The president's real goal in Iraq

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.
It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.
'Constabulary duties'

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."
To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States,the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.
More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

Effect on allies

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.
One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.

"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.
"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."
Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

Costly global commitment

Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.

Kagan is more blunt.

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."

The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.

That's what this is about.

By JAY BOOKMAN
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm

To bleed and to die

Social change of the kind that is needed in this country has always been precipitated by organized labor. Part of the problem we face as a nation is the decline of strong labor unions. Labor has often been the driving force behind social justice movements in America. Without a strong labor presence social justice will be a very difficult proposition.

Labor unions have always been under assault by the company bosses and their cohorts in government. This connection reveals that the government does not serve the people; it serves business interests, the elite. It is thus evidence not of democracy, but of Plutocracy. Organized labor has long been at the center of the vortex of class warfare that has always plagued America. On numerous occasions in our nation’s long struggle for social justice, the state and federal militia were called forth to shoot dead striking workers while protecting the assets of businesses that often brutalized and murdered union organizers and workers alike.

So much of what we believe about America is based upon falsehoods and distortions—a viewpoint that lacks historical perspective. This way of thinking allows us to see only small segments of isolated events, out of context from the great matrix of the historical whole. Our situation is akin to catching a glimpse of a person’s fingernail and being required to describe that person’s religious philosophy. It is a difficult proposition that is unlikely to provide accuracy or useful results. Historical perspective is all important to understanding current events.

The demise of strong unions occurred for several reasons. Unionism has been under assault by corporate America since their inception. Keeping ordinary people apart has always worked in the interest of Plutocracy. Unions have fallen victim to widespread campaigns of propaganda as orchestrated by their business adversaries. Keeping workers isolated prevents insurrection. Isolated workers are without power and at the mercy of their employers. They are virtually without voice and have no legal redress of their grievances.

The unions themselves also played a role in their own demise by selling out to their adversaries in business. Union officials are all too often corrupt and easily bribed. Workers instinctively know when they have been betrayed. When unions lost their militant edge and became bureaucracies, they lost their effectiveness and their clout with the workers they represent.

There was a period in American history when companies feared unions. In the past, unions wielded considerable power. They had honor and integrity and understood that they were embroiled in class warfare. The Wobblies sought not only to democratize the world place—their objective was to end capitalism and remake society in a democratic image, rather than the existing Plutocracy. Eugene Debs referred to this kind of organizing as ‘Revolutionary Unionism.’ Debs and others recognized that justice could never be had in a system that was inherently unjust. It is a shame that the relatively weak and ineffectual unions of today no longer have this perspective.

I do not mean to say that there are not good and strong unions today—there are. But they are few in number and becoming increasingly rare. The work place and society at large are intimately connected. If there is inequality in one, how can there by justice in the other? The Industrial Workers of the World, like the Wobblies of old, is perhaps the only extant union that retains this radical and revolutionary perspective. This is the kind of unionism that we need—one that represents workers without crawling in bed with the employers, while simultaneously seeking to end capitalism. In these times of severe decline in union membership, it is no accident that the IWW is actually growing.

The working class people of today must relearn the lessons of history. We must understand, like the workers of old, that the working class and the employing class have nothing in common. Keeping workers isolated assures the continuation of the present system that exploits labor, while concentrating and privatizing wealth; which in turn creates socioeconomic class divisions known as Plutocracy. Unions unite workers, employers divide and conquer; they keep the profits of labor to themselves by compensating workers minimally in wages and benefits. The end of strong unions assures low wages, poor benefits, and harsh working conditions for the workers; higher profits for the corporations and obscene wealth for their CEOs. We see this in the Wal-Mart model that is driving down wages on a global scale.

By busting unions and preventing their reformation, employers have created a work place that in essence is a master-slave relationship. ‘At will’ employees have few rights in the work place, and they have no legal redress of their grievances. It is a situation that gives extraordinary power to the employer by usurping it from the employee. Since the same situation prevails throughout the country, it is of little benefit to the worker to migrate from one work place to another—they are virtually all the same. The problem is rooted in capitalism. This is industrial slavery in its purest form. Let us recognize it for what it is and call it by its rightful name.

The visionary union leadership of the past, like that embodied by Eugene Debs, realized that the workplace and the country could not be separated—they were one and the same. Debs understood that a free and democratic society could not be achieved without first creating a free and democratic work place. The key to creating democracy within the construct of the existing Plutocracy lay in democratizing the work place. That is still the problem, but we rarely see the issue framed in this way. We lack historical perspective.

Debs also recognized that allowing the private ownership of the means of livelihood would assure the continuance of Plutocratic rule, rather than promoting democracy. And this is the crux of the problem today. Private ownership of livelihood creates what is essentially a system of wage slavery. It gives rise to the class system and the concentration of wealth and power at the top of the socioeconomic ladder, by taking from all of those below the top. It robs workers of their freedom and their dignity. It reduces them to being the property of their employers and often subjects them to tyranny.

Eugene Debs understood that if a man owns the means by which you live, that man is not your employer—he is your master; and you are his slave. One’s livelihood, like the genetic blueprint for life itself, should not be privately owned. The genetic library—life’s blueprint—belongs to the world; being non-man created, it cannot be privately owned. The same is true of the people’s right of livelihood—it is public property. Nevertheless, we see corporations that are applying for patents for the private ownership of genetic codes they did not and cannot create. This demonstrates the absurdity of capitalism.

As the history of labor makes clear, working class people have always been exploited and abused by the ruling elite. Wealthy capitalists have long fomented the wars in which working class people serve and die. War generates enormous wealth, and guaranteed profits without risk for those who wage them. Witness the obscene profits that are being generated by America’s defense contractors. Dick Cheney’s Halliburton and the Bush and Bin Laden Family’s Carlyle Group are raking in billions, while our sons and daughters sacrifice their lives at the altar of greed, believing it is for democracy.

The generation of corporate wealth through the sacrifice of the blood of our youth, has nothing to do with democracy or liberation. It has everything to do with class warfare; the rich preying upon the poor whom they hold in bitter contempt. What are the lives of a few thousand working stiffs to the ruling Plutocrats? War is never fought for noble purposes—it is about lining the pockets of the already wealthy. It is tainted money, stained with the blood of our children and our loved ones.

While our babies are dying by the thousands in places like Iraq, and are killing our Iraqi brethren, rich white men are realizing obscene profits. Our lives, our hopes and fears, mean nothing to these people. They do not see us as their equals; they see us as their servants, as cheap disposable and replaceable property. Few of us are willing to face this awful truth, but history bears me out. War produces wealth for the rich; it produces misery and suffering for the rest of us. Let us see it for what it is.

The enemy attacks us from within, not from foreign borders, as we are lead to believe. The enemies of democracy, the foes of freedom, are those who profit from the misery and suffering of others. They do not wear turbans and speak in foreign tongues. You will find them in the White House and roaming the halls of Congress. They masquerade as servants of the people; but they are servants of class and privilege. They are the masters of war, purveyors of Plutocracy. They are the enemies of the people. See them for what they are; judge them by what they do, not what they say.

Once again, as it always has, it boils down to the fact that working class people have nothing in common with the ruling class. The wealthy have always been our tormentors and our oppressors. They believe that they are superior to the rest of us, as evidenced by the policies they enact against us.

Safe in their luxurious mansions, the masters of war send their servants to bleed and to die in the dust. They tell them they are serving their country. They tell them they are fighting for democracy, which makes the enterprise sound noble and humane. But that is not what they are fighting for. They are fighting for the continued enslavement of the poor by the rich—Plutocratic rule through coercion and brute force.

America will know no peace at home or abroad until we resolve the slavery issue. We live in a class society in which the rich prey upon and subjugate the poor of this and all nations. There are but two classes—rich and poor, employers and workers; rulers and servants. Do not take my word for it. Look around you. Weigh the evidence and make up your own mind.

Ask yourself: Does the president behave like a servant of the people; or does he resemble an emperor? Ask the same question of Bill Frist, Hillary Clinton, and all of our so called public servants. Who do their policies benefit? Who is working for whom? Do they live like you? What kind of health insurance do they have? How do their benefits compare to your own? Do they have money worries? Are their children getting killed in Iraq? How do their retirement pensions compare to your own?

This is not a democrat versus republican issue. Nor is it a conservative versus liberal issue, as it is so often portrayed. It is a class issue and it needs to be addressed as such.

The first step toward emancipation is recognition of the fact that more than ninety percent of us are slaves in a society that is deeply and irreconcilably divided by class inequities. This is a system of government in which the top one percent owns as much as the combined total of the lower ninety percent of the population. If this is not Plutocracy; if it is not elitism, what is?

Let us recognize that this is what we are fighting for in Iraq and 135 of the world’s 192 nations—extending Plutocratic rule and industrial slavery (capitalism). The noble cause we are so foolishly sending our youth to die for is not democracy—it is to line the pockets of the Carlyle Group and Halliburton. Waged under the auspices of noble purpose, war is in fact class warfare packaged as democracy in order to sell it to the public. War is the natural outgrowth of capitalism and Plutocratic rule. Examine the historical record and follow the money trail. To the Plutocrats, our youth are nothing more than property; cheap, disposable and easily replaceable property—slave labor used to procure wealth for the richest one percent of the population.

One way out of the morass is through organizing the work force on a massive scale, through the creation of revolutionary unions, as envisioned by Eugene Debs and others. This union must represent all workers and it must proceed on a global scale. It can begin today. Otherwise, worker is forced to compete against worker in a race to the lowest common denominator. The times demand strong leadership and iron clad worker solidarity. Unity is our only hope. United, the people cannot lose. We outnumber our adversaries ninety-nine to one. We must make them respect and even fear us, as in days of yore. Divided we haven’t got a prayer. Democratize the work place and we democratize the nation while also ending Plutocratic rule.

By Charles Sullivan 03/18/06
Charles Sullivan is a photographer, social activist and freelance writer living in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia. He can be reached at earthdog@highstream.net.

911 Faqs And More Questions

The number 911 has been in the news quite frequently in the last couple of years.

911 is the emergency number dialed by people when they need fire, police or ambulance assistance in a hurry. In the year 911 the Lower Seine area was ceded to the Norse invaders under Hrolf Ranger as the Duchy of Normandy (treaty of St Claire sur Epte).

Anastasius III became Pope from 911-913.

The Danes started the towv of Drogheda in Ireland.

9 11 also stands for the horrendous attack by terrorists on New York City and the Pentagon in which thousands of people were murdered.

Here are some pertinent questions that to this day still have not been answered:

Why did the FBI stop their investigation in Mid 1996 of two of Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington and a Muslim organisation, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth?

Was it because they had orders from higher up to stop any investigations related to the Bin Laden Family?

Why did George W.Bush give the order to stop inquiries into the terrorist connections of the Bin Laden family based in the US and abroad in early 2001?

Why did the US Government allow all the Bin Laden Family members to fly out of the US while all other air-Traffic was grounded? Was it because the Bin Laden family has been funding the Bush family politically for a long time?

Why did none of the 19 hijackers appear on the passenger lists involved in the 4 hijjacked planes? Can you explain, why none of the indestructible Black Boxes have been found at any of the crash centers? When was the last time George H.W. Bush travelled to the Middle East on behalf of the privately owned Carlyle Group, one of the largest defense contractors in the U.S. and what was the purpose of that meeting? If we knew that there was a terrorist attack going on, which we did, and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit by terrorist activity, and we also knew of commercial airliners changing course from Boston to Los Angeles, then where was the response of the defense establishment once we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180 degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark and, in flight, turning 180 degrees?

Answer:

Commenting from CNN on the timeline, 9:03 is the correct time that the United Airlines flight crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center; 9:43 is the time that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. And 10:10 a.m. is the time that United Airlines flight 93 crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

Discrepancies between Joint Chiefs of Staff investigations and findings of the 9/11 commission:

There was a highly classified United States Special Operations Command program under the command of the U.S. Special Operations Command .It was created as a result of a directive from the Joint Chiefs' of Staff in early October 1999 by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hugh Shelton ,to develop an Information Operations Campaign Plan against transnational terrorism, "specifically al-Qaida." According to statements by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and confirmed by four others, Able Danger had identified the September 11, 2001 attack leader Mohamed Atta , and three of the 9/11 plot's 19 hijackers, as possible members of an al Qaeda cell linked to the '93 World Trade Center Attacks.

The group used all information legally collected under the rule of law. Primarily consisting of classified information, all publicly obtained information was approved after a legal review of SOCOM lawyers. The early identification of the four hijackers by Able Danger appears to contradict the official conclusion of the 9/11 Commission,that American intelligence agencies had not identified Atta as a terrorist prior to the attack. This has resulted in a political controversy that has begun to damage the credibility of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

Article Source: http://www.articledashboard.com

By: J Shipper

Visit The Weekly News at http://localnews.yourdesign2.com
or join our mailing list to get weekly updates at http://yourdesign2.com/mailinglist.htm

The Math of the Aftermath

Comedian Chevy Chase, when he anchored the first Saturday Night Live faux-news desk, had a running joke that satirized, post-mortem, the endless medical updates provided by the public relations machine of a dying dictator ...

"Here's a bulletin from Spain: Doctors are reporting that Generalissimo Francisco Franco is holding fast in his valiant fight to remain dead!"

The point, of course, was that neither the Spanish public nor the global public at the time was ever fooled by the propaganda of Franco's terminal condition during his last days. The tweak also carried undertones that no government could overcome the forces of nature, no matter what it announced.

That brings us to the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Anyone who has been to the Gulf Coast says that the media images of the devastation there --- no matter how hard they try --- just cannot convey the scope of the disaster. Vast segments of the region have literally been blown back a couple of centuries, to a time when electricity, telephones, running water and the like were either a luxury or a futuristic concept. Usual conveniences such as food shopping are still a major challenge to many. Some jobs may have left with Katrina; like her, they may never return.

This doesn't look like it's going to get much better anytime soon, either.

I thought of this while taking a second look at the pages on the Longer Life site, all of which include the American Red Cross public service ad which appeals for donations to their hurricane relief fund. The appeals are just as urgent and relevant today as they were when they were first posted. I sometimes wonder, though, if those who view them don't get so accustomed to their presence that they ultimately look past them. I know the plan at the Longer Life site is to keep them in place until all needs are met, which in my opinion, means the Red Cross will be a fixture on their pages for a long time to come.

The American government recently released over 100,000 pages of documents which dealt with their handling of the crisis. It's notable in the impression that they didn't give the matter much more attention than they would have if the affected area was a third-world country. Having said that, the sheer volume of funds required to repair and rebuild is staggering.

For example, it's been cited in the Los Angeles Times that the costliest public works project to date was the shift of freeways in Boston to an underground route. The price tag was $14.6 billion, the time factor was 14 years and the object of the exercise was to move just under eight miles of roadway into a tunnel.

The Gulf Coast reclamation is going to involve much more than eight miles of tunneling.

It's been reported that the federal commitment to this task has already exceeded $62 billion. One third of that amount has already been deployed and it can fairly be said that its effects are hardly noticed. This total will be added to the federal deficit, of course, right along with the billions being spent to do whatever it is they currently say they're doing in Iraq. If the current administration holds fast to its pledge against raising taxes, the implication is that a host of cuts in other programs are inevitable.

Thus, Americans won't have to be located along the Gulf Coast to somehow share in its devastation. Among other things, some interest groups are now taking a close look at how funds are being utilized and allocated. Allegations of misappropriations and the like are sure to follow.

Contrast this state of affairs with the recent earthquake in Pakistan. The magnitude of that disaster was similarly breathtaking. If you missed it, the Richter scale measured the quake at 7.8 and an estimated 87,000 people were killed. Their government already depends upon the USA for much of its additional aid. It may be a while before they see anything significant to assist in this natural tragedy.

One city there will have additional help. It's coming in the form of lottery winnings. A gentleman named Ishan Khan hit it big while working in the USA as a taxi driver. He nailed a $55 million jackpot and took his winnings up front, netting over $32 million. Mr Khan moved back to his homeland, where that amount of money can spend like $1 billion and where he instantly became one of Pakistan's most wealthy private individuals.

It's obvious to Mr Khan that private assistance is necessary for relief efforts there to have any immediacy. His village, Batagram, lost 4500 citizens in the 8 Oct quake and surely, a good number of those were known to him. Here's the Associated Press account of his response to date:

"Just days before the earthquake, Khan was elected district nazim, or mayor, of Batagram. After the quake hit, he helped pull survivors from the rubble, and paid to get the most seriously injured to regional hospitals. He told pharmacists he would pay them later for dispensing all the medicine on their shelves. The bill came to 10 million rupees, almost $200,000.

"Khan has bankrolled a program to supply roofing materials to rebuild shattered homes. He bought 150 tents, some of which occupy land just outside his mansion with panoramic views of snowcapped peaks.

"Most important, Khan has emerged as a colorful and outspoken critic of local government corruption. In recent days, the blue-eyed nazim — who refers to himself simply as Khan — has dismissed the town's police chief and fired another official. Khan promises to continue the housecleaning. 'We have a calamity and people are lazy, unable to move,' he says. 'So I started firing people.'

"Relief workers are impressed. 'He's a take-charge person,' says Aziuddin Ahmad, who works with a Malaysian aid group."

With that record, I'm sure there would be a good number of towns along the Gulf Coast that would elect him to public office, too.

With so much money required, both public accountability and private incentive are imperative if the effects of these disasters are to be overcome. Let's hope that interest groups in both the USA and Pakistan monitor the former closely and with the greater good in mind.

Meanwhile, let's not let those Red Cross ads blend into the background. As Mr Khan has exemplified, there is no more effective actions than those taken by personal incentive. Do whatever you can do to make sure your governmental representatives understand that accountability in dispersing relief funds is important to taxpayers and can shear years from the completion date of reclamation projects. More directly, anytime --- now or whenever, as this effort is going to take years to accomplish --- you have a bit of funds to spare, forsake the costs of a night on the town or its equivalent and click on the Red Cross ad.

Perhaps your donation won't come from winning the lottery, but the knowledge that you've helped a disaster victim in need will make it feel like you did.
Article Source: http://www.articledashboard.com

By: J Square Humboldt

Visit The Weekly News at http://localnews.yourdesign2.com
or join our mailing list to get weekly updates at http://yourdesign2.com/mailinglist.htm

How to Exercise While Sitting at Your Computer

Sitting at the computer all day is not exactly good for the body. If you have to be at a desk all day long, doing some simple things can improve your posture and health.

Steps:
1.Sit properly in a good chair designed for deskwork. Your back should be straight, and your head should be looking directly into your monitor. If you have to look down or up, you need to adjust the height of either the screen or your chair. If you keep leaning forward, first get your eyesight checked. If your eyesight is fine use a loose belt or string to tie yourself to the chair. After a while your posture will improve and you'll no longer need this restraint.

2.Maintain an ergonomic body posture while typing. Keep your legs bent at the knees so that the knees are only slightly higher than your hips. Feet should be flat on the floor or on a step stool of some sort.

3.Stand up every half hour. Walk around a few steps, stretch your legs, and give your eyes a break from focusing on your computer screen. This will also help prevent blood clots from developing in your legs.

4.Roll your head around your neck periodically, but avoid rolling your head all the way back. Do the motion slowly clockwise for 1-3 iterations and then repeat in the opposite direction.

5.Roll your wrists regularly (this will help prevent carpal tunnel syndrome if you spend a lot of time typing).

6.Contract your abdominal and gluteal muscles, hold them there for a few seconds, then release. Do this all day long while you are in your chair.

7.Stretch your arms, legs, neck and torso while sitting. This will help prevent you from feeling stiff.

8.Take advantage of the downtime created by rebooting or large file downloads to get up and try something more ambitious such as doing a few push-ups, sit-ups, and/or jumping jacks. Beware of your snickering co-workers though.

9.Acquire a hand gripper. They are cheap, small and light. When you have to read something either on the screen or on paper, you probably won't be using your hands very often so squeeze your gripper. It is an excellent forearm workout.

10.Acquire an elastic band (also cheap, small and light) and use it to do the actions mentioned in step 7 (i.e., when stretching your arms, do it by pulling apart the elastic band). You will not only stretch but it will also work the muscles slightly.

11.Take a few deep breaths. If possible, get some fresh air in your lungs.

Tips:
·As long as something is moving, you will be helping to keep yourself in better shape. Constant movement will burn calories and contribute to cardiovascular health. While exercising at your computer is helpful, it is not a substitute for going to the gym or conducting a regular exercise program.

·Don't sit still. Fidgeting is a good way to keep moving. Even something like tapping your foot. But don't make too much noise--however you fidget, the repetitive noises may bother other people.

·Always have water nearby to drink.

·If you're all alone, try shutting off the computer for a bit and exercise. If you're on a cell phone call, get up and do stretches, or leg lifts, anything to keep moving during down time away from the desk.

·Try exercises that combine opposing muscle groups (flexors and extensors, e.g., biceps and triceps) to get a good workout. Clasp your hands together with palms facing each other. Pull up with one hand while pushing down with the other.

·Play music while working to provoke body movement.
Warnings

·Your body needs more exercise than just what you do at the computer, but following these steps will contribute to a healthy, balanced lifestyle.

·Do not sit at your computer for a long time.

·Steps 7 and 8; if not done in moderation, may cause you to start sweating, which may not be a pleasant sight or odor in an office environment. Keep in mind you are doing these to prevent stiffness, so save the enthusiasm for the gym.

Written by Jocelyn

Visit The Weekly News at http://localnews.yourdesign2.com
or join our mailing list to get weekly updates at http://yourdesign2.com/mailinglist.htm