Sandy Leon Vest

Sandy Leon Vest is a renewable energy activist, radio producer, journalist and editor of the Stinson Solar Times. Her writing has been published at www.towardfreedom.com, www.zmag.com, www.indybay.org, the Coastal Post (www.coastalpost.com) and the Point Reyes Light at www.ptreyeslight.com. Her news & public affairs programming has been distributed through the National Radio Project in Oakland and public and community radio, including KPFA, in Berkeley, KPFK in Los Angeles and KWMR in Marin County. 

THE RETURN OF THE NUCLEAR GENIE


by Sandy LeonVest

"The United States...has made it clear that we're quite in favor of [nuclear] proliferation to our friends...Iran under the Shah got our...encouragement for the nuclear activities we're now denouncing. Iraq, where we just went to war to prevent them from getting WMDs, was encouraged and helped in its nuclear program while it was fighting Iran...India, Pakistan have all benefited from US toleration or encouragement. So, we don't have a nonproliferation [policy]. If that's to happen, [US] policy will have to change; and above all, it will have to...move toward disarmament. No American president has had any intention of carrying out the supposedly solemn commitment under Article VI to undertake negotiations toward total elimination of nuclear weapons."

Daniel Ellsberg, May, 2005, on Democracy Now!

It is the 21st century - the age of terrorism and 'long wars.' But in the US and abroad, nuclear power, that 20th century energy behemoth, is quietly coming back. If successful, it threatens to plunge the global populous into heretofore unseen levels of darkness and despair .

LOOK - OVER THERE!

At least partially thanks to the "genius" of Karl Rove, the Bush Administration has always been good at changing the subject and since early 2006 when it became apparent even to its supporters that the unholy war in Iraq was the blackest of holes, Rove's monster public relations machine has been working triple-time. But the smoke and mirrors being generated by that machine is concealing a far more threatening development behind its foggy curtain.

In recent months the Bush Administration's public hysteria over Iran's nuclear ambitions has been hogging the media spotlight - some would argue, justifiably. This despite the fact that after more than three years of inspections, the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) found no indication of "undeclared source or special nuclear materials" in Iran. The IAEA further reported finding no indication that any declared source or special nuclear materials had been diverted to military purpose. Yet Bush's obsessive fear mongering over Iran's nuke-building begins to make sense when viewed through the prism of its own nuclear weapons activities. Those activities coupled with this White House's unprecedented history of secrecy, lies and contempt for those it has sworn to serve, go far toward explaining the president's fixation on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear ambitions.

Aided and abetted by Congress and a complicit media, George W. Bush and his henchmen have managed to fire up an entire nation - and the international community - with its "Iranian nuclear threat." In so doing, they have constructed a dangerously volatile straw man - one that distracts Americans from the real nuclear threat. That threat is being played out not as we are instructed to believe, in the Middle East, but across the US and in the corridors of power in the nation's capital.

THE DEAFENING SILENCE

By now the Bush Administration's fondness for Big Energy is a matter of very public record, if only because of its own arrogance. Even so, it took the mainstream media awhile to process the news that its Chief Executive and VP were literally conspiring with their Oil Industry friends to make National Energy Policy. Apparently the president's not-so-public pandering to the nuclear industry and its quiet launching of a new era of nuclear proliferation in an age of terrorism and national insecurity fall under the same category - still more of a sleeper than a scoop. If it were widely understood, the Administration's efforts to resurrect nuclear power might stand at least a chance of sparking a national debate - or better still, an International Weapons Proliferation Summit.

Yet when Dr. Robert Civiak released his "Analysis of the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request for Nuclear Weapons Activities," divulging the nuclear nature of the president's February 6, Budget Request for FY 2007 (which begins October 1, 2006), it didn't seem to generate any excitement at all, never mind that Weapons Proliferations Summit.

In his analysis, Dr. Civiak documents the Bush Administration's $6.4 billion budget request for Nuclear Weapons Activities. The analysis finds that Bush's request "continues the decade long upsurge in funding for nuclear weapons" and that "the 2007 weapons budget is one-third higher than the average annual spending on nuclear weapons during the Cold War, even after accounting for inflation.

"The Administration's request supports a vast research and manufacturing enterprise focused on upgrading existing US nuclear weapons and designing new ones," states the report. "Beyond being an appalling waste of Federal funds, the massive nuclear weapons development effort belies commitments the US has under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. By placing such importance on upgrading US nuclear weapons capabilities, the Administration frustrates efforts to convince proliferators that they can gain nothing by developing nuclear weapons and it undercuts international cooperation...vital to constraining the proliferators."

The utter failure of the mainstream press to connect the nuclear dots now borders on criminal complicity - especially when viewed in the context of the president's recent nuclear speaking tour. Admittedly, George W. Bush's May, 2006 speech at the Limerick Generating Station wherein he cited nuclear power as the "perfect example of how we can grow our economy and protect our environment at the same time" didn't make particularly compelling press. Even the light-handed coverage of his visit to Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in Maryland last year touting nuclear energy as a "replacement for fossil fuels" might be understandable were it not for the obvious pattern of behavior emerging from this White House. While it is hardly shocking that Bush's pro-nuclear audience didn't challenge the president's assertion that "there is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner, safer nation...[therefore] it is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again..." the lack of media inquisitiveness should be. Never mind that the Calvert Cliffs nuclear facility is a likely site for the first new nuclear energy reactor to be built in the US in 30 years. Never mind either that the overwhelming preponderance of scientific research concludes that nuclear storage, safety and security issues in 2006 remain largely unresolved.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY CENSORSHIP

It is little comfort that when it comes to news censorship, the eerie blackouts that characterize the 21st century are an equal opportunity phenomenon from which no one is exempt. The blackouts are a reaction not to the messenger, but to the message.

When only last month (June, 2006), former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who reached near god-like status among the Wall Street crowd during his tenure as Fed Chief, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the nation's "worrisome dependence on oil" makes nuclear power key to national security, he didn't make headlines either. By the next day, even the Information Highway was hard pressed to give up that testimony although a webcast was available on C-SPAN. While the "nineteen new applications [for nuclear power plants]...currently on file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)" seemed to excite the ex-Fed Chief, his stunning proclamation was apparently not sexy enough for prime time.

In April of this year when twenty-three Senators signed on to a $27 million appropriations request for Fiscal Year 2007 for Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear programs, clean energy advocates might have been interested to learn that among the signatories were ten leading Democrats - including John Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Other Democratic signatories were Senators Bingaman, Obama, Wyden, Reed, Kohl, Jeffords, Bayh and (Bill) Nelson. Yet there was no televised coverage at all and with few notable exceptions, there was little print coverage either. Thirteen Republicans (Voinovich, Craig, Crapo, Lugar, Bond, Talent, Alexander, Chafee, Warner, Burr, Isakson, DeWine and Smith) also signed the letter sent to the Committee on Appropriations.

The request for the FY 2007 DOE budget seeks the restoration of funding for the University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support Program to FY 2006 levels in the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill - slated to be cut next year. "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee that they expect to receive at least eleven applications for new plant construction between 2007 and 2009," the request reads. "Given the anticipated growth of nuclear power in this country...we urge you to restore funding for the University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support Program..."

The Bush energy plan, which includes a provision for easing the licensing process and more than $1 billion for new construction, got some press at the time it was announced, but that story too faded to black before most Americans had a chance to absorb its potential impact.

HISTORY 101 - THE REAL THREAT

In 1945, the US launched a massive nuclear attack on the heavily populated cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That low point in American history marked the US as the only country ever to use nuclear weapons against another.

It has been more than six decades since President Harry S. Truman gave the order to drop "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" on the unsuspecting populous of two of Japan's major cities. Truman described the massacre as "a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." That rain of ruin resulted in the instant incineration of at least 140,000 innocents in Hiroshima and well over 74,000 in Nagasaki. Those numbers do not take into account the thousands who died after 1945 of radiation-related illnesses.

Even so, in 2006 nuclear power and the weapons made possible by its generation are universally coveted. Nuclear proliferation has become a fact of life in the global community. Countless nuclear catastrophes later, China, France, India and a host of other nations are all moving aggressively to build new nuclear power plants. Even Australia, once known for its no-nukes attitude, has decided it needs a "national conversation" about nuclear power.

The IAEA recently announced that it now expects global nuclear capacity to nearly double by 2030. All of this despite reams of data documenting the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to attack, a relentless series of catastrophic and near-catastrophic accidents, billions of wasted dollars, suspicious diseases and deformities in nuclear-infested neighborhoods and major questions regarding the disposal and storage of waste. Those same issues that once brought about a shift in public attitudes toward nuclear power - and with that shift a decline in political support - remain today. Yet this time around, the stony wall of silence and secrecy surrounding them seems all but impenetrable.

The stakes are as high as they get, yet it seems the lesson taken from the nuclear experience has been the wrong one. Some 94 percent of the world's nuclear capacity is still in developed countries but that too is changing thanks in part to the "liberalization" of US trade laws. Of the new plants under construction, 18 are in Asia. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear power plants and India recently announced that it wants to expand its capacity by a factor of 10 by 2022, and by a factor of 100 by 2052. China wants to expand by a factor of five or six within the next 15 years.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) reports that the US has 104 reactors currently online, and that in France 59 reactors provide 78 percent of all electricity. There are some 55 reactors in Japan, 31 in Russia, 18 in Canada and 17 in Germany. Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and South Africa have two operating reactors each. And despite Israel's continued denials of any nuclear culpability, that country is widely believed to posses enormous nuclear capacity. More than 16 percent of the world's electricity comes from nuclear and the WNA reports 440 nuclear reactors in use around the world with dozens more being considered or under construction.

It is the 21st century and the window of opportunity for turning back the nuclear clock threatens to slam shut. The shutting of that window comes at a time when the international community can no longer afford to engage in industry-sponsored "non-debates" like the recent one on global warming that wasted so much valuable time, money and energy. With congressional support, the nuclear genie has been teased out of its bottle by the Bush Administration and its friends in the nuclear industry. In coming months, Americans will again be treated to nuclear "happy talk" about "new, improved versions" of nuclear power, that it is (again) the "safe, clean solution" to world energy shortages and global climate change.

But the genie isn't new or improved. And it is just barely contained in its almost-invisible new bottle.

Contact Sandy LeonVest at solareditor@fastmail.fm

THE THEORY OF IRRELEVANCE, THE DEMISE OF A PRESIDENT AND THE MEDIA THAT FAILED TO NOTICE

by Sandy Leon Vest

January 20, 2006 should have been heralded in headlines across the nation as a historical turning point in US history.

Instead, Conyers et Ors Hearing on Domestic Spying, headed by Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich), was literally and figuratively held underground in the dark recesses of the nation's capitol building. The hearings, which featured a politically variegated roster of witnesses, took place in room B339 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The 'B' stands for basement. According to the Majority party, it was the only room available. This despite the fact that the briefing was held on a day when no other hearings were being held and the rest of Congress was on vacation.

The press release announcing the January 20 hearing was sent out by Conyers' office on January 18, 2006, and featured the headline, "Conyers and Others To Hold Democratic Hearing On Domestic Spying Program." In the release, Conyers wrote, "...last month all 17 House Judiciary Democrats called on Chairman Sensenbrenner to convene hearings to investigate the President's use of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance involving US citizens on US soil, in apparent contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As our request has since been ignored, it is our job, as Members of Congress, to review the program and consider whether our criminal laws have been violated and our citizens' constitutional rights trampled upon. We simply cannot tolerate a situation where the Administration is operating as prosecutor, judge and jury and excluding Congress and the courts from providing any meaningful check or balance to the process."

Presiding over the hearings along with Conyers were Representatives Bobby Scott, Chris Van Hollen, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Jerrold Nadler and Maurice Hinchey. The remarkable line-up of witnesses included Bruce Fein, who served as Associate Deputy Attorney General under the Reagan administration, Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington Law School, Richard Hersh director of The Truth Project (http://www.truthproject.org), James Bamford, researcher and author of two best-selling books on the National Security Agency, Caroline Frederickson, Washington Legislative Director of the ACLU and Kate Martin, Director of the Center for National Security Studies.
Witness testimony was nothing short of stunning. One after the other, each testified eloquently and definitively about the egregious nature of the president's violation of the Constitution (he is sworn to protect) and the criminal nature of the Bush Administrations' unprecedented disregard for the rule of law. The hearing began with a statement from Conyers, wherein he noted, "There can be little doubt that we are in a constitutional crisis that threatens the system of checks and balances that have [heretofore] preserved our fundamental freedoms...there is no better illustration of that crisis than the fact that the president...is violating our nation's laws by authorizing the NSA to engage in warrantless surveillance of US citizens..."

Conyers' statement was followed by those of other representatives including that of Rep Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). Looking tired, discouraged and a little disheveled, Nadler's words articulated the essence of the three hour hearing. The Administrations' conduct, he said, amounted to "a criminal conspiracy by the president, vice-president [and others]...we need a special prosecutor for that reason..." The president's arguments, "are not even debateable...they're frivolous...he is claiming absolute power that no one in American history has ever claimed...that the president [admits to this] is unprecedented..."

The remainder of the hearing was equally profound. Testimony was, in fact, breathtaking in both gravity and scope. From academics to political veterans like Ronald Reagan's Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Fein to peace activist Richard Hersh, who testified that he didn't think his group qualified as "terrorists" when they met at a member's home to discuss military recruitment in schools, the testimony was chilling. The hearings left little doubt as to the historical depths this country has reached under the Bush Administration. There was no gloating here, only outrage, disbelief and a palpable sense of sadness.

Jonathan Turley, a Law School Professor at the prestigious George Washington Law School reminded those present that, "the infamous torture memo...asserted that imposing limitations would be unconstitutional...devoid of any limiting principal..." and would inevitably lead to what Turley called a "maximum leader." He noted that President Bush "already stated quite clearly that he believes he can violate federal law.

"That," he said, "for our system, is the equivalent of a declaration of war on the separation of powers. The framers [of the constitution] designed a unique system that was supposed to ensure that no one branch of government can govern alone...[the president's actions are] in direct contradiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA]." With a trembling voice, Turley then declared, "What the president ordered in this case was a crime...federal law makes it clear...[it is an] alarming circumstance when the president can announce that he has violated a federal principal 30 times and will continue to do so unless and until someone stops him...[FISA] is the most user-friendly law any president has ever been given. That the president can violate the fourth amendment is "the most dangerous claim of all," Turley warned. "It's a duty for congress to protect the legacy they have been given...what's at stake is a president who has committed crime under the pretext of legality...saying that he has that authority...it's now up to us, we are called to account to do something and not to remain silent."

A hearing of such historical significance would surely have been considered newsworthy at any other time in US history - and in any other country. But these are strange times indeed. While the January 20 hearing was covered extensively by the international press, here in the US the story didn't even make the playlist. Were it not for C-SPAN - which aired the Conyers hearing live that Friday morning - there would have been no coverage at all. Not on cable, not on the networks, not that day, not even that evening.

That same day, Bush strategist Karl Rove - all but cloistered since the Valerie Plame (CIA) incident - was dusted off and trotted out to give a pep talk to fellow Republicans at their annual Republican National Committee's (RNC) meeting to defend the warrantless domestic surveillance program, saying it was "in our national security interest."
The following weekend, Sunday talk show hosts were fired up - but not over the hearings. Instead, NBC's Tim Russert, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, ABC's George Stepanopolous, MSNBC's Chris Matthews and the rest were all aflutter over the Bin Laden tape, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin's 'chocolate city' remarks and Hillary ("you know what I mean") Clinton's now infamous congressional plantation analogy. That Monday, the president appeared in an internationally-aired press conference to announce to the world that, " the spying should be termed a "terrorist surveillance program" and insisting that he has the backing of legal experts, key lawmakers and the Supreme Court.

So it is that a critical moment in American History, like the proverbial tree in the forest, just wasn't heard. While the Conyers' hearings remained in the basement, airwaves were spammed with a dazzling array of Bush apologists, including Bush henchman Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who shamelessly upheld the president's specious legal defense. That defense was repeated throughout the day and well into the next - no questions asked.

But the unearned deference and cowardly complicity of the mainstream media to a criminal Administration should come as no surprise. After all, this is the same media that has failed all along to hold the president accountable to the the rule of law. This administrations' behavior has been entirely consistent throughout its tenure and it has never been properly held to account. The domestic surveillance of unsuspecting citizens is the Bush Administration's coup de gras in a pattern of behavior that began at its inception. From its appointment by the Supreme Court, to its contemptuous discounting of any other ruling body that doesn't suit its agenda including the United Nations, "Old Europe," Congress, US citizens, prisoners abroad and finally the US Constitution, a clear and present pattern has been well established.

When, in December of last year, after the warrantless spying disclosures were revealed by the NY Times, the Republican-controlled Senate and the Justice Department announced that rather than investigate blatant violations of the Constitution by a US president, they would instead open a criminal investigation into the disclosures of those violations, it barely made the mainstream media's radar screen. It was, in fact, treated as a reasonable response. That transparent attempt by the administration to make the disclosures of NSA spying the Real Issue continues to this day.

Representative John Conyers is a nineteen-term Congressman who has led a host of challenges against the White House from Ohio election fraud to the Downing Street Memo. He has spoken eloquently about the critical nature of the struggle to maintain our democracy. He has challenged not only the Administration, but his own party, to uphold principles of peace, rule of law, civil liberties and economic and political justice. Conyers further deserves credit for introducing House Resolution 635, which calls for establishment of a select committee with subpoena authority to investigate possible impeachable offenses with regard to the Iraq war and has demanded that "official bipartisan hearings" be conducted on the president's domestic surveillance program.

But he doesn't make the news very often.

Having bought into the current media spin that "activism" is out, "coolness" is in and "freedom" applies only to those with the capital to engage in the spoils of war, US citizens might just be getting exactly what they paid for.

But that may not be newsworthy either.

Sandy Leon Vest is a renewable energy activist and journalist and editor of the Stinson Solar Times. She freelances for progressive publications including TowardFreedom.com, the SF IndyMedia and the Coastal Post in her home town in Marin County. Her work has been distributed nationally and internationally through the National Radio Project in Oakland and she has produced news and public affairs programming for public and community radio, including KPFA, in Berkeley, KPFK in Los Angeles and KWMR in Marin County.

SHOCK AND AWE IN THE HOMELAND - the whole world is watching

by Sandy Leon Vest

"New Orleans has already become a symbol: never before in human history has a natural disaster been predicted in such exact detail. Despite this, the prediction had no effect. It's as if mankind has lost the power to correct its own mistakes: In New Orleans, it slid into catastrophe submissively and with eyes wide open. Climate change has already arrived..." Nick Reimer in Germany's die tageszeitung

***********************************************************************************

From the Gulf of Mexico to the Persian Gulf and beyond, a new wave of Shock and Awe is gripping the international community in the wakes of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. There is an increasingly glaring global inquisition taking place - and the spotlight is on American culture. Nationally, the focus of conservative and mainstream news coverage has suddenly shifted. Questions about American racism, classism, xenophobia and unmitigated consumerism and economic growth have hit the ground running. Even the untouchable topics of renewable energy, conservation and global warming, heretofore relegated to the margins of debate by those classes who have built their fortunes on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, are being uttered again as if they were newly discovered galaxies of hope.

Despite George W Bush's creation of the largest and apparently most useless bureaucracy in recent US history, the ill-named "Homeland Security Department" failed in the trenches to provide anything resembling homeland security. Indeed, it was the absence of that security that shocked and awed an entire nation - and the world at large. We watched in horror as George W Bush and his administration first stumbled, then fell apart completely under the stress of a predictable disaster. That vacuum in US leadership was then publicly punctuated by the meltdown of agencies like FEMA under the inept management of Bush political appointees with no job-specific skills or experience in the positions to which they were appointed.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita have exposed the ugly underbelly of American culture for the entire world to view. Bloated bodies that could be smelled but not touched for fear of contamination bob to the surface in the blackwater aftermath of the storms. The stubborn shortsightedness, contemptuous bigotry and sheer stupidity that have characterized this administration are now oozing out from under the rock of the Bush PR machine for all to view. What was once considered unspeakable is suddenly fair game for debate. Like the waters of Katrina and Rita, the national and international conversation may at long last be finding its level. Let us hope so.

At least one thing is clear with respect to the recent catastrophe: the current administration is way out of its element when it comes to public service. Dealing with a crisis that cannot be fixed by killing, plundering or consuming is anathema to everything it stands for. Thus far the Bush administration's vision for rescuing the stricken Gulf Coast (and the national economy) has, to put it kindly, been extremely limited. Ideas include such energy-saving strategies as releasing still more oil from US Strategic Petroleum Reserves, gutting environmental laws so corporations can save money, cutting public school hours and suspending labor laws in favor of no-bid contracts for the likes of Halliburton and Bechtel. Other inspirations include lowering taxes (again) for the wealthiest among us whether they want it or not, borrowing more money from China and/or Saudi Arabia, declaring Martial Law for the first time since World War II and promising enough money to everyone concerned to bankrupt the US for generations to come.

Thankfully, the international press with its longer, wider lens, is providing sorely needed perspective. In newspapers across the world, journalists and opinion-makers seem to concur on at least one thing - that hurricanes Katrina and Rita will mark a profound change in the way the US is perceived at home and abroad. Some speak of the American "myth" being shattered by the poverty and racial divisions which they say the disasters revealed. Others compare New Orleans with Iraq; still others say they hope the floods will douse US "arrogance" over its refusal to ratify the Kyoto accord on climate change.

The following is a sampling of global opinion excerpted from the international press:

**********************************************

Nahum Barnea in Israel's Yediot Aharonot: "Just as 11 September 2001 changed the American agenda from internal matters to foreign policy and the war on terror, so Katrina is liable to take America back to its internal agenda: dealing with the environment, society, and the gaps between whites and blacks and between rich and poor..."

Adli Sadiq in the Palestinian Al-Hayat-al-Jadidah: "After Hurricane Katrina, a new section of the American public is waking up to the wretchedness of the administration's policies and to the disasters that have hit Americans as a result. Today's Iraq is worse than yesterday's, and there are not enough helicopters to tackle the hurricane. Bush and his administration will be judged by history."

Yildirim Turker in Turkey's Radikal: "...New Orleans was below sea level even before drilling for oil began...there is no certain proof that the increase in the mean global temperature is a consequence of the emission of so-called greenhouse gases...the federal government has no specific responsibility for the post-hurricane chaos.

Russia's Komsomolskaya Pravda: "...[Russian] Emergencies Ministry planes have been under starter's orders for several days. But the go-ahead from the other side of the ocean never came. It leads you to think: Is Washington afraid of having US citizens rescued by people who are not flying the stars and stripes? Are they trying to preserve the prestige of a state that does not take easily to accepting aid from a "third-world" country? But isn't the saving of human life more important than PR or ideological considerations?"

France's Le Progresa; "Katrina has shown that the emperor has no clothes. The world's superpower is powerless when confronted with nature's fury..."

Editorial in Media Indonesia: "The superpower United States has finally succumbed to nature's wrath. The US must eventually admit that it is unable to deal with the victims itself. Something has changed: Hurricane Katrina has destroyed some of the US's arrogance..."

South Africa's Star: "The death and destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina also revealed the racial fissures in American society. Most of the hapless survivors who filled New Orleans' Superdome were black. Bush's other weaknesses are his poor environment record and his management of the US economy."

Zimbabwe's Heralda: "...All that Bush has done so far is to issue threats against the victims, and deploying trigger-happy American troops - fresh from abusing Iraqi prisoners - to go and "restore order..."

Australia's The Age: "President Bush is increasingly seen as out of touch with ordinary people and with reality on the ground - in New Orleans and Iraq - and also on issues such as climate change. The president and, by association, Republicans are highly vulnerable for the first time in years..."

Singapore's The Straits Times: "The dead are only beginning to be gathered up. In Aceh and Thailand's beach resorts, those killed by the tsunami last December received the due respect of swift recovery, followed by identification. New Orleans people will not let Mr Bush forget this."

Mexico's El Universal: "The slowness with which the USA's federal emergency services have joined the rescue operation has already generated great political tension...There is no doubt that the lack of well-timed responses to assist the population will have political costs for...Bush's Republican Party..."

Colombia's El Colombiano: "It is now urgent that the world's leaders take heed of nature's warning, look at the evidence and realise that the climate, on a global scale, is changing..."

Argentina's Clarin: "Katrina had more than the power of the wind and water because now when they have subsided it can still reveal the emptiness of an era, one that is represented by President George W Bush more than anyone..."

Spain's El Pais: "Up until Monday, Bush was the president of the war in Iraq and 9/11. Today there are few doubts that he will also pass into history as the president who didn't know how to prevent the destruction of New Orleans and who abandoned its inhabitants to their fate for days..."

France's Liberation: "...a cruel lack of leadership at a time when this second major shock for 21st century America is adding to the crisis of confidence for the world's leading power and to international disorder...As with 9/11, the country is displaying its vulnerability to the eyes of the world..."

China's Renmin Wanga; "If the US could shift part of its astronomical military spending to counter-terrorism, guarding against natural disasters, epidemic disease control and other aspects, then the 9/11 attack, Hurricane Katrina, the spread of Aids and other tragedies could be avoided or mitigated..."

Switzerland's Le Temps: "The sea walls would not have burst in New Orleans if the funds meant for strengthening them had not been cut to help the war effort in Iraq and the war on terror...rescue work would have been more effective if a section of National Guard from the areas affected had not been sent to Baghdad and Kabul...would George Bush have left his holiday ranch more quickly if the disaster had not first struck the most disadvantaged populations of the black south?"

Ireland's The Irish Times: "This is a defining moment for Mr Bush, just as much as 9/11 was. So far his reputation for prompt and firm crisis management has fallen far short of what is required..."

Saudi Arabia's Saudi Gazette: "The episode illustrates that when the normal day-to-day activity of society disintegrates, the collapse of civilisation is only a few paces behind. We all walk on the edge of the abyss..."

Musib Na'imi in Iran's Al-Vefagh: About 10,000 US National Guard troops were deployed [in New Orleans] and were granted the authority to fire at and kill whom they wanted, upon the pretext of restoring order. This decision is an indication of the US administration's militarist mentality, which regards killing as the only way to control even its own citizens..."

Samih Sa'ab in Lebanon's Al-Nahar: "The destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina... has proved that even the No 1 superpower in the world is helpless in facing nature's 'terrorism'."

Pakistan's The Nation: "...the government of the world's richest nation defied the general expectation that at the first sign of the storm it would muster an armada of ships, boats and helicopters for the rescue operation. For nearly three days it sat smugly apathetic to the people's plight, their need for food, medicine and other basic necessities..."

Ambrose Murunga in Kenya's Daily Nation: "My first reaction when television images of the survivors of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans came through the channels was that the producers must be showing the wrong clip. The images, and even the disproportionately high number of visibly impoverished blacks among the refugees, could easily have been a re-enactment of a scene from the pigeonholed African continent..."

Stephan Hebel in Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine: "Bush's people will say that the moment of need and willingness to help should not be poisoned by political manoeuvres. Maybe this will serve them well enough in a media world where images of victims and heroes are valued more highly than complex background. But then the lie would have won - against the desire to understand things so as to avoid them..."

Jean-Pierre Aussant in France's Figaro: "This tragic incident reminds us that the United States has refused to ratify the Kyoto accords. Let's hope the US can from now on stop ignoring the rest of the world. If you want to run things, you must first lead by example..."

Yildirim Turker in Turkey's Radikal: "The biggest power of the world is rising over poor black corpses. We are witnessing the collapse of the American myth. In terms of the USA's relationship with itself and the world, Hurricane Katrina seems to leave its mark on our century as an extraordinary turning point."

Editorial in Iran's Siyasat-e-Ruz: "Hurricane Katrina has proved that America cannot solve its internal problems and is incapable of facing these kinds of natural disasters, so it cannot bring peace and democracy to other parts of the world..."

Shen Dingli in China's Dongfang Zaobao: "Katrina is testing the US. Katrina is also creating an opportunity for world unity. Cuba and North Korea's offer of sympathy and aid to the US could also result in some profound thinking in the US..."

Xiong Shu Li in Malaysia's Sin Chew Jit Poh: "Co-operation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can no longer be delayed, but there are still countries - including the US - which still do not take the issue seriously. However, faced with global disasters, all countries are in the same boat. The US hurricane disaster is a "modern revelation", and all countries of the world including the US should be aware of this."

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in El Nacional: "...That is the model they want to sell us. Racial segregation...the rich were able to leave, the poor were left, enduring the hurricane. It is capitalism, in its extreme individualist phase."

********************************************************************************************

In a rarefied moment of convergence, the international media shines its broad spotlight into the darkest corners of American culture and through that lens the world is seeing a graphic depiction of itself. It is an old story with new focus on a country that claimed to be better. This time it is the story of America; but a wider lens reveals that it is the story of invisible people everywhere. They are mostly people of color, the very young, the very old, the poor, the elderly and infirmed. They are the people who now emerge from the waters left by Katrina and Rita. Some are alive and some are dead. Some still clinging to life are put into morgues alongside the dead. They too are now dead. They tell us the truth about ourselves - as individuals, as a nation, as a world. Staring into into the eye of this particular storm we see our own reflection and we are humbled and frightened by what we have seen. If we are to alter that reflection - and the course of global history - American citizens will need to listen more carefully to our global counterparts. We will need to begin viewing ourselves and our leaders through a wider lens, one that more accurately reflects who in the world we are.

Sandy Leon Vest's writing can be found at www.coastalpost.com and www.sfindymedia.com

CONSUMERS TRAMPLED AS TELECOM INDUSTRY RUNS AMOK
by Sandy Leon Vest

"We heard from the industries...We have heard from the lobbyists that the industries have hired. ...We have heard from the consultants that the lobbyists have hired. ...We have heard from the law firms. ...What did you hear from the consumers? Oh, them? Well, what did you hear from the citizens? Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)

Nearly a decade ago, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by huge bipartisan margins—91 to 5 in the Senate and 414 to16 in the House. The bill was touted as "the most deregulatory telecommunications legislation in history." President Bill Clinton had become a believer. The Telecom industry was just getting warmed up. Today the threat posed by that industry to what remains of citizen representation looms larger than ever as a new slew of mergers - including the takeover of AT&T by SBC Communications - threatens to sail through the regulatory process. (See The Quiet Little Mega-Merger of SBC & AT&T, June CP).

Before 1996, major mergers in the communications sector were rare, restricted by a range of regulations limiting ownership. But as one commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) noted, "The Telecommunications Act of 1996 unleashed decades of pent-up demand..." Today a host of new telecom takeovers are quietly going forward, including Sprint/Nextel, Verizon/ MCI and the Mother of all Mergers, AT&T/SBC, approved by stockholders only last month. The recent renaissance of merger-mania prompted former FCC chief economist Simon Wilkie to comment that the trend could trigger a "dramatic loss of competitive choices, fueling major price increases and stifling innovative services for business customers." California-based consumer group, Toward Utility Rate Normalization (TURN) notes that the SBC/AT&T merger will "create a virtual monopoly over much of California, making it impossible for smaller companies to compete," leaving dissatisfied customers with few options.

In California, the local mainstream media has been appallingly silent about SBC's scandalous attempt to ram through their takeover without public participation. That plan was only recently foiled by public interest groups who filed a formal Protest with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to force SBC to hold public hearings throughout the state in June and July. Over 500 Community Leaders and members of minority, low-income, and senior citizen groups demonstrated at the seven hearings in defiance of SBC's attempted coup. The groups were forced to request special public access from the CPUC due to "SBC’s failure to provide adequate notice of the hearings."

The pending takeover blitz obviates the need for a crash course in the shameful history of the Telecommunications Act.

The Telecommunications Act was a law that would change the lives of all Americans. It was also a law that did not involve average citizens. Business and Economics journals did not write about the legislation in terms of its impact on the public. As media scholar Robert McChesney accurately observed, "The Telecommunications Act was covered as a business story, not a public policy story...the lack of public debate surprised even veteran Washington insiders," McChesney wrote, quoting one lobbyist: "I have never seen anything like the Telecommunications Act...the silence of public debate is deafening. A bill with such astonishing impact on all of us is not even being discussed."

The Telecom Act reflected the priorities of special interests—local phone companies, long-distance providers, and cable and broadcast corporations. While these special interests often disagreed among themselves, they all wanted Congress to allow them more "flexibility" - and less regulation. In return, they promised more diversity, more choices, lower prices, more jobs and a thriving economy.

But almost before the ink on the legislation was dry and despite assurances by elected officials that the law would benefit consumers, many of the same industries that initially agreed to its terms went to court to block them. They appealed to Congress and the FCC to relax already-diluted rules and regulations. By leaving regulatory discretion to the FCC, the Telecom Act gave it the power to issue rules that often sabotaged the intent of Congress. When control of the House passed from Democrats to Republicans, deregulators had a field day and while corporate interests all had a seat at the table when the bill was being negotiated, the public did not.

Back in 1984, the courts and the Department of Justice attempted to break up the huge AT&T telephone monopoly, resulting in the creation of seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) known as the "baby Bells." The companies immediately pushed for deregulation - promising in turn to give competitors fairly priced access to their local exchange networks. The idea they said was to create more competition for local phone service. The resulting legislation allowed local phone companies to offer long-distance outside of their service areas but stipulated that long-distance within these areas could be offered only after the companies had opened their local markets to competition. But instead of increasing competition, the Bells merged with one another, reducing the seven RBOCs to four. The Telecom Act promised over a period of ten years to save consumers $550 billion, including $333 billion in lower long-distance rates, $32 billion in lower local phone rates, and $78 billion in lower cable bills. Instead, the public got more media concentration, less diversity, and higher prices. Since the Telecom Act's passage, cable rates have surged by some 50 percent and local phone rates have risen 20 percent.

Those supporting the legislation predicted the Telecom Act would add 1.5 million jobs and boost the economy by $2 trillion. But by 2003 elected officials reluctantly began admitting to a $2 trillion dollar loss in the telecommunications sector and a loss of 500,000 jobs between 2001 and 2003. Those losses had much to do with corporate malfeasance at MCI WorldCom and the meltdown of other big corporate players caught in the act of swindling investors. The dire repercussions were exacerbated by the frenzy of speculative investment and conflicts of interest spurred by the Telecom Act. The devastation was further fueled by the flurry of new companies - many of whom had raised hundreds of billions of dollars to enter the local telephone business - being effectively shut out by the baby Bells refusal to open their local markets.

In 2001 the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union concluded that the 1996 Telecommunications Act had done "virtually nothing to bring consumers competition for local phone service." While cell phones have been hailed as boons to consumers, Consumer Federation points out that for local phone service, "wireless phones are more costly on a per-minute basis, less dependable and are not completely connected to local emergency 911 tracking systems." Further exacerbating the situation, the Telecom Act relied in many instances on the FCC to ensure the legislation’s goals of competition and innovation but since the Act’s passage, the FCC has consistently issued rulings that have sided with special interests - and against the public.

The impact of the Telecom Act on once-thriving community radio stations has been devastating. As a growing number of local stations attempt to offset their costs by resorting to corporate underwriting, terms like "community-owned," "listener-sponsored" and "public" radio have all but lost their meaning. In many cases these terms are mere buzzwords to fool listeners into continuing their financial support - not accurate representation of station policy. This trend of corporate modeling has resulted in the near extinction of true community radio and the erosion of local programming, staff morale and political integrity. Corporate allegiance to the bottom line has forced local TV and radio stations, often owned and/or underwritten by non-local corporations, to produce less local public affairs programming and to hire less local staff. Increasingly, only the volunteers are local with much of the paid staff being drafted from out of town stations.

In 2002 the Future of Music Coalition documented the sweeping changes that deregulation of radio had produced, noting that a mere ten companies dominate two-thirds of the radio audience with two companies, Clear Channel Communications and Viacom (owner of Infinity Broadcasting), controlling 42 percent of listeners and 45 percent of radio industry revenues. Radio monoliths such as Clear Channel have driven out minority radio station owners and made it difficult for non-corporate artists to get airtime on commercial radio. The Coalition further notes that "all radio markets are dominated by four radio companies controlling at least 70 percent of the radio audience - with concentration even greater in smaller markets."

The Project for Excellence in Journalism noted in 2004 that between 1994 and 2001, the number of full-time radio newsroom staff shrank by 44 percent, and part-time news staff by over 71 percent. Study after study has documented that profit-driven media conglomerates are investing less in news and information and that local news in particular is failing to provide listeners and viewers with the information they need to participate in their democracy. The Telecom Act extended the terms of broadcasters’ TV licenses and made it more difficult for those licenses to be revoked. Broadcasters were held far less accountable to viewers and even more beholden to shareholders interested in maximizing their profits.

In 1997 broadcasters eviscerated an FCC rule that would have required them to give back their analog spectrum at the end of 2006. They inserted language into legislation stating that they could keep the analog spectrum until 85 percent of viewers in their markets were receiving digital signals. To date broadcasters continue to resist the giveback of the analog spectrum. The same broadcasters who extolled the country's need for high-quality, free TV instead produced reality TV shows requiring few (paid) writers or actors, reduced news staffs and stubbornly resisted requirements that they serve the public interest. Once the Act was passed broadcasters began downplaying the importance of public access to high quality programming and HDTV. Instead they hyped their ability to use the digital spectrum to broadcast "multiple programming streams" in the same space they could broadcast one analog channel. Talk of high quality pictures and sound for the American public was replaced by discussions of data transmission and paid programming. A majority of Americans today are still not benefiting from HDTV and the US lags behind the rest of the developed world in the deployment of broadband access to the Internet.

Common Cause reports that since 1997, Verizon Communications, SBC Communications Inc., AOL Time Warner, General Electric Co./NBC, News Corp./Fox, Viacom Inc./CBS, Comcast Corp., Walt Disney Co./ABC, and the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and the United States Telecom Association together gave nearly $45 million in federal political donations. Of that total, $17.8 million went to Democrats and $26.9 million went to Republicans. Those same corporations and three trade associations also spent more than $358 million on lobbying since 1998.

As Congress reviews telecommunications policy, the industry has had nearly a decade to reinforce their relationships with lawmakers and the Administration. Congress now has an opportunity to ensure that citizens have a seat at the table. Priorities for the next Telecom Act must include affordable access to phone, Internet and cable - and policies that encourage true competition and diversity of ownership. Congress should further ensure that no single company or group of companies has the power to control the public’s access to mass media. Bell South's F Duane Ackerman recently told a reporter that the new Telecommunications Act could be written in a matter of months, not years. It could also be a "very short bill," resulting in almost complete deregulation of the telecommunications industry. "The basic issue before Congress is simple," Ackerman said. "Can competition do a better job than traditional utility regulation?"

The passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its consequences offer vivid lessons of what happens when public policy is made largely without informing or consulting the public and when corporations, spending millions on political contributions and lobbying are allowed to skew policy debate and make promises they do not intend to keep. The story of the Telecom Act further demonstrates what can happen when a federal agency—the FCC— is permitted to issue rules that flout what Congress intended.

Today special interests are once again mounting a campaign to get their priorities into law. At least twenty-six states and nine countries have already approved or are in the process of approving SBC's planned buy-out of AT&T. Australia, Austria, Estonia, Germany, Israel, Norway, Pakistan, Russia and South Africa have already signed on, placing the telecommunications giant on track to complete its merger by late 2005 or early 2006.

In accordance with Section 854(b)and(c), the PUC must approve mergers involving large telephone companies to ensure that economic benefits are distributed to shareholders and ratepayers, that the merger will not negatively impact competition and that the merger is in the public interest. SBC and AT&T insist that their merger application should not be subject to any of these requirements, making citizen input all the more essential - and the window of opportunity for such input is rapidly closing. There are many ways to plug in and get heard. Best websites include www.turn.org, www.commoncause.org and you may also voice your concerns to the CPUC at www.cpuc.ca.gov.

As "consumers" are confronted by a media universe dominated by a handful of mega-corporations, we will need to move quickly to transform ourselves into involved and responsive citizens. A successful transformation requires that, as citizens, we ensure the legislative process is transparent and accountable to the public. What is at risk today is not simply how much consumers pay for access to the Internet or cable TV, but the very essence of American democracy - civic discourse and dissent, how ideas get communicated (or stifled) and whether citizens will have access to the information they need to represent themselves. Entering the national conversation via the Telecommunications Act may be the best and last chance to give substance to the word "democracy."

Sandy Leon Vest is a renewable energy activist and journalist. She has produced news and public affairs programming for public and community radio, including KPFA in Berkeley, KWMR and the National Radio Project in Oakland.

TAKING BACK THE POWER - THE REAL WAR ON TERROR

by Sandy Leon Vest

It is now widely understood that the Bush administration might never have succeeded in launching the historical abomination known as the "Iraq War" were it not for that administration's absolute contempt for truth, its calculated exploitation of public grief and its cynical manipulation of the American people under the guise of "patriotism."

The ill-conceived "war on terror" did not begin, nor will it end, in Iraq - or Afghanistan for that matter. The broad range of atrocities now being perpetrated globally in the name of "freedom" includes torture, unlawful detention and cultural desecration. The cost of such a war in lives, morale and dollars is inestimable and threatens to sweep away what little remains of the Great Society envisioned by at least some of our founders. These actions seem the very definition of evil and they serve to highlight the stunning scope of this administration's contempt for the people it is sworn to serve. Still, if viewed through the proper lens - that of a political culture that is both thoroughly ideological and corrupt - it is not difficult to comprehend how such a contemptuous attitude might be spawned. After all, it is the job of elected officials to be accountable, and being accountable to those you consider irrelevant, well, that just doesn't make sense.

To begin to appreciate how this current clique of corporate thugs managed to worm their way into the White House and hijack any remaining semblance of "democracy" by declaring a never-ending world war, one must be willing to fathom the unfathomable. It further requires the willingness to revisit the presidential election of 2000. The selection/election question has yet to be definitively decided by political historians, but surely one compelling explanation for such pathological politics is the political process itself. It is no accident that corporate lobbyists with deep pockets and an even deeper sense of entitlement are thriving. In such a climate, losing - whether in war or politics - is not an option and cheating, lying, bribing and stealing are just part of the game. It is logical then that an unelected president would bear no burden of accountability, would be contemptuous of the people he never meant to serve anyway.

It is difficult to argue that there is anything particularly new - or newsworthy - about the present state of the political universe. The difference is by degree - not so much qualitative as quantitative. Too many people without enough resources, too much misery amid too many weapons, too much consumption amid appalling scarcity, too much greed and too little sharing. Such an era demands exceptional vision and wise leadership. The Bush administration's religiously myopic approach falls far short of that standard and simply put is unsustainable. Its perpetuation of the politics of hopelessness and despair have gravely exacerbated an already critical situation.

At the local level, cities, counties and states struggle for solvency under the burden of multiple crises and massive budget deficits that are projected into the unforeseeable future. In the wake of the corporate heists of the nineties (Enron, Tyco, Arthur Anderson) and more recently the "underfunding" of employee pensions by a virtual "Who's Who" of major corporations, everything and everyone is suspect. The phenomenon known as privatization - once considered the corporate panacea for budget woes and increasing profit margins - has fallen from grace both at home and abroad as it has proven calamitous for much of the world populous. In Bolivia, Bechtel's takeover of that country's once publicly-owned water works has brought the country to its knees, with "water wars" disintegrating into civil unrest and chaos. That disastrous experiment with privatization might prove instructive if anyone were paying attention. The massive failure of privatization in Latin America and other countries, where public resources are being sold off to multinational corporations in the name of "debt relief" has triggered a backlash against capitalism from which it may never recover. Selling privatization to governments up to their eyeballs in debt to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank has all but decimated any remaining social safety net in those countries.

As we enter the 21st century, it is not only Americans who are plagued by a seemingly unshakable sense of dread. A palpable inertia threatens to propel the world's population toward certain disaster. In the US and abroad, anyone who can read or watch television is reminded on a daily basis of the irony of a non-elected president declaring war on the world in the name of "democracy," while at home the American people and their representatives are deemed irrelevant. George W Bush's derogatory tone in his use of the term "American people" is as revealing as it is infuriating. It begs the question, "just who are the 'American people' anyway?" Could it possibly be that this contemptible class of illiterate, unmotivated, tv-watching, SUV-driving consumers to which the administration refers is us?

The desire to distance oneself from such a despicable designation, while understandable, does not make it so. For better or worse, we are the American people and - if only by default - it is the American people who allowed the Bush administration to seize absolute power in the first place. Now we live with what we have not chosen. We live under the shadow of what we will never know. We live with the Big Question that can never be answered: How might the course of global history been changed had "we the people" been less willing to accept our assigned roles as "consumers" and more physically, intellectually and emotionally responsive? Had we but known, perhaps those of us who did not vote out of apathy, illiteracy or ignorance might have thought twice, and once the lever was pulled we might have been more willing to question that authority; we might have called up whatever energy and inspiration we had within us to get up and speak out. We might have taken it upon ourselves to redefine terms like "American people," "patriotism," "freedom" and "democracy."

But these decisions now lie in the past and the American people make decisions on a daily basis. Even in the face of what seems irrevocable and irreversible, the course of history can be altered still another time. Americans need not continue to settle for the degrading spoils of war. We need not continue to take our citizenship for granted while languishing in our role as consumers in a consumer-driven culture. The critical nature of global circumstance challenges us as never before to take on the role of, not just national, but global citizenship. For it is civic responsibility and civil disobedience that are the real stuff of patriotism and meaningful democracy.

The Bush administration's once-masterful manipulation of public opinion notwithstanding, its hegemonic global agenda is visibly disintegrating. Patience for the war has dropped precipitously as cynicism sets in and optimism about the Iraqi elections in January wears thin. Violence against US troops continues to escalate and polls report for the first time that a majority would be "upset" if President Bush sent more troops. A new low, 36%, say troop levels should be maintained or increased. In Iraq and Afghanistan, murder and mayhem continue to wreak havoc in direct contradiction of the administration's stubbornly upbeat assessments. Even their own top level officials now acknowledge that the military was not prepared for the repercussions of these ill-conceived invasions.

The Big Lie is in the spotlight as one revelation after the other bobs to the surface. Only last month still another document dubbed the "Downing Street Memo" was uncovered suggesting that the Bush administration first decided to go to war in Iraq and built a case for it later. All this has lead an increasingly vociferous and bipartisan call for an end to the war - or at least a timeline for troop withdrawal. In June, Democratic representatives Shirley Jackson-Lee of Texas and John Conyers of Michigan began a congressional investigation into that memo. Jackson-Lee says she wants the public to understand what happened. "This is just the beginning," she told a group of Capitol Hill reporters. "I look to 2002 and the names many of us were called for opposing the war in Iraq and then I look at where we are today. If this is to meet the test of history, we must have a comprehensive answer to what happened."

The souring of public opinion against the Iraq war and more broadly the "war on terror" presents a timely opportunity for Americans to "take back the power." This turn of events challenges the president and his administration to do that which they are not capable of - admit their mistakes and begin the arduous diplomatic process of making amends to the international community. Bush's promise to stay the course in Iraq until democracy is established is a prescription for his own demise. Sending more troops is no longer an option as the recruitment pool dries up under increasing scrutiny of the war. The pattern of of public opinion on Iraq - strong support for the first two years that subsequently erodes - is all too reminiscent of the Korean and Vietnam wars.

It is in the eerie light of this strange dawn that a real "war on terror" must be waged - one that redefines terms and expands the parameters of the national conversation - one that takes on heretofore sacred ground and institutionalized assumptions.

If we are to seize the moment and change the course of history, Americans can start by demanding in no uncertain terms the return of US troops. We will further demand that the media break their deadly silence and report the real story of the war on terror, its victims on all sides and its real cost in lives and dollars. If we are to be less bombarded with propaganda and more informed of and involved in the critical events that shape our lives, Americans will need to take on the mass media and challenge the corporate monopolies that provide fertile ground for absolute power and corruption. We will demand more responsive and responsible representation and more access to that representation. And if we are serious about restoring - or better still reinventing - our shattered democracy, we will not stop there. We will demand an end to the cycle of weapons production and proliferation that imperils the entire planet and we will make it our business to expose the lunacy and hypocrisy that emboldens this administration to order an end to nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea while it continues to lead the planet in its unabated pursuit of same.

Here at home we can begin by demanding the bare essentials - equal opportunity education, jobs with a living wage, an inhabitable environment and the restoration of a social safety net. We will demand election reform - including meaningful campaign finance reform. Furthermore, we will make it clear - at the polls and in the streets of America - that we will settle for nothing less than voices of reason and wisdom at the international table. We will insist on legitimate representation in the United Nations, the White House and Congress.

Time is not on our side. There is much work to be done - and it is ours to do. While it is unlikely that America will ever recover its perceived position of international prestige and respect, most of us will still have to live here. The quality of our lives and those of our children, grandchildren and the rest of the planet is yet to be determined. To a great extent it will depend upon the willingness of the American people to reclaim their rights and responsibilities as world citizens.

THE QUIET LITTLE MEGA-MERGER OF SBC AND AT&T

by Sandy Leon Vest

This month across the state, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will hold its little-publicized public participation hearings on SBC's anticipated takeover of AT&T. If successful, the merger would create the largest telecommunications company in California. It would, in fact, create the largest phone company in the US, spelling the end of the iconic Ma Bell and likely saddling consumers with higher bills, more confusion and fewer options.

If the deal goes through, SBC stands to gain a blue-chip list of corporate customers and pump up its long-distance business. Such a merger would dismantle once and for all the 120-year-old AT&T, for generations the only phone company most Americans knew. It's value to SBC lies in its roster of large corporate customers. Citigroup, General Electric, General Motors, Wal-Mart and Merck have all used AT&T.

Consumer advocates have excoriated the acquisition of AT&T by SBC, with Consumers Union calling it "a symbolic reminder that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has failed to produce the vigorous competition that was promised.

"For most consumers, the communications market is rapidly deteriorating into a duopoly dominated by two firms because of the failure of new entrants to gain a foothold in the market." said Gene Kimmelman, Senior Director of Public Policy and Advocacy for Consumers Union.

Such an acquisition would have both symbolic and competitive significance, as SBC is one of the Baby Bells spawned by the breakup of AT&T in 1984.

Based in San Antonio, Texas, SBC Communications is the second-largest US local phone carrier, after Verizon Communications. It has 52 million local- phone customers in 13 states, with the largest concentrations in California, Texas and Illinois. It also has over 20 million customers for long distance and over 5 million DSL subscribers.

In conjunction with BellSouth, SBC owns Cingular Wireless, the country's largest wireless carrier with nearly 50 million subscribers. Cingular has already bought a piece of AT&T, acquiring its wireless business last year for $41 billion.

The telecommunications market has evolved far beyond the simple fixed-wire home line that AT&T provided for decades. Telecom companies now include local phone companies, long-distance carriers, wireless providers, cable television firms, internet companies and broadband carriers. All compete to offer an array of services over various pipelines to the home and office, such as phone lines and cable TV connections.

"Today, consumers face higher prices and lower quality (because of) the incredible level of consolidation in the phone industry," said Susanna Montezemolo, policy analyst at Consumers Union in Washington, DC. "Now, we're putting Humpty Dumpty back together again without regulation."

Over the past 14 years, AT&T has been dramatically diminished in scope as it has ventured into computer-making, wireless, telecom equipment and cable. With its profits plummeting, last year AT&T cut 20% of its workforce. Although AT&T remains the largest US long-distance carrier with 30 million customers, recently it turned its back on residential market to concentrate on business telecom. "Grandma's phone company is no longer even selling telephone service to grandma," said David Willis, a telecom analyst in Texas, with research firm Meta Group. "AT&T abandoned the residential business to groom itself to be acquired."

Mark Cooper, Director of Research at the Consumer Federation of America warned recently that if the deal goes through, consumers will be left with only two choices, "a single cable company that dominates video and high speed internet or a regional Bell operating company that dominates local, long distance and wireless telecommunications. He maintains that "two companies are not enough to provide serious price competition or...incentives to innovate." Furthermore, Cooper says, "the Bells and cable companies have become fixated on putting together large bundles of services that only the richest 20% of Americans can afford." It is this segment of American households - with an average income of $60,000 per year - "that currently subscribe to the broadband internet, cable/satellite, and wireless." For the remaining 80 percent of American households, "the big bundles require a substantial increase in expenditures and for half of American households, the bundles require a doubling of monthly costs."

Fortunately, a merger of this scope still requires regulatory approval - but consumer advocates need citizen support if they are to successfully oppose it. SBC tried to acquire AT&T in 1997 but was rebuffed by regulators.

The CPUC will hold public meetings to hear comments on the proposed merger of SBC Communications and AT&T Corporation in Oakland on Tuesday, June 14 at 2PM and again at 7PM at the Elihu Harris State Building at 1515 Clay Street. On Wednesday, June 15, hearings will be held at 2 and 7PM at the Clarion Hotel Mansion Inn - Terrace Room, 700 16th Street in Sacramento.

If you can't attend the public hearings on the SBC-AT&T merger and you are concerned, you may email your comments to public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov or write to the CPUC Public Advisor's Office at CPUC Public Advisor, 505 Van Ness Ave., Room 2103, San Francisco, CA. 94102.




Sandy Leon Vest
Renewable Energy Advocate
415 868-1340
sandyleonvest@yahoo.com

Special Election - Schwarzenegger's Nuclear Option

by Sandy Leon Vest

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is "seeking to win through a special election, unilateral power to make cuts in health and other vital services..." This according to the Health Access Update, a consumer-oriented e-newsletter that tracks the moves of the governor and state legislature. The possibility of a special election has hung over California since January, when the governor outlined his proposals for overhauling state government. At that time he threatened to take his ideas to the voters if legislators rejected them.

If the power grab is successful, the governor would effectively be self-authorized to reintroduce proposals for health care cuts previously rejected by legislators. Schwarzenegger's special election would enable him to force thousands of seniors, disabled and families into HMOs, impose Medi-Cal premiums on those living just over the federal poverty level and use a federal waiver to shift responsibility of hospital reimbursements from the state to the counties.

There are eight initiatives that may appear on the special election ballot. The initiatives could shift the balance of power in California's Capitol. Republican allies have already submitted petitions to place on the ballot three measures being pushed by the governor - one that would curb state spending, another that would strip legislators of the power to decide the boundaries of their own districts and still another that would delay tenure for public school teachers. Social conservatives are further submitting an initiative that would require minors seeking abortions to wait until two days after their parents or guardians have been informed by a doctor of the impending procedure.

Along with an initiative that challenges unions' political might, the measures would undermine the clout and financing of the Democratic Party and the authority of the Legislature — the one branch of government Democrats have controlled for the last decade. Schwarzenegger has until mid-June to call a November election, so there is still time for lawmakers to reach agreements with him. They could then place such agreements on the ballot, and the governor and his allies could abandon their three initiatives, asking voters to reject them. Or, he could not call an election and enact everything through legislation.

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) believes the election is little more than a political ruse. FTCR calls Schwarzenegger's plan to call a special election for November "an attempt to evade campaign finance laws" that would otherwise prohibit him from raising unlimited funds and appearing in campaign advertisements for his ballot measures in 2006. "A governor who ran for office on a platform of limiting the influence of money in politics should not be calling a special election to evade current campaign finance limitations," wrote FTCR. "An election crafted to get around campaign finance laws would be any politician's dream, but it is a nightmare for taxpayers who should not be forced to pick up the bill."

The Political Reform Act states that any committee that runs political advertisements for a candidate within 45 days of an election cannot accept campaign contributions above $25,000 from any one person. If the pro-Schwarzenegger committee "Citizens to Save California," who are promoting the special election, accepts more than $25,000 from any one person, the governor would be barred from appearing in the group's television advertisements during the 6 weeks before the next election in which he appears on the ballot -- the June 2006 gubernatorial primary. The governor is pushing a 2005 election to avoid that campaign law and raise unlimited funds. Democrats say he has been intent all along on declaring political nuclear war through a special election.

Thus far, Democrats have not produced any counter-initiatives with real teeth — such as a proposal to ban corporate contributions. That lack of political courage has eased the way for the governor to call the election. "Right now there is no downside for him," one GOP spokesperson recently told the press. But the Alliance for a Better California — a coalition of labor unions, consumer groups and advocates for the elderly — is also busy drafting a petition for the measure. One union official and alliance spokesman warned, "If the governor is insisting on calling a special election, we will use this opportunity to do something real and tangible." Such an effort to defeat the initiative would likely draw money from across the country.

Other groups aligned with Democratic lawmakers have submitted petitions for an initiative that would lower prescription drug prices and for another to re-regulate the state's energy market. Passage of either would be a rebuke to Schwarzenegger, who vetoed legislative versions of the measures last year. The pharmaceutical industry has $6.5 million to combat the initiative and industry officials say they will raise "whatever it takes." Ex-congressman Billy Tauzin, now president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, announced that the industry was filing signatures in favor of its own initiative. That same initiative was introduced by Schwarzenegger last year but rejected by Democratic lawmakers, who have been fighting Schwarzenegger tooth and nail on proposed cuts to education, health care and community-based programs for the aged and the very young.

Voter turnout could be especially low in a special election with no candidates on the ballot. Over $40 million has already been raised for initiative campaigns and election officials say the cost could exceed $70 million - with counties picking up most of that sum. The cost would be highest if a vote were scheduled on a day other than Nov. 8, when 61 jurisdictions from counties to water districts are holding a regularly scheduled election. Officials say it would be next to impossible for them to hold another election in subsequent weeks.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT NOW

Devastating as the impact of a special election could be for California and its residents, the greater threat may be what this election represents on a global scale. As George W Bush attempts to export his strange version of democracy to distant shores, here at home taking power from the people seems to be the operative mode. Since Bush declared the United Nations "irrelevant" prior to the US assault on Iraq, his theory of irrelevance has trickled down through the halls of congress and infiltrated every aspect of federal, state and local government. Republicans' recent bid to eliminate Democrats' ability to filibuster present and future appeals court and Supreme Court nominees is emblematic of this trend, as are the Patriot Act, tort and bankruptcy reform and Bush's ill-advised nomination of John Bolton to the UN.

The Bush administration and Republican loyalists, including California's governor, have been highly effective at ramming through their political agenda using heavy-handed tactics that include controlling the political debate through intimidation and pressuring the media to change the national conversation by shifting its focus from the news to the messenger. Their bullying has had a chilling effect on debate and dissent both domestically and internationally and has effectively stifled the mainstream media in the US. From the firing of CBS's Dan Rather to the sudden and odd focus on Newsweek's 'mis-reporting' of Korans being flushed down toilets at Guantanamo Bay, the Bush administration has largely succeeded in taking the spotlight off the news, and shifting it to those who report the news. It has also succeeded in marginalizing or discrediting all but its most diehard loyalists.

The administration's take on leadership as license-to-do-anything has taken hold of a Republican majority that doesn't just rule, it makes - and breaks - the rules. The Bush administration's disdainful attitude toward 'the people' now threatens to decimate what remains of citizen empowerment through representative government - in the state, the country and the world at large. It represents the first time in the nation's history that "we the people" have all-but-officially been declared 'irrelevant.'

It is against this political backdrop that California's governor calls for a "special election."

But Schwarzenegger's poll numbers have slid precipitously as he has pushed his plans. "If the governor prevails...on his proposals, this will give him a resurgence of momentum and likely break the back of the Democratic opposition," said Larry Gerston, a political science professor at San Jose State University. "If he loses, after putting all of his prestige on the line, this will cut the legs out from under him. We're really looking at a crossroads here."

Yolo County Clerk-Recorder Freddie Oakley says she may defy Schwarzenegger and refuse to hold a special election, although she acknowledged that a court could force her to comply. Oakley said a Nov. 8 election would cost her county $100,000, and on any other day, about $330,000. Marin County residents should go to school on Oakley's courageous stand and encourage Marin County Clerk Michael Smith to join her.

Write, phone or email Michael Smith, Governor Schwarzenegger, California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and any or all of the representatives listed on the back page of the Coastal Post.

Leon Vest At Smiley's

In the world of music, the songwriting team of Leon Vest is nothing less than a breath of fresh air.

Once you've experienced the compelling sounds of this original songwriting team and their remarkable cast of musicians, you'll know why their grassroots fan base in West Marin has blossomed into a local phenomenon.

Together with their band, Sandy Leon Vest and songwriting partner James Vest have managed to create a sound that sparkles with originality, yet waxes evocative of the idealism and romanticism that graced the music of the sixties and seventies.

Leon Vest's songwriting has been finely crafted over their years of performing and playing in Marin County, and it shows - more today than ever before.

The songs of Leon Vest are lyrically poetic, while at the same time reflecting a fiercely political point of view. Sandy Leon Vest's melodies, lyrics and whimsical vocal style supported by a driving percussion section of veteran musicians simply deliver the goods.

Leon Vest offers much more than a musical performance of the highest order. Their music produces an undeniable high that transforms the room - and the people in it.

Whether you're already a diehard Leon Vest fan or only recently heard the buzz, you won't want to miss Leon Vest at Smiley's on Friday night. See you at the show!

Derek Tracy

December 2001

An Evening of Healing & Support

For Our Friend Sandy Leon-Vest

On Saturday, December 8, the West Marin Community will join together for an evening of healing and support for our friend Sandy Leon-Vest.

On August 6, after having a section of tumor removed from her head, Sandy was diagnosed with B-Cell non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL). NHL is a blood cancer, and remains one of the only cancers for which there is no known effective treatment or cure.

Sandy has been an integral part of our West Marin community for years, touching people's lives from Point Reyes to Bolinas to Stinson Beach. Whether you know her as a talented musician, or as a radio personality from Bay Area stations KPFA and KWMR, or as an aerobics instructor who has helped countless people, young and old, to stay active for their health, undoubtedly you recognize her as a friend and valuable member of this community.

The West Marin Community would like to join Sandy's husband, Jim Vest, and their two daughters, Emery Calo and Whitney Vest, and her eldest daughter Kim Leon, to raise support that will enable Sandy to explore alternative treatments for this very rare and difficult form of cancer.

At 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, December 8, at the Bolinas Community Center, there will be an evening of food, music and a silent auction to help raise funds for Sandy and her family. Those seeking information or wishing to volunteer their help may call Jenny Rodin at 868-1495.

In the meantime, for those wishing to donate directly, a trust fund has been established through Bank of Petaluma. Please send a donation to "Friends of Sandy Leon-Vest" c/o PO Box 734, Bolinas, CA 94924, or call Joan Bertsch at 868-1766 for information on the trust fund.

Our community has always been a wonderful stronghold of compassion and concern, and this is yet one more way for us to exercise our ability to make a difference for the people we love. Thank you.



Coastal Post Home Page

The Coastal Post - April 2000

The Democratization of Corruption - Colombia, the US and the War on Drugs
By Sandy Leon

President Clinton's $1.6 billion military aid package to "fight the drug war," will do nothing to stem the flow of illegal drugs from Colombia into the US. It will do nothing to stop the demand for reality transformation in the US that drives the record consumption of cocaine and its nasty stepsister, crack. It will do nothing to discourage the embittered classes in the US from packing white powder-or whatever substance is available- into pipes, and inhaling their own death sentences.

Clinton's "anti-drug money" will do nothing to stop the economically better-off but nonetheless bored and disillusioned classes of young people in middle America from dropping out of their understaffed, underfunded schools to wait tables. Nor will it stop the record numbers of young people who smoke cigarettes on their work breaks and/or drink so much alcohol after work, that snorting god-knows-what through filthy currency shoved up their noses becomes the only "stabilizer." It will do nothing to keep these same young people from becoming part or full-time drug dealers themselves to avoid sharing any responsibility for the consumer-driven mess their elders have created.

Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey's strategy of eradication by fumigation is a failure. Recent studies by the CIA estimate that even when coca plants receive a direct hit, only 25 percent of them die. Since 1994, the US has spent billions to spray millions of gallons of poisonous chemicals. They have succeeded only in destroying the fragile ecosystem of jungle rainforests, and making its people sick, while coca production has surged. Fumigation pushes the growers somewhere else and keeps the ranks of the guerrillas swelling with new life.

The US-style "war on drugs" has done worse than nothing to stop the murderous drug-dealing of wealthy Colombian landowner Ramon Isaza and his compadres, for whom the $1.6 billion US aid package will likely serve as a funding bonanza.

One of the ruling elite's "best and brightest," Colombia's Ramon Isaza is also one of that country's most notorious leaders of its right-wing paramilitary death squads. A major drug-trafficker, Isaza is protected by the Colombian security forces who have long relied on him to do much of their dirty work.

Isaza's ties to the US go back to the late 1970s, when he was a key figure in organizing what would become the Colombian paramilitary "death squads." Mentored by the CIA, Isaza received most of his financing from Texaco Oil Company, and today Isaza, along with Carlos Castano, are at the top echelon of Colombia's infamous death-squads.

On February 18, 2000, an article appeared in the Chicago Tribune bearing the headline, "Paramilitary leader admits ruthless acts." Journalist Paul de la Garza interviewed Ramon Isaza at his vast estate in the mountains of Colombia. He identifies Ramon Isaza as, "the founder of Colombia's notorious right-wing paramilitary movement," and writes that Isaza spoke of his murderous assaults against Colombian civilians, "without a tinge of remorse." Isaza, says de la Garza, "believes his movement" is the answer to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia or FARC, who have been at war with the government since 1964. In fact, so much so that an associate of Ramon Isaza told the Chicago Times reporter, "Ramon is the government here...you can assume he operates with the military's blessing." In his article, de la Garza noted that, "if a foreign journalist could track him down...it would seem logical that the Colombian authorities could nab him."

One would think.

Unfortunately, in this beleaguered and blighted Latin American country, it's not that simple. Any peasant will tell you that in many villages the paramilitaries are stronger than the government-as one of Isaza's henchmen told the Chicago Tribune, "simply because there is no government."

It should come as no surprise then that Professor Dennis Grammenos, who teaches Geography at Northeastern Illinois University, and publishes the Colombian Labor Monitor in Chicago says, "the $1.6 billion in US aid will only strengthen the hand of the death squads in their campaign of terror against the civilian population."

In fact human rights activists from Amnesty International, Rainforest Action Network and other organizations too numerous to list, have documented the torture, atrocities, disappearances and outright murders of civilians in Colombia's protracted civil war. They consistently allege that it is the paramilitaries or "death squads" who bear responsibility for a vast majority of Colombian carnage.

Even the Colombian government has been forced to concede in the face of overwhelming physical evidence that the paramilitaries are the main perpetrators in a series of massacres, and have played a major role in the displacement of up to 1.5 million Colombians trapped in that slaughterhouse.

Demands by some in Congress that Colombian President Andres Pastrana and his military "rein in the paramilitaries" as a precondition for receiving the additional $1.3 billion (the other $240 million has already been received) may be well-intentioned, but they miss the point. The paramilitary forces are an integral part of the very system the Clinton administration seeks to sustain. Its existence depends on-is fueled by-he same brutality and intimidation the US says it wants 'reined in.'

In fact, it has come to characterize the very heart of Colombia's ruling class.

Fighting The FARC - Will The Real Narco-Traffickers Please Stand UP

While the FARC (and the ELN, a lesser-understood yet active insurgency) are hardly without sin in the violent chaos that has come to epitomize Colombia, their very existence stands in stark contrast to that of the paramilitary death squads whose sole purpose has always been to protect Colombia from its own. In the life of a paramilitary soldier, the systematic stifling of pesky peasant uprisings-including any utterings of dissent among the rank and file and the "enforcement" of gag orders on human rights workers and activists of any kind-are all part of a day's dirty work. Their mission, too lucrative for any respectable member of the underclass to refuse, is to serve and protect at any cost the minority landowning classes in Colombia.

There is plenty of evidence that the FARC are guilty as charged of "drug-taxing" for profit and other nasty deeds, but it is historically well-documented that the FARC and ELN both were born of suffering and deprivation. In other words the FARC's guerilla war on the Colombian government began as-and still is-a class war.

The ELN has a point to make when it blows up the oil pipelines of Texaco or Occidental Petroleum. Big Oil is rapidly replacing not only the once-pristine rainforest environment of Colombia's jungles, but its indigenous people as well. The recent "relocation" of the U'wa by Occidental Petroleum should serve as a cruel reminder to anyone who cares, of US-style "manifest destiny" policies of past centuries, responsible for the genocidal slaughter and "relocation" of indigenous people here in the northern hemisphere.

The Privatization Of Public Wealth, aka State-Sanctioned Stealing

The so-called "anti-drug package" is not that at all. Instead, it is a blatant effort by the Clinton administration and its corporate neoliberal champions of privatization to prop up and protect a ruthless system of government from its own people-all in the name of stability. The mandate of corporate manifest destiny-as embodied in US policy-is to make the world safe, not for democracy, but for corporate investment/privatization. Toward that interest, the Clinton administration seeks to support the same corrupt regime whose rotten underpinnings are responsible for the systematic obliteration of its own people and environment. Scrutinized in the eerie light of reality, the concept of mitigation or reining in (the death squads) is little more than a tragic joke.

It is no secret that distribution of wealth in Colombia, and for that matter most of Latin America, is-quite bluntly-nonexistent. At least since the days when European corsairs, pirates and buccaneers blundered into the Caribbean, any wealth discovered in this resource-rich land was confiscated and jealously hoarded by a few, to the exclusion of the vast majority.

Those fortunate enough to be inside those circles of wealth and power have never been eager to share the bootie, but about a decade ago a funny thing happened. An almost-transparent shift in terminology began to trickle down from within the elite inner sanctum of global corporate governance. The story of how the confiscation, no, swindling of public wealth became known as privatization is a shameful one-and its chapter should be well-marked in the history books of corporate globalization.

Colombia is a tragic example of one of globalization's cruelest casualties. Private Gain = Public Loss; The Shameful Ripoff Of Columbia

In what has been called "the biggest white-collar hold-up in Colombia's history," in the early 1990s a little-publicized incident became a tragic example of how simple linguistic trickery can and does enable the forces of privatization to legitimately steal public wealth.

Back in 1990 Cesar Gaviria Trujillo, a member of Colombia's Liberal Party and elected Colombian president, became neoliberalism's newest convert and an ardent subscriber to the multinational corporate agenda. He opened up Colombian markets for globalization, and the landgrab that followed was to change Colombia's geopolitical landscape forever.

In brief, during the early 1990s Colombia still had five nationalized ports-Cartagena, Barranquilla, Santa Marta, Buenaventura and Tumaco. They were all run by a single organization known as Colpuertos.

When the newly converted neoliberal president Gaviria organized a hugely successful public relations campaign claiming the ports were in a mess, and needed to be privatized, they were subsequently privatized. That precipitated a massive state sell-off of assets and machinery, in which French journalist Maurice Lemoine says, "equipment and tools...vanished into thin air...no inventories of the dock installations, no calls for tenders issued..."

The business of awarding contracts [to private corporate interests] was left to the discretion of a civil servant, the superintendente portuario, who placed them where he saw fit. This was all quickly legalized, under legislation hastily put-together by Gaviria and his cronies.

So it was that Colombia's state assets were transferred to private businesses. But that's not all.

According to Lemoine, "Behind the front men who rushed to land this lucrative deal were all the top brass of the liberal and conservative parties...political leaders like Vidas Lacouture and Davilas, powerful families from the coastal strip, like that of Francisco Villas Cos, cronies of those in power and people to whom the president owed favours..."

At the time, the five ports employed over 15,000 workers, who belonged to eight trade unions and a federation that had won for them major privileges. Gaviria's solution-a massive firing of all 15,000, the likes of which Colombia had never before seen in its entire labor history.

The port installations were then handed over for next-to-nothing to corporations that had sprung up out of nowhere, and to private parties with no experience in this kind of business venture. Further complicating matters, written into the transference contract was a clause that provided that "all...liabilities...be shouldered by the national exchequer...the nation shall...be responsible for paying retirement pensions of whatever kind, other social benefits and compensation and costs for which Puertos de Colombia are liable." In other words, as Lemoine puts it, "the sting was set up and ready...there were going to be lots and lots of costs," not to the profiting parties, but to the Colombian Government-which still hasn't made good on its debt to the workers.

That incident marked the beginning of a state-sponsored corporate ripoff, the ramifications of which still have not been fully realized. It marked one of Colombia's first adventures in privatization; even the word, "privatization" seemed to have cropped up in the vernacular of the Colombian corporate elite almost overnight. The ripple-effect of the mess it created is felt to this day.

Eight years later in Bogota, Senator Ingrid Betancourt called the [Gaviria] privatization scheme, "no more than a diversionary tactic to open the way for the biggest hold-up in the history of Colombia." But it was all perfectly legal under Gaviria's new legislation. So, writes Lemoine, "All these happy incompetents... become instant millionaires."

And, of course, "the ports invoice their services in US dollars."

Just Say No To US Support For Drug Dealers

Now welded into Colombia's sad history, stories like the one above are all too common in the wake of a current corporate fad that is sweeping the globe, and known euphemistically as privatization.

It is worth noting that during this time, with the support of the US Government, ex-president Gaviria has been reinstalled as secretary-general of the Organization of American States (OAS). And, faced with an unprecedented economic crisis, President Andres Pastrana has asked for help from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Tragically, the methods employed by the Colombian military and its paramilitary death squads to maintain stability in order to placate their US/IMF benefactors come at a horrendous cost.

On December 20, 1999, the IMF granted $2.7 billion to Bogota-roughly equivalent, notes Maurice Lemoine, "to the amount that has disappeared into the pockets of the politicians." But IMF loans never come without strings, and the loan to Colombia includes a demand by the IMF for serious tightening-up on the part of the Colombian government. In "IMFese," that means still deeper cuts in already-emaciated budgets for schools, hospitals and roads, reforms in social security and public-sector pensions, greater flexibility in the labor market. The all-too-obvious cure when these gutted state agencies prove inept and unable to efficiently provide their services? Natch-further privatizations.

The history of Colombia with it's impoverished peasant farmers forced to grow a death crop under the watchful eyes of gun-wielding desperados, its government-sanctioned campaign of terror against hundreds of thousands of workers and their labor union representatives (including the systematic deployment of death squads with US weapons) and its genocidal collusion with Big Oil companies including Texaco and Occidental Petroleum in the relocation of the indigenous U'wa people from their ancestral homeland- could still offer a chance of redemption.

The plight of the Colombian people under the relentless onslaught of neoliberalism underscores the need for a closer look at the morality of privatization and its brutal underpinnings. The $1.6 billion aid package to Colombia's military-currently designated primarily for new radar-equipped helicopters, US training to Colombian forces and a fraction (about $31 million) to build Colombia's economy, is only the beginning. It is well understood within the circle of friends, that more US money will be needed-and by then the US investment will be too big to fail.

For now the US aid package serves its purpose-it's a useful insurance policy for Colombia's ruling classes and the forces of corporate privatization. Besides, if the aid package is approved as is, United Technologies Corporation-based in Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd's home state of Connecticut-stands to be the beneficiary of a $400 million contract for the 30 Si-korsky UH-60L Blackhawks, in what the NY Times describes as, "Christmas - not only for the... Colombian military...but also for United Technologies Corporation." That may explain the uncharacteristically hawkish positions assumed by both Senator Dodd and Democratic Congressman Sam Gejdenson.

A competing push was made by Bell Helicopter Textron-the Texas subsidiary of Textron that also happens to produce the so-called Huey II, considered a possible alternative to the Blackhawk. Congress is now debating President Clinton's $1.6 billion aid proposal for Colombia that includes the 30 additional Blackhawks and 32 upgraded "Super-Huey" choppers.

Both Bell Helicopter Textron and United Technologies Corporation are major military contractors and generous political contributors to both major parties. By 1997, sending Blackhawks to the Colombian National Police had become what the NY Times called, "an obsession for several powerful Republican legislators." Colombia represents "a critical foothold in a rich and growing Latin American market," according to industry officials.

The Times reported that in the 1996 and 1998 election cycles, Textron and its employees gave $551,816 to Republicans and $364,420 to Democrats. It was only when the State Department cut financing for some development programs that the plan came under attack by the same Republican legislators who once championed Blackhawks for the Colombian police.

The 30 Blackhawks (along with a temporary fleet of 33 surplus UH-1N helicopters) are intended to fly American-trained battalions of the Colombian Army into the coca-growing regions of southern Colombia dominated by leftist guerrillas. But even if US-trained soldiers succeed in beating back the traffickers and the rebels who protect their operations, they still will do less than nothing to stem the flow of drugs from Latin America-or anywhere else-into the US.

Colombia now sports a whole new class of drug dealers; they've turned in their battle fatigues for silk suits and their pick-up trucks for BMWs; and they have very good friends at very high altitudes, who gravitate in the very same circle of friends as the recipients of that anti-drug money. They are well taken care of by the same military/paramilitary henchmen who will-in the absence of massive protests in the US and abroad-receive $1.6 billion in US taxpayers money.

President Clinton's request for another $1.3 billion is still in committee. Once it reaches the floor of the House of Representatives and the inertia has begun to take hold, it will be more difficult to weigh in. The time to voice your dissent is now.

Sandy Leon is a freelance journalist and producer of news/public affairs programming at Marin County radio station KWMR and KPFA in Berkeley. Her program, 'Global NewsBeat' can be heard on KWMR at 90.5 FM. Her work on Colombia has received national distribution in a documentary entitled, "Narco Cover," distributed by the National Radio Project. Her most recent documentary, "The Tyranny of Corporate Benevolence," is scheduled to be produced in April by the National Radio Project's "Making Contact."



Coastal Post Home Page