwakwak'wakw Nation, editor of No2010.com, and resident of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

In this talk, recorded at UBC's Green College on October 19th, 2009, Hill discusses the history behind the slogan "No Olympics on Stolen Native Land."

http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/audio/2003

Monday, October 19, 2009

A Reality Check From the Brink of Extinction

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091019_a_reality_check_from_the_brink_of_extinction/

Posted on Oct 18, 2009
By Chris Hedges

We can join Bill McKibben on Oct. 24 in nationwide protests over rising carbon emissions. We can cut our consumption of fossil fuels. We can use less water. We can banish plastic bags. We can install compact fluorescent light bulbs. We can compost in our backyard. But unless we dismantle the corporate state, all those actions will be just as ineffective as the Ghost Dance shirts donned by native American warriors to protect themselves from the bullets of white soldiers at Wounded Knee.



“If we all wait for the great, glorious revolution there won’t be anything left,” author and environmental activist Derrick Jensen told me when I interviewed him in a phone call to his home in California. “If all we do is reform work, this culture will grind away. This work is necessary, but not sufficient. We need to use whatever means are necessary to stop this culture from killing the planet. We need to target and take down the industrial infrastructure that is systematically dismembering the planet. Industrial civilization is functionally incompatible with life on the planet, and is murdering the planet. We need to do whatever is necessary to stop this.”



The oil and natural gas industry, the coal industry, arms and weapons manufacturers, industrial farms, deforestation industries, the automotive industry and chemical plants will not willingly accept their own extinction. They are indifferent to the looming human catastrophe. We will not significantly reduce carbon emissions by drying our laundry in the backyard and naively trusting the power elite. The corporations will continue to cannibalize the planet for the sake of money. They must be halted by organized and militant forms of resistance. The crisis of global heating is a social problem. It requires a social response.



The United States, after rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, went on to increase its carbon emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels. The European Union countries during the same period reduced their emissions by 2 percent. But the recent climate negotiations in Bangkok, designed to lead to a deal in Copenhagen in December, have scuttled even the tepid response of Kyoto. Kyoto is dead. The EU, like the United States, will no longer abide by binding targets for emission reductions. Countries will unilaterally decide how much to cut. They will submit their plans to international monitoring. And while Kyoto put the burden of responsibility on the industrialized nations that created the climate crisis, the new plan treats all countries the same. It is a huge step backward.



“All of the so-called solutions to global warming take industrial capitalism as a given,” said Jensen, who wrote “Endgame” and “The Culture of Make Believe.” “The natural world is supposed to conform to industrial capitalism. This is insane. It is out of touch with physical reality. What’s real is real. Any social system—it does not matter if we are talking about industrial capitalism or an indigenous Tolowa people—their way of life, is dependent upon a real, physical world. Without a real, physical world you don’t have anything. When you separate yourself from the real world you start to hallucinate. You believe the machines are more real than real life. How many machines are within 10 feet of you and how many wild animals are within a hundred yards? How many machines do you have a daily relationship with? We have forgotten what is real.” 



The latest studies show polar ice caps are melting at a record rate and that within a decade the Arctic will be an open sea during summers. This does not give us much time. White ice and snow reflect 80 percent of sunlight back to space, while dark water reflects only 20 percent, absorbing a much larger heat load. Scientists warn that the loss of the ice will dramatically change winds and sea currents around the world. And the rapidly melting permafrost is unleashing methane chimneys from the ocean floor along the Russian coastline. Methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more toxic than carbon dioxide, and some scientists have speculated that the release of huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere could asphyxiate the human species. The rising sea levels, which will swallow countries such as Bangladesh and the Marshall Islands and turn cities like New Orleans into a new Atlantis, will combine with severe droughts, horrific storms and flooding to eventually dislocate over a billion people. The effects will be suffering, disease and death on a scale unseen in human history.



We can save groves of trees, protect endangered species and clean up rivers, all of which is good, but to leave the corporations unchallenged would mean our efforts would be wasted. These personal adjustments and environmental crusades can too easily become a badge of moral purity, an excuse for inaction. They can absolve us from the harder task of confronting the power of corporations. 



The damage to the environment by human households is minuscule next to the damage done by corporations. Municipalities and individuals use 10 percent of the nation’s water while the other 90 percent is consumed by agriculture and industry. Individual consumption of energy accounts for about a quarter of all energy consumption; the other 75 percent is consumed by corporations. Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States. We can, and should, live more simply, but it will not be enough if we do not radically transform the economic structure of the industrial world.



“If your food comes from the grocery store and your water from a tap you will defend to the death the system that brings these to you because your life depends on it,” said Jensen, who is holding workshops around the country called Deep Green Resistance [click here and here] to build a militant resistance movement. “If your food comes from a land base and if your water comes from a river you will defend to the death these systems. In any abusive system, whether we are talking about an abusive man against his partner or the larger abusive system, you force your victims to become dependent upon you. We believe that industrial capitalism is more important than life.”



Those who run our corporate state have fought environmental regulation as tenaciously as they have fought financial regulation. They are responsible for our personal impoverishment as well as the impoverishment of our ecosystem. We remain addicted, courtesy of the oil, gas and automobile industries and a corporate-controlled government, to fossil fuels. Species are vanishing. Fish stocks are depleted. The great human migration from coastlines and deserts has begun. And as temperatures continue to rise, huge parts of the globe will become uninhabitable. NASA climate scientist James Hansen has demonstrated that any concentration of carbon dioxide greater than 350 parts per million in the atmosphere is not compatible with maintenance of the biosphere on the “planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” He has determined that the world must stop burning coal by 2030—and the industrialized world well before that—if we are to have any hope of ever getting the planet back down below that 350 number. Coal supplies half of our electricity in the United States.



“We need to separate ourselves from the corporate government that is killing the planet,” Jensen said. “We need to get really serious. We are talking about life on the planet. We need to shut down the oil infrastructure. I don’t care, and the trees don’t care, if we do this through lawsuits, mass boycotts or sabotage. I asked Dahr Jamail how long a bridge would last in Iraq that was not defended. He said probably six to 12 hours. We need to make the economic system, which is the engine for so much destruction, unmanageable. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta has been able to reduce Nigerian oil output by 20 percent. We need to stop the oil economy.” 



The reason the ecosystem is dying is not because we still have a dryer in our basement. It is because corporations look at everything, from human beings to the natural environment, as exploitable commodities. It is because consumption is the engine of corporate profits. We have allowed the corporate state to sell the environmental crisis as a matter of personal choice when actually there is a need for profound social and economic reform. We are left powerless.



Alexander Herzen, speaking a century ago to a group of Russian anarchists working to topple the czar, reminded his followers that they were not there to rescue the system. 



“We think we are the doctors,” Herzen said. “We are the disease.”









Greenland melting

AP / John McConnico


With polar ice caps melting at a record rate, the Arctic is expected to be an open sea during summers within a decade.