I had a mild epiphany the other day: it's not President Bush who's living in a fantasy world, it's most of his critics who are. I'm no apologist for Bush – I neither like nor dislike him. He's no more significant to me than a fly buzzing around outside my window. So permit me to explain my reasoning.

People look at Bush's invasion of Iraq and see a miserable failure. But a failure to do what? Democratize Iraq? Eliminate Iraq's WMD arsenal? Reduce global terrorism? If those were, in fact, the reasons for invading Iraq, then the invasion would have to be classified as a failure. But what if the real reason was to secure Iraq's oil supplies, perhaps not for immediate use, and perhaps not even for use by the United States? Then the invasion of Iraq would have to be judged a success, a "mission accomplished," so to speak.

Or take Bush's seemingly irresponsible handling of the domestic economy. How can any sane person fail to understand that cutting revenue while increasing spending will produce deficits, and that those deficits cannot increase in perpetuity? Sooner or later that accumulated debt has got to have consequences. Bush appears to be acting as if there were no tomorrow. But what if there really were no tomorrow, financially speaking? In that case, the reckless economic policies of today would not only be irrelevant, but might actually be shrewd. I mean, if one knows that he is not going to have to pay back his debts tomorrow, then why not borrow money like crazy today? In fact, if civilization is coming to an end, then why not use all that borrowed money to stock up on guns and vital resources, such as oil?

Now, I'm just one person. And I've been closely studying economic, environmental, and energy issues for only a few years. And I'm no expert. Yet I've come to the conclusion – and I don't want to be a "Chicken Little" here – that civilization as we have known it for the last century is doomed. Our wasteful manner of living – heck, the sheer size of our human population – is unsustainable. Everywhere you look you can see signs of strain on the Earth, from spreading pollution of the air, water, and land, to disappearance of life in the seas, to depletion of natural resources. Something's got to give. Things simply cannot continue as they have.

If I can see this, I would guess the United States Government, what with its thousands of full time experts, probably can too. Now, if you are the government (and I don't mean Tom "I am the federal government" DeLay), and your experts tell you that civilization as we know it is doomed, what do you do? Well, for starters, you do not tell your population of sheeple. That would precipitate panic and result in premature doom, which would consume the government along with everything else. Above all, government seeks to survive, so you would maintain the facade of normalcy for the benefit of your population while you use what time you have left to prepare, as quietly as possible, for the inescapable future.

What will matter in this future? Commodities, principally energy, food, and water. Everything else is secondary. Money is far down the list in importance.

So how would you, the government, prepare for a future world in which commodities are king? By securing today as many of those commodities as possible. Hence, the U.S. government's binge of military base building throughout the commodity-rich regions of the world. What would you not worry about? Money. The only concern you might have for money is to prevent its premature demise. Hence, the smoke and mirrors used to paint a pretty but false portrait of the economy. Some will argue that the government needs more than just energy, food, and water to survive. True, but by controlling the bulk of the world's key commodities, everything else can be procured, including human labor and loyalty.

In preparing for the future demise of civilization you would also seek to increase the government's power as much and as rapidly as possible. Why? To maintain control over those increasingly precious resources, and equally important, to control people – especially your own people – by force, if necessary. Viewed in this light, the government's aggressive pursuit of power during the last five years makes perfect sense. Ironically, President Bush got it right when he reportedly referred to the now totally eviscerated United States Constitution as a "god damned piece of paper." That's really all it is anymore.

So what fantasy world are Bush's critics living in? The fantasy world in which civilization can continue as it has in the past. That we can continue to improve the standard of living of everyone in the world if we just return to a more sharing and egalitarian way of life, like that which we enjoyed between World War II and the mid 1970s. This is a fantasy. The Earth has finite limits. We are finally starting to grasp that fact with respect to oil. But oil depletion is merely the first in a series of coming crises ensuing from the finite confines of our planet. The fundamental problem – and I'm not a Malthusian – is that there are simply too many people for the Earth to sustain. This is why fish are disappearing from the oceans, why the supply of oil is unable to keep up with demand, why the globe is being deforested, why animal and plant species are going extinct, why water wars are in the offing. Perhaps if people were wiser and more willing to share, and implicitly, less greedy, we could sustain the more than six billion people on Earth, but, alas, such idealism does not describe human beings.

The one thing that has enabled the human population to grow to the immense dimensions we see today is oil, the resource facing the greatest challenge from depletion. As the oil supply diminishes, in the absence of herculean efforts to use oil more efficiently and fairly, large numbers of human beings will die off. Before then, soaring prices for oil will probably destroy the economies of the countries most dependent on the stuff, if not the entire intricately linked world economy. This is what I mean by the end of civilization. Of course life will go on. But it won't be anything like what we've been accustomed to. Life will be more like that of the Middle Ages, in which a few wealthy lords controlled all the resources and possessed all the power, and the rest of the people – the lucky ones, anyway – were veritable slaves under these lords. In many ways that state of affairs exists today, but it's unseen by all but the most observant individuals. The future I'm talking about, though, is considerably more spartan than what the worker bees enjoy today.

I believe that what we're witnessing today is the inception of a titanic and protracted competition for survival: between countries, between civilizations, between governments and their people. Moreover, I believe the Bush administration is the first to recognize this competitive future, which explains its fundamentally different – seemingly feckless – behavior compared to past administrations. Bush's favored courtiers, which include corporations, are profiting today and will become the new nobility in the coming New Middle Ages.


Truth and Distractions

The governments of the world, and the U.S. Government in particular, don't want their people to know the truth. Governments usually end up seeing themselves as entities distinct from their people, and usually end up competing against them. That is true of almost every government on Earth today, and is especially true of the U.S. Government. Keeping the truth from people helps a government achieve its goals, for if the people knew the truth they might demand that the government start actually serving them.

One way to keep the truth from people, aside from today's favored approach of simply suppressing it, is to feed them a steady diet of compelling distractions.

Elections are one such distraction. Elections arouse peoples' passions and keep them entertained for weeks or months. Elections even give people the illusion of participation, when, in fact, elections mean absolutely nothing in a country like the United States, which is run by money. Of course, elections are run by, and legitimized by governments.

Sex is another good distraction, both sex scandals and sex-related social issues. Look at how much mileage the media got out of the Catholic Church sex abuse scandals. By comparison, sexual abuses by the government's own schoolteachers outnumber those by the church, but we hear nary a word about them because they reflect negatively on the government, and the media cooperates in keeping this quiet. Sex between consenting adults, which ought to be nobody's business except the participants', also consumes our attention. Look at how much attention people pay to homosexuality. Why is that anybody else's business? It's not, obviously, but it's a great distraction from important things, such as the government's reverse-Robin Hood economic policies. The same with abortion. Abortion is a personal matter for the people involved. It's none of society's business. But government stokes the flames of debate about abortion and it consumes peoples' attention. Sexually transmitted diseases – diseases in general – are also good distractions and have the added benefit of instilling fear in the population.

Crime is a perennial distraction. Even when the crime rate is falling, the government seems to hype the crime statistics, making it seem as if you're putting your life at risk by merely setting foot outside your front door. Of course, "crime" breeds prisons, and prisons empower the government. Given the benefits of crime to the government, it comes as no surprise that the government creates crime by criminalizing harmless behavior such as using drugs or hiring a prostitute.

Religion is also a distraction. Domestically, the fashionable debate today revolves around the separation of church and state. There really ought not be any debate. The United States Constitution is unequivocal: the United States Government shall not recognize any particular religion. End of story. It does not say how states may address religion, but it does say that all powers not prohibited to the states belong to the states. In my opinion, then, if a state wants to recognize a religion, it may do so.

The "clash of civilizations" is perhaps the newest distraction, and a completely contrived one at that. The Muslim-Christian antipathy that exists today is both a religious and a cultural distraction. Decades ago, when we were affluent, we were taught to celebrate cultural diversity on our planet. Today that same diversity is touted as the explanation for the "clash of civilizations." Granted, different cultures are, well, different. But that doesn't mean that conflict must ensue, and for decades there was no conflict. Clearly, the flames of cultural conflict are being stoked. By whom? The governments of the world and the media. For example, just look at how European media companies and European governments colluded recently to provoke Muslims with those silly cartoons. Cultural conflict not only distracts the masses, but it provides governments with a credible justification to increase their power, for instance, to regulate headgear worn in schools and restrict immigration. Of course, "terrorism" is ancillary to this clash of civilizations and serves to intensify anxiety in the population. How many acts of terrorism are actually perpetrated by governments? It's impossible to say, but it's definitely more than zero, a lot more. So why does a government perpetrate an act of terrorism? To create a distraction, to increase its power, or both.

One thing all of these distractions have in common is collusion – intentional or incidental – between the government and the media. The government seems to be involved in all of these distractions to varying degrees, ranging from merely exaggerating the importance of some distractions to actively orchestrating others. And none of these distractions could successfully distract the public without the zealous participation of, and amplification by, the media. One might argue that the media is naturally drawn to report sensational news, as a moth is drawn to light, and most of these distractions qualify as sensational. But I don't think it's purely coincidental that the media relishes these stories when there is so much overlap between the agendas of the government and the corporations that comprise the "media."

Both entities seek to dominate, exploit, and control the "little people." And the little people, being xenophobic, uneducated, and fearful, are easily manipulated in a formulaic manner to help undermine their own welfare. Simply look at their support for Bush, a leader who has systematically attacked their standard of living, not to mention their liberties. All Bush had to do was push a few buttons labeled "religion," "sex," and "culture" to get them to react like Pavlovian dogs. And all this button pushing was, of course, happily assisted by the media.

Resource Competition

We humans like to think of ourselves as so much more sophisticated than "lower" animals. In affluent times and places we can afford to worry about silly things like what movies will win Oscar awards, whether our body looks good at the gym, or where we will take our next family vacation.

But our existence still depends on this fundamental equation: survival = food + water + shelter.

In leaner times, like those we're heading into, the above equation becomes sharply apparent.

Food production today is highly dependent on oil. Oil powers our farm implements, oil and natural gas are ingredients in commercial pesticides and fertilizers, and oil transports food to market. Today food travels as far as 10,000 miles from where it's produced to where it's consumed, which would be impossible without oil. Oil vastly increases agricultural productivity. So it's because of our largess of oil that the human population has been able to grow as large as it has. One might say that humans eat oil. We can, of course, produce food without oil – barring such evil manifestations as crops that are genetically engineered to require the use of petroleum-based pesticides – but without oil food production will be much lower.

Water is a resource we take for granted. We act as though there is no limit to the supplies of water, and that there are no repercussions to our profligate consumption of it. We're building cities in places without adequate water supplies – Phoenix and Las Vegas come to mind – and we're using up vast reservoirs of non-replenishable "fossil" water, such as the Ogallala Aquifer in the American Midwest. Just as we're failing to plan for economic "rainy days," we're failing to regulate our water usage to prepare for a literal lack of rainy days. We seem to think that the replenishable water supply patterns will remain unchanged, an especially optimistic expectation if the Earth's climate is truly in the midst of major change. But the water situation is even worse in some other places than in America. Water delivery is partly dependent on energy, just as food production is. It takes energy to pump water from the ground, to transport it to where it's consumed, and even to treat it. Of course, food production is vitally dependent on water.

I hardly need mention the importance of oil except to say that for the first time in history, the demand curve is passing the supply curve. Moreover, the supply curve will soon be heading downward and we'll find ourselves perpetually chasing this ever dwindling supply downhill. When demand merely exceeds supply the price of oil will increase. But when demand exceeds supply and the supply starts to diminish, then prices will really go up, enough to destroy economies or render impractical the transportation of food and water to some places. But the gap between supply and demand means more than just higher prices. It also means shortages. Those who can afford to buy oil will usually have their needs satisfied, albeit at higher cost. But those who cannot pay the price will do without. Occasionally, even those who can afford to buy oil will be forced to do without because from time to time there simply won't be any oil to buy on the global market, at any price. Imagine going to your local gas station and seeing a sign out front reading "Sorry, no gas." Imagine going to your local grocery store and seeing empty shelves because the trucks that deliver goods to the store had no diesel fuel. Imagine having to bundle up in two layers of sweaters inside your house because you have to make half your normal allotment of home heating oil last the entire winter. These hypothetical scenarios will become reality and will occur with increasing frequency as time goes on.

What's going to happen when people have to vigorously compete for food, water, and energy in order to survive? I think it's going to get vicious. My opinion of humanity holds that in the face of such adversity, it will be every man for himself. Countries will compete against countries. States will compete against states. Cities will compete against cities. Governments will even compete against their citizens. Civilization, in the sense of the word "civility," will be no more. Perhaps genetically engineered terminator seeds, depleted uranium, and exotic diseases are secretly intended to reduce the human population to alleviate resource competition.

Clearly, the U.S. invasion of Iraq is one of the opening salvos in the coming resource wars. And the U.S.'s belligerence toward Iran is undoubtedly due to Iran's possession of vast oil and natural gas resources. Bear in mind that a country need not seek control of vital resources with the intention of consuming them. The country that controls resources can use those resources either as a lever to compel other countries to behave a certain way, or to buy other resources or finished goods, such as weapons and integrated circuit chips.

The End of Money

The 1970s was the apotheosis of the "American Dream." Wedged between the preceding decade of civil unrest and the subsequent decade of recessions, rapidly rising homelessness, and mass layoffs, the 1970s was a comparatively idyllic decade. It certainly had its problems – stagflation, for instance – but even while living during that time I felt it was a special decade. Life was good; people were happy, friendly, and mellow; TV shows and movies were cheerful; civil liberties were at their peak; government power was at its lowest ebb; the country was affluent and at its peak of industrial prowess. It's not a coincidence that the tallest buildings in America were built during the 1970s. Those buildings were icons of American industry and power. Although the Vietnam War raged during the first half of the 1970s, it was in the process of winding down and came to an end by the middle of that decade. The cessation of the Vietnam War was as much a reflection of the peoples' desire to "live and let live" as it was a military defeat. Military conscription also ended in that decade, and even the cold war cooled off because of détente.

Unfortunately, what we didn't realize at the time was that we would never again have it so good. The 1970s represented a "tipping point," to use the popular vernacular, for the American Dream. That was when globalization really started to take off and when the serious decline of American industry began, the steel and auto industries being among the first casualties. Interestingly, the 1970s was also the decade of peak oil production in the United States, after which point we became increasingly reliant on imported oil, which greased our downward slide. What I didn't realize until writing this was how crucial a role President Nixon played in creating this tipping point. Nixon opened the door to trade with China, a major player in today's globalized economy. Nixon disassociated the U.S. dollar from gold, facilitating the destruction of wealth through unrelenting devaluation of the dollar. Nixon launched the war on drugs, a precursor to today's war on terror (or is it the war of terror, I can't tell?). Both the drug war and war on/of terror consume wealth in order to serve the imperial ambitions of the U.S. Government, but contribute nothing to the country's production of wealth.

The 1980s was a decade in which previously accumulated wealth was systematically extracted, mainly through the mechanism of "Merger Mania." The 1980s was a decade of marked industrial and economic decline, which was masked to a large extent by releasing into the economy some of the wealth squeezed out of these mergers, as well as by the massive accumulation of debt. The transformations of the 1980s also introduced a new component: the injection of foreign wealth into the country. Many of the assets sold in the 1980s were purchased by foreigners, especially the Japanese, a trend which accelerated toward the latter half of the decade, highlighting America's economic decline. The 1980s also marked the inception of the mythical "service economy" theory to justify the profitable exporting of American jobs. The economy is like a pyramid. Forming the foundation of this pyramid is the one true source of wealth: natural resources – the free wealth given to us by the Earth and the Sun. Mining for minerals and energy, agriculture, fishing, and forestry are the source of all other wealth. Above this foundation are industries that utilize its products. These second level industries consist primarily of manufacturers that take raw materials and produce something of greater value. Above the manufacturers are companies that serve them, including law firms, advertising agencies, shipping companies, airlines, hotels, restaurants, and even entertainment. As wealth moves up this pyramid a little wealth, constituting salaries and savings, is retained by each level in the pyramid. The myth of the service economy, the darling theory of the 1980s, is that a country could retain the top of the pyramid and outsource the base of it. During the last three decades we have transfered much of the base of this economic pyramid to countries such as China and India and indeed, initially, the money kept flowing to the top of the pyramid which remained in the United States. But after a while, a new top of the pyramid began to form in those countries where we had shipped the base of the pyramid. Witness today not only the exodus of high tech jobs to China and India, but that in those countries pure service companies, such as advertising agencies, are also starting to flourish.

The 1990s was a period of greatly accelerating globalization and economic decline for the United States, aided and abetted by such treaties as NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. Again, this massive decline was masked by the illusion of wealth that persisted during the huge stock market bubble of the latter half of the 1990s. Like merger mania before it, the stock market bubble attracted a lot of foreign wealth. A bit more previously accumulated wealth was extracted from rising human productivity here in the United States during the 1990s.

Finally, the 2000s so far represent an era massively dependent on inflows of foreign wealth. With our previously accumulated wealth now exhausted and little means left for fundamental wealth production, about the only thing keeping the U.S. economy afloat these days is consumer spending and deficit spending by the government, both of which are financed by growing mountains of debt, which is owed to foreigners. The United States has largely been reduced to a nation of people that sell each other hamburgers, with foreigners paying the checks. Asset sales to foreigners continue as well, the failed Chinese bid for Unocal and the not-so-failed Dubai bid to run some of our seaports being prominent recent examples.

During the last thirty years in America two persistent trends are clear: the steady depletion of existing wealth and decline in the means to produce new wealth; and the steady rise of an imperial U.S. Government.

Today, the economic imbalances in the United States economy are so vast that I cannot see how they can be corrected gracefully. Even more astonishing to me is that people keep buying financial instruments like U.S. Treasury bills. Do these investors really believe they're ever going to get their money back? The national debt is so large that paying it down is nearly impossible, especially since there is no political will to either increase taxes or reduce spending. Obviously, the U.S. Government knows it cannot pay down the national debt, which is why it covertly relies on dollar devaluation to reduce the value of the national debt.

It's only a matter of time before the majority of investors in dollar-denominated financial instruments open their eyes and stop buying those assets. When that happens the dollar is doomed. The government's only recourse when it cannot borrow money will be to print dollars, which will only accelerate the dollar's demise, possibly even inducing hyperinflation along the way.

If oil prices skyrocket because of the global supply and demand relationship and harm the U.S. economy, that could accelerate the dollar's demise as well. I personally don't see how the dollar can avoid substantial devaluation, either slowly or rapidly. I hope the decline is gradual.

All of the world's government-issued currencies are in similar straits. None are firmly backed by finite, physical resources, such as gold. Consequently, all currencies have the potential to suffer from devaluation, even more so since the economies of the world's countries are so intricately linked together. If one currency abruptly collapses, especially an important one like the dollar, they could all come crashing down.

Additionally, faith in the world's currencies depends in part on globalization. The willingness of an investor in Japan to buy American dollars depends in part on the investor's expectation of a continuing economic relationship between Japan and America. But in an era where global trade is increasingly challenged by oil shortages, faith in other countries' currencies will diminish too. Countries will increasingly prefer to conduct international trade using universal mediums like gold instead of currency.

If currencies such as the dollar become worthless, even local trade may be conducted using gold or other precious metals. Such trade may, in fact, have to be conducted in black markets, since financially distressed governments will probably seek to confiscate all gold and precious metals from their citizens.

The bottom line is that government-issued currency will be a thing of the past. So how will the government continue to exist?

Acquisition of Resources

Without money or credit, government can only continue to exist through force. The United States government is particularly well endowed in this regard and has demonstrated its willingness to use force to acquire resources, and not as a last resort either.

Iraq's oil is the first such resource to be acquired by military force. Iran's oil and natural gas may well be the next. In the long run, the energy-rich regions of central Asia will also attract the hungry gaze of the U.S. Empire. Of course, other powerful, populous, and hungry countries, such as China and India, will also have designs on these energy-rich regions, which will probably result in significant wars. Oil from the Middle East will probably become so valuable that countries will have to provide a military escort for every tanker carrying oil across the ocean.

Domestically, energy will be controlled by the government. It will satisfy its needs first, corporations will have their needs satisfied second, and the populace will be forced to ration whatever is left.

Food is also critical to the government, comprised, as it is, of people. So it's logical to assume that the government will at some point take control of food production. As with energy, the government will satisfy its own food requirements first, and the populace will be left to ration whatever is left.

If water becomes a scarce or unreliable resource, then we can assume that the government will take control of that as well.

In a future where money has no value, the only way a government can retain people is by providing them with food, water, and shelter. In fact, in a future world where resource competition is the order of the day, people will probably covet a government job – as a bureaucrat, a laborer, or a soldier – simply because it will mean three square meals a day and a roof over their head.

Of course, government needs more than just food, water, and shelter. Government needs weapons, vehicles, computers, communications gear, and myriad other manufactured items. Some of these things are manufactured wholly in other countries, or depend in part on components from other countries. Without money the government cannot buy these things. But it can trade precious resources, such as oil, water, and food, for them. Some critical factories, such as domestic weapons plants, may be taken over wholesale by the government for security reasons.

Slave Labor

Government cannot operate on resources and material alone. It also needs labor. Some of that labor can be "purchased" in exchange for resources. But in order for the government to operate "profitably" it will have to employ slave labor, that is, labor it doesn't have to pay so richly for.

We already have such a precedent. Many of the two million people already incarcerated in this country are veritable slave laborers. They "earn" anywhere from twenty-five cents to one dollar per hour, often working for major American corporations. But in some cases these poor prisoners are then charged room and board for being in prison, thus wiping out their minuscule income. In effect, since they are being forced to work without making any net income, they are slaves. It does not challenge the imagination to envision future slave laborers working in factories manufacturing everything from machine guns to computers, or working on farms to produce food, returning each night to sleep in their prison cells.

The United States military is currently exploring ways to utilize civilian prisoners to satisfy the military's labor needs. It's only a matter of time before they come up with a justification for doing so.

Once the framework for utilizing slave laborers – all nice and legal, of course – is established, it's quite easy to increase the pool of potential laborers, if necessary. The government merely has to criminalize more behaviors. Caught driving your car on the "wrong" day? Three months in prison loading ammunition cartridges. Caught possessing gold coins? Six months in prison assembling computers. Caught saying "subversive" things over the telephone to your aunt? Five years on a prison farm – for the both of you – tending crops. Of course, prison sentences will likely be accompanied by asset forfeiture, that is, if you have anything the government wants. There is already a precedent today for asset forfeiture too, even for minor offenses such as hiring a prostitute or having a marijuana cigarette in your car. Heck, simply walking through an airport today with "too much" cash on your person might result in it being confiscated.

Conclusion

Although this essay has mainly been a description of the United States and its future, much of it is applicable to the world as a whole. Some other countries may well face worse times ahead because they lack the natural resources and/or military might that the United States possesses.

The goal of this essay is not to propose solutions to the many problems facing us, although there are solutions, but to explain the seemingly irrational behavior we see around the world. Viewing the world today in light of the foregoing essay, Bush's actions are understandable, even though I don't endorse them: the competitive pursuit of resources, the rolling back of civil liberties, the carefree handling of the economy.

Copyright 2006 by Dave Eriqat

Remember Rove's infamous remarks concerning the 9/11 tragedy?

1. "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Referring to conservatives, he said that they "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

2. "At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security. Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic-not at all. But it does make them wrong-deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

Powerful propaganda indeed

Both remarks have had the intended effect. Millions of indoctrinated Americans have responded in knee-jerk fashion, blindly waving the flag to support the imperialist, plutocratic, and dictatorial agenda of Rove, Bush and their fellow Zionist puppets of Israel. (Does AIPAC office out of the Black House yet?) Despite their fundamentally flawed logic, Rove's comments sowed the seeds of fear and insecurity deeply into the psyche of many Americans. Throwing critical thinking to the wind (and thus carrying out their programming), many of Bush's loyal minions vilify those who support moral principals such as universal human rights, equality, peace and social justice, labeling them as liberals, socialists, or (God forbid) Communists.

Taking their oversimplification one step further, many who still believe in the fairy tale version of America assume that each liberal must be a Democrat. Never mind that many Democrats have shown themselves to be as devoid of virtue as their Republican counterparts. Many "good Americans" are inculcated with the belief that people with "liberal" beliefs blindly support all Democrats. For those conforming to American groupthink, it is nearly impossible to deviate from the false dichotomies of conservative vs. liberal or Republican vs. Conservative. How comforting for our de facto ruling class that they can count on placid acceptance of their moral turpitude as scores of millions of Americans are too absorbed in working, consuming, and watching television to notice. Don't worry. Be happy.

Who can we scapegoat?

Someone recently asked me how the illegal occupation of Iraq has changed our nation. Since Bush and his cabal used 9/11 as a blatantly false pretense for invading Iraq, I decided to examine how the United States has changed since the WTC collapse.

In his clever sound-bites I quoted above, Rove set up yet another false dichotomy (manipulative people love to use them). According to him, we had only two choices: pursue the 9/11 perpetrators through legal channels and come to realize that our imperialistic, murderous behavior was fueling intense hatred against the United States or go to war. Taking bold legal action to capture and punish those responsible for the WTC collapse while changing our behavior to conform to international law would have made more sense than going to war against a nation which had no involvement in 9/11. However, catching the criminals and embracing legal behavior would have led to indictments against members of the Bush Regime (since substantial evidence now exists that they enabled or caused the 9/11 demolition of the WTC). Besides, respecting human rights and international law would require the current administration to scrap virtually all of their foreign and domestic policies. So, ignoring the rational option and a host of other possibilities which may or may not have made sense, our criminal government invaded Iraq.

Let's take a look and see

Let's compare and contrast "pre-9/11" and "post-9/11" America so we can sharpen the simplistic, distorted images of the two worldviews Rove (AKA Turd Blossom) sought to create with his clever propaganda. Perhaps we can discern whether or not the Bush Regime's policies and actions since September 11, 2001 have been "deeply and profoundly and consistently right".

Muslims do not have a monopoly on extremism

I want to start in my own backyard here in Kansas. The "apocalyptic" event on 9/11 sparked the fervor of the Christian extremists in our midst. Our very own Senator Brownback is making a bid for the Presidency on a platform which essentially promises to convert the United States into a theocracy. After conducting a kangaroo court, a majority of the Kansas State School Board members decided they were both erudite and righteous enough to re-write the definition of science and to open the door to introduce the "theory" of Intelligent Design in our public schools, which one of my sons attends. I feel reassured knowing that his school will teach him that merely observing the complexity of the world "proves" that there has to be an intelligent designer (translated as the Christian deity). Thankfully, he will also learn that the idea of Intelligent Design rivals the Theory of Evolution, despite the fact that Evolution is supported by years of research by thousands of scientists. And what discussion of Christian extremism would be complete without mention of Kansan Fred Phelps, a "minister" filled with hatred and venom?

(Note to Christians who actually follow the compassionate teachings of Christ and employ the mind that God gave you: it is not you whom I disparage.)

Time travel to the Gilded Age anyone?

Recently, my favorite pet store closed. My family and I frequented this "mom and pop" shop often. Their prices were a little high, but they took excellent care of their animals, carried outstanding inventory, and were friendly and knowledgeable. Unfortunately, once Petco erected one of their Big-Box stores in the same parking lot, our pet supplier was doomed. In our metro area with a population of nearly two million, there are a mere handful of small proprietors running pet stores. Thanks to Petco and other corporate behemoths, a multitude of small businesses in our city have folded during the Bush Regime.

On several occasions, my wife's cousin has told me of Wal-Mart's impact on her small home-town in Missouri. The big yellow smiley face brought frowns to most of Brookfield's inhabitants. It cost the taxpayers $300,000.00 worth of incentives to bring a "Super-Store" to town. Little did the unsuspecting residents know that they were paying to enable Wal-Mart to work its "magic", which included driving many small businesses under while offering lower wages and fewer benefits to displaced workers. Always low prices, wages and morals.

Yes, a corporatocracy is a beautiful thing. The minimum wage has not increased since 1997. The number of uninsured Americans has risen to 45 million. Such is life in the "free market" economy touted so highly by Bush and his corporate cronies. But true believers know that our president is doing what is best for the country. Marketers of the American Dream have taught them that soulless corporations (which enjoy many of the rights and few of the responsibilities of a real person) will protect the interests of the working people and consumers.

Since 9/11, Rove and the Bush Regime have steadily eroded government regulation of corporate leviathans. Spinning yarns that would make an unscrupulous salesperson blush, our ruling elites and the compliant mainstream media assure us that most CEOs, whose salaries average 400 times that of their employees and who exist to please their avaricious share-holders, are certain to make decisions which balance ethics with profit. Today's wealthy elite are too morally evolved to engage in the exploitation and passive murder of employees and consumers committed by their predecessors during the Gilded Age. They can be trusted. Post-9/11 America is a wonderful place for small business owners, consumers, and employees. Just think of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Monsanto, the offshoring of American jobs, powerful corporate lobbyists, Nike sweatshops, the military industrial complex, union-busting, the obscene profits of drug and oil companies, and on, and on ….

Murder, mayhem, and sinister motives veiled by "noble causes"

What portrait of the world since 9/11 would be complete without considering America's invasion and colonial occupation of Iraq? The dangerous minds behind the Project for the New American Century, a think tank that outlines strategy for the United States to achieve world military domination, determined that they needed a new Pearl Harbor to launch their quest for global hegemony. 9/11 provided that catalyst. Rumsfeld, Powell and company shrewdly convinced enough Americans of Iraq's culpability for 9/11 (and that Hussein possessed WMD's) that they mustered the necessary popular support to initiate their imperialist invasion. Mark Twain himself could not have penned fiction to top the intricate, suspenseful dramas scripted by the Neocons. Defying the United Nations and violating a myriad of international laws, the United States threw off the last vestiges of benevolence by pre-emptively invading a sovereign nation (whose people it had already been passively mass murdering by the hundreds of thousands through the UN economic sanctions it orchestrated in the 1990's).

The invasion did end the sanctions, but the United States has now actively murdered tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians (anywhere from 38,000 to 250,000 depending on which report one believes---but remember: the US military "doesn't do body counts"). Iraq's infrastructure is in a shambles. Few civilians have access to water or sewage facilities. Electricity is only available for several hours a day. Oil production is well below pre-invasion levels. Chaos and civil war grip the nation. And did I mention the 2,300 Americans who joined the military to protect their country but instead wasted their lives on an ill-conceived plot to expand the American Empire? Mission accomplished, eh George?

Who needs human rights when we have a benevolent dictatorship?

Personally, I liked the pre-9/11 worldview, especially since it included a nearly intact Constitution. Alexander Hamilton would thrive in post 9/11 America, where the Bill of Rights is going the way of the Dodo. I know it is unpatriotic of me while our nation is waging a "war on terror", but I sorely miss the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Maybe I am just spoiled and idealistic, but the Patriot Act, the death of habeas corpus, denial of due process, torture, and illegal domestic spying deeply disturb me. Viewing the world through the quaint lenses of my pre-9/11 worldview, I believe that the vision of America that was born in 1789 could still become a reality. Unfortunately, under the pretext of "national security", the Bush Regime is unraveling the progress that Abolitionists, Populists, Progressives, civil rights activists, and many others made toward the ideals spelled out in our Constitution. America was evolving toward the nation Thomas Paine had envisioned. Now Paine's vision is in jeopardy of dying. The vultures of despotism are eagerly circling to greedily pick the flesh from the bones of democracy's carcass. Remember Jose Padilla, Abu Gharib, Bagram Air Base, Guantanamo Bay, illegal domestic spying, the illegal occupation in Iraq, two stolen elections, 9/11, the Reichstag Fire, the Enabling Act….

In the post-9/11 worldview, consolidation of power into the Executive Branch is necessary to protect us from the terrorists. Since it is now common knowledge amongst the Empire's loyalists that all Islamic people are terrorists, we need to entrust Bush with as much power as possible to maximize our protection. Why bother with the messy constraints of a system of checks and balances when we can have one man, particularly one the caliber of George Bush, making the decisions based on his beliefs and the directives he receives from God. Occasionally Congress raises its head and grunts an objection at Emperor George when Senators like Schumer and Clinton think it will further their political careers to show people they can flex some muscle, but most of the time our legislative branch rubber-stamps the edicts from the Black House. Bush has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a rogue with no respect for that "God-damned piece of paper" housed at the National Archives or those pansy international laws (probably written by the French). You think any self-respecting Texan is going to let those wooden-shoed, tulip tending ultraliberals at The Hague tell him what to do? Hell, he doesn't need FISA's approval to spy on Americans, let alone a bunch of "foreigners" telling him how to run his country. The sad reality is that George Bush is the world's most dangerous terrorist. His stockpile of WMDs surpasses those envisioned in Saddam Hussein's wildest imaginings, he is not afraid to use them, and he is quite adept at using them without firing them. W is the new sheriff in town. Bush only submits to one Earthly authority. Israel dictates US foreign policy when it is not too heavily engaged in its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Hey, Big Spender…

As of 3/15/06, our national debt was $8.28 trillion and was increasing by an average of $2.1 billion per day. Prior to 9/11, the United States was less than $5.8 trillion in the red. We obviously had a pre-9/11 problem, but the Black House's post-9/11 worldview involves addressing the problem with a brilliant solution: keep borrowing more from Japan and China, continue increasing military expenditures (which already account for 60% of global military spending), advance more cut taxes for the rich, and persist in choking off social programs which benefit humanity and the environment.

Welcome to the "Third World", New Orleans!

Some of you nostalgic dreamers with a pre-9/11 worldview might remember Mardi Gras, the Big Easy, and the birth-place of jazz. You might also remember the passive mass murder committed by the Bush Regime as they did virtually nothing to prepare for Katrina, despite warnings about the inadequacies of the levees that came as early as 2001. In fact, under Bush, the federal government reduced funding intended to strengthen the levees and whittled FEMA down to a shadow of its former self. There is now video evidence that Bush received a briefing the day before Katrina struck which alerted him to the magnitude of the storm; his response was to ignore it. Apparently, he chose to act based on a post- 9/11 worldview and let local authorities contend with the storm. At least give him credit for flying over and waving at New Orleans from Air Force One after the storm had passed. And Mother Bush did pay a visit to the Astrodome to remind Americans that the Katrina evacuees were "underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them." Thanks to the criminal negligence and ineptitude of our federal government (which collects the lion's share of tax money from We the People and is mandated by the Constitution to "promote the general welfare"), thousands of people are dead or missing and a major city lies in ruins. How peculiar that most of the dead and missing are poor and black. What an odd coincidence.

I owe my soul to the company store….

I yearn for the days when so many Americans hadn't traded their souls and freedom for an SUV to drive (paying big dollars for gasoline gives them self-justification for their hatred of Muslims), magnetic "Support the Troops" ribbons (at least we now have a replacement for the plastic Jesus), a McDonald's on every other corner (a scapegoat for unhealthy eating habits), Wal-Mart (to keep prices, wages, benefits, and competition low), the DHS (to play Big Brother and keep them safe), and free market capitalism (so they can keep buying more "stuff"). Yet I wonder, did a time truly exist during my adult life when massive numbers of Americans were not spiritually bereft, or was I simply one of the consumer zombies and thus unaware of the problem? I conclude it was probably the latter. Thankfully, I was able to wrest my soul free from the tenacious grip of the American Corporatocracy, and I intend to help as many as I am able to reclaim theirs.

My conclusion?

After some reflection, it would appear that America's pre-9/11 worldview was much more rational, logical, and conducive to continued human existence on this planet than the post-9/11 worldview. Karl Rove spoke of a pre-9/11 viewpoint as "deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong." If that is true, let's go back to being "wrong". I am neither Democrat nor Republican, but in this case, I cast my vote definitively on the side Mr. Rove characterized as Democrat.

As Rove mentioned, I think we need to "prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers". After all, the Bush Regime is full of criminals and sociopaths. In light of his low key yet powerful role in the Bush dynasty, let's put Mr. Rove behind bars and on the couch first. Perhaps Mr. Fitzgerald will accomplish that task in the near future.

Final Note:

In many previous essays, I have detailed numerous actions that a person with a social conscience can take to challenge the malefactors who are destroying our constitutional republic and wreaking havoc on the world. Now I am suggesting yet another. It is only a start, but it is simple and has a chance of success if enough people participate. I understand that it is easy to lapse into deep cynicism, but our democracy is on life support, not dead. If We the People exercise what is left of our Constitutional rights, there is a chance we can reclaim our nation. If we don't, we have thrown in the towel and lost.

Please click on the link below to support the Censure and Impeachment of George Bush:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/635

Jason Miller is a 38 year old free-lance activist writer with a degree in liberal arts. He is a husband and a father to three boys. He earns his living as an account representative for a finance company. His affiliations include Amnesty International, the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com

Copyright: Jason Miller

The report, by leading human rights groups, presented to the UN Security Council today, asks for urgent measures to control the proliferation, including agreement on an international arms trade treaty.

The call for reform is backed in a letter by, among others, the Nobel laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Jody Williams and Oscar Arias; the former UN high commissioner for human rights Mary Robinson; the actors Helen Mirren, Christopher Ecclestone and Tony Robinson; the author and activist Arundhati Roy; Lt-Gen Romeo Dellaire, who led UN forces during the Rwanda genocide, and the Albert Schweitzer Institute.

"Today, millions of people around the world are living in fear of armed violence," the letter says. "They have good reason to be afraid. Most victims of armed violence are not uniformed soldiers, nor even fighters, but ordinary men, women and children.

"In 2006, the world can make the first step towards bringing the arms trade under control, by starting negotiations on an international arms trade treaty.

"What we are calling for is not revolutionary. It simply consolidates countries' existing and emerging obligations under international law into a universal standard for arms sales. But it has the power to save hundreds of thousands of lives."

The dossier, by Oxfam International, Amnesty International and International Action Network on Small Arms describes how companies and individuals have been involved in illicit transactions in weapons.

Four UK companies were named in UN embargo reports in the past 10 years. None are known to have faced prosecution by the British government.

The proposed treaty has the backing of 45 countries, including the UK and other members of the EU as well as Britain's Defence Manufacturers Association. However, the US, Russia and China, responsible for a large percentage of world arms exports, are yet to give support.

The report, UN Arms Embargo: An overview of the last 10 years, points out that, despite UN mandatory arms embargoes being legally binding, many member states have not made their violation a criminal offence.

UN teams policing the embargoes are given "woefully inadequate resources and time" to pursue wealthy companies with influential vested interests. There are also numerous examples of corrupt officials covering up arms transfers with the use of faked documentation.

Campaigners say the structure of embargoes and sanctions needs to be overhauled. Between 1990 and 2001, only eight of 57 conflicts, in some of the poorest countries on Earth, led to UN action and then only after widespread human rights abuse and bloodshed.

The dossier uses the example of a Serbian company, Temex, which, according to the UN, delivered nearly 210 tons of arms and ammunition to Liberia in 2002. It included "five million rounds of ammunition; 5,160 guns, 2,500 hand grenades, 6,500 mines and 350 missile launchers.

"These shipments include enough bullets to kill the entire population of Liberia ... and enough to keep an armed group of 10,000 fighters supplied for a whole year," it says.

As one of 11 "non-employee" directors, Myers will earn $200,000 a year, according to a company spokesman. Half of that sum is paid to the company's 12 directors in stock.

The company will hold eight scheduled board meetings this year, two of which are conducted by phone. The Pentagon's former top general will also serve on the Northrop Grumman board's Compliance, Public Issues and Policy committee, a job that will undoubtedly make good use of his Washington experience.

"Dick Myers brings to our board outstanding leadership credentials and a deep understanding of the national security challenges facing our country today," company chairman and chief executive officer Ronald D. Sugar said in a statement. "He will be an excellent addition to our board and we look forward to benefiting from his contributions."

ThinkProgress has learned that NBC anchor Chris Matthews has received tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for delivering speeches to corporate interest groups. Matthews's speaking engagements appear to be in direct violation of NBC's policy prohibiting its employees from accepting such fees.

Last week Dave Johnson of Seeing the Forest documented Matthews's speaking engagements, but was unable to confirm whether he was paid.

In 2002, Howard Kurtz reported in the Washington Post:

I've been critical of journalistic buckraking since the mid-1990s, when I wrote about a $30,000 speech that Sam Donaldson had given to an insurance group… The issue began to fade as a number of news organizations, including ABC and NBC, banned the practice.

Three trade associations independently confirmed to ThinkProgress that Matthews spoke for hefty fees on several occasions, as recently as last year:

- The National Venture Capital Assocation (NVCA) confirmed that Matthews spoke at its 2005 Annual Meeting. NVCA told Think Progress that it booked Matthews through the Washington Speakers Bureau and that he received a fee of approximately $35,000. He received speaking fees from NCVA on at least two other occasions.

- The National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS) confirmed that Matthews spoke at its 2001 Annual Meeting. NACDS said it booked Matthews through the Washington Speakers Bureau and that he received a fee for speaking.

- The American Hospital Association (AHA) confirmed that Matthews spoke at its 2005 Annual Meeting. AHA said it booked Matthews through the Washington Speakers Bureau and that he received a fee for speaking.

In an email to ThinkProgress, MSNBC President Rick Kaplan said information that Matthews was paid to speak to outside groups was, "Totally untrue… totally." He provided no evidence to support his claim.

UPDATE: On Thursday, we were contacted by MSNBC President Rick Kaplan who elaborated the blanket denial ("Totally untrue… totally") he provided to ThinkProgress pre-publication. According to Kaplan, while these groups may have paid fees for Matthews to speak, the fees did not go to Matthews directly, but to a charity of Matthews's choosing. Kaplan added that NBC policy prohibited anchors from personally accepting speaking fees and anyone who did so "would risk being fired."

The ACLU said in a statement that the bill would allow "Americans' phone calls and e-mails to be monitored for 45 days without any court oversight and makes court review after that period optional" -- in violation of the Fourth Amendment's guarantees against unreasonable searches.

"Congress cannot approve an illegal program when so many questions remain unanswered," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU's Washington legislative office. "When the rule of law has been broken by anyone, especially a president, the proper response is a full and independent investigation."

The bill would give the government up to 45 days to monitor calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists when one party is in the U.S. and the other is overseas. Like Bush's existing program, the government would not have to get court approval.

After 45 days, federal officials would have to stop the eavesdropping, get a court warrant or explain to House and Senate intelligence subcommittees why the monitoring must continue.

Joining DeWine in sponsoring the legislation are Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. The senators have working closely with the White House, which has said it generally supports their approach.

Since shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the National Security Agency has monitored the international communications of people inside the United States when their calls and e-mails are believed to be linked to al-Qaida.

The government normally has to get a court order to monitor domestic communications, but Bush signed an executive order directing the NSA to conduct the operations without a judge's approval.

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

At a news conference in Washington, some of America's most influential conservative leaders said the current perception among evangelical Christians was that the Republican majority was not doing enough for them.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said that apart from confirming two conservative judges to the Supreme Court, "core values voters" did not feel that Congress was advancing their interests.

The leaders appear to be reflecting a growing sense of frustration among the Christian right, over what they see as a lack of legislative progress on issues such as banning same-sex marriages.

And while this was not quite a call to arms, it will cause concern in Republican circles in the run-up to the mid-terms.

Exit polls suggested that more than three-quarters of white evangelical Christians voted for President Bush in 2004.

But according to a recent opinion poll, the number of them who want Republicans to retain their Congressional majority is not much above 50%.

Anyone who doubts that the priorities of government are dangerously warped should consider what is -- and isn't -- being done in Washington to cope with the potential disasters that preoccupy ordinary citizens.

We are about to begin the fourth year of a terrible, bloody and expensive invasion of a crippled country that posed no threat to us at all -- a foolish adventure that we supposedly undertook to protect ourselves from weapons that we ought to have known did not exist. Yet during those three years of war, the same officials in the White House and Congress who insisted on spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and on tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens in America have refused to spend far smaller amounts that might begin to protect us from real dangers.

Six months after the invasion of Iraq came the discovery of the first confirmed case of "mad cow disease" on American soil. On Monday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture confirmed a third U.S. case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in a dead cow in Alabama.

As is true in so many important government agencies, the officials who oversee the safety of our food supply regulate the same industries in which they formerly worked, and in which they surely expect to work again. At the USDA, these officials predictably emphasized the "good news" about the alarming incident in Alabama, namely the advanced age of the cow, which was supposedly born before restrictions on dangerous feeding practices went into effect several years ago. Evidently they weren't quite certain about the reassuring good news, however, because the cow is about to be exhumed to ascertain how old it really was.

Whatever the age of that poor Alabama beast, the most alarming news about mad cow is that the Bush administration -- with the usual collusion of the Republican Congress -- plans to reduce testing for the disease from minimal to minuscule. From now on, the government will test approximately 40,000 of the 36 million cattle slaughtered annually in this country, or less than one-tenth of 1 percent -- a far lower percentage than in Europe, where mad cow devastated agriculture and killed 150 people, or in Japan, where officials took heed of those unhappy events.

Evidently those nations don't feel overburdened by the expense of safety testing, but here our officials try to save every penny so that we can spend as much as possible on crooked contractors in Iraq.

The mad cow embarrassment, which has so far inflicted suffering mainly on American beef exporters, fades in comparison with the government's frighteningly tardy, feeble and stingy response to the prospect of an avian flu pandemic in this country. With disease-bearing birds almost literally on the horizon, the latest advice from Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt was none too comforting: Store some cans of tuna and some boxes of crackers under your beds, he said -- and don't expect much help from the federal government if and when the pandemic strikes.

The pandemic threat, whose conceivable cost may be measured in millions of lives and trillions of dollars, has likewise been known for at least three years. The government's own top experts have been urging the Bush administration to invest in vaccines and improvements in the public health infrastructure since 2002. (Actually, the Government Accountability Office first warned of the influenza danger, and the inadequacy of federal preparation, in October 2000 and has issued five critical reports since then, according to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.) But the White House and its friends on Capitol Hill did nothing to address the problem until a few months ago. And much of what they did until then actually made matters worse -- again in the name of saving money.

By cutting public health services, a conservative trend in government that has worsened under Republican rule, all levels of government have diminished their capacity to save lives in the event of a pandemic. Although the fear of bioterrorism briefly created a countertrend, particularly during the Clinton presidency, when federal, state and local governments started to create stockpiles of medicine and equipment and perform disaster drills, the underlying situation remains poor. President Bush finally asked Congress for $7.1 billion to prepare for a possible pandemic last fall, but to date the Republican leadership has appropriated less than half that amount. Even health experts at conservative think tanks are beginning to question Congress' failure to act.

Saving what are literally pennies compared with what we squander every month in Iraq, Republicans have insisted on trimming funding from public health budgets every year. In 2005, for example, they cut $105 million in aid to local public health agencies. (To understand the appalling results of these policies, and why they have left us so vulnerable to a pandemic, consult Effect Measure, a superb blog written by anonymous public health officials.) And the Bush "plan" for dealing with a pandemic, while spending significant amounts on vaccine production, provides only $350 million for state and local preparedness, or about $70,000 for each of the nation's 5,000 local health departments. At the same time, the president's latest budget called for $130 million in cuts to state and local health agencies. There is still no real national plan to deal with a pandemic, and the official in charge of handling the problem -- a crony of former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson -- has just resigned.

Instead of cutting budgets for public health, we should be spending billions more annually, not only at home but also abroad, where disease threats can be stopped at their source. The World Bank estimates that the first year of a flu pandemic would cause at least $800 billion in global economic losses, but other estimates run into the trillions. So perhaps our "fiscal conservatives" can think of public health spending as business insurance, rather than as liberal do-gooding that merely saves lives.

Lavishing billions on war (and war profiteers) while shortchanging health is right-wing idiocy at its worst and most destructive -- and we may soon pay an intolerably high price for it.

The reports provide a glimpse of internal police evaluations and strategies on security and free speech issues that have provoked sharp debate between city officials and political demonstrators since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The reports also made clear what the police have yet to discuss publicly: The department uses undercover officers to infiltrate political gatherings and monitor behavior.

Indeed, one of the documents--a draft report from the department's Disorder Control Unit--proposed in blunt terms the resumption of a covert tactic that had been disavowed by the city and the federal government 30 years earlier. Under the heading of recommendations, the draft suggested, "Utilize undercover officers to distribute misinformation within the crowds."

Asked about the proposal, Paul Browne, chief spokesman for the New York Police Department, said Thursday: "The NYPD does not use police officers in any capacity to distribute misinformation."

Use of police vehicles praised

Browne also said the "proactive" arrests referred to in the report--numbering about 30--involved protesters with pipes and masks who he said presented an obvious threat.

In another report, a police inspector praised the "staging of massive amounts" of armored vehicles, prisoner wagons and jail buses in the view of the demonstrators, writing that the sight "would cause them to be alarmed."

Besides the draft report, the documents released Thursday included four final reports written by commanders to assess police performance during the World Economic Forum, which convened in New York from Jan. 31 to Feb. 4, 2002.

Security was extremely tight around Midtown Manhattan, where the delegates to the economic forum were meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria, and demonstrators were kept blocks from the hotel.

Officials spoke of violence during anti-globalism protests at other high-profile gatherings in Seattle and Genoa, Italy. But in the end, as one of the police reports noted, "the amount of confrontation and number of arrests were lower than expected."

Parts of that document and others were made public, over the objections of the city, by a federal magistrate, Gabriel Gorenstein, who said the excerpts went to the heart of a lawsuit brought by 16 people arrested at an animal-rights demonstration during the economic forum. The police said they were blocking the sidewalk and had refused to obey an order to disperse; the demonstrators said no one told them to move.

Many of the issues in the animal-rights case, which challenge broad police tactics and arrest strategies, resonate in more than 100 other lawsuits brought against the city by demonstrators who were arrested at war protests, bicycle rallies and during the Republican National Convention.

Daniel Perez, the lawyer representing the people arrested at the animal-rights demonstration, argued that the police tactics "punish, control and curtail the lawful exercise of 1st Amendment activities."

The Police Department and the city have said that preserving public order is essential to protecting the civil rights of demonstrators and bystanders.

Opponent: Files indicate policy

Perez maintains that the police documents, taken together, show a policy of pre-emptive arrests. The draft report discussed how early arrests could shape future events. "The arrests made at West 59th Street and 5th Avenue set a 'tone' with the demonstrators and their possible plans at other demonstrations," the report stated.

The same tactic is cited in another report, dated Feb. 8, 2002, and signed by Capt. Robert Bonifaci, commander of the Queens North Task Force. Bonifaci wrote, "It should be noted that a large part of the success in policing the major demonstration on Saturday, Feb. 2, 2002, was due in part to the proactive arrest policy that was instituted at the start of the march at 59th Street and Fifth Avenue, and directed toward demonstrators who were obviously potential rioters."

Elaborating on the report, Browne, the police spokesman, said plainclothes officers saw a group of demonstrators put on masks as they drew near the Plaza Hotel, then take out metal pipes and try to rush police lines.

Demonstrators arrested during the economic forum were held by the police for up to 40 hours without seeing a judge--twice as long as people accused of murder, rape and robbery arrested on those same days, Perez said.

Browne said the arrests were processed as quickly as possible and that protesters were not singled out for longer detention.

The reports, which were heavily edited at the city's request, also discuss the use of undercover officers at the protests. Capt. Timothy Hardiman wrote that "the use of undercovers from narcotics provided useful information."

The FBI sees it differently, saying the bureau was monitoring activities and even photographed a November 2002 leafletting by the Merton Center in Market Square because of a person already under FBI investigation. "Once that comparison was made, and determined to be of no value to the ongoing investigation," said an FBI spokesman this week, "the photos taken at the event were destroyed."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the Freedom of Information Act request last year to obtain documents on behalf of more than 150 organizations and people in 20 states, isn't comfortable with that explanation, and it shouldn't be. But it's not suing either.

The FBI's description of the Merton Center is not some crazed and concocted version from the Red Scare days. It called the group a "left-wing organization advocating, among many political causes, pacifism" and said its efforts in 2002 "focused on its opposition to the potential war with Iraq." It's the kind of boilerplate account one could find on a political Web site, so what's the fuss?

The fuss is that any group of political dissenters has a right to wonder what information is being gathered and what assessment is being placed in a federal file when the White House sees itself above the law on how to monitor other Americans. We're referring, of course, to the Bush administration's disregard for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, under which a special court must approve warrants for the National Security Agency to electronically eavesdrop on international communications by people in the United States with suspected links to terrorists.

Despite the 1978 law's clear stipulations for how the NSA should monitor such contacts, the Bush administration has espoused a cavalier, civil-liberties-be-damned attitude. Shades of J. Edgar Hoover.

Now put yourself in the shoes of a benign protest group like the Thomas Merton Center, which has been opposing American wars and criticizing administrations since the Vietnam era, and it's easy to see how a dissenter can feel uneasy. Dissent, by its nature, is unpopular, but it has come in for special attack by this administration for being anti-American and anti-democratic.

It is just the opposite.

The FBI, which has an important law enforcement role to play, may be right in its description of events. But the Bush administration's callousness toward the law casts a shadow over agencies like the FBI. It also stirs suspicions that are warranted among people who are merely exercising their constitutional right to dissent.

That's life, unfortunately, in George W. Bush's America.

The loss of life was a blip in the 2001 national mortality data, roughly equal to the number of AIDS deaths in New York that year and three per cent of the national number of those who die every year from medical errors and malpractice. Bush has already killed at least ten times as many innocent Iraqis and almost as many American military personnel in a war piggybacked on the "Pearl Harbor" for which he wished after taking office earlier in the year.

There is a rush to replace the World Trade Center with something or other but inaction to replace the houses of the hundreds of thousands who lost their homes to Hurricane Katrina. However, "everything changed after 9/11" has become the mantra used to justify any scurrilous behavior, and that is the reason that 9/11 really is of enormous significance. It is not only a war-justifying "Pearl Harbor"; it is a "Reichstag Fire", justifying an empire-seeking police state.

The President and his cabal have used this new paradigm to make war without a declaration by Congress, to ignore international law, and to regard the Constitution and Bill of Rights as inoperative whenever the "Commander-in-Chief" so chooses. (That Bush prefers this English translation of "Der Führer" to "President" is not encouraging.)

With the aid of the media, virtually everyone in the government, Democrats not excepted, has been terrifying the public with the "terrorist threat", although there are vastly more numerous and certain threats to our life and limb. The money spent to x-ray luggage and smell shoes at airports would be better devoted to inspecting the mechanical flight worthiness of the planes. However, the Michigan woman in the small town of Paw Paw who wrote her newspaper to endorse warrantless search and seizure, would not agree- it protects her from terrorists, she believes. Just as the war on godless communism was used to justify spying on John Lennon, Martin Luther King, and Frank Sinatra, the new war on "Islamic terrorism" has already been used to snoop on environmental groups, the antiwar movement, and anyone who uses the internet.

The long run consequences of all this make 9/11 indeed devastating. Since World War Two, the military has received a huge share of the discretionary federal budget- although there has been no potential enemy with the will, the wish, or the means to invade us- and this share will now grow substantially, freezing out even more constructive domestic spending. The combination of this with economic policies favoring concentration of private wealth- and that it be untaxed- means exponentially growing deficits, which will ultimately be paid by the working class when the national debt is reduced by hyperinflation.

Our leaders' use of 9/11 has already taken away our freedom, has caused much of the civilized world to despise us, and by the commitment to permanent war against everyone who is not with us, has vitiated the present and future living standards of most Americans. Whoever was actually responsible for 9/11- and whatever their motives- it is we who have made it a victory for anyone wishing to destroy us.

Art Hilgart - Email: ahilgart@kzoo.edu

When the Bush administration gets in trouble, it turns to war, which has worked for it in the past. Thus, this past week there was live coverage of "Operation Swarmer," which occupied a solid day on CNN and Fox "News." The venerable Washington Monthly reports that the hyped "assault on Samarra" was nothing but a Potemkin operation – a set propaganda piece to demonstrate U.S. military prowess and the battle-ready "new Iraqi army," only there were no insurgents in Samarra to battle. The much-hyped "Operation Swarmer" was a photo op for TV cameras as troops fired into empty desert.

One can imagine the thoughts in Bush's mind: "Thank goodness I didn't capture bin Laden. Maybe he will strike again and bail me out."

What is going to rescue Bush? Not the Republican Party. A few Republican congressmen, such as Walter Jones, are trying to get a debate going, but Republicans believe that they are stuck to the fate of their man. There is no one within the administration to turn Bush toward diplomacy and away from coercion.

Created on the principle that "you are with us or against us," Bush's administration is all of one mind. They are all neocons. There are no real conservatives or traditional Republicans in the Bush administration. This is the first administration in my lifetime in which there is no debate. The absence of debate means there is no check on reckless and ill-advised policies and corrupt schemes.

Neocons don't believe in debate. They specialize in slandering critics and stamping out debate. Dissent is not possible within the Bush administration, because dissent is equated with treason and anti-Americanism. "You are with us or against us." Increasingly, Republicans demonize their critics as "abettors of terrorism." The Republicans' intolerance for debate makes many Americans uneasy about the real purpose of the $385 million detention camp that Halliburton is building in the U.S. for the Bush administration.

Neocons don't believe in diplomacy. They believe in coercion. Neocons denigrate diplomacy as the epitome of weakness. Neocons slap down diplomacy before it can rise. The Iranians offered talks, and neocon National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley immediately slapped down the offer as "simply a device by the Iranians to try to divert pressure that they are feeling." The Bush neocons are bent on war with Iran. They don't want any talks. In their books, neocons have demonized Muslims in the same way that the Nazis demonized Jews. Demonization makes talks impossible.

On March 17, William Rivers Pitt declared Bush to be "deranged, disconnected, and dangerous." But what else to expect from a neocon administration that declares that it creates its own reality and mocks its critics for being "reality-based"? Neocons insanely believe that American power can be used to recreate the world in America's image. Neocons are dangerous because they really believe that the U.S. can invade the Middle East, deracinate Islam, and install puppet governments.

These disconnected neocons are not shaken by facts or by results. Their evil eye falls on U.S. field commanders and CIA analysts who declare that the U.S. military is creating insurgents faster than it can kill them.

Creating your own reality means that when you cannot put down a resistance based in 5 million Iraqi Sunnis, you attack 70 million Iranians, who are allied with 15 million Shia in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine.

The Bush administration is sending every signal that it is determined to go to war with Iran. Will the rest of the world block the American aggression, or will the rest of the world decide that it is in the world's best interest for the hubris-driven hegemon to exhaust itself in conflict in the Middle East?

A thank you to readers: I appreciate the support demonstrated by your anger at the neocon Web site, FrontPageMag, for slandering me. But to put a different light on the matter, let me ask you, what would you think of me if I were praised by FrontPageMag? Isn't it preferable to be denounced by the neocon brownshirts? What better secures my reputation?

Neocons are incapable of debate, because they don't believe in it. Neocons rely on disinformation and deceit to impose their agenda.

Neocons do not believe in the U.S. Constitution, civil liberties, the separation of powers, or the Geneva Conventions. According to published reports, President Bush described the Constitution as "a scrap of paper." Bush's attorney general, vice president, and secretary of defense have openly defended the Bush administration's practice of torture, violations of habeas corpus, and illegal spying. These high officials, in violation of their oath of office, have openly declared that Bush, as commander in chief, is above the law.

What American ever expected to see the safeguards against tyranny put in place by the Founding Fathers removed in the name of providing security against terrorists by a president who purports to believe in original intent?

Neocons are Jacobins. They are a foreign import and do not share our American values. Neocons are a grave danger to the United States and to the world. Neocons have led America into two gratuitous ongoing wars that cannot be won, and they are determined to lead us into more wars. It is our duty to defend our country and to oppose these evil people.

In a startling, ominous decision-ignored by most of the press around the country-Federal District Judge David Trager, in the Eastern District of New York, has dismissed a lawsuit by a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, who, during a stopover at Kennedy Airport on the way home to Canada after vacation, was kidnapped by CIA agents.

Arar was flown to Syria, where he was tortured for nearly a year in solitary confinement in a three-by-six-foot cell ("like a grave," he said). He became, internationally, one of the best-known victims of the CIA's extraordinary renditions-the sending of suspected terrorists to countries known for torturing their prisoners.

Released after his ordeal, Arar has not been charged with any involvement in terrorism, or anything else, by Syria or the United States. Stigmatized by his notoriety, still traumatized, unemployed, he is back in Canada, where the Canadian Parliament had opened an extensive and expensive public inquiry into his capture and torture. The United States refuses to cooperate in any way with this investigation.

Maher Arar sued for damages in federal court here (Maher Arar v. John Ashcroft, formerly Attorney General of the United States, et al.). Representing Arar for the New York–based Center for Constitutional Rights, David Cole predicts, and I agree, that if Judge Trager's ruling is upheld in an appeal to the Supreme Court, the CIA and other American officials will be told "they have a green light to do to others what they did to Arar"-no matter what international or U.S. laws are violated in the name of national security.

Following the dismissal of Arar's case by Trager (former dean of Brooklyn Law School), Barbara Olshansky (deputy legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights) underscored the significance of what Trager has done to legitimize the Bush administration's doctrine that in the war on terrorism, the commander in chief sets the rules. Said Olshansky: "There can be little doubt that every official of the United States government [involved in the torture of Maher Arar] knew that sending him to Syria was a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and international law . . . This is a dark day indeed."

To fathom the darkness of Trager's decision that Maher Arar has no constitutional right to due process in an American court of law for what he suffered because of the CIA, it's necessary to be aware of a decision directly on point by New York's Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 1980.

In this landmark decision, Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, David Cole points out, the appeals court decided that "the prohibition on torture was so universally accepted that a U.S. Court could hold responsible a Paraguayan official charged with torturing a dissident in Paraguay . . . The [U.S.] court declared that when officials violate such a fundamental norm as torture, they can be held accountable anywhere they are found." (Emphasis added.)
Passport Art & Culture

That 1980 Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision proclaimed: "The torturer has become the pirate and slave trader before him . . . an enemy of all mankind." (Emphasis added.)

The kicker is that this decision giving American courts jurisdiction over cases of official torture in other countries was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2004 (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain).

Now let us hear how Judge Trager justifies his dismissal of Maher Arar's suit for the atrocities he endured in Syria because of the CIA. In his decision, Trager said that if a judge decided, on his or her own, that the CIA's "extraordinary renditions" were always unconstitutional, "such a ruling can have the most serious consequences to our foreign relations or national security or both."

A judge must be silent, even if our own statutes and treaties are violated! What about the separation of powers? Ah, said Trager, "the coordinate branches of our government [executive and legislative] are those in whom the Constitution imposes responsibility for our foreign affairs and national security. Those branches have the responsibility to determine whether judicial oversight is appropriate."

Gee, I thought that the checks and balances of our constitutional system depend on the independence of the federal judiciary, which itself decides to exercise judicial review.

Judge Trager went further to protect the Bush administration's juggernaut conduct of foreign policy: "One need not have much imagination to contemplate the negative effect on our relations with Canada if discovery were to proceed in this case, and were it to turn out that certain high Canadian officials had, despite public denials, acquiesced in Arar's removal to Syria."

"More generally," Trager went on, "governments that do not wish to acknowledge publicly that they are assisting us would certainly hesitate to do so if our judicial discovery process could compromise them."

But judge, the Canadian government itself is now actively involved in an inquiry to discover, among other things, what happened to Arar, and how. And in Europe, there is a fierce controversy over whether governments there have been covertly involved in facilitating the CIA's kidnapping of terror suspects from other lands.

Is it the job of a federal judge here to protect other governments from embarrassment and eventual punishment by their own courts for helping the United States commit crimes?

And what about our own government's criminal accountability? The February 17 New York Law Journal noted that "Judge Trager said that even assuming the government had intended to remove Maher Arar to Syria for torture, the federal judiciary was in no position to hold our government officials liable for damages 'in the absence of explicit direction by Congress . . . even if such conduct violates our treaty obligations or customary international law.' " (Emphasis added.)

If independent federal judges cannot hold our government accountable, who can? Fortunately, Judge Trager is not on the Supreme Court. But look at whom George W. Bush has appointed to be our custodians of the Constitution!