Oil reserves and peak oil

"In my previous article, "Things Just Got Worse," from on Jan. 25, 2006, I wrote about a recent report in the authoritative industry newsletter Petroleum Intelligence Weekly. The substance of the PIW report was that internal Kuwaiti records reveal that the nation's oil reserves are far below the officially stated amount of about 99 billion barrels."

"The PIW report claimed that Kuwait's remaining oil reserves total about 48 billion barrels, or 51 billion fewer barrels than previously advertised. These Kuwaiti reserves include about 24 billion barrels of "proven" reserves, which are known to a high degree of engineering certainty to be in the ground. And the remaining 24 billion barrels of Kuwaiti oil reserves are in the category of "unproven," meaning that they await further drilling and actual estimation under standard engineering practices."

As I stated in an earlier post, I've been pretty negligent in paying any attention to the Peak Oil issue. Well I've since read a little, and think this article points out just how hard it is for even the experts to know just what's in store for the future.

The article starts off discussing the discrepancy between a recent report by Kuwait on its' reserves, and outside estimates, then goes on to describe the difficulties everyone has in estimating what's still in the ground. I kind've thought it was all a guessing game, and all I've found confirms it. Did I learn anything? Not really. The fact that much of the worlds oil production is state owned (or "owning" a state, like ours), and is thus subject to politics when it comes to "official" reserve estimates, really goes without saying.

I think at this point, while there's still time, we should really start pushing for alternatives. At one time the world ran primarily on wood and coal, and then oil came along to replace much of it as the worlds energy source. We were lucky in our transition from coal to oil, we didn't run out of coal, and are still mining and using it, to a degree. But what if we'd run out first before discovering oil? What if we don't develop and put into wide use, a new source of energy, before we run out of oil?

Pay no attention to the nonsense promises of our President about finding new sources, or his blaming us for being "addicted" to oil. He intends to change nothing. We've experienced "problems" with oil for over 30 years, begining with the first so-called "oil crisis" of the early 70s. Since then we've been given nothing but lip-service in regards to alternatives. It's been 30 years. I say again, 30 years we've had to develop alternatives, and what's happened? Nothing. Government promises to promote research, then cuts funding. Oil companies succeed in reaping more profits. Auto manufacturers succeed in loosening regulations designed to force them to produce better milage and emissions.

Haven't you noticed that immediately after every "oil crisis" (and we've had several), we get aggressive advertising to buy even bigger vehicles (vans, pickup trucks, now SUVs. All of which by coincidence aren't as tightly regulated on safety and emissons as regular cars) that eat more gas than before, which creates more profits for the auto companies, oil companies, and governments through taxes at the pump. What incentive do any of them have, to change the status quo? The incentive must come from us. We must insist on a change, or nothing will happen. And you know that's true. We can't use alternatives to oil unless we're given some to use. Look how much technology has changed the world in the last 30 years alone, but we're supposed to believe we can't come up with a viable fuel alternative....yet!!

I still haven't looked too deeply into the Peak Oil controversy, but what I've seen so far, is no real revelation. Nothing's going on that hasn't been, for years. Nothing I can say is new. What I can do, spend some time pointing out the consequences of allowing our leaders in government and industry to continue to play their power games with us as the pawns.

Political Deal to Scuttle the Abramoff Investigation

"On Friday, January 27, immediately after Bush announced Noel Hillman the federal Abramoff prosecutor was leaving his position to become a federal judge, I wrote that it was a political deal to stop the Abramoff prosecution. I posted an article on Huffington Post on January 29th."

"It came about this way. The Democrats wanted Magistrate Federal Judge Susan Wingenton to be a federal judge. The Bush Administration said no."

"This year the Bush Administration agreed to give the Democrats who they wanted in exchange for the Democrats agreeing to remove the Abramoff prosecutor. Wingenton got her appointment; the Democrats agreed to the removal of Noel Hillman, and he accepted a judgeship."

(sigh) See? This is why I say the Democrats are as much the problem as the Republicans. They're co-conspirators. If the Dems were truly interested in putting a stop to the nonsense in Washington, they wouldn't have taken this lopsided deal. It can't be that they simply didn't realize that the administration must be growing increasingly nervous about what the investigation might find, and that this was a way to sabotage it. (almost) Nobody's that stupid.

The story isn't that Bush wants to stop the investigation, that's to be expected, but that his make-believe opponents are willfully aiding him in that endeavor.

Of course, it's also clear the Dems don't want the investigation to go too far, since a number of them are sure to be exposed as well.

Subversion of the Republic should be a treasonous offense. We desperately need term limits and campaign reform that removes the need for campaign contributions. Wishful thinking, huh?

Revealed: Secret Memo Exposes How Bush and Blair Tried To Lure Saddam Into War.

"Channel 4 News tonight reveals extraordinary details of George Bush and Tony Blair's pre-war meeting in January 2003 at which they discussed plans to begin military action on March 10th 2003, irrespective of whether the United Nations had passed a new resolution authorising the use of force."

"Channel 4 News has seen minutes from that meeting, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. The two leaders discussed the possibility of securing further UN support, but President Bush made it clear that he had already decided to go to war. The details are contained in a new version of the book 'Lawless World' written by a leading British human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands QC."

Yet another piece of the puzzle is exposed. There's only a couple of excerpts here, but the most revealing is.....

President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

This from a guy who claims to be on the side of the righteous. If only the rest of our government would have the balls Bush has, they'd have no problem indicting and convicting one of the most documented criminals to ever hold the high office. I'm sure there must have been other Presidents who were just as much a criminal, but this one leaves such a blatant trail of his crimes, he can survive only with the complicity of his dominant party, and a perpetually weak distracted opposition.

More info from The Guardian

Interesting Quote

Here's a quote I found in one of the newsletters I receive:

"It is extremely dangerous to exercise the constitutional right of free speech in a country fighting to make democracy safe in the world.....

These are the gentry who are today wrapped up in the American flag, who shout their claim from the housetops that they are the only patriots, and who have their magnifying glasses in hand, scanning the country for evidence of disloyalty, eager to apply the brand of treason to the men who dare to even whisper their opposition to Junker rule in the United States. No wonder Sam Johnson declared that "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." He must have had this Wall Street gentry in mind, or at least their prototypes, for in every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people.....

Every solitary one of these aristocratic conspirators and would-be murderers claims to be an arch-patriot; every one of them insists that the war is being waged to make the world safe for democracy. What humbug! What rot! What false pretense! These autocrats, these tyrants, these red-handed robbers and murderers, the "patriots," while the men who have the courage to stand face to face with them, speak the truth, and fight for their exploited victims—they are the disloyalists and traitors. If this be true, I want to take my place side by side with the traitors in this fight."

Eugene V. Debs - The Canton, Ohio, Anti-War Speech. June 16, 1918

Note the date? This is why I love history so much, it tends to prove there's really nothing new under the sun when it comes to human relations. We just go round and round in circles, learning absolutely nothing from past experience.

And by the way, consider me proud to be a traitor!

Hundreds of Mentally Ill to Be Executed in America

"Amnesty International is asking that hundreds of mentally ill people facing the death penalty in American prisons have their sentences commuted."

"Ten percent of the first 1,000 people executed in the United States since 1977 suffered from illnesses ranging from schizophrenia to post-traumatic stress disorder and brain damage, the leading rights watchdog and opponent of capital punishment said in a report released Tuesday."

"Another 3,400 people remain on death row and 5-10 percent of them have mental illnesses, Amnesty said, citing estimates by the National Institute of Mental Health."

It's amazing to me that we can be so cruel as to execute the mentally ill. I won't pretend not to be for executing certain criminals, but my criteria would restrict it to the point where it would be extremely rare, and certainly not include anyone with any mental problems.

Not just because of the failure to prevent executions of mentally ill, but the way in which it's unfairly implemented in this country, I want to see an end to the death penalty, as well as mandatory sentencing, which is also unfair.

President Again Ignores Darfur Genocide in 'State of the Union'

"Africa Action today condemned the failure of President Bush to mention the Darfur genocide in his ‘State of the Union’ address for the second year, even as his Administration acknowledges that this crime against humanity continues in western Sudan. In a speech that stressed the need for the U.S. to engage with the world, to reject "isolationism" and to confront "tyranny" and "evil", Africa Action emphasized that the failure of the President to comment on the Darfur genocide and to identify a plan to stop it contradicts these themes and reveals an unacceptable lack of commitment to new action on this crisis."

To be fair, they really don't have much for our corporations to exploit, so we can't expect our leader to get all honorable and do the right thing, just because it's the right thing. There would have to be billions in profits for that to happen, and apparently there's none to be found there.

Kinda calls into question our noble effort in Iraq. If, in failing to find WMD that he knew didn't exist, his fallback excuse was to liberate Iraqis from tyranny, then why not take action here? Why are we so forgiving of the hypocracy of our own leadership? You know as well as I do if they were a major oil producer, we would've destroyed half the population ourselves, to make the place safe for economic exploitation.

Funny how we only "save" people if they own valuable realestate.

R.I.P. Specialist Doug Barber

"It is with great sadness that IVAW announces the death of one of our own. Specialist Doug Barber, a member of IVAW, recently took his own life after returning from Iraq. A main contributor to his death was the PTSD he dealth with; the same PTSD that originated from the time Doug spent in the war in Iraq. Another contributing factor was the failure of the VA to provide adequate mental care services to heal the wounds of war."

"This is not the first time that a soldier has taken his life after returning from the battlefield. Even today, the list of the tens of thousands of Vietnam Veterans who have committed suicide continues to grow. Aiding Iraq Veterans continues to be one of the main goals of IVAW. With your continued support, we will keep up the fight to make sure that returning vets receive the benefits and help they need and deserve."

This is from the website of Iraq Veterans Against the War, that morns a fallen member. He ended his own life earlier this month, as a direct result of fighting in Iraq. His name has been mentioned on numorous other blogs, and now mine. I present it as a slap in the face for the President whose lies and deceit sent him to fight in a war the President knew from the start, never had anything to do with "terrorists", or in any way endangered our "freedoms". The President who has cut, and will probably cut even more funds for veteran care, should be ashamed, but he's not.

I strongly recommend following the links at the bottom of that page, especially "Iraq took away our innocence", which was an interview Doug gave. In it he gave details about his service in Iraq, that you don't hear reported, or acknowledged by our leaders. He tells a story that active duty personnel and commanders are not allowed to speak.

There's also another page at the IVAW site I'd like you to read. It describes Dougs' death, as best as could be determind by the author at the time. That one is titled "Returning Home Alive", and this is how it begins......

"On January 16th, after having talked quite normally on the phone with at least two other people that same day, Douglas Barber, a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) living in Lee County, Alabama, changed the answer-message on his telephone. "If you're looking for Doug," it said in his Alabama drawl, "I'm checking out of this world. I'll see you on the other side." He then called the police, collected his shotgun, and went out onto his porch to meet them."

"From the sketchy reports we have now, it seems the police wouldn't oblige him with a "suicide by cop" and tried to talk him down. When it became apparent he wasn't able to commit cop-suicide, 27-year-old Douglas Barber did an about-face, rotated the shotgun and killed himself. There is a hell of a lot that we just don't know about how this happened. I talked to Doug on the phone earlier this month, and he described how excited he was to have joined IVAW, how he looked forward to taking up the pen and speaking out. Others had spoken with him only days and hours before he permanently quieted the chaos in his head. None of the "classic" signs of suicidal thinking were manifest. He was gregarious and upbeat, playful."

His death, after returning from Iraq, is but one of many that need not have happened had the problems they've experienced, been properly addressed. Like many veterans, he learned the hard way that the government that instills a high degree of patriotism and love of country, to get them to serve and possibly die for their country, cares nothing for them once they leave the battlefield. This happens with every single war we have. We spend billions in arms to fight, but spend next to nothing when it comes to rewarding them with whatever treatment they require, should they not return "whole". We hear so much about "Support The Troops", but the only ones doing the supporting are the citizens they're fighting for. The leaders who send them, don't give a damn.

In case you missed it, I suggest reading the article I bogged in this earlier post, which also lists a few other blogged articles at the bottom, that point out how negligent our government is with "Supporting The Troops" :
Walking Wounded
This one too:
Government appeal delays back pay for reservists
This one's unbelievable:
Amputees have star roles in war games
This is shameful:
Letter From a Military Mom

And then there's this......

Army Forces 50,000 Soldiers Into Extended Duty

"The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called "stop-loss," but while some dispute its fairness, court challenges have fallen flat."

"The policy applies to soldiers in units due to deploy for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army said stop-loss is vital to maintain units that are cohesive and ready to fight. But some experts said it shows how badly the Army is stretched and could further complicate efforts to attract new recruits."

"As the war in Iraq drags on, the Army is accumulating a collection of problems that cumulatively could call into question the viability of an all-volunteer force," said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank."

Hard to believe he still thinks we can take on Iran, Syria, and who knows who else.

He's destroying our economy, destroying our Democracy, destroying our standing in the world, and destroying our military, and still, so many people believe in him.

C-SPAN: STATE OF THE UNION

On this page you can watch or read the transcript of the speech if you missed it. You can check out previous State of the Unions here as well.

I'd thought about giving a point by point rebuttal to all the points he made, but decided not to bother. It's not worth trouble, and most of my previous posts have already done that. It would also make this the longest post I've ever made in this blog, and that's saying something. Still....

Everything he's said, has already been exposed as hypocracy and lies regarding U.S. intentions abroad. Everything he's said about making American strong at home, has already been shown not as meaning "the American people", but American corporate interests, which in turn, has lowered the standard of living for the people by taking hundreds of thousands of good jobs and moving them to countries with cheap labor and no environmental protections. Everythings he's said about terrorism makes us out to be completely innocent by-standers to insane fanatical extremists that hate us only because of our freedoms, when we in fact create the conditions that give rise to the desperation that leads people to believe that their only recourse is armed insurection. He derides them for killing innocent women and children, while taking no responsibility for our doing the same. Collateral damage doesn't count. And as for our freedoms, the only people threatening them, are those in our own government. No terrorist can affect our freedoms, yet too many here fall for that line, accepting the removal of our freedoms by those that claim to promote and defend them.

He did make a good speech, particularly on domestic issues, unfortunately his proposals, past and present, always end up helping the already prosperous, and leaving those in need, to fend for themselves, like the Katrina victims. He says the economy's doing great, but that's only for the wealthy. All I got out of his speech is that he'll "stay the course", both at home and abroad, furthering the decline of the middle-class, and making life for the rich, much much richer. It was nothing but a pep rally for the party faithful, and the pitifully deluded.

And that Democratic response was just a total waste of air time.

The America We Believe In

"I am grateful for the opportunity to talk with you about the state of our union on the day of the president’s address to our country. While it is discouraging for all of us to see our country moving in the wrong direction, we need to take this opportunity to offer ideas for how to get the nation back on track."

"America is losing the most important element of our national character: We are no longer the land of opportunity for all."

"Generations before us came to America for one reason. This is the land where everyone who worked hard would be rewarded, could raise a family and could make a better life for their children. But America has changed. Now, hard work does not guarantee a decent standard of living, and our children do not believe they can achieve the successes of their parents. It should not be that way."

This is from John Edwards who was John Kerrys' running mate in the 2004 Presidential race. He gives his own State of the Union address, with some solutions he'd like to see in the comming years. He's got some good ideas, too good to ever be implemented. He emphasizes domestic issues and does speak on our foreign policy, but interestingly, not one word about terrorism, or our loss of rights. On the one subject that we all know Bush is going to mention in his speech, and use to invoke feelings of his version of "patriotism", which means we should all continue to be very afraid of "the terrorists" that only he can save us from, on that, Edwards was conspicuously silent. Should we take this to mean that he agrees with Bushs' anti-terror policies, or that neither he nor the Democrats in general, have a clue as to what to do about it?

With this being an election year, the Democrats had better have something to say about terrorism and how they'd deal with it, or else we'll just have the same crap as the previous elections with the Republicans claiming their opponants are soft on terrorist and won't do anything about it. They need to come up with an alternate plan, that we citizens can live with, or we'll be stuck with what we've got.

RFID-Zapper Shoots to Kill

"German privacy advocacy group FoeBuD plans to manufacture and sell a device that consumers could used to disable RFID tags permanently. The gadget—called the RFID-Zapper—was developed by two students in Berlin, Germany."

"The young inventors say their motivation was concern over the potential use of RFID tags on individual items purchased by consumers. "We read a lot about RFID and its future use and got worried," says Mahajivana. "Some easy way of getting rid of them had to be found."

That's good news. When the controversy first arose about RFIDs' potential uses and abuses, I'd hoped someone would take up the challenge and build something to fry'em. Proponants of the chips say they're no big deal, but that may only be the case today. There's no telling what the technology will bring tomorrow. Can't get the Zapper yet, but hopefully there'll be quite a few others putting them on the market by the time the chips are in wide use.

These guys say they'll post instructions on how to build it so anyone can, but currently it's only had limited testing, and the warnings they give will probably be enough to keep most people from even trying it. The big problem; using a Zapper around other electrical devices, and using it to kill tags within electrical devices. In a word; "Don't". Consider it a 'beta', and not ready for prime-time.

However, if you like to tinker, keep an eye on their hangout for futher news....
RFID-Zapper

Whether you're interested in the device or not, I recommend checking out the rest of RFID Journals' site. Some of the content is restricted to subscribers, but there's plenty of info for free.

The State of Disunion

"This Tuesday, the presidential State of the Union Address rolls around yet again. Only four Januaries have passed since the President used a State of the Union Address to brand Iran, Iraq, and North Korea -- the first two then bitter enemies, the third completely unrelated to either of them and on the other side of the planet -- as a World-War-II-style "axis of evil." It was the first great State of Disunion deception of the Bush administration's regal reign of error. Only three Januaries ago came the second. The President stood before Congress and pronounced those sixteen little words on his bum's rush to war with Iraq: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

On this, the eve of another of Bushs' State of the Union addresses, this author goes on the mention Bushs' other addresses. He gives a comprehensive listing of this administrations failed promises and policies, with links to relevant articles sprinkled throughout. This was meant to refresh the readers mind on just how badly this president has governed us. All these should be kept in mind while listening to whatever new promises and policies he'll be speaking on tomorrow.

It's amazing to me, that in all the time he's been in office, all the time the Republicans have controlled the Legislature, that we find ourselves in such a mess. Practically nothing they've done has really benefitted us, the American people. We've lost more jobs, had more bankruptcies, watched our national debt climb, watched our trade deficit grow, witnessed growing numbers of corruption scandals, a shrinking standard of living for the middle class, and an overwhelming increase in corporate profits. With all that, just what is it that we're getting out of this?

In years past, a President could blame a Congress led by the opposing party for all his woes and inability to push policies. That's not the case right now. With Republicans in total control, why has it been so hard to come up with effective policies, at least here at home? You could say that terrorism and Iraq have taken so much time and energy away from them that they haven't been able to concentrate on domestic issues, properly. You could say that, but then you'd be forgetting that they each have staffs to do whatever they need to, and can get as much help as needed. You'd also be forgetting how much time off they take. If you run a business, and times are tough, do you drop everything just because it's time for vacation? If you care about your business, you'll cut play-time short to work through immediate problems. But not our government. It's almost as if they feel everything's going according to plan. Like everything is as it's supposed to be. Maybe it is. If you look into the policies that have been put in place, you just might find that a certain segment of the population has indeed profited by this Republican controlled government, and it isn't us.

Whatever he has to say tomorrow (some say it's about health care with built-in tax shelters for the rich), it was timely that I posted the C-SPAN link yesterday, so you can be assured of hearing every word, without relying on talking-heads to show you 15 seconds of it and tell you what you should think.

Broadcaster says serious news at risk

"Truth no longer matters in the context of politics and, sadly, in the context of cable news," said Aaron Brown, whose four-year period as anchor of CNN's NewsNight ended in November, when network executives gave his job to Anderson Cooper in a bid to push the show's ratings closer to front-runner Fox News."

And thus begins a realitively short but revealing article on what one newsman had to say about the state of news reporting and consumption in this country. It's nice to see that there are still some in that medium that recognize a severe problem with the news today.

Agreeing with everything he's quoted as saying, I've been witness to this change in hostility among believers in one cause or another. No one seems interested in the truth anymore, or even listening to what others of opposing viewpoints have to say. There was an old phrase that that came to mind a few years ago during the Clinton administration that I've not heard used in years, which fits perfectly for many; "knee-jerk reactionary". If you're old enough, you remember it, if not, it was meant as a deragatory label given to those that refused to hear anything in context. They were people who, upon hearing a certain keyword or phrase, would launch into a tirade, foaming at the mouth about what they thought was meant, rather than what the person was trying to say. Often they didn't even wait for a sentence to be finished, but hearing a certain word was enough for them to automatically assume the speaker fit into some preconceived notion of evil incarnate. This took place back when the nation was truely in turmoil during the 60s and early 70s. Today it's reared it's ugly head again.

The only difference I can see today, is that the mainstream media is now less diverse then it used to be because there are so few independant news outlets that are interested in seeking out the truth. Instead, it's sensationalism and ratings that are feeding a population that seems to have no desire to tolerate anything they don't already believe. As mentioned in the article, the media are playing on half-tuths and misconceptions instead of reporting fairly on all sides of an issue. They've allowed and propagated the notion that anyone who disagrees with administration policies are unpatriotic, want to hurt the country, and are of course, "with the terrorists". Allowing this is a disservice to the readers and viewers who are left with nothing but the extreme sides of an issue.

The "knee-jerking" comes in whenever someone says we should think about how to get out of Iraq. Regardless of any other beliefs they may have, they're immediately ridiculed as being soft on terrorist and their patriotic loyalties are brought into question. It comes into play whenever someone expresses agreement with the administration as well. All sides are guilty. Anyone whose been paying attention should see that this tone was established by our own leaders, and perpetuated by our media.

Again, I must point out that the "Liberal media" is nothing but a catch phrase used to explain why everyone isn't on the same page. The truth is that the so-called liberal media is primarily owned by large corporations, and large corporations are mainly interested in the bottom line. They're run by people who are not interested in hurting those that have the power to increase their profits, namely a government that can be lobbied to set or change policies that benefit large corporations. Promoters of the "Liberal media" myth use the medias' reporting of doubts people have (and the repeating of extremist viewpoints), to show that the media is anti-American and a tool of liberals. If that were true, it wouldn't allow the government to continually repeat false statements and outright lies. It would reveal them as such, since there's ample proof. It would be calling for investigations. It would be revealing information that gets little to no attention outside the internet. It would at least do some investigative reporting that goes beyond simply looking into extreme accusations. There's plenty of documentation to show that not only have we been constantly lie to, but by who, where, and when. The question is, why isn't it being played up on our "liberal Media"?

One of the big propagated misconceptions is that our "freedom" is somehow in jeopardy from terrorism. We're told by the government that the terrorist "hate us for our freedoms", when in fact they have stated exactly why the hate us, and it has absolutely nothing to do with our freedoms. It was reported long ago that Bin Laden declared war on us because of our intreference in the middle-east, and particularly our military presence in Saudi Arabia. In his mind, we've defiled sacred land. Yet that got little airplay, and is never brought up to dispute the "Anti-freedom" propaganda. We're told that we're fighting in Iraq for our freedom, when in fact, common sense is all that's needed to see that Iraq is and never was any threat to our freedom. Certainly not enough of a threat to invade. There's proof that Bush knew for a fact that Iraq had nothing to do with "the terrorist" only days after 9/11. Why didn't that make the mainstream news? It's publicly accessible to anyone interested. I've repeatedly posted the link to a report on Iraq that deserves far more attention than Monica Lewinskys' dress ever should have.

The reporter in the article is only one example. I'd like to believe that there are many others in that field who are as frustrated as he, by the sensationalism and ratings-driven practices of their conservative corporate bosses who don't mind their institutions being called liberal because whenever they have to report the truth, they know it won't be taken to seriously by the masses, and thus, won't hurt their buddies in government whose policies allow for greater riches for the rich.

Well, if you're still here, I might as well take up some more of your time by throwing some of my other related posts at you. If you can stand more of me, that is. The first set involve my (anti)media posts, and then some that I wish I'd see reported on in the mainstream.

Media Reform Information Center
Not Necessarily the News:
The Corporate Media’s threat to Freedom
Top 12 media myths and falsehoods on the Bush administration's spying scandal
Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

CensureBush.org
Rep. Conyers' Iraq Report
Revisiting Congressman Conyers' Iraq Report

C-SPAN

I highly recommend this site. It's the home of the cable TV network that provides coverage of public and political affairs that only get glossed over in the main media. Even if you don't have cable, your carrier doesn't provide it, or you live outside the U.S., you can view the live streams from here.

This network is extremely important as far as I'm concerned, because they broadcast entire speeches, debates, hearings, etc. There's a video library too, where you can view a wealth of information. You get information directly from the speakers own mouth, in full, instead of relying on mainstream media to show you 15-30 second clips, and then proceed to give you the opinions you're supposed to have on the subject. With C-SPAN you can watch a complete speech, and make up your own mind, without being spun around by a biased pundit.

In spite of my glowing review of the network as a whole, at least one of its' programs is not without controversy, as demonstrated in an earlier post.....

Lack of balance at C-SPAN’s Washington Journal

Reports Purged From the Website of the Civil Rights Commission

"As of 7 January 2005, the website of the US Commission on Civil Rights has been purged of 20 reports that didn't meet the approval of the agency's Republican majority."

"The site says that you may still order copies of these reports, but, tellingly, they require that you give them a physical mailing address. In other words, they'll send you a paper copy of a report, not an easily-postable electronic copy."

"The Memory Hole was able to locate 17 19 of these deleted reports."

From The Memory Hole, whose stated purpose is:

"The Memory Hole exists to preserve and spread material that is in danger of being lost, is hard to find, or is not widely known.
The emphasis is on material that exposes things that we're not supposed to know (or that we're supposed to forget)."

Here's your chance to view material the government doesn't want you to easily access. As stated in the above quote, you can order the censored pages, but it means they insist you tell them who you are, since they'll be snail-mailed. Fortunately you can get most all of them here.

One that caught my interest was a report on Haitian asylum seekers. Since I've made a few posts on the current situation there, I'll give the direct link to that particular report, plus excerpt:

"Haitian Asylum Seekers and U.S. Immigration Policy" (June 2002)

"The ACLU and FIAC assembled three panels with a focus on immigration policies that have been applied unfairly to Haitians. The panelists specifically discussed the December 3, 2001, change in Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) policy that has led to the indefinite detention of Haitian refugees and asylum seekers in INS facilities, private hotels, and criminal correctional institutions in the United States."

"Cheryl Little, executive director for the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, noted that the INS has instituted a “no-release” policy only with respect to Haitian refugees. She noted that 187 Haitians fled Haiti on a 31-foot-long sailboat, the “Simapvivetzi.” The boat was discovered floundering in shallow waters off the coast of Miami on December 3, 2001. The interdiction of these Haitian asylum seekers led to an immediate change in INS policy that was not admitted until March 2002. Ms. Little remarked that Haitian refugees who arrived in South Florida by water have now been placed in a state of indefinite detention in three major holding areas: Krome Detention Center, an INS facility; Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center, a Miami-Dade County maximum-security prison; and a private hotel. She insisted that the Haitian-only detention policy violates international laws to which the United States is a party, and encouraged the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to engage the authorities within the administration who are responsible for the policy and have the power to change it."

Of the few reports I've looked at so far, it's not surprising that they want this information to fade away. It's just part of the continuing legacy of this government to be the most secretive in U.S. history.

Haiti and the hidden hand of Washington

Haiti - A coup regime, human rights abuses and the hidden hand of Washington

"Ben Terrall examines Haiti’s coup regime, human rights abuses, the sham of planned elections and the complicity of Washington on a military and diplomatic level. It’s a situation that [has] important implications for the African diaspora."

"In a June 2005 Jamaica Observer column about the significance of the Haitian revolution, John Maxwell wrote, “the slaves of Saint Dominique, the world’s richest colony, rose up, abolished slavery and chased the slavemasters away.” Maxwell, one of the more astute journalists covering US foreign policy, added, “Unfortunately for them, they did not chase all of the slavemasters away, and out of the spawn of those arose in Haiti a small group of rich, light-skinned people – the elites, whose interests have fitted perfectly into the interests of the racists in the United States. Between them, last year, on the second centenary of the abolition of slavery and the Independence of Haiti, those interests engineered the re-inslavement of Haiti, kidnapping and expelling the president and installing in his place a gang of murderous thugs, killers, rapists and con-men."

"Vehement opponents of Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s Lavalas party, the Bush Administration helped orchestrate the February 2004 coup which ousted the democratically-elected government of Haiti. Among other pro-poor social programs, the Aristide/Lavalas government’s doubling of the minimum wage was anathema to Washington’s “free trade” corporate agenda."

This article just goes to show how anti-democratic the U.N. and the U.S. foreign policies really are. If our purpose is really to promote democracy, why is it that whenever legitimately elected governments comes to office that don't do as they're told by foreign interests, we intervene to eliminate the right of a people to control their own destiny? What right do we have to remove popularly elected governments simply to serve the rich. There's a very good reason why Haiti continues to be one of the poorest nations in this hemisphere, and that's capitalism backed by military force. Democracy means nothing to those that control the wealth in this world, and the biggest hypocrites are our own government. They lie about promoting democracy, since their actions always prove that it's not democracy, but unrestrained capitalism that's really being promoted and forced upon those who don't have the power to resist. They claim to promote freedom, but obviously freedom to chose one's own government and destiny, is not what's meant. Whenever our leaders talk about freedom, they're referring to the freedom to exploit others.

See also:

U.S. Gvt. Funding Anti-Lavalas Groups in Haiti

HaitiAction

Child Labor in America: 1908-1912

Here I'm presenting a page from Americas' past. One that's been forgotten within the national consciousness. It's a photo essay showing one of the reasons why capitalism, though beneficial to many of us, should not be allowed to run free of any restraints.

Child labor was a very big problem in this country because the parents of these children could not earn a living wage. Every able bodied person, including children, were compelled to work, or starve.

These photos are almost one hundred years old, and scenes such as these, seldom take place here anymore, but does still exist. The way it was at that time, is how it still is in other parts of the world today. It's ironic that the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of those little ones in the photos are helping to continue the practice elsewhere. Because of greed, corporations that seek to concern themselves with nothing other than the bottom line, move into countries that are desperate for any income for their populations, and the greed of their rulers, to cut labor costs to the bone. Most likely, a number of products in your own home are the result of child labor, and you don't even know it. Many of the companies that used to employ Americans who had unions, minumum wage laws, and health benefits, are now being supplied by much cheaper foreign labor, sometimes by children. All we care about are the cheaper prices, right? We also reap the benefit of higher returns on our investments if we have stock in companies that exploit child labor. But that's ok if we don't know about it, right?

A few links on the issue:

The Morality of Child Labor
BBC News: Child labour challenge toughens
World Bank: Child Labor
Human Rights Watch: Child Labor