Banner Meant to Disparage Kerry Reveals Republican Psyche
A closer look at the Kerry "Banner" Joke backed by the Republicans?
The Republicans have left themselves wide open for criticism with this "Halp me!" banner held up by "all white" soldiers in IRAK!
What? No Minorities In Iraq? Check out the photo of the now infamous banner held up by soldiers in Iraq! All white soldiers! This banner is a real bad joke and the Republicans are telling it to disparage Kerry! Or is it they think only white folks are smart enough to make a sign like this???
Sorry… but this Republican blunder is not lost on me.
If I was black or any other minority I would be furious! Consider the psychology behind this blunder!
How easy it is to show the Republican racist mindset by re-airing this banner and generating a discussion that asks the Republicans, "Why are there no minority soldiers holding up this banner?"
Kerry's Joke, Funny or Not.....
Sure, Kerry goofed in terms of political gamesmanship (what's new?) but... Kerry is, like it or not, an intellectual. He tends to out-think himself and the audience he is attempting to woo. Kerry was telling a JOKE that proved to be too intellectual (with too fine of a distinction) for our dumbed-down Americans to get at the level he intended them to "get it." He was referring to George W. Bush who is self-admittedly not intellectually curious and whose transcripts show he was not the brightest of students (even though he had the winds of academic prestige at his back). As a rule Americans, in recent decades, detest really "smart" people. Smart, ain't cool ya see. The truly cruel joke is on those who actually "try" very hard in life and "throughout life" to better understand their world and the many perspectives the world offers to those willing to learn. Often, their reward is contempt and mistrust from those who don't quite follow the results of the perpetual student's concerted efforts to better understand a specific part of life or life in general.
...but more important than the "botched joke" is that Kerry touched on a truth (a nerve) we Americans have long swept under the lumpy rug of denial or are too dumb and/or stubborn to accept. Let me prepare everyone for what I am about to say. You will notice I don't use the terms "all" or "none" or "every." I use terms like "most" and "many." There are exceptions to what I say and many of them but.... the overwhelming number of those who join our military forces are NOT well educated. I challenge to anyone to prove this statement wrong. In recent weeks the Army lowered an already low educational and citizenship entry bar to military service. it's a fact folks.
Historically, many recruits barely made it through high school. Many sign up before ever graduating high school. Many choose the armed services over jail. Many are poor and see themselves doomed to a life as a second-class citizen and see the military as their only option (a last chance) to defy poverty and social injustices. These facts do not mean these young folks are necessarily dumb. Hardly. These facts do mean the recruits I described are not well educated. These facts mean we Americans are dumb if we keep pretending we are sending waves of rocket scientists and/or war heroes destined to be immortalized in bronze statues. Most Americans are content to send mostly poorly educated kids to magically morph into men and women "over there" while fighting wars that our leaders claim will keep those of us who stay home nice and comfy "over here." It is easy to see why so many keep cheering the underprivileged youth of this nation to go fight "over there." I find this the cruelest joke of all and it is on those kids we call soldiers.
A nation that can not or will not face irrefutable facts, i.e., truth is doomed to fail as a nation.
Kerry's JOKE did not offend me or our troops. The truth associated with the joke, on the other hand, offends me and should offend our troops, in that, most well-financed and well-educated young Americans feel (and they won't admit this) they are too damned good and important to "waste" their time, maybe a limb or two (like the Republican swift-boated Max Cleland) or maybe their privileged life in some god-forsaken place like Iraq.
Perhaps an intellect like John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, should stop trying to charm his way to the presidency. Kerry, sadly, lacks charm. But does Kerry's unfortunate lack of charisma make him mean or anywhere near as mean-spirited as those who "swift-boated" his service during his bid for the presidency?
Until the U.S. citizenry, i.e., electorate, matures and educates itself to a level that permits issues and not jokes (funny or not) to sway their votes and shape their politics we are doomed to have snake-charmers on our school boards, in our city councils, and in every other den of governance all the way to the White House.
More and more we elect actors. Think about that! Actors! As if politicians are not well-trained enough to lie to us we elect actors! Many Americans don't want disturbing truths to come from their politicians. They want to be comforted and entertained. "Tell me what I want to hear," is far too pervasively the American voter's plea.
We elect heroes like the "The Terminator" and "The Gipper" to save the day. George W. Bush, with Karl Rove's expertise guiding him, actually pretends to be an actor. He smiles and tells the American people exactly what everyone would like hear. Iraq is a threat to you BUT TRUST ME, I WILL SAVE YOU!" "Iraqi will welcome us with open arms, TRUST ME!" "Mission Accomplished!" "We are winning in Iraq...!" he smirks with that charming Texas grin. We are winning the War on Terror!" Whoa, whoa, whoa... ughmmm.... OSAMA?
Reality seems not to matter to the American people. Just keep telling us warm fuzzy things.
So who do we elect next? Harrison Ford (he played a president!)? Robin Williams?
If not actors, we elect silver-spooned, silver-tongued personalities to smile and nod and to make us feel all good inside.
America the Adolescent! It is high time we grow up!
Folks, unlike Kerry, I offer no apology if my comments seem a bit stuffy, academic, or aloof... for they are anything but. They are simple, easily verified facts. Don't waste your time trying to refute what I have said. On second thought... maybe the research would do ya good! Hmmm?
Our troops are what they are just as I am what I am and you are what you are. Glorification of any human being is, inherently, a distortion of the facts about that one. You know it. I know it.
The grand-daddy of all jokes is to deny the truth. Simply wanting the truth to be this or that does nothing to change reality.
Does anything I have said offend you or our troops? Only if the truth offends you should you feel offended. Friends, the truth offends and insults me and my beliefs often. I don't always get it right but I have learned to welcome the discomfort of being wrong... and being right. I chose truth, any day, over being right or being misled or feeling good in error.
The truth sometimes hurts but the cancer of denial eats away one's being and a nation's collective soul, often in the painless bliss of ignorance.
Whitney Debates in Chicago at UIC
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – November 1, 2006
WHITNEY TO PARTICIPATE IN SECOND NON-PARTISAN DEBATE
CONTACT:
Dave Sacks, Office Manager
Whitney for Governor, 773-557-9411
office@whitneyforgov.org
Rich Whitney, the Green Party's candidate for Illinois Governor, will participate in a non-partisan gubernatorial debate, sponsored by the Illinois Free and Equal Elections Coalition (FREE) and the University of Illinois Student Government on Wednesday, November 1st, 2006.
Mark McCoy, the Libertarian Party write-in candidate, Randy Stufflebeam, the Constitution Party write-in candidate, and Independent write-in candidate Marvin Koch, have also confirmed participation in the debate. The debate will be held at the UIC Cardinal Room, Student Center East, in Chicago, Illinois. The debate will begin at 6:30 pm with doors opening at 6:00. Venue address and contact information are as follows:
University of Illinois Chicago (UIC)
Cardinal Room, Student Center East
750 S, Halstead
Chicago, IL
(312)-996-3456
An independent poll of 600 likely voters, conducted by the Glengariff Group on October 13-15 showed that "an overwhelming 77% of the state’s voters believe the gubernatorial candidates should hold televised debates before election day" and "70% of the state’s voters believe these debates should include Green Party candidate Rich Whitney." 80% of Independents, 70% of Republicans, and 65% of Democrats believe Whitney should be involved. The results also showed Rich Whitney polling at 16% amongst central Illinois voters, and 15% amongst Independents, while drawing equal support from Democrats and Republicans statewide.
"It's very unfortunate that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to run away from his civic responsibility to put his ideas to the test of a thorough debate with all ballot-qualified candidates. All candidates were invited to the debate that is to take place this evening at the UIC student center in Chicago. This may be considered an extension of the open challenge that I issued on October 10th; but whether they appear or not, the voters will at least have an opportunity to hear my point of view, as well as a couple of candidates that would have probably been on the ballot with me, if not for Illinois' extremely repressive ballot access laws," said Rich Whitney.
Whitney is not a write-in candidate and will appear on the General Election ballot in November, as the Green Party's candidate for Governor.
MORE INFORMATION:
www.whitneyforgov.org
www.freeandequal.org
America, Is it Spooky to Speak Out? It Shouldn't Be!
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law: See How!
The [Republican] party that supposedly champions states rights seeks to eliminate every state governor's role in the deployment of National Guard troops to control "domestic" unrest or, in essence, dissent. Bush was first paranoid about foreign terror and now he fear you and me. If you protest his policies he no longer needs you governor's approval to deploy National Guard troops to silence the dissent. If your state's citizenry decries this president he now can declare martial law and send in the troops to silence you and your fellow citizens... anywhere, anytime he chooses.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
The least that can be said and perhaps the most important thing to say about this is, "Don't Be Afraid!" Fear, more than bad law itself, is what paralyzes justice. A bad law is only as strong as its subjects are weak. It remains law only as long as its subjects remain complacent.
Perhaps we should we take notes from Nelson Mandela. There is no end to our ability to disagree with our leadership... unless we *acquiesce. We should never see "an end" to our ability to disagree and to do so publicly. Generations of U.S. citizens have not only allowed but have cheered for our young men and women to go "over there" and fight our battles. Are we spoiled? We seem to be so eager to send our own flesh and blood to fight and die "over there" so we don't have to fight here at home. Perhaps this Bush embraced idea that if we fight "over there" so we don't have to fight "over here" is not such a good idea after all. Really, don't we home bodies end up spoiled rotten? The first sign of resistance here at home and we shut our mouths and our minds to avoid the discomfort that would surely accompany the expression of our true feelings, thoughts, and beliefs.
The vast majority of our 300 million strong citizens appear, to me, to be spoiled. For so long, we have done all our fighting "over there" with little cost to us "over here." To date and since the beginning of his invasion of Iraq the greatest Bush challenge to U.S. citizens is to keep shopping. Why send our youth to possibly die "over there" when we are as scared as lost puppies "over here" of our own president. Why are we so scared? We the people are the government but we act as if we are powerless. Frankly, the whole mess sickens me. I was never a good citizen until year 2000. When I saw the Chinese Fire Drill of an Election take place (no offense to the Chinese) I first truly realized our nation was in trouble. I was confused, angry, and determined to do more than "vote and then shut the hell up" as our leaders love for us to do. Politicians have placed such a high premium on voting that U.S. citizens, just like I had done for years, feel the crown jewel of their duty as a citizen is the act of voting. Voting is vital but in today's political climate voting my be at best a good start toward citizenship; at worst a well-intended but meaningless act. We must speak out.
Our leaders love nothing more than for us to vote and then to "shut the hell up."
If you allow your employer to disallow your (total) freedom of speech your employer becomes a proxy censorship police force for the government. Consider this carefully. Who owns our government? Business. In particular, big business. It is the rule, not the exception that employees are not to talk politics at work... unless, of course it is politics in favor of the companies' political goals and agendas. Friends, an employer is an employer. Have we forgotten what this relationship is really about? You are paid to provide work (a service) to your employer. You are not an indentured servant. You are not paid to be a political pundit, a shill, or a walking blob of silence. You are an employee, a free employee... and as such remain a free man or woman. Free to think independently. Free to speak to another employee about who "you" are and what "you" think about any given topic. This is America, is it not? Employers who strong-arm their employees into silence should be challenged. You have every right to do so. Recent decades of politics have elevated, especially, large corporate employers to god-like status while rendering employees little more than throw away robots. This is wrong and a first step into corporate fascism. CEO and upper rmanagement wages go up and up while everyone else's wages go down and down. How much clearer must the trend be made before working U.S. citizens say enough? If you cannot work free... you cannot play free, if you cannot play free... you cannot pray free, and on and on goes the domino list of can nots.
I have to backed up the following words in demonstrative terms. No law (written, spoken, or unspoken) that violates our Constitution or the spirit of its preamble will shut me up. I write. I will continue to write. I don't support sending kids over seas to become men and women "over there" but none-the-less I feel obligated to never shut up because so many of our mostly young soldiers have died "over there" so we "over here" retain rights we are guaranteed in our constitution. How cowardly to allow our kids to die "over there" when we older, more mature, citizens "over here" are not only afraid to fight wars our generation starts but cower at the first sign of oppression from within our own borders. Osama bin Laden achieved at least part of his goal on 9/11 and has been chipping away at greater goals ever since and via Bush's increasingly paranoic domestic policies. Bin Laden silenced the average U.S. citizen, our entire press, and even Congress in Bush's bid for war on Iraq. The Bush administration was Osama's greatest tool and ally in the process. Bush turned anyone who disagreed with him openly into treasonous villains. Now the U.S. citizenry, congress, and our press sit by quietly as Osama bin Laden guides Bush's hands as they tighten the screws on liberty as we know and love it. Don't you see the irony? Bush condemns Osama for that which he (Bush) is guilty. It is impossible to give up rights to protect them. It is insane to think giving up our rights will somehow preserve them. It might be spooky to be speaky but nontheless speak out and speak out loud.
Happy Halloween! Don't Be Afraid! Halloween comes and goes, as do bad laws.
Note: Below is a sample sentence used to define "acquiesce" from the Oxford American Dictionary Thesaurus that came with my computer. I mention this because I have noted several such examples referring to Bush. Most of these examples seem to expose some rather disturbing Bush traits and practices. Interesting, is it not?
*acquiesce
verb
Bush wants to ensure that Beijing will acquiesce in a possible American war against Iraq accept, consent to, agree to, allow, concede, assent to, concur with, give the nod to; comply with, cooperate with, give in to, bow to, yield to, submit to; informal go along with.
verb [ intrans. ]
accept something reluctantly but without protest : Sara acquiesced in his decision.
Freedom of speech, including to express dissent, is the foundation of all other rights. Shake the foundation and the crumbling begins. Bush seeks to crumble our rights in the name of fighting terror and while supposedly delivering democracy to Iraq.
The article below explains precisely how Bush is stealing your liberty, bit by precious bit.
-----------------------------
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Frank Morales
October 26, 2006
In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1).
It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."
For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.
The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton.
That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration.
An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism."
Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.
Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration.
Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors."
Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders."
A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."
In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."
Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."
The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact.
The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders."
In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4)
It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator.
Source:
(1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006
(2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122
(3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006.
(4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.
:: Article nr. 27769 sent on 27-oct-2006 03:18 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=27769
:: The incoming address of this article is :
towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
Whitney Receives News-Herald Endorsement
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – October 30, 2006
WHITNEY RECEIVES NEWS-HERALD ENDORSEMENT
CONTACT:
Dave Sacks, Office Manager
Whitney for Governor, 773-557-9411
office@whitneyforgov.org
Rich Whitney, the Green Party candidate for Illinois Governor, has received the endorsement of the Southwest News-Herald, Chicago's largest circulation, community newspaper.
The News-Herald stated that Whitney "has solid ideas for the state."
"I'm honored to have the endorsement of the Southwest News-Herald. It's always refreshing when a publication is willing to make its endorsement based on the issues, rather than politics as usual," said Whitney.
The endorsement is a reversal of the paper's policies, as the News-Herald had resisted making endorsements in the past.
The most recent Chicago Tribune poll shows Whitney at 13% support, unprecedented for a new party in Illinois and quite impressive, considering that Whitney has spent little money and less than half of voters are currently aware of his campaign.
Whitney dismissed speculation that his polling results are due only to widespread dissatisfaction with his opponents, emphasizing that his positions on the issues are what most Illinois voters prefer.
"This campaign is giving people positive reasons to vote for me, and we're seeing those ideas resonate with the public," said Whitney.
Rich Whitney has also been endorsed by the State School News Service.
MORE INFORMATION:
www.whitneyforgov.org
www.swnewsherald.com
Bush Administration Political Appointee Reverses Endangered Species Protections for Nation’s Wildlife
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
October 30, 2006
Bush Administration Political Appointee Reverses Endangered Species Protections for Nation’s Wildlife
Conservation Groups Call for Investigation of Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald
Washington, D.C. – Department of Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald and other Interior Department officials repeatedly distorted scientific findings to prevent the protection of species under the Endangered Species Act. Echoing a call from the Union of Concerned Scientists to restore scientific integrity to the Interior Department, conservation groups throughout the West have called upon Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to determine which other species may have been denied protection by MacDonald’s actions, to reconsider the decisions made with her interference, and to ask for MacDonald’s resignation.
While the Endangered Species Act requires that decisions be made solely on the basis of the best available science, MacDonald, an engineer with no biological training, reversed numerous scientific findings without any biological justification, and in some cases directly edited the documents herself.
“The Endangered Species Act’s wisdom is to provide protection for endangered wildlife and plants based on biological need, and to buffer them from political whims,” stated Nicole Rosmarino, conservation director of Forest Guardians. “Secretary Kempthorne has a duty to ensure agency biologists are not bullied and the best available science is upheld.”
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act confirm that internal findings produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the Gunnison sage-grouse, Gunnison’s prairie dog, white-tailed prairie dog, roundtail chub, Mexican garter snake, and a Mariana Islands plant should be considered for endangered species protection, but in each case, MacDonald or another high level official ordered the biologists to reverse their findings. For several of these species, MacDonald personally edited the findings to reverse their conclusions (documents available upon request).
"The Endangered Species Act works well precisely because it is rooted in the best available science," said Erik Molvar, Wildlife Biologist with Biodiversity Conservation Alliance. "How can we ever hope to achieve good stewardship for our most critically endangered plants and wildlife, when the scientific findings are being reversed by a political appointee?"
“That a high level political appointee with no training in biology is rewriting the conclusions of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists to deny protection to some of the nation’s most imperiled species is a travesty,” added Noah Greenwald, conservation biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Bush administration has an unwritten policy to systematically deny wildlife protection, dooming them to extinction.”
A 2005 survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility exposed pervasive political interference in scientific decision-making at the agency. Over 300 agency scientists responded that they knew of cases where political appointees at the Department of Interior had interfered with scientific determinations, and 84 scientists reported having been directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientific documents.
“Endangered plants and wildlife have a tough enough time without politicians manipulating the science,” said Erin Robertson, staff biologist with Center for Native Ecosystems. “It’s time for Secretary Kempthorne to dismiss Julie MacDonald and fix her illegal decisions.”
The Bush administration has listed fewer species under the Endangered Species Act than any other administration since the law was enacted in 1973, to date only listing 56 species compared to 512 under the Clinton administration and 234 under the first Bush administration. The Bush administration has listed so few species in part because it has been denying species protection at record rates. Of all the endangered species listing decisions made under the Bush administration, forty-seven percent denied protection as compared to only 13% during the last five years of the Clinton Administration. Meanwhile, nearly 300 species languish on the candidate list without protection.
“The Endangered Species Act is incredibly effective at saving species from extinction, but can only work if imperiled species are actually provided the protections of the Act by being listed as threatened or endangered,” stated Mark Salvo, Director of the Sagebrush Sea Campaign.
For a complete listing and additional information on the many species that were subjected to reversals, please see the full version of the release on our Native Ecosystems web site
For additional documents on the white-tailed prairie dog, please visit Native Ecosystems - Species
Contact Information
Erin Robertson, Staff Biologist, Center for Native Ecosystems, (303) 546-0214
Erik Molvar, Wildlife Biologist, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, (307) 742-7978
Dr. Nicole Rosmarino, Forest Guardians, (505) 988-9126 x156
Noah Greenwald, Center for Biological Diversity, (503) 484-7495
Mark Salvo, Sagebrush Sea Campaign, (503) 757-4221
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance
P.O. Box 1512, Laramie, WY 82073
(307) 742-7978 - maggie@voiceforthewild.org
Action and Inaction
Activists for Restraint and Talking Heads for Action
I find it incredibly interesting and disturbing this time-tested observation of mine, one I cannot escape. Bringing this observation to the point of action, i.e., writing about it, are two C-SPAN programs aired today, October 29, 2006.
-----------
Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change
Scott Ritter
Description: In "Target Iran" former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter warns that the next phase in the war on terror could be with Iran. While in conversation with New Yorker magazine's Seymour Hersh, Mr. Ritter criticizes the Bush administration for its claims that Iran is a major threat, and insists there are no production facilities to bomb. This event was hosted by the New York Society for Ethical Culture in New York City.
Author Bio: Scott Ritter served as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq 1991 to 1998. He is the author of "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the UN and Overthrow Saddam Hussein," "Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America," "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and For All."
and
War By Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror
John Yoo, Kenneth Starr, Jeffrey Rosen, Gary Schmitt
Description: In "War By Other Means," John Yoo argues that the traditional balance of powers must shift to the executive branch when America is at war. The author, former assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, details his involvement in the Bush Administration's war policies. Mr. Yoo is joined by George Washington University School of Law's Jeffrey Rosen, Pepperdine University School of Law's Kenneth Star and Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute to discuss presidential authority during the current war on terror.
Author Bio: John Yoo is a professor at the University of California at Berkley School of Law. He worked as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice from 2001 to 2003 and is the author of "The Powers of War and Peace."
----------
Ritter speaks with passion but more importantly he speaks to hard logical, reasoned, cogent, consistent, consilient; clear, lucid, articulate; intelligible, comprehensible facts. I use this somewhat redundant list of descriptors to emphasize the clarity of Ritter's message as presented on the program named above.
Ritter, an activist by any definition, encourages restraint. Restraint is a form of inaction. Inaction in American culture often carries a negative connotation. However, in a more universal sense inaction is revered as an exercise demonstrating wisdom. Ritter, a Marine and former UN weapons Inspector, is certainly no stranger to "action" yet he encourages, rather emphatically, restraint when concerning the use of U.S. military force to achieve Bush administration stated objectives. Ritter more comprehensively and clearly than all the droning talking heads combined explains his position of restraint.
John Woo, Kenneth Star, Jeffrey Rosen, facilitated by PNAC's Gary Schmitt have just spent an hour wallowing in an academic and esoteric discussion of U.S. political history and use their completely disjointed discussion to "explain" why current president Bush, with his preemption policy, should be given expanded war powers. Their discussion is so incredibly disjointed it is impossible to even attempt to refute it... and this is precisely their goal. Confusion is the mainstay of neo-conservative politics.
Friends, these neo-conical, motionless bodied talking heads are yapping like Chihuahua's to incite military action, knowing they will have no self-endangering part in that action. They will yap and yap until the door is opened and then run and hide in the dark, comfortable safety under the cushy couch to which they have become so accustomed. They, unlike Scott Ritter, have not peered down the barrel of an AK-47 in Iraq while literally putting their lives on the line to find WMD. No... the neocons, from the safety of U.S. prestige and position, rattle sabres for war and to give Bush more authority to declare and implement such.
I find it incredible that sit-there-and-talk talk talking heads promote action, even preemptive military action while a real man of demonstrated military action pleads with Americans to call upon Bush and our Congress to restrain themselves from seeking military solutions to problems, i.e., threats, that do not really exist. In essence, Ritter, a man of action pleads for inaction.
There is an irony in this observation. Privileged intellectuals discuss "what to do" in an atmosphere of historical politics having no bearing on the conditions of the day much less anything to do with present day world affairs. They quote Jefferson, Madison, and a host of long dead men in an almost comical stream of reference to nothing. These men would likely turn in their graves if they heard their sentences uttered as pretext to yet another war on Iran. They would have to ask themselves, "where is Iran?" The ancient nation of Iran was historically known to the West as Persia until March 21, 1935. The neocons routinely create an academic blizzard made of political rhetoric to disguise their list of meaningless facts. Their discussion does not relate to real time, real life's day to day realities on the ground in Iraq and Iran. The discussion among the neo-conservative talking heads offers absolutely no hard logical, reasoned, cogent, consistent, consilient; clear, lucid, articulate; intelligible, comprehensible facts. This time, I use this somewhat redundant list of descriptors to emphasize the meaninglessness of the neocon message as presented on the program named above.
Friends, stuffy academic heads having never truly experienced the fears, and relentless horrors of war lack at least two qualifications to present themselves as experts on war and the execution of war.
1) The obvious: Firsthand and personal experience with the fears, and relentless horrors of war.
2) An ability to sympathize or even approach empathy for those who do personally experience the fears and relentless horrors of war.
Our retiring generals, in droves, are now speaking out about both the wrongful invasion and incredibly incompetent and corrupt execution of the war on Iraq. Whether or not they should have resisted their Commander in Chief while in service, they are now speaking out.
Whether or not active generals should resist their Commander in Chief while in service is, however, an important matter when considering Bush's intensifying effort to invade Iran. As this effort grows and becomes a greater presence on the news please remember that silence from our military leaders is NOT a sign of their approval to invade Iran. These military leaders are simply honoring their oath.
Think about this. Do you want generals faithfully serving their Commander in Chief only because of an oath they had taken? Whether or not you believe in war at all would you not rather have your military leaders and their troops on the ground fighting a war they believe in rather than one they are simply sworn to fight? Human nature teaches us those fighting for principle are much more loyal and effective fighters than those fighting simply to honor a signed contract. In the context of war, the latter reason for fighting is a shallow one indeed. Our enemies, our real enemies, are definitely fighting for principle. When we send our troops into battle and they go simply to honor their contract (and/or with hope of getting part of their education paid for) we bestow upon them a critical disadvantage from the beginning. To me, this a cruel thing to do. We become Americans exploiting Americans.
Please think about this. I hope you will remind friends and family to ask themselves, "is restraint or inaction necessarily a bad thing? Is action always a good thing? Remind them, "anyone chanting or drumming or cheering for war should search their soul and determine if they too wish to fight and place their physical well-being on the front line; if they too, are willing to pull the trigger or push the button that leaves an innocent ten year old child limbless, perhaps lifeless. Cowards allow and even cheer on others to fight their battles. Someone you send to war will kill kids. It's their job, stated so or not. Don't be a coward. Don't be an accomplice. Don't deny reality.
Don't just act to be acting. Do nothing when nothing is warranted. We know Iraq warranted doing nothing. Iran warrants doing nothing. If you must act, act to convince those itchy, nervous gotta-go- do-sumpthin' leaders in our White House and Congress to restrain from military action Iran.
