Save The Tigers - Piss On The Fur Coats.

If you ever see anybody wearing an animal skin, such as in a coat or collar, rip it off their body, throw it on the ground, and urinate all over it. If you don't have the time or opportunity to pull your pants down first, then just go right through them. But make sure that person never again puts on that tragic symbol of genocide against the amazing animals that share this earth with us.

UK Guardian Reports That Murdoch's Newspapers Have Thousands Of Illegal Wiretaps On Public Figures.

The UK Guardian is reporting that employees of Rupert Murdoch's newspaper NewsWorld have illegally tapped thousands of private telephones of public officials, sports figures, and others, in England, and have paid hush-money to try to cover up their crimes.

A smaller version of this story originally surfaced several years ago when it was discovered that some NewsWorld associates had hacked into phones of some staff of the Royal Family. At the time, several investigations were conducted but concluded that these were "Lone Hackers," that they had acted without the knowledge of anyone higher up at NewsWorld. NewsWorld denied any involvement. That was a lie.

In addition to illegally wiretapping the phones of public officials, the employees of Murdoch's news corporation were also hacking phones of sports figures and heads of sports organizations. A little gambling action on the side, perhaps? Talk about inside information -- knowing the state of mind of key players, or even details of strategy, could lead to a fortune in sports gambling. Or, of course, knowing what politicians intend to do could give someone the ability to make billions in advance by using insider information not available to others. Let's hope England digs a little deeper this time and gets not just a list of who was bugged, but also delves into the question of the purpose of the secret wiretaps. It was more likely done for financial gain, than just for gossip.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/murdoch-papers-phone-hacking

"Murdoch papers paid £1m to gag phone-hacking victims."

"Rupert Murdoch's News Group News­papers has paid out more than £1m to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of his journalists' repeated involvement in the use of criminal methods to get stories."

"The payments secured secrecy over out-of-court settlements in three cases that threatened to expose evidence of Murdoch journalists using private investigators who illegally hacked into the mobile phone messages of numerous public figures to gain unlawful access to personal data, including tax records, social security files, bank statements and itemised phone bills.

Cabinet ministers, actors and sports stars were all targets of the private investigators."

[The newly-discovered evidence] "may open the door to hundreds more legal actions by victims of News Group, the Murdoch company that publishes the News of the World and the Sun, as well as provoking police inquiries into reporters who were involved and the senior executives responsible for them. The evidence also poses difficult questions for"

• "Conservative leader David Cameron's director of communications, Andy Coulson, who was deputy editor and then editor of the News of the World when, the suppressed evidence shows, journalists for whom he was responsible were engaging in hundreds of apparently illegal acts.

• "Murdoch executives who, albeit in good faith, misled a parliamentary select committee, the Press Complaints Commission and the public."

• "The Metropolitan police, which did not alert all those whose phones were targeted, and the Crown Prosecution Service, which did not pursue all possible charges against News Group personnel."

• "The Press Complaints Commission, which claimed to have conducted an investigation, but failed to uncover any evidence of illegal activity."

"The suppressed legal cases are linked to the jailing in January 2007 of a News of the World reporter, Clive Goodman, for hacking into the mobile phones of three royal staff, an offence under the Regulation of Powers Act. At the time, News International said it knew of no other journalist who was involved in hacking phones and that Goodman had acted without their knowledge."

"But one senior source at the Met told the Guardian that during the Goodman inquiry, officers found evidence of News Group staff using private investigators who hacked into "thousands" of mobile phones. Another source with direct knowledge of the police findings put the figure at "two or three thousand" mobiles. They suggest that from all three parties and cabinet ministers, including former deputy prime minister John Prescott and former culture secretary Tessa Jowell, were among the targets."

".... "Several famous figures in football are among those whose messages were intercepted."

"The paperwork from the Information Commission revealed the names of 31 journalists working for the News of the World and the Sun, together with the details of government agencies, banks, phone companies and others who were conned into handing over confidential information."

[When sued in one case and presented with evidence of these crimes] "News International ... started offering huge cash payments to settle the case out of court, and finally paid out £700,000 in legal costs and damages on the condition that [the person who sued] signed a gagging clause to prevent him speaking about the case. The payment is believed to have included more than £400,000 in damages. News Group then persuaded the court to seal the file on Taylor's case to prevent all public access, even though it contained prima facie evidence of criminal activity."

"Former Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil described the story last night as 'one of the most significant media stories of modern times'. 'It suggests that rather than being a one-off journalist or rogue private investigator, it was systemic throughout the News of the World, and to a lesser extent the Sun,' he said. Particularly in the News of the World, this was a newsroom out of control." To which I would add: Well, yes. Rupert Murdoch's empire is a "newsroom" out of control. They lie, deceive, defraud, cover-up, conspire, promote fascism and hatred and racism and sexism and everything which is intended to destroy our democracy.

And now it turns out they wiretap sports figures and politicians, breaking the law, covering up their illegal activities, paying hush money to people to silence them, getting courts to "seal" files to keep the truth from the public. How about if our corrupt politicians get off their lazy asses and investigate this guy, break up his "Empire Of Evil," then deport him.

Was Murdoch illegally wiretapping Democrats, then turning that over to Bush-Cheney? We know Bush-Cheney was illegally wiretapping whoever they wanted, presumably for political purposes, and they got away with it because Congress refuses to hold them accountable, passed a special law to prohibit lawsuits against the telephone/utility companies which would have allowed discovery of the names of every person who was illegally wiretapped. Congress has acted to cover up this crime, prevent the public from finding out the truth, protect Bush-Cheney above all else. But why?

We know that Murdoch's Whorehouse at Fox was on the phone every morning with the propaganda wing of the white house dictating to them what story, what lies they should spread that day. Were they acting together -- Murdoch in the private sphere, Bush-Cheney using the offices of the government -- to get illegal wiretaps on every single Democrat in the country?

The most obvious benefit from wiretapping politicians and sports figures is the ability to use secret information for personal gain. If the politicians say they will vote for a new weapon, for example, buy stock in the weapon-maker's company before the public is told that the new weapon will be funded by the government. And of course knowing the inside details of sports players' physical and mental condition before games is an enormous boost in trying to figure out which team to bet on. Is it likely the Murdoch paper and its people risked being thrown in prison just to get some silly gossip about who was sleeping with whom? I'd look for money.

Should we expect an investigation, hearings, perhaps prosecutions in our country about whether Murdoch has been illegally wiretapping our Democratic politicians? How about the baseball players, football, basketball?

Our politicians, so many on the payroll of Murdoch, will probably do nothing, pretend this has nothing to do with us. Under the No Change administration of Obama, the public is entitled to know nothing, everything must be covered-up, information is even more secret and classified than it was under Bush-Cheney, and the looting of our country, and the wars of aggression, must continue unabated. So I would expect nothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/09/news-world-phone-hacking-claims

Don't expect media coverage of this in the U.S. After all, Murdoch owns most of the media in the U.S., and he won't cover it. And "Our" Democratic Congress refuses to enforce the laws to bust up Murdoch's monopoly control of the media, order him to divest himself from this massive ownership of the media which makes our public more stupid and mean every day.

How many U.S. politicians were wiretapped in their home, office, cell phones, by Murdoch and by the criminal wiretapping program run by the Bush-Cheney administration. Is it likely Murdoch would do it in England but not in the U.S.?

Why is it AG Eric Holder refused to admit to Senator Feingold that the warrentless wiretapping program run by Bush-Cheney was illegal? Is it because too many Democrats are being blackmailed by information obtained by the right-wing by illegal wiretaps? Is this how the right-wing continues to control our country? Are they blackmailing every single Democrat in national government? Is that why the Democrats refused to prosecute the financial criminals from Wall Street, refuse to prosecute the Bush-Cheney insiders for international war crimes?

Or is this just wistful thinking? Is everything so desperate that I prefer to think "our" Democrats are victims of a heinous crime involving blackmail, rather than just seeing them as corrupt sleazy sell-outs?

UPDATE: London police announce they have completed their thorough investigation (in 7 hours time, total, surely a record) and concluded no further investigation is warranted. It must be nice to be rich. Keep those pesky old police from interfering with your campaign to destroy the world. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090709/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_newspaper_privacy

The Future Of Food: Agri-Business Is Killing Us All.

(The letter "M" for "Monsanto" with a slash through it; message from farmers to agri-business: get out).

Walter Mosley has an article in a recent issue of the Nation titled "Ten Things You Can Do To End World Hunger." His list generally raises issues about food justice or injustice, and starvation. We, as a nation, need to take control of the food production in this country, get the corporations out of food and out of farming. Food should be considered an international resource, belonging to the world and all its people, a sacred treasure to be guarded and protected for each generation, with each person in the world entitled to a fully nutritious diet every day. Our international aid should be directed to helping people get land for family farms, and providing non-chemically-altered seeds and implements, irrigation, to create farms throughout the world to feed the people.

Instead, we have agri-business in the U.S., corporate-control of the entire food supply of the world including seeds, patents to allow corporations to control the food supply of the world, food which is lacking in nutrition, full of chemicals and artificially infused with carbohydrates and sugars, which is making us sick and killing us, while millions starve because they are denied the opportunity to own land and have local farms. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090601/ten_things

The corporate control of food production and the food supply will destroy the earth and everything living in it. They will feed us nothing but poison and fat if they can get away with it, radically increase the cancer and suffering and early deaths in the world, strip all nutrition from food, destroy the "real" food and plants that nature created to substitute genetically modified versions for which they can charge a lot of money, starve more and more people in the world because of exorbitant prices for even seeds, and make sure everyone who buys and eats their products is sick, weak, tired, lacking basic nutrition, and dies early. The corporations always operate to increase profit regardless of how many people they kill in the process.

For example, U.S. agri-business flooded Haiti with cheap rice, under-cutting local farmers and putting them out of business. A few years later, after the U.S. corporations had succeeded in putting local farms in Haiti out of business, the U.S. corporate agri-business jacked up the price for rice (the food staple for Haiti) to the point that the people could not afford it, and there was massive starvation within that country.

One of the biggest players is Monsanto, which is genetically modifying the basic food stuff of life such as rice, wheat, even livestock, so they can claim they are entitled to royalties and license fees every time anyone in the world eats a morsel. In the process of their Frankenstein-lab experiments, how much of the food of the world will they destroy? They are joined in their quest by other corporations who sell us tasteless fruit, nutritionless vegetables, and boxed everything. For a discussion of Monsanto's use of thugs and goon-squads to harass, threaten and intimidate farmers around the country to gain control of our food, see http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

(Excerpt from the Vanity Fair article, link above):

[A Monsanto thug went into a man's small store in rural America to threaten him in front of his employees and customers, accusing him of violating Monsanto's patents, threatening to ruin him].

"On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.”

"Scenes like this are playing out in many parts of rural America these days as Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers—anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds. As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics. "

What is a "genetically-modified" food? Monsanto takes a food plant, such as wheat, and breaks down its DNA in a laboratory, then alter that DNA and insert into it a bar-code type of identifier to show that it is (for example) Monsanto Wheat. They also change the DNA so that the plant can be sprayed with Monsanto's "Round-Up," a pesticide, and the plant won't die. They alter the food-stuff of life so that they can spray it with poison then sell it to us. The plant won't die, but what about the rest of us?

This altered food-stuff is then patented in the U.S. so Monsanto can claim they own it all. If they eliminate all the natural wheat from the world, spread their altered seed on all the continents, the only wheat in the world will "belong" to Monsanto -- chemically created in their laboratories -- and everyone in the world will have to pay money to Monsanto every time they eat a sandwich, or some pasta.

Once the basic food-stuff has been genetically modified in a Monsanto laboratory, Monsanto manufactures and aggressively sells their seeds to grow Monsanto Wheat. The seed package includes onerous contractual provisions obligating the buyers in ways not generally anticipated by a seed buyer.

For example, it says Monsanto can come onto the buyer's property and farm whenever they want, with no notice, at any time in the future, and "test" the crops to see if they contain any Monsanto Wheat. They prohibit farmers from saving seeds from one year's crop to use in growing next year's crop, which is such a fundamental part of farming that it is often the difference between a third world country's people eating, and massive starvation.

They have gone around the world and found farmers who they claim have "saved" Monsanto seeds, sued them, run up enormous legal fees, threatened to take away their farms.

They are trying to develop "Terminator" seeds which will automatically self-destruct at the end of one growing season, so farmers cannot save seeds, and will be forced to buy more Monsanto seed next year. If the Terminator seeds mixed with other seeds, other food supplies, could they end up chemically destroying all the source of food and plants in the world?

You may recall a few years ago a battle between Ben & Jerrys and Monsanto over the issue of the use of chemicals and hormones to force cows to speed up the production of milk used in dairy products. Some people question whether this massive infusion of hormones into our food supply will, for example, create or speed up the growth of cancer in humans. The use of hormones in women as an anti-menopause "treatment," supposedly to fool the body into thinking it's young by forcing into the body large quantities of hormones, has now been associated with a laundry list of sometimes deadly diseases in women including a radical increase in breast cancer among women taking hormones, as well as heart disease, stroke, and other serious health problems. So if we infuse our cows and dairy products with artificial hormones made by Monsanto, will that have the same effect? Or other negative effects? Does Monsanto have the right to force us to eat the hormone-infused products, or should we be allowed to make that decision by choosing to buy products which are labeled to show they did not use hormones?

Ben & Jerrys was not a fan of the idea of hormone-laced milk products, so they refused to use it in their products. They went further, as nationally-recognized representatives of the old hippie-health-green-environmentally conscious generation of the 60s, and they put labels on their ice cream to advise the public that they did not use the hormonally-infused dairy products. Monsanto went nuts. Among other things, the Agri-Business and chemical industry that is in the process of taking over control of all the food-stuff in the world "lobbied" governments at the state and national level to pass laws making it illegal for any food seller to put on their label the fact that they do not use chemically- or hormonally-infused products. Monsanto wants the public ignorant. They think we have no right to know. We don't even have the right to decide not to use the hormone-milk.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_10095.cfm

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_speech/monsanto_oakhurst_wired.html

Why is the younger generation so fat? We hear about TV, working mothers, nobody at home, no fresh air or exercise, no adult supervision. All true. But the weight-gain is mostly the result of the fat-and-carbohydrate-and-sugar diets that we feed to our nation. The result of having our entire food supply of the world controlled by corporations, Agri-business. Our food, what we eat and what we feed our children, is like a prison diet. They feed prisoners very high carbohydrate diets, which makes them gain weight, but also makes them sluggish so they hopefully will be easier to control. We're feeding ourselves and our children a prison diet.

The children are fat, unhealthy, full of chemicals, sluggish (mentally and physically in many cases) and are headed for diabetes and heart disease at a very early age, likely followed by death at a young age. Where is the public outrage? As long as the public is kept ignorant by laws which make it illegal for anyone to tell the public what's going on, then we'll keep turning out unhealthy fat kids doomed to an early death. We turn this into an individual, usually female-blaming issue: what's wrong with the mother, why doesn't she serve a better diet? But the fact is this is a national issue, and blaming individuals is just a good cover for the corporations like Monsanto who are making billions of dollars for their insiders while gaining control of the food supply for the entire world.

Monsanto, and the other corporate owners of Agri-Business, do not want the public to know what is going on. They bribe our politicians to pass laws making it illegal for anyone to disclose to us on the labels what it is that's really being sold. Our grocery stores tell us that if we want food that is not covered with poisonous cancer-causing chemicals, they're going to charge us three times as much for the food. So either be rich or die young is the national approach to our food.

Who would allow this type of radical experimentation, altering the genetics of the basic food of the world in laboratories, which runs the risk of destroying the entire food supply of the world? The U.S. government, that's who, in the pockets of agri-business, our corrupt politicians and officials back this Frankenstein-Food plan with enthusiasm, issuing patents to their agri-business friends and receiving enormous bribes in return.

When the U.S. sent Paul Bremer into Baghdad after the initial invasion of Iraq, and claimed he was temporarily in charge of that entire country, one of the first things he did was sign documents that legally bind Iraq to honor U.S. patents, such as the patents on the Frankenstein seeds and food.

All food production should be local, controlled by local people. It should be illegal to genetically modify the basic foodstuff of life. In the meantime, buy local when possible. Support or create community gardens, eat fresh locally-grown food, shop at local farmer's markets and stop buying boxed, take-out and instant food. Write letters to your local paper on this subject, and educate your friends. Support programs to help farmers in other countries and stop the U.S. agri-business from being subsidized by the U.S. government, dumping their food on third world countries, and putting farmers around the world out of business.

For more, see Organic Consumers Association and the Millions Against Monsanto campaign, plus other articles on the subject, at: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

Part 1


Here are links to Parts 2-10.

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98oI2PmHGA4

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBDN8SuKa7s

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iqFK0Uc1eo

Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXgYiV6dtQM

Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBGNOsQFWcE

Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_0LDli8AHY

Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JsF7Ss8-cQ

Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKS-TQqrteA

Part 10: (Film Credits) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm8jSW_E0EU

Honduras Coup: Militarily-Installed Government Shoots And Kills Supporters Of Ousted President Zelaya

(Honduras citizens march towards airport in support of Zelaya)

The democratically-elected president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, was kidnapped and forcibly removed from his own country last week by a gang of military thugs, under the direction of a U.S.-trained military person, graduate of the school of Americas. Working under the direction of the U.S.? That remains to be seen. Zelaya tried to return to his country yesterday, but the police and military stopped his plane from landing.


The coup seems to come down to this: the upper class and upper-middle-class have very comfortable lives precisely because most of the people in that country are kept in conditions of extreme poverty. Zelaya raised the minimum wage across the board to try to help the poor people and has proposed other programs to redistribute wealth. The wealthy do not want to help the poor. That's really the whole issue in dispute.

(Citizens march to airport)

President Zelaya attempted to return to his country yesterday. About 100,000 Hondurans peacefully marched to meet him at the airport where he was supposed to land. The dictatorship sent out the police and military goons to prevent the plane from landing. They also shot tear gas and then bullets at the unarmed civilians, causing several deaths.

(Honduras police mass to stop Zelaya from returning to the country)

The U.S. holds the purse strings because of significant money given to that country. Why doesn't the U.S. government simply instruct their well-trained goon to step down and let Zelaya return? Perhaps they want to make an example of him, to threaten and intimidate all other governments in Central or South America who dare to speak out against continued U.S. domination.



Here's a link to a bbc video which clearly shows the attack on the citizens and the police/military shooting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8135453.stm

The photos of the events at the airport are from this link: http://mimundo-jamesrodriguez.blogspot.com/2009/07/tragedy-at-toncontin-army-shoots-and.html

(Zelaya's plane circles airport in Honduras; runways had been blocked by police and military so the plane was unable to land).

(Citizens and police headed towards the airport)

Michael Parenti has an article at ZNet today questioning whether Obama is "innocent" in the Honduras coup, and makes quite a few points suggesting otherwise, a few being listed here:

"First, almost all the senior Honduran military officers active in the coup are graduates of the Pentagon's School of the Americas (known to many of us as "School of the Assassins"). The Honduran military is trained, advised, equipped, indoctrinated, and financed by the United States national security state. The generals would never have dared to move without tacit consent from the White House or the Pentagon and CIA. "

"Second, if Obama was not directly involved, then he should be faulted for having no firm command over those US operatives who were. The US military must have known about the plot and US military intelligence must have known and must have reported it back to Washington. Why did Obama's people who had communicated with the coup leaders fail to blow the whistle on them? Why did they not expose and denounce the plot, thereby possibly foiling the entire venture? Instead the US kept quiet about it, a silence that in effect, even if not in intent, served as an act of complicity."

"Third, immediately after the coup, Obama stated that he was against using violence to effect change and that it was up to the various parties in Honduras to resolve their differences. His remarks were a rather tepid and muted response to a gangster putsch. " http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21905

(Citizen covered with blood after police shooting in Honduras)

(Citizen covered with blood after police shooting in Honduras)

Here's a link to Democracy Now, and a rush transcript of Amy Goodman's thoughtful reporting on the incidents yesterday and the situation in general inside Honduras. http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/6/honduran_military_blocks_ousted_president_zelayas

A final note. Why does it matter? What difference does it make if the U.S. did set up this coup in Honduras? The U.S. has a long history of using our own and other countries' police and military forces to overthrow democratically-elected governments and install puppet regimes, then send in U.S. corporations to get corrupt contracts with the government that allow the corporations to steal all the resources. Why should U.S. corporations be allowed to steal the resources from our neighbors to the south? What about the capitalist's proclaimed embrace of "free" markets? The corporations use the U.S. military to kill the citizens of other countries and let them steal all the resources to increase their own wealth. Nothing free about that. The whole system is rigged, from Wall Street on down. See Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galeano, the book recently given to Obama by Hugo Chavez.

The resources of Central and South America should have been used for their own people, their own development, their own benefit. Instead, the U.S. corporations (and Europeans) have stolen those resources, and often left the countries with nothing, their people among the poorest in the world.

If Obama is really about "change," then now would be a good time for the U.S. to begin working with our neighbors instead of continuing to support military dictatorships and death squads to brutalize the people. Michael Parenti actually compares Obama to Ronald Reagan in his article referenced above. If we are really going to have a change government, we need to stop overthrowing other governments, stop supporting military dictatorships, stop using our strength and our military to oppress the other people of the world. This is the first test for Obama in the Americas. He's failing miserably in the promised "change" in the middle east. What will he do closer to home?

Robert McNamara (6/9/1916 - 7/6/09)

Robert McNamara got his B.A. at the University of California, Berkeley, and his Masters Degree from the Harvard Business School. After serving in the military during World War II, he went to work at Ford and later became President of that company.

McNamara was asked to join the cabinet of John F. Kennedy, Jr., where he served as Secretary of the Defense. He applied a business model approach to defense issues and to war. When the U.S. escalated its involvement in Vietnam, in 1965, by sending in massive numbers of troops (reaching over 500,000 very quickly) and implementing a blanket bombing campaign in the North, that is attributed to McNamara's advice and analysis of how the U.S. must proceed in order to "win" the U.S. War on Vietnam.

McNamara is often called the "prime architect" of the U.S. War Against Vietnam and held responsible by many for the over 2 million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans who died in that war, as well as for the decision by the U.S. to use chemical warfare on the ground, including Agent Orange, which later caused birth defects, cancer, and deaths of many U.S. veterans and their families and continues to cause high rates of birth defects and cancer in the people in Vietnam.

McNamara applied his business school approach to the war, and implemented the infamous "Body Count" (number of VietCong claimed to have been killed) as the proper measurement for the success of his plans. In 1967, with the war escalating and no end in sight, and anti-war activities increasing, McNamara "resigned" from his position as Secretary of Defense. Some say he was pushed out. He was given the position of President of the World Bank. (Just like that sleazy Wolfowitz.)

In 2003, filmmaker Errol Morris released his documentary titled "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara." It features McNamara talking about his life and mostly his involvement with war, his thoughts on the subject, his perspective long-removed from his original involvement. It is a fascinating film. Some critics rejected it as a belated effort by an old man to repair his bloody image. I thought it was a brilliant film. It won an Academy Award for Best Documentary. Excerpt below.

Economist Nouriel Roubini Says There Are No "Green Shoots" -- They Are Actually Yellow Weeds. Our Economy Is In Big Trouble.

On June 18, I wrote a comment here titled "Shoots? I Don't See No Stinkin' Shoots." http://nabnyc.blogspot.com/2009/06/shoots-i-dont-see-no-stinkin-shoots.html The politicians keep telling us that the economy is getting better because they see little green shoots sprouting in the earth, so we should all sing and be happy. How stupid do they think we are? Why is it that the national government keeps spending trillions of dollars on wars against other nations, turns billions of dollars over to the criminals on Wall Street, yet has not done one thing to help create jobs for the working people in this country? Not one thing.

Today I see this link to an article titled "U.S. Job Report Suggests That Green Shoots Are Mostly Yellow Weeds," by the esteemed economist Nouriel Roubini, which article starts with this quote: "The June unemployment report suggests that the alleged 'green shoots' are mostly yellow weeds that may eventually turn into brown manure." Well yeah -- that's what I meant to say.

Mr. Roubini's article (link below) states that even if the recession was technically over by the end of this year, we should expect that our country will continue to lose jobs for another year and a half after that. That means we will have more job losses through at least the middle of 2011, for an additional two years, or twenty-four months. At the current rate of job losses of hundreds of thousands of people very single month, how are working people expected to make it?

Keep in mind that even if the job cuts level off two years from now, by the middle of 2011, that still leaves a lot of people unemployed. Most people have lost 40% of their savings and retirement, and many people have or will lose their homes. Further, even if we see job creation beginning in the summer of 2011, the problem is that the jobs that have been lost under the Clinton/Bush outsourcing programs are the good jobs with good wages, medical, dental, and pensions (i.e. manufacturing), and the replacement jobs tend to be in what is called the "service" sector, meaning jobs for servants -- WalMart WageSlaves -- low wage, no benefits, no pensions, no healthcare, no rights.

It is not a solution to our problems to create jobs in retail so that all Americans can work for wages that are not enough to pay the bills. The result is that people have to use their credit cards and pay 25% interest/year on the charges, just to stay afloat. This is an economy in which most people get poorer over time. That's not acceptable.

"US. Job Report Suggests that Green Shoots are Mostly Yellow Weeds."

Nouriel Roubini (7/2/09)

"The June employment report suggests that the alleged ‘green shoots’ are mostly yellow weeds that may eventually turn into brown manure. The employment report shows that conditions in the labor market continue to be extremely weak, with job losses in June of over 460,000. With the current rate of job losses, it is very clear that the unemployment rate could reach 10 percent by later this summer, around August or September, and will be closer to 10.5 percent if not 11 percent by year-end. I expect the unemployment rate is going to peak at around 11 percent at some point in 2010, well above historical standards for even severe recessions."

"It’s clear that even if the recession were to be over anytime soon – and it’s not going to be over before the end of the year – job losses are going to continue for at least another year and a half. Historically, during the last two recessions, job losses continued for at least a year and a half after the recession was over. During the 2001 recession, the recession was over in November 2001, and job losses continued through August 2003 for a cumulative loss of jobs of over 5 million; this time we are already seeing more than 6 million job losses and the recession is not over."

Mr. Roubini also notes that the actual effect on working people is worse than what is shown in the latest Labor Department unemployment reports. In addition to the people who have simply lost their jobs, many other workers have seen their hours and wages cut, so the total amount being paid to labor, working people, in this country, continues to fall in all possible categories -- hourly wages paid, hours of employment available to people with jobs, plus the unemployed. He also notes that the actual unemployment for the country is currently over 16% if you include the "discouraged" and "partially-employed" workers. People who have lost their jobs are staying unemployed for longer periods of time, another indictator of a worsening economic condition for most Americans.

As unemployment increases and more Americans are unable to find work, that also will lead to further defaults by people on their mortgages, car loans, and credit cards.

About 50% of the sales of homes being reported are foreclosures and short-sales (sales for less than the amount of existing mortgage on the home).

Roubini predicts that housing prices will fall by another 40-45% from their current level, which is already about a 27% drop. Assuming a home had a value of $100,000, and has fallen 27%, it would now be worth $73,000; another 45% drop would mean the value of the $100,000 home would drop to about $40,000. Or, in other words, the value of homes from peak to trough will drop by over 60%. The home that sold for $500,000 in 2005 will end up with a fair market value of $200,000 by the time this whole thing plays out. That's not a projection you will read in the Sunday real estate section which is telling everyone that we've hit bottom, so now is the time to buy. And it also is a very sobering prediction when trying to figure out whether we should demand the right of people to stay in the home and keep paying on the loan. If he's right, the people in default should bail out now, because the ship is going down. (Note: he makes another comment in his article that refers to a 45% drop in total, rather than an additional 45% drop on top of the existing 27% drop, so it's not entirely clear which he is predicting.)

And I might add that, although he doesn't mention it, the commercial rental market is due to take a big hit. Small-level professionals (self-employed real estate brokers, mortgage loan brokers, insurance and annuity sales-people, "financial planners" who are really just insurance and annuity sales-people, tax-preparers, attorneys, accountants), small manufacturing (tool and dye shops) which feed the larger manufacturers, and small retail (hair dressers, nail salons, "beauty" spas, beauty-supply, restaurants, small dress shops or shoe stores), collectively constituting most of "downtown" U.S.A., are dropping like flies in addition to the major businesses going into bankruptcy and closing their doors, and all are walking away from leases. When they don't pay the lease, the commercial building owner doesn't pay the mortgage, which means more and bigger foreclosures, more bankruptcies, more unemployment.

http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/257210/us_job_report_suggests_that_green_shoots_are_mostly_yellow_weeds

The U.S. Declaration of Independence: July 4, 1776

The group of 56 men who signed this Declaration of Independence, declaring that these people, and the colonies in which they lived, would no longer agree to be subject to the rule of England, that instead they and their land and their communities would thereafter consider themselves to be free and independent of any other rule, were knowingly, publicly, openly, and intentionally taking a position which they knew would cause a death warrant to be issued for each of them. They knew that England would send massive numbers of well-armed and brutal troops by its unrivaled navy forces to attack, occupy, control, murder many of the people in the colonies, specifically targeting these 56 men and maybe their families. But they signed anyway. Quite remarkable.



IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2

North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3

Massachusetts:
John Hancock

Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of of Carrolton

Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5

New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple

Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton