Author: XicanoPwr

I have eventually hit my one year mark of being unemployed. Since that year, it has ultimately hit me that the process of looking for a work can eventually make you feel under-educated, unqualified, skill-less, useless, and worthless. There is so much that you can do in a day pore over job sites looking for that small glimmer of hope that somebody actually thinks you are good enough to work for them.

Lucky for me, I am not close to go homeless or have my phone cut off because I have opted to become a socialite. No, I am kidding. I have wonderful parents who are not going to allow their son go homeless. It is difficult living at home, considering that today’s society believes that a male around my age should already be living on their own. Let me tell you, it wasn’t an easy decision either. Especially, when you have to suck up your pride and leave your independence. Since they are picking up my bills, the good thing is, I only have three, which are my college loans. Everything was already paid off before I was laid off. Nevertheless, here is what I have learned being a minority in search of a job. The job market is brutal and the concern every minority has about discrimination is all true. The unemployment rate that is quoted is a lie.
Last month, the Labor Department announced that the unemployment rate fell to a five-year low of 4.4% in October. However, the reality is, the job market is really stalling. Right before December, another report was published by the Labor Department that stated that there was an increase of newly laid-off workers – “new applications filed for the workweek ending Nov. 18 soared by a seasonally adjusted 12,000, to 321,000” and for the week ending Nov. 25, 357,000 cases claimed an increase of 34,000 from the previous week’s figure of 323,000. So it seems that for every new job that is being created, 2 to 3 or maybe 4 job positions are being eliminated. So once again, competition for a job remains high and the more time I am out of a job, the less attractive I become compared to a person who recently was laid off. There is a good post on a sound economic policy regarding unemployment, but this is not what my post is about is about hiring practices and how being an educated minority means shit right now.

While it is true that the overall US unemployment rate dropped, the Latino unemployment rate really has not changed that much. From June to August, the unemployment rate has not budged from 5.3% and increase to 5.4% in September, until October, which went down 4.7% from the recession that ended in November 2001, according to data published by the US Department of Labor. The data is questionable because the unemployed rate excludes discouraged and other workers who are no longer looking for work. They are considered “discouraged workers” because these are the people who have given up searching for work due to lack of success. The more discouraged workers there are, the less accurate statistics like the unemployment rate are in representing true labor market conditions.

One would assume me having a graduate degree and being a minority would have it easy landing a job. If one were to look at the unemployment rates among those with a college degree, well, it would look as if there are essentially no problems finding employment. The unemployment rate for people with a college degree is currently at 1.9%. One would assume that the only ones who are out of work are those who have decided changed jobs or those who lost their jobs but the data would indicate they are rapidly being picked up..

There is a dirty little secret that is really not being told when it comes to minority college graduates and employment and that has to do with the fact many people are buying into the view there is a demand to end affirmative action hiring practices. Many have hoped that the sustained economic boom in the 1990s would have made a significant dent in the nation’s persistent racial inequality. In fact, the growth did improve the absolute and relative economic positions of many minorities, however, not as much as some minority activists would have desired. In fact, a record has been set for the “longest ‘jobless recovery’ on record” which was spawned by the lack of job creation that followed the 2001 recession, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). Even though it is being reported that the unemployment rates are low, it really is being masked, and continues to hide the weakness in the labor market. Another fact, ever since Bush has been in office, long-term unemployment has also gone beyond blue-collar workers and those with higher levels of education can no longer continue their degree to protect them from an unstable job market.

EPI has also found that the current “jobless recovery” has also taken a toll among African-Americans and Latinos, but more so among African-Americans. Although no comparison can be made between the current “jobless recovery” to the 1990s “jobless recovery” to give some type of indication for the future; it does, however, provide insight as to how the Bush Administration has screwed minorities left and right, especially African-Americans.

The study found African-Americans’ share of persistent unemployment expanded from 23.0% in the 1990s to 25.9% in the more recent slump and for Latinos it went from 11.1% to 13.3 percent. Amazingly, when it came to whites, it was the opposite. While the average for long-term unemployment increased by 2 percentage points for minorities, whites have faired well during the latest recession. The average share of long-term unemployment during the 1990s for whites was at 62.2% compared to the more recent slump of 53.7 percent. Moreover, EPI also found that long-term unemployment has become more of a problem among the more-educated population.

To make matters worse, effect of the latest recession on Latinos hardly have been examined closely and if any were done, it is hard to they don’t provide an accurate picture because the not all Latinos have been similarly affected by the recession because of the make-up of the group in terms of in terms of time in the US – ranging from newly arrived immigrants to US-born Latinos. This makes a big difference because generational status is closely tied to education, linguistic, and social assimilation. US-born Latinos face different challenges and experiences in the labor market than newly arrived Latinos. One of these differences may result in different job-search strategies due to education, English ability, and availability of social networks. In 2002, soon after the recession ended, a study was conducted for the Pew Hispanic Center by Arturo Gonzalez, an economist at the University of Arizona, the study found that unemployment among second-generation Latinos in more skilled occupations (professionals, managers, technicians and administrators) is higher than for non-Hispanics holding similar jobs.

Two years later, an analysis of the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau done by the Pew Hispanic Center showed that during the “jobless recovery” of 2004, gains for Latinos were not widespread. The group that captured the most jobs during that time were immigrant Latinos. However, median wages for Latinos not only slipped backwards but were considerably lower in comparison to the national median wage. And even two years later, the unemployment rate for US-born Hispanics, still remained high and showed no indication of dropping.

Labor market trends for the third generation – the U.S.-born children of U.S.-born parents–were mostly negative in this time period. For this group, employment fell in all quarters except the fourth quarter of 2003. By the first quarter of 2004, third-generation employment was down by 158,110 workers and unemployment was up by 41,805 in comparison to the first quarter of 2003. Over this period, the proportion of third-generation Latinos who were employed fell from 66.9 percent to 64.1 percent and the unemployment rate increased from 7.5 percent to 8.6 percent.

In terms employment gains and losses for Hispanics from the first quarter of 2003 to the first quarter of 2004, construction (380,492) was a major source of employment gains for Hispanics, following business services (167,499), transportation and warehousing (105,732) and personal, laundry, and private household services (71,157). Meanwhile, Latino workers suffered job losses in manufacturing of durable goods of 128,064. Other industries in which the number of employed Latinos dropped significantly include manufacturing of nondurable goods (-50,813), educational services (-33,579), and Communication, Information, Publishing & Broadcasting (-28,878). Interestingly, the principal sources of employment gains for non-Hispanic workers, were wholesale and retail trade (704,356), construction (392,404), finance, insurance, and real estate (313,566), and public administration (198,080).

There is also a big push to end affirmative action. This could be seen in the recent decision by the Supreme Court to hear a couple affirmative action cases regarding school desegregation, the future of affirmative action is now at stake. Legal experts say the cases being heard, are just as important as the University Michigan decisions, rulings in which the justices upheld the university’s law school affirmative program, but struck down a more numbers-oriented undergraduate admissions process.

During the job boom in the 1990s, evidence showed there was a decline in discriminatory behavior against minorities by employers, according to a recent study by the Urban Institute. They also found that demands for Latinos, African-Americans, welfare recipients and the short-term employed, as well as those without recent work experience have declined with rising unemployment rates and that many of those hiring patterns that occurred during the boom have now weakened following the 2001 recession period. If that is so, one does have to wonder what is to be expected to head into recession next year.

This find would indicate that history has this nasty tendency of repeating itself. Workers who were laid off in the 1960s and 70s were disproportionately minority, mostly African-American. The US Commission on Civil Rights found that during the recession of 1973 to 1974, 60% to 70% of laid-off workers were minority in areas where they were only 10% to 12% of the workforce. The reason affirmative action was put into place to right past wrongs where feasible. Now, affirmative action has become a joke. On May 1, 2006, the  United States Court of Appeals ruled against for promoting several minority firefighters who were ranked lower on eligibility lists over their white counterpart. The court ruled that the city could no longer base their decision to promote minorities to remedy the effects of past discrimination against minorities. In fact, the new rules regarding affirmative action hiring and promotion practices are based on the idea that minorities could no longer rely on a history of racial discrimination to justify the enactment of affirmative action programs. In fact, the viewed being held, especially the Supreme Court, is that affirmative action is no longer necessary because the impacts of past discrimination has been remedied.

The setting of a placement goal in an affirmative action plan means that recruiters have an added burden to try to ensure that applicant pools contain sufficient percentages of qualified women and minorities; it does not give a manager justification to hire someone because he or she is a minority, even if there is a goal in the job group. At all times, the most qualified person must be selected for the position, without regard to race, gender or any other protected category.

In other words, what just to be as long as the application pool contains my resume or anybody with a Spanish surname they will be ok, they don’t have to hire me. So what used to be a policy to provide minorities and women a chance to put your foot in the door, it is now, a policy that only allows minorities and women to stand in line, without the possibility of ever seeing the employer’s door. The door is officially shut. And I have personally seen it shut and slammed on my face and sadly, there is nothing I can do because the places I applied did allow me to stand the application in line, as for my future, it is still remains uncertain.

Hopefully, this Christmas I am able to find a job offer in my stocking instead of a lump of coal like the one I found last year.

Last month, a coalition of human rights groups filed a criminal complaint in Germany strongly claiming that high-ranking US civilian and military officials were engaged in war crimes in Iraq and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The lawsuit requests a criminal investigation and prosecution against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and thirteen other high-ranking U.S. Officials for their roles in authorizing torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.

The plaintiffs in the case are 11 Iraqi citizens who were held at Abu Ghraib prison and one Guantánamo detainee. The detainee from Guantánamo is Mohammad al-Qahtani, the Saudi national whom the US identified as the so-called “20th hijacker” and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. Just recently, senior investigators with the Defense Department’s Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) revealed the conditions al-Qahtani endured at Guantánamo, which was personally approved by Rumsfeld.

Mohammed al-Qahtani, detainee No. 063, was forced to wear a bra. He had a thong placed on his head. He was massaged by a female interrogator who straddled him like a lap dancer. He was told that his mother and sisters were whores. He was told that other detainees knew he was gay. He was forced to dance with a male interrogator. He was strip-searched in front of women. He was led on a leash and forced to perform dog tricks. He was doused with water. He was prevented from praying. He was forced to watch as an interrogator squatted over his Koran.

The formal complaint was filed by US-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the French-based International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Germany’s Republican Attorneys’ Association (RAV) and others, and all will be represented by Berlin Attorney Wolfgang Kaleck.
The complaint was filed in Germany because under a law, the Code of Crimes against International Law (CCIL), enacted in Germany, federal prosecutors are granted “universal jurisdiction” to investigate and prosecute war criminals regardless of the location of the defendant or plaintiff, the place where the crime was carried out, or the nationality of the persons involved. The German Code of Crimes against International Law was enacted soon after the Rome Statute was ratified which created the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002; was one of the original countries who ratified the Rome Statute. The reasoning behind the CCIL is to fill the gaps left by the Statute of the International Criminal Court in dealing with countries that had not subscribed to the ICC. The ICC is the permanent tribunal established to indict war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

According to CCR, the complaint is similar to their previous complaint filed in November 2004 that was later dismissed by German prosecutors on the grounds that the United States was already pursuing its own investigations into these abuses. In bringing the recent complaint, the petitioners contend that the new case presents new evidence, along with new circumstances following the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.

The passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 presents plaintiffs the evidence they needed to substantiate that the US was unwilling to indict any American involved in war crime activities. The Military Commissions Act, which happens to be signed by President George Bush on October 17, 2006, aims to provide immunity to US officials and military personnel by narrowing the grounds of criminal liability under the War Crimes Act; and by retroactively extending protection from criminal prosecutions related to detentions and interrogations back to September 11, 2001. The reason Rumsfeld is named, according to CCR, the moment Rumsfeld resigned on November 8, he could no longer claim the same immunity officials enjoy from international prosecution for war crimes because the Act only applies to people during the individual’s term of office

Rumsfeld’s resignation of November 8, 2006, means that he cannot claim either the functional or personal immunity of sovereign officials from international prosecution for war crimes. Functional immunity – related to acts performed in the exercise of a person’s official functions – does not, since the Nuremberg trials in 1945, apply to international crimes such as war crimes. As to personal immunity – covering officials’ private acts accomplished while in office – it only applies during the individual’s term of office.

Along with Rumsfeld, the new complaint further charges that former White House Counsel (and current Attorney General) Alberto Gonzalez, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior US officials and military officers are the legal architects of the Bush Administration’s practice of torture. Moreover, now that the “torture memos” have become known over the past two years, there is more than sufficient evidence to prove that the primary responsibility for the abusive treatment that the detainees endured and continue to endure at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and at other US facilities did reach all the way to the top.

It is amazing to see that out of all the major media in the US, Time obviously found this story relevant enough to write an exclusive about it. What is more amazing, in a nation that preaches to other countries about the fundamental importance of having a free press, the fact remains, the  little news that we actually do get, either on TV or in newsprint, is mixed with propaganda and disinformation, so people have no idea who to trust and what to believe. How is it possible to establish an informed electorate, when it is corporate media who determines what is considered newsworthy? The ultimate winner in this game is not the public, but the elites who they protect.

What is the justification for not informing the public that both the White House and the Pentagon are silent on the pending situation, considering that in 2004, the case prompted an angry response immediately from the White House and the Pentagon?

It is important to address this issue because it is the press that gets to decide which events go on page one or on prime-time TV news and which events are ignored. And as of this writing, the news item that the press has overwhelmingly decided to make newsworthy is Britney Spears’ decision to go pantiless and her choice to hang out with Paris Hilton.

Could this explain why nobody is demanding an explanation from this Administration? It must be, considering that most people continue to cling desperately to the faith that their government is different and better than others and that it is incapable of committing such crimes. Such as this person who justified this US soldier’s action for brutally murdering a prostitute.

I just got this comment in regards to the post, “She Said No”:

Why did the woman take the $100 if not for sex? If she took the $100 for sex, and then didn’t carry through with the exchange, then what did she think would happen? This hero, sitting on the boarder with one of the most anti-American nations on earth just waiting to die in the defense of yellow people in South Korea, couldn’t call the cops to recoup his money. He hit the woman, the woman died — she was trying to rip him off, shit happens. She has a right to sell her body, he has a right to defend his property (his money). She shouldn’t have tried to rip people off.

It is this type of blind patriotism that created Nazi Germany and we can no longer make excuses for atrocities like these, while questioning the patriotism of anyone who raises unwanted questions. The blunt truth is, these atrocities were officially ordered and authorized by Donald Rumsfeld and carried out by the men and women who wear the military uniform of the United States of America. The same kind of atrocities that were committed through the notorious Operation Phoenix in Vietnam – the mission that terrorized the Vietnamese into submission by using “whatever means necessary.”

We can no longer stay silent; but must be skeptical, critical, even a little paranoid, regardless of the fact that it may tarnish America’s reputation has a symbol of “honor and integrity” because there is no honor and integrity in physical coercion, sexual humiliation, and pact rape of the men, women, and children incarcerated by the war criminals in charge of Abu Ghraib Prison. And not doing so will only continue our self-destruction in the eyes of world opinion.

For those who feel the need to continue living in the Matrix of lies told to us by this Administration, then consider what Major General Smedley Butler – who was awarded The Congressional Medal of Honor twice during his career – said about the role of the military in his 1935 book War is a Racket:

There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

It is imperative that we, as American people, care about and know what our government is doing in our name. It is our solemn duty under the Declaration of Independence to punish those who seek to pacify the people through the use of violence, deception, and secrecy in order to advance its grand plans for the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few.

In a surprising midnight ceremony at the presidential residence of Los Pinos, outgoing Mexican President Vicente Fox handed over the green, white and red presidential sash to incoming president elect Felipe Calderón. Fearing that the inauguration would be blocked, Calderón – a 44- year-old conservative, pro-business politician who is close to the Catholic Church – decided to get a head start on opponents. Calderón follows fellow National Action Party (PAN) member Vicente Fox, who broke the once-dominant Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) seven-decade grip on Mexico in 2000.

But Fox left office Friday at one second after midnight under a cloud of disappointment, leaving behind a country that is currently facing street protests over his successor’s paper-thin election, a southern state engulfed in a crisis, and a worsening war between the drug cartels.

In a live broadcast, Calderon called on Mexicans to leave behind the divisions that have dogged him and the country since the July 2 election. Calderón also swore in some of his staff and said he would not be prevented from taking the official oath of office before Congress later Friday.
On Tuesday, lawmakers of Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s (AMLO) – Calderón’s rival in the disputed presidential election, Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) literally fought with the ruling party for control of the speaker’s podium, the area where the swearing-in is to take place before Congress. They later staked out their territory by camping out with blankets and pillows for three days, in an attempt to block the ceremony. According to the Houston Chronicle, the fight has continued an hour before incoming President Felipe Calderón was to take the oath of office.

To make matters interesting, PAN lawmakers were able to seize the speaker’s platform where the oath of office is supposed to take place; however, PRD lawmakers were able to block most of the chamber’s doors. The brutal clash was shown on live television across Mexico. However, in the end, Calderón was able to take the oath of office as Mexico’s president.

Physically protected by ruling party lawmakers and flanked by outgoing President Vicente Fox, Calderon quickly swore to uphold the constitution. The national anthem was then played, momentarily stilling the cat-calls and shouting. Calderon quickly left the chamber as Congress adjourned.

AMLO and the PRD have been a thorn on Fox, Calderón, and PAN’s side. In September, lawmakers of the PRD managed to block Fox from giving his state-of-the-nation speech in Congress, which marked the first time in Mexican history this ever happened to a standing president. Later that month, President Fox was forced to change site of the annual Mexican Independence Day grito that traditionally took place in Mexico City’s central plaza.

On Thursday, legislators from the PRD and the Labor Party voted against a motion to hold Friday morning’s joint legislative session, leaving little hope for PAN’s Party leaders in resolving the crisis. The standoff in Congress has forced Calderón to take unusual steps to avoid clashes in order to keep visiting heads of state from the viewing the chaos that is about to plague his presidency, such as having the transfer of power ceremony take place at Los Pinos. Although legal experts agree that Calderón became Mexico official President one second after midnight on Dec. 1, however, there is only one problem, Calderón still has to take official oath of office oath before Congress. Experts on Mexico’s constitution are left trying to figure out whether Mexico has a president or not some constitutional experts say Calderón must first be sworn in.

Prior to taking the oath of office, Calderón has done his best to ask for unity and reconciliation since the nation’s highest electoral court proclaimed him the winner in September. He has said that his top priorities will be fighting poverty and crime and has pledged to reorganize Mexico’s fractured and ineffective police forces to take on organized crime. However, on November 20, López Obrador declared himself “the legitimate president” of Mexico and has already set up his shadow government. AMLO has already promised to call for more mass protests on any of Calderón’s policies that the PRD does not agree with.

Calderón has already named four people for cabinet positions, which does give insight what Mexico can expect from a Calderón Administration. He has picked Francisco Ramírez Acuña to be his all-important interior minister, the agency in charge of Mexico’s domestic politics and policy. This would suggest that Calderón will be taking a hard line against civil disobedience that has disrupted Mexico for months. Acuña was governor of the western state of Jalisco, where he gained notoriety for brutally quashing leftist protesters in May 2004 and has also been accused of human rights violations.

As Jalisco governor, Ramírez Acuña allegedly authorized the use of excessive force against anti-globalization protesters during a summit of Latin American and European leaders in Guadalajara in 2004. Both national and international human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, denounced what they said were arbitrary detentions and even torture of suspects.

“The blatant and prolonged nature of the alleged police abuses strongly suggests that they were carried out with the approval of some level of command within the security forces,” said José Miguel Vivanco, executive director of Human Rights Watch´s Americas Division after a probe into the incidents.

Calderón has also selected a former high-ranking official of the International Monetary Fund,  Agustín Carstens, to finance minister, sending a signal that Calderón intends to pursue a tight monetary policy, keep inflation low and avoid overspending on public programs.

Calderón has also named a team of US-educated economists to his Cabinet, which is a clear signal that Mexico’s government will be run by business.

He has appointed little-known Georgina Kessel of the central bank to be his energy minister. She will be Mexico’s first female to head that department. Kessel is an economist educated at Columbia University and has vowed to modernize the country’s energy sector.

Among the team of US-educated economist that Calderón has named to his Cabinet, two of them were once top members of Mexico’s PRI, the previous ruling party. They are Javier Lozano and Luis Tellez and will take up the positions of labor minister and communications and transport minister.

Mexico’s new labor secretary will be lawyer Javier Lozan, who promised to respect the country’s powerful unions while working with Congress on reforms to make Mexico more business friendly. Lozano severed as deputy secretary of transportation and communications under former President Ernesto Zedillo.

Luis Tellez will run the Communications and Transportation Department. Tellez has a doctorate in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. From 1997 to 2000, Tellez also served under former President Ernesto Zedillo as Mexico’s Secretary of Energy. According to a press release from  Sempra Energy, Tellez is credited for restructuring the Mexican electricity sector, by allowing broader private involvement in generating, distributing and transmitting electricity. Up until his appointment, Tellez was managing director for George Bush Senior’s  Carlyle Group investment firm. Prior to joining Carlyle, Tellez served as executive vice president of DESC, S.A. de C.V., one of the largest companies in Mexico.

Now that Felipe Calderón is President, Mexico is just another casualty to the US imperialistic empire – a country filled with the very poor, living in wretched slums and working for pennies, while the country is infested with greedy modern day hacienda owners benefiting from Mexico’s new business-friendly government.

How appropriate the saying by former Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz: ¡Pobre México, tan lejos de Dios, tan cerca de los Estados Unidos! (So Far from God; So Close to the United States)

x-posted on ¡Para Justicia y Libertad!

Hope everybody had a good holiday.

It seems like many people were talking about the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s plan to introduce a bill to reinstate the draft last week. On CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel had told Bob Schieffer, he is serious about calling for the draft.

“If we’re going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can’t do that without a draft,” Rangel said.

On the following Monday in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Rangel continued to make his case by saying that the U.S. is too strained in Iraq.

Rangel’s call for a reinstatement of the draft is based on the notion that congressional representatives would be less likely to back a war that might involve the lives of their own children.

“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

The fact is, the US is very unlikely to reinstate the draft because of the Vietnam experience, however, and the reality is, according to Gen. John Abizaid, the 4-star who runs Central Command, the US does not have the appropriate number of troops to maintain “stability” in the region.

In August, the Marine Corps resorted to involuntary call-ups, meaning the Marine called up as many as 2,500 Marine reservists who have already left active service for combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They would come from a pool of about 59,000 members of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) — Marines with specific skills who left active duty and returned to civilian lives, but are obligated to serve if called. Marine Corps officials said yesterday that reservists in their first or last years of enrollment will not be subject to recall.

Rangel’s bill is tempting among progressives and liberals because the proposed bill would require all men and women – regardless of socio-economic background – between age 18 and 42 to serve in the military. Rangel has introduced a similar bill in the past that has failed. The proposed bill is a modified version of a bill he sponsored in 2003 which he proposed a draft for people between 18 and 26.

Soon after Rangel stated he was in favor of reinstating the draft, there was enough buzz in the progressive blogosphere to scare off top level Democrats to ensure that there’s no chance a draft will be instituted in a Democratic controlled Congress. Other political and military leaders suggest that there is no need to institute a draft but and the problems in Iraq can be solved by providing a several hundred thousand additional troops.

However, conscription does have some unlikely champions, including Noam Chomsky.

I might add, for what it’s worth, that although I was actively involved in organizing and supporting resistance (including support for draft resisters) in the 60s, and was saved from a likely prison sentence only by the Tet offensive, I was never opposed to the draft. If there is to be an army, it would be best, I think, for it to be mainly a citizen’s army. In part for the reasons that the top command oppose that option.

The proposed bill, would force every level of society to participate in military service, rather than placing a disproportionate burden on minorities and the working class. Those who are in favor of this idea are calling this type of draft the “equality draft” because Rangel clearly states, “everyone should share in the sacrifice.” In other words, everybody will have equal opportunity of living in misery.

The last time there was talk about the possibility of the draft being reinstated was after the 2004 Presidential election, several Internet sites and alternative media were advocating this view. In March 2005, Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris wrote a decidedly pro-draft stance, “The Case for the Draft,” in the pro-centrist magazine, the Washington Monthly. Carter and Glastris argues that the US simply doesn’t have enough soldiers to occupy every country in Bush’s agenda since we already have hundreds of thousands of troops – of the 1.4 million men and women on active duty – stationed in hundreds of foreign nations. Therefore, a draft is needed to meet our shortcomings.

However, unlike last year, where most major media called it a “draft scare” created by Internet rumor mills and conspiracy theorist, this year, they have come out denouncing the idea. The US Selective Service System (SSS) website has been very quite this time around, during the “draft scare” officials from the Selective Service were quick to state that there were no “active plans” to revive a draft. Yet, US Selective Service System has said that they are ready to “pull the trigger” if Congress the president to authorize a draft system.

With the number of casualties nearing 3,000 since the invasion in Iraq and the dismissal of reinstating the draft, what are Americans to assume? One thing is for certain, most Americans are sceptical that a draft is likely. The general idea is that politicians of either party look at all costs to stay away raising the specter of a revived draft. And for most young Americans the draft seems far off. If only they knew.

Although Congress and the Department of Defense remains steadfastly opposed to a draft, their actions tell a different story. Even though the requirement for all men between 18 and 26 to register with the draft was suspended in 1975, in 1980, Congress reinstated draft registration for men 18 to 25 years old in “preparations for intervention” after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

Later, in 1987, Congress modified the Military Selective Service Act by enacting Public Law 100-180 which ordered the Selective Service System to put in place a structure capable of registering and classifying qualified health care personnel who are essential to the “maintenance of the Armed Forces.” Called the “Health Care Personnel Delivery System” (HCPDS), the system is able to specifically induct 73,000 civilian health care personnels from about 60 medical specialties if such a special-skills draft should be ordered by Congress.

The Selective Service system shall be maintained as an active standby organization, with (1) a complete registration and classification structure capable of immediate operation in the event of a national emergency (including a structure for registration and classification of persons qualified for practice or employment in a health care occupation essential to the maintenance of the Armed Forces), and (2) personnel adequate to reinstitute immediately the full operation of the System, including military reservists who are trained to operate such System and who can be ordered to active duty for such purpose in the event of a national emergency.

In 1989, Selective Service published its plans for the HCPDS for public comment on August 15, 1989 (54 Federal Register 33644-33654), and has had them ready ever since. According to one military doctor, in 2004, there was talk about that a physician draft is was most likely coming in the near future, however, nothing has been said if it will happen.

In 2003, a top-level meeting took place between the head of the SSS and Deputy Undersecretary in charge of Personnel and Readiness of the Department of Defense on reengineering a new type of draft, the Skills Draft. The unclassified memo proposes that the SSS be able to call up any number of several hundred skills the Pentagon and even the Dept. of Homeland Security might be lacking.

Washington Monthly piece by Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris, calls it the “21st century draft” and argues it would be more efficient than the conventional draft because it would be more universal (women as well as men) and more complex. In fact, it will not even be called a draft, it will wrapped up with an Orwellian label, sort like the “Clear Skies Initiative” or the “No Child Left Behind.” The draft will more likely be called “national service,” “homeland service,” or “universal service” and it draft for “homeland security” as well as duty overseas – duties would include being a border guard, immigration cop, IT specialists and medics.

If one were to look carefully to the wording used on “Face the Nation,” Rangel stated that the draft was not just for military services, but –

“young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it’s our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals,” with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

I have previously written other posts (The CO Candidate’s Community Service Draft for Boys and The Green Card Draft) about chatter of reinstating the draft for “national service.”

This type of draft being proposed by some liberals and conservatives closely resembles what Israel has today. The Israeli national service requires three years of service for all Jewish and Druze men, two for all women–between age 17 and 50. Israel divides the type of service in three parts: military (compulsory for men, except orthodox women and Jewish or Druze theology students or teachers), security (police, fire, border, anti- terror units), and community service.

It is hard not to agree with Rep. Rangel and the pro-draft people who argue that the war in Iraq cannot be sustained by the existing volunteer force that makes up the current so-called All-Volunteer Army. But the idea of forcing people to become cannon fodder is unconscionable. And the to literally believe that creating a draft would limit political options by creating a level playing field between classes, are only fooling themselves from reality.

Rangel has provided the elite and the well connected a way out from serving military combat. The proposed plan will allow an individual the choice of serving in the military or doing civilian work. And if given that choice, the children of the ruling class and those who are well connected will be found working in air conditioned offices, while the vast majority of minorities and the working class will still be found fulfilling their “national service” duties in the Armed Forces. Anyone with an option to stay away from the military would and those who couldn’t would be sent off to some other country for the American Empire.

A draft by any other name is still a draft and it will still and always be wrong!

Although it was determined by Mexico’s top election court that Mexico’s ruling party conservative Felipe Calderón won the July 2 election, tens of thousands of loyal supporters still crammed into Mexico City’s Zocalo square to see Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) take the oath of office as Mexico’s “Legitimate President.” November 20, also marks the anniversary of the start of the Mexican Revolution in 1910. AMLO’s inauguration can be seen as another blow to President Vicente Fox and the National Action Party (PAN), Mexico’s ruling party, as Fox was forced to cancel Mexico’s traditional Nov. 20 parade commemorating the beginning of the country’s 1910-1917 Revolution.

The hostility between AMLO and Fox and PAN, stems from PAN’s dirty campaign tactics that was responsible for Calderón’s slim victory in the July 2 election. An election tinged with corruption and fraud. And Mexico’s Electoral Court of the Federal Judiciary (TEPJF) ruling back in August didn’t help either because the court ruled that López Obrador had failed to provide sufficient evidence that election fraud did take place during the election.
Before the inauguration ceremony, AMLO had toured around Mexico gathering support, appointing members to his Cabinet and asking for contributions to support his government. Although the government will not collect taxes or make laws, they asking asking for donations to help carry out their plans for the parallel government. One of AMLO’s first order of business is to prevent Calderón’s Dec. 1 inauguration ceremony.

“Those neo-fascist reactionaries better not think they’ll have room to manoeuvre,” he told his supporters on Saturday.

His supporters have pledged to block Calderón’s swearing-in ceremony before the Mexican Congress. Plans on how this goal is to be achieved has yet been made public. However, federal police have already set up barricades around the Chamber of Deputies to prevent AMLO’s supporters from setting up new protest camps there in coming days.

It remains to be seen whether the events will undermine Calderón or will help AMLO keep up the momentum. According to the latest poll conducted by Parametría, 50% of respondents do believe there were irregularities during the last presidential election, while 40% disagree. So far, the tourism industry has taken a heavy toll because of Mexico’s recent events. According to Mexico Tourism Department, tourism has significantly dropped between January and September of 2006, down 4.3% from the same period in 2005.

None of this should be blamed on AMLO. Mexico was already plagued with turmoil. A conflict that began nearly six months ago in southern Oaxaca City over teacher wages had rose to the point that the city’s schoolteachers had decided to go on strike, which they later blocked the streets fearing that they would be attacked from Mexico’s military. The condition in Oaxaca was so bad, that a legitimate popular uprising took place where a group called the People of Oaxaca (APPO) had seized portions of the city demanding that removal of Oaxaca’s Governor Ulises Ruiz. Later in October, Indymedia journalist and videoblogger Brad Will was the killed while covering the teacher’s strike in Oaxaca.

This month, Mexico City was rattled when several bombs exploded at the top electoral court, a bank and the former ruling party’s headquarters. A coalition of five leftist guerrilla groups from the State of Oaxaca claimed responsibility.

The bombings across Mexico City caused no injuries but rattled nerves in a country wracked by protests since the polarizing July 2 presidential elections. President Vicente Fox called the attacks “criminal acts aimed at frightening the population.”

Leftist protesters have battled police for control of Oaxaca City since last week, and the guerrilla statement pledged to continue “military” actions until the Oaxaca state Gov. Ulises Ruiz step down. Protesters accuse Ruiz of rigging the elections that brought him to power and oppressing dissent, but have so far failed in their attempts to oust him.

It was also reported that two grenades exploded at a residential building in the Mexican resort city of Acapulco, hours before President Vicente Fox and President-elect Calderon arrived to the area to participate in a business forum.

Even though there are some Mexican columnist who will try their best to downplay AMLO’s “swearing in” ceremony, one does have to wonder if Evo Morales went through the ridicule when he led the same type of protests that cause President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada to resign from office in 2005.

As long as corruption persists in Mexico, AMLO’s platform will continue to resonate with many of Mexico’s poor.

x-posted over at my new blog location – xicanopwr.com.

I find it hard to consider that the election went smoothly here in Texas for the Republicans. Just because  there was a good political outcome outside of Texas doesn’t mean they didn’t continue to slime their way to “victory” through fraud in several states that are considered Red.

The problem here in Texas and else where, Democrats and the media continue to claim that the election went “better than expected” and it went “relatively smoothly.” But in areas where there were problems it is being reported as “isolated problems;” and my favorite there were “just a few glitches,” “minor issues,” and “no major problems.” Now that the Democrats control both the House and the Senate, will the Democrats continue to champion election reform considering new voting machines failed from coast to coast.
Here is a list of problems in 20 Texas counties that have already been reported in the media of the problems that occurred during the elections.

Date	Problem Type	County	Description
11/9/06	Machine malfunction	Falls, Hill, Bosque	Falls, Hill and Bosque counties reported glitches either with counting votes or long waits for residents wishing to cast ballots. Falls County ran out of ballot paper. Bosque County early votes apparently were counted twice in all races. About 1,300 duplicate votes being recorded in numbers that were sent to the Texas Secretary of State’s Office. Hill County had problems with the vote-counting machine, the operator could not get votes from paper ballots to combine with votes submitted electronically. Story
11/9/06	Machine malfunction	Tarrant	Votes were not properly recorded on an electronic machine. Others were not even aware they could have voted on an electronic voting machine. Story
11/9/06	Machine malfunction	Tom Green	San Angelo – People had to wait nearly 11 hours for final election results. Story
11/8/06	Machine malfunction	Hidalgo	Top election official discovered the mistake when early voting results giving long-shot Constitution Party candidate an extra 2,000 over the Democratic incumbent. The problem was the software that compiles the totals. Story Story2
11/8/06	Machine malfunction	Bexar	San Antonio – Some ES&S iVotronic machines failed to work, and paper ballots weren’t available. Voters across the country complained of flaws with electronic voting systems. Bexar County’s elections administrator, Jacque Callanen, said that overall, the election locally went smoothly. Wrong candidates appeared on some people’s ballots. Story
11/8/06	Machine malfunction	Medina	420 people lost the opportunity to vote in the US Senate race, which was “inadvertently omitted” from some ballots Story
11/8/06	Machine malfunction	Comal	Undefined problems occurred combining totals from ES&S Optech 3P Eagle scanner with the new iVotronic touch screens. Story
11/8/06	Machine malfunction	San Patricio	Officials were still dealing with computer glitches and had to hand count the vote which delayed the results for the State Representative District 32 race. In Callanen, some machines had failed to activate Tuesday morning. Story Story2
11/8/06	Machine malfunction	Webb	Officials were still dealing with computer glitches and had to hand count the vote which delayed the results. Story
11/8/06	Machine malfunction	Grayson	The new electronic voting system had trouble processing votes. Story
11/8/06	(Other)	Fort Bend	Machines were delivered to the wrong precincts, delaying voters and casting some uncertainty on ballots already cast. Story
11/7/06	Machine malfunction	Harris	Houston Three of the seven E-Slate voting machines at Lockhart Elementary school weren’t working properly since the polls opened at 7 a.m. Two were inactive, one was “misnumbering itself.” Technicians arrived 2-1/2 hours later. Story
11/4/06	Machine malfunction	Williamson	ES&S iVotronic failed pre-election testing when straight party selections did not record a vote for Precinct 3 Commissioner. The same problem occurred at the beginning of early voting, but it was corrected and no votes were affected, Stacy said. Story
11/3/06	Machine malfunction	El Paso	Vote-switching by Diebold touch screens. Review screens show the wrong choices – switching Democratic vote to Republican in at least one case. County attorney is investigating. Some voters had to correct the review screen three times, before it registered correctly. Story Story2
11/2/06	Machine malfunction	Collin	Near Dallas. Vote-switching to Republicans. Diebold touch screens switch votes from Libertarian to Republican, and from Democrat to Republican. Story
11/1/06	E-Poll malfunction	Denton	A county server that identifies and qualifies voters malfunctioned. A lack of paper ballot backups prevented at least one woman from voting. Story
10/28/06	Machine malfunction	Jefferson	Vote-switching from Democrat to Republican on the ES&S iVotronic screen. “Friday night, KFDM reported about people who had cast straight Democratic ticket ballots, but the touch-screen machines indicated they had voted a straight Republican ticket. Story
10/26/06	Machine malfunction	Travis	Austin – Hart InterCivic eSlate chops off the last part of candidate names on the review screen. This is the same problem that occurred on the machines in Virginia. Officials have complained to the manufacturer for two years, yet they insist the votes are counted correctly. Story
10/24/06	(Other)	Hidalgo	Peñitas and Palmview – Two Hidalgo County cities that waited until Friday to request special machines for disabled voters are now forced to conduct early voting without the state-mandated consoles. A thief stole a voting machine outfitted for disabled voters out of a city grant-writing consultant’s garage. Story

The flaws of each voting system used through out Texas and the country have  exposed repeatedly by folks like Mark Crispin Miller, Bev Harris, Brad Friedman, Clint Curtis, Lynn Landes, Earl Katz and Bruce O’Dell. If that is not good enough, they also have been exposed through many academic studies like, NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice, Princeton’s Center for IT Policy, and a group of computer scientists at Johns Hopkins, Rice and Stanford universities. Even the US Government Accountability Office has put their two cents in. What more will it take to have people look into this matter? Are you waiting for it to be broadcast on your local news, you can forget it. Research conducted by the Media and Democracy Coalition (MDC) in twelve states – California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Washington, Oregon, Arkansas, Virginia, Montana, and Maine – found that in “every one of those states, most citizens already live in highly concentrated media markets with few choices for news and views.”

More media mergers in these highly concentrated markets will reduce already insufficient local news coverage and eliminate diverse voices and viewpoints and, in every case, exceed US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Merger Guidelines.  Yet these mergers would be approved by the FCC under its proposed new rules with “no questions asked.”

If polling places all across the largest state in the nation ran out of paper ballots and the voting machines didn’t work, are these really considered “isolated problems”?

If voting machines of every brand switched people’s votes or lost their votes in several counties, can we really say there were “no major problems?”

What if Texas was really a Blue state, how would we ever know if nobody ever looks into it.

Election integrity issues can no longer be considered as conspiracy theory or a thing of the past. The refusal to talk about election fraud by top Democrats in and out of Texas can only be explained that they cannot, will not, wrap their minds around the implications of what is happening now, and what will keep on happening until we are willing to face the issue. By refusing to speak about the growing danger of such fraud, it makes it hard for people to conceive that fraud can ever occur. It is up to us, not as party members, or as liberals, moderates and conservatives, but as Americans to do that vital work by spreading the word what is happening. Isn’t our democracy still worth fighting for?

On October 27, 2006 Indymedia journalist and videoblogger Brad Will was the killed while covering the teacher’s strike in Oaxaca. He was known to have supported the protesters and their cause New York City Independent Media Center reported that Will was shot Friday in the stomach while he was documenting the assault on the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO) at the barricade by armed paramilitary forces. He died on his way to the hospital.

shooting occurred today in Oaxaca City, Mexico, leaving New York City Indymedia journalist Bradley Will dead after being shot in the chest by paramilitaries. He died before reaching the hospital, according to La Jornada.

Milenio Diario reported that one of their photographers, Oswaldo Ramírez, who was standing near Will, was also shot and injured. Oaxaca’s state prosecutor’s office officially reported that there were two others, including a protesting teacher, were shot to death and several people were wounded during the shootings.

Reporting for Narco News, Diego Enrique Osorno reported that the Mayor of Santa Lucia, Jaime Martínez Feria, confirmed that the armed men who were dressed in civilian clothes were “police acting in legitimate defense against the threat of an occupation of City Hall.” According to Osorno, the murders were a coordinated by armed individuals reportedly working for the state political parties, calling themselves “neighbors.” Although it has been reported in the US media that the identified murderers were from the local police, what is being excluded is who is behind the assaults. El Universal recently revealed who took part in the murder of Brad will. According to El Universal, those involved in the murder of Brad Will were the chief of police (Seguridad Publica) of Santa Lucia del Camino, Avel Santiago Zárate, the chief of personnel of the PRI affiliated City Council, Manuel Aguilar, and a local elected Delegate of the PRI, David Aguilar Robles.

Before the slaying of Will, John Dickie, a British filmmaker based in Oaxaca, reported that he had heard an anonymous person on Oaxaca’s clandestine radio station, Citizen’s Radio (Radio Ciudadania: 99.1 FM), tell their listeners that Brad “was an armed terrorist, and there is more to this than meets the eye” and “Indymedia is a branch of the APPO.” As to why the government would make such a claim.

This is a critical time for President Vicente Fox as he has one month left in office before he turns it over to his successor Felipe Calderon. It is nor hard to connect some dots as what has transpired over the weekend. For those who have not been following the situation in Oaxaca, the two significant events that have took place in the past few days. The first was the killing of Brad Will and the two innocent souls. The other, over the weekend thousands of police armed with automatic rifles, riot shields, tear gas, armored vehicles, and helicopters invaded Oaxaca and pushed back protesters through sheer force.

After the violent take over of Oaxaca, La Jornada reported there were three casualties, Jorge Alberto López, Fidel García, and an unidentified 14-year-old.

It is interesting, that after five months of complete apathy, Fox finally decided to act to “restore peace.” Did Fox finally find his excuse to in federal police? The situation that is currently taking place is very reminiscent of an event that happened over ten years ago.

Back in 1994, when the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) launched its campaign to fight for the rights of the indigenous peoples of Chiapas, the Mexican government had utilized an array of tactics to discredit the movement in the press, to torture, rape, imprisonment and outright murder. In Feb 1995, Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo deployed 70,000 troops into the jungles of Chiapas also to restore government control, what was widely known as “low intensity warfare.”

Narco News has published Will’s final moments captured on his camera.

Brad Will (1970-2006): Final Report

To paraphrase Shakesphere, “Alas, … poor YouTube! I knew them well.” Jeff at NewsCloud (via The Raw Story) is reporting that YouTube is removing all of Comedy Central Clips based on DMCA claims. This would include all Daily Show, Colbert Report and South Park.

I received a couple of emails from YouTube this afternoon … notifying me that a third party (probably attorneys for Comedy Central) had made a DMCA request to take down Colbert Report and Daily Show clips. If you visit YouTube, all Daily Show, Colbert Report and South Park clips now show “This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.”

Jeff makes an interesting point as to why YouTube would take down all the clips from Comedy Central.

With Google purchasing YouTube, ComedyCentral figured there was now an opportunity aka profit center to target. And they’ve assumably made these DMCA requests to YouTube.

So assumably, with less interesting content, YouTube is a lot less interesting now and perhaps not worth the billion dollars Google paid for it – though they knew exactly what they were getting into. It’s even possible that Apple or Viacom pushed ComedyCentral to take this step since they earn revenue from the shows.

Me being me, I decided to investigate it. I thought there was one of two possibilities as to why this would take place. One, I have notice that Jon Stewart has suddenly brought on more right wing pundits to his shows, such as John Ashcroft, Lou Dobbs, James Baker, Dennis Miller, Trent Lott, Pat Buchanan, and Ed Gillespie are some right off the top of my head. Sort of makes you wonder if the right wing base has been putting some pressure on Comedy Central in an indirect way since Comedy Central is owned by media conglomerate Viacom.

Back in March, it was rumored that Tom Cruise had put pressure on Viacom – who also owns Paramount – to pull an episode South Park that not only caused Issac Hayes to leave the show, but it also ridiculed Cruise and Scientology. The episode made fun of Scientology and featured Tom Cruise refusing to come out of the closet. It was said that Cruise threatened to cancel all publicity for Mission Impossible:3 if they didn’t. Not surprisingly, Cruise denied ever making such a threat.

This is not the first time something like this happened to “South Park.” In July, CNN reported that the creators of “South Park” had blasted Comedy Central not only for removing that episode but also for blanking out the image of Muhammad of another episode.

“So there are two things we can’t do on Comedy Central: show Muhammad or Tom Cruise,” Trey Parker said during the MTV Networks portion of the Television Critics Assn. summer press tour.

Parker and Matt Stone said they had no doubt that the “Trapped in the Closet” episode was yanked as a result of Cruise’s starring this summer in “Mission: Impossible III,” the movie from Paramount, Comedy Central’s sister company.

That is only South Park; you also have Steven Colbert who has lawmakers very wary about participating on Colbert’s sarcastic skit “Better Know a District.” And let’s not forget about his performance as featured speaker at the  White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.

It that were the case, then why would Comedy Central punish for the sins of “South Park” and “The Colbert Report”? Jon Stewart did increase his ratings for Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” after he hosted the Oscar. In fact, his new episodes averaged 1.6 million total viewers per night.

I don’t think that is the reason YouTube removed all the clips from Comedy Central.

It most likely has to do with Google’s recent purchase of YouTube. Earlier this month, Google did purchase YouTube for “$1.65 billion in a stock-for-stock transaction.” Google claims that YouTube will continue to “operate independently to preserve its successful brand and passionate community.”

Before the purchase, the was a bit of competition between Google Video and YouTube. Even though Google Video is similar to YouTube the sense of being a free video sharing web site by letting users upload, view, and share video clips, there was a difference. The difference between the two video sharing web sites, not all the videos were free on Google. At the beginning of the year, Google started offering a Google Video store at the beginning of the year. The purpose of the Google Video store was Google’s way of handling the copyright issues that were creating problems for Google and YouTube. The Google Video store allowed viewers to rent or buy from Google’s media partners, such as CBS, the NBA, The Charlie Rose Show, and SONY BMG. In fact, YouTube was constantly being threaten by lawsuits from angry copyright holders.

Back in August, Google had “teamed up with Viacom to provide video clips to websites that are part of Google’s AdSense Network.”

Ad-supported video continues to gain momentum online. Google has teamed up with Viacom to provide video clips to websites that are part of Google’s AdSense Network. Viacom is the parent company to MTV, VH1, CBS and a number of other premium networks. The deal will be positioned as a revenue generator for Google, Viacom, and AdSense partners. All three will split revenues derived from the tie-in of advertising and content.

It will work like this: publishers (bloggers, big media, etc.) can elect to embed shows such as MTV’s “Laguna Beach” or Nickelodeon’s “SpongeBob Squarepants” on their own web pages in a manner similar to how YouTube supports embedded video (for an example of how this works with YouTube, see this post on Tony Hawk’s Downhill Jam). The clips themselves will contain advertising sold not by Google, but by the networks’ own ad sales teams. Those networks will share a portion of this revenue with Google, which will in turn share a portion of that revenue with the publishers themselves.

Now that Google bought YouTube, it was inevitable that YouTube would take down those clips. How would Google, Viacom, and the AdSense partners generate a revenue if you can get the clips for free at YouTube. To view any media shows from MTV Networks – such as Comedy Central – on Google Video, you will have to go through their online store and pay (i.e., South Park).

Before the buyout, YouTube had attempted to defuse some of their copyright concerns by announcing a content and advertising agreement with CBS, Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, and Warner Music Group. It looks like this is Napster all over again. The New York Times reported that the deal involved giving those companies an equity stake in YouTube.

Three of the four major music companies — Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, Sony and Bertelsmann’s jointly owned Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and the Warner Music Group — each quietly negotiated to take small stakes in YouTube as part of video- and music-licensing deals they struck shortly before the sale, people involved in the talks said yesterday. The music companies collectively stand to receive as much as $50 million from these arrangements, these people said.

Just days after the purchase, it seems, some companies are looking into YouTube’s copyright violations as way to profit from Google.

…lawyers for the group of media companies, which includes News Corp., General Electric Co.’s NBC Universal and Viacom Inc., have concluded that YouTube could be liable to copyright penalties of $150,000 per unauthorized video, people familiar the matter say. Viacom believes that pirated versions of video clips from its cable channels — including MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon — are watched 80,000 times a day via YouTube. At that rate, potential penalties could run into the billions of dollars.

None of this is really new. Since the late 90s, file sharing has always been a thorn in the side of the media industry and the Napster case was its first big attempt to stop it. The companies that are looking into suing Google are the same companies – Warner, Universal, BMG, Sony and EMI, also known as “the big five” – that have been trying to take down the “file-sharing” movement for over a decade.

Even though Napster was taken down, other file-sharing systems like Grokster, Morpheus, and KaZaA came on the scene to take the place of Napster. Another round of lawsuits came as 28 media companies sued the distributors of Grokster, Morpheus, and KaZaA for copyright infringement. However, the federal court ruled against the “big 5.” The court ruled ruled that Morpheus and Grokster are closer to VCRs and photocopy machines than to a centralized file-sharing service like Napster.

The fact is, the media industry doesn’t want us, the little people, to cut into their   profits. Don’t worry folks, there will be another file sharing YouTube clone in the near future. Like I said all you have to do is look what happened to Napster. The file sharing movement is too strong to take down.

Here in Texas, Lt Gov is the office you if you want to run Texas Gov, even though on the books it considered the second-highest office in Texas. It is considered the most powerful post because the Lt Gov controls the work of the Texas Senate and controls the budgeting process as a leader of the Legislative Budget Board. The Lt Gov is elected separately from the Gov, rather than on the same ticket; so it is unusual to have the Gov and the Lt Gov to be from different political parties.

David Dewhurst, who was elected Lt Gov in 2002, is running for re-election. Dewhurst will face Democrat Maria Luisa Alvarado, a veteran’s issues research analyst and the winner of the April 11 runoff primary, in the November general election. However, one of most mysterious Republican candidates is Dewhurst.

So far, Dewhurst has raised more than $3.4 million against his much-underfunded opponent. That still doesn’t mean it is a cake-wake. Recently, I have been noticing he has been coming out with his televisions ads, which makes you wonder in Alvarado has been stomping on some his cakes. It was reported that he only has $905,000 left. Most of his money has gone towards his $4 million television ads for the closing weeks of the campaign.

Dewhurst was at the forefront of implementing and defending the GOP’s radical re-redistricting assault on democracy. Other than that, it is tough to say what he has really been doing. So who is Dewhurst?
His biography states was born and raised in Houston attended the University of Arizona, enlisted and served as an officer in the Air Force, and was “CIA agent” that spoke fluent Spanish and was stationed in Latin America while with “the agency”. This information is not based on some wild “conspiracy theory,” one can even find his information on his website.

Dewhurst began his business career in the mid-1970s after serving as an officer in the U.S. Air Force, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the U.S. State Department. He founded Falcon Seaboard, a Texas-based diversified energy and investments company. An early developer in the mid-1980s in the electric cogeneration business, he has earned a reputation as an innovative and successful businessman.

He worked as a CIA agent in Latin America from 1970-73 from there, he worked with the state Department. It’s not hard to figure out, given the fact his bio states that he founded Falcon Seaboard in the mid-eighties. Therefore, it is safe to assume right after the CIA he worked for the State Department. Dewhurst has always downplayed his role in Bolivia, claiming he was nothing more than a glorified clerk who read newspapers and wrote reports for the CIA. That is what makes Dewhurst secretive nature unusual.

It was during this time as a CIA agent and a government man, the countries in what is known as the Southern Cone of South America underwent one of the worst human rights violations that region has ever seen. These were the days of the infamous Operation Condor, led by Chile and included Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Condor represented a striking new level of coordinated repression among the anticommunist militaries in the region led by the US. Condor allowed the Latin American military states to share information and to track down, seize, and execute political opponents in combined operations across borders. It has also been reported that top US officials and agencies, including the State Department, the CIA, and the Defense Department, were fully aware of Condor and its operations from the time it was established.

During Dewhurst’s time in Bolivia, Bolivian President Juan José Torres was overthrown by Gen. Hugo “El Petiso” Banzer in a bloody coup d’état soon after Torres nationalized Gulf Oil properties and tin mines owned by US interests and expelled the Peace Corps. It has reported that Air Force Major Robert Lundin provided Banzer’s forces with communications equipment.

Banzer plotted a comeback. According to a report in The Washington Post [Aug. 29, 1971], Banzer crossed back into Bolivia frequently during his exile to confer with U.S. Air Force Major Robert Lundin. That August, Banzer led a second coup attempt, which Lundin aided. When Banzer’s communications broke down, Lundin made available the U.S. Air Force radio system and the coup-makers won.

The right-wing revolt coincidentally took place four months after Dewhurst’s arrived in Bolivia. It is widely known that General Hugo Banzer was trained at the notorious School of the Americas (SOA) – the paramilitary school in Fort Benning, Georgia, that trained future Latin American dictators and strongmen how to torture civilians and overthrow democratically elected governments, all paid for by American tax dollars. The SOA was conveniently renamed to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC or WHINSEC) in 2001. WHINSEC was re-opened on January 17, 2001, after Congress officially closed the SOA in December 2000.

Back in Oct 2001, when David Dewhurst was Texas Land Commissioner and a candidate for Lt Gov, Gov Rick Perry appointed him as chair of the Governor’s Task Force on Homeland Security. Perry (Subscription required) told reporters he choose Dewhurst because of his “experience as a former CIA agent, former State Department official and former Air Force officer.”

“The experience speaks for itself,” the governor said. “I know no one in state government who has his background relative to this specific issue.” (Houston Chronicle, 10/02/2001)

Soon after his appointment and starting his campaign for lieutenant governor, Dewhurst purchased a full-color, four-page advertisement in Texas Monthly magazine touting about his new role as Texas’ homeland security chief. The ad ended up raising many eyebrows. The ad depicted a military officer standing in front of an American flag, with the caption:

“As chairman of the Governor’s Task Force on Homeland Security, David Dewhurst encourages you to support President Bush and the brave men and woman of our Armed Forces as they fight to eliminate terrorism and work to restore confidence in our economy.”

What made it worse, the military officer pictured in front the American flag in the Texas Monthly ad was a German Luftwaffe officer. The Dewhurst campaign was quick to call it an “accident” and confirmed that it was a German, which the graphic artist and had been “dealt with appropriately.” CIA talk, perhaps? Although his critics accused him of trying to use his position in the security task force as a way to improve his image as a candidate for lieutenant governor, one does have to question how much of it had to do with his role a CIA “case officer.”

During his time in Bolivia, while the coup was occurring, Gen. Banzer was receiving advice from a former Nazi SS and Gestapo Klaus Barbie, the war criminal vastly known as the “Butcher of Lyon.” Barbie was wanted for the torture and brutal killing of more than 4,000 Jews, many of them children, between 1942 and 1944 when he was Gestapo chief in Lyon. Barbie’s presence in Bolivia and his work with the Bolivian government are part of our nation’s dirty little secret.

In 1983, in an investigation conducted by US State Department’s Allan A. Ryan, it was revealed that US intelligence officers had smuggled Barbie out of France and into Bolivia in 1951 through a “rat line.” US Army intelligence had used and protected Barbie and other known Nazi war criminals in return for their help in the Cold War. Once in Bolivia, Barbie was employed by the US Army’s Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) because of his “police skills” and anti-Communist zeal was a valuable asset in protecting Cold War West Germany. While he was living in Bolivia, Barbie went under the assumed name of “Klaus Altmann.”

Dewhurst’s only comment for being in Bolivia has always been that he was there to promote democracy. Where have we heard that line before? When Banzer came to power in 1971, he relied on Barbie’s expertise to maintain his unpopular rightist regime. That year, Banzer

“gave total powers to Klaus Altmann [Barbie] to concentrate on the creation of internment camps for his [Banzer’s] political opponents … torture and executions were common in those camps.” Many of Banzer’s enemies were Communists and Barbie probably saw no discontinuity between his activities in Lyons and La Paz.” (Le Monde, May 16, 1987)

Are these the types of people we spend our time and money to put into power?

Back in November of 2001, Michael King of the Austin Chronicle had asked Dewhurst what were his views about the Banzer government, but in typical CIA fashion, Dewhurst replied:

“The Banzer government replaced the Torres government, which was considered a thorn in the side of the U.S. I left Bolivia in 1973. I have no informed opinion of President Banzer’s [administration], other than that during the late 1970s, the U.S. State Department and international banking interests applauded Bolivia’s strengthening economy. That apparent accomplishment has been clouded by numerous and repeated allegations of human rights violations.”

Let’s review. Dewhurst was in Bolivia between 1971 and 1973; he founded Falcon Seaboard in 1981, therefore, he had to be working with the State Department from 1973 to 1981. We also know that the State Department was consistently involved in Operation Condor.

On March 6, 2001, the New York Times reported on a recently declassified State Department document revealing that the US was part of the classified program known as Operation Condor. The report was among the 16,000 State, CIA, White House, Defense and Justice Department records released in November 2000 on Washington’s role during Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile.

Dewhurst may downplay his short-term career at the CIA, but it is obvious it has left an impression on him. In 1994, former Senator Bob Dole appointed him to serve on Clinton’spresidential commission to reorganize the intelligence community. The same commission former CIA Director Porter Goss served on.

These distinguished Americans will join the eight members appointed by the leadership of the 103rd Congress. They are Tony Coelho, David Dewhurst, Representative Norm Dicks, Senator James Exon, former Senator Wyche Fowler, Representative Porter Goss, General Robert Pursley and Senator John Warner.

According the bio, it cites that Dewhurst “was recently elected to the National Board of Directors of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,” the same pro-Israeli think tank whose board includes Vice President Dick Cheney and former CIA director Admiral James Woolsey.

This is not the first time Dewhurst’s past has been raised; this issue came up back in 1998 while he was campaigning for land commissioner and during the 2002 Lt. Gov election. In 1998, Dewhurst told the Houston Chronicle that he was not involved and reiterated that he was not a spy. It is hard to obscure the facts, when there is a paper trial. Recently, there has been a surge in interest in privacy. Generally, when people talk of privacy, they oftentimes express they would prefer to keep their information about them from being available to others. The fact is, we are at a juncture where there is more information at our fingertips than any generation before. Dewhurst may have been able to dance around the issue, but as more information becomes available, it becomes easier to connect the dots.

Dewhurst is running for re-election, the most powerful position in Texas. It is no secret he has his eye for Texas’ top spot – Gov. It was easy for him to avoid his past in the last two elections. However, the accessibility of the news back then is not same as it is now. Questions regarding his role in Bolivia will be brought up eventually.

Unfortunately, people have written this race off because his challenger is practically an unknown, Maria Luisa Alvarado. She may not be a well-seasoned politician; however, she did win the Democratic nomination over Ben Grant, a former state representative who also served as justice of the Sixth Court of Appeals. It would be wrong to assume Alvarado won because us “stupid Hispanics” chose her because she was one of our own. Currently, she has no major endorsements from any major publication and it must be noted, during this campaign season, Texas Democrats have solely been focusing their attention on electing Chris Bell, while leaving Ms. Alvarado to fend for herself.

When Dewhurst ran the fist time for Lt Gov, he too was though of being “inexperience” and had a “lack of political savvy.” He showed his critics wrong. If provided a chance, Ms. Alvarado can rise to the level of expectations.

In state where the GOP has been destructive, we need transparency in our government, not covert undertakings and secret work histories.

Back in Oct 2005, the US Department of Education (ED) had published a decision that forbids educators (teacher unions) affiliated with a troubled school to offer remedial services to struggle students.

Decisions in Florida by the U.S. Department of Education, if implemented nationwide, would bar groups affiliated with school systems rated “in need of improvement” from participating in the tutoring program mandated under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Entities likely to be barred from the program–worth an estimated $2 billion a year in federal funding–include teacher unions, child-care centers, after-school programs, voc-ed or computer centers, and parents’ groups.

Even since then, corporations have been profiting from a $2 billion-plus per year in federal education funds only to weaken troubled public schools at the same time as it underwrites the development of private and parochial educational services.

This weekend the Los Angeles Times reported on Neil Bush’s educational software company, Ignite! Learning and his product, Curriculum on Wheels (COW) – the purple multimedia machine on wheels that offers interactive video presentations on a range of topics in social studies and science, was first created in 2005.

The Times reports that COW has been placed in 40 US school districts and at least 13 districts of them have used federal funds from the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 to obtain the program.
This is not the first time Neil has been under the microscope. First, a brief history about Neil Bush.

Neil Bush
Back in 1990, Neil was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine and was banned from banking activities due to his role in the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal, which cost taxpayers $1.3 billion. The Resolution Trust Corporation Suit against Neil and other officers of Silverado was settled in 1991 for $26.5 million.

Being a Bush, Neil never paid the fine. A Republican fund raiser was set up where close friends and relatives contributed to help Neil pay his fine for in his S&L dealings. According to Jeffery St. Clair, Neil went on to run TransMedia Communications, a venture capital firm based in Houston, TX.

But Neil Bush moved on, this time to TransMedia Communications, a cable TV venture headed by Bill Daniel, a longtime funder of Neil’s father’s political campaigns, who had been lobbying furiously for the deregulation of the telecommunications industry. For his services, Neil was remunerated to the tune of $60,000 per year, even though TransMedia’s president, Dick Barnes, later admitted that the younger Bush knew nothing about the cable business.

Then in 1994, Neil ran Houston-based Interlink Management Corp, a venture capital firm that raised and invested $60 million in high tech and biotech startups. St. Clair notes:

In 1994, he started a company called InterLink with Tom Bridewater, a Utah tycoon and rightwing politician. The plan called for Neil to act as an intermediary to help grease deals between US and Asian companies. According to his recent divorce settlement, Neil earned from $180,000 to more than a $1 million a year from InterLink alone. In fact, it is alleged that Neil was paid $1 million to arrange a private meeting in New York City with Taiwan’s president Chen Shui-bian. The charge was leveled by James Soong, leader of Taiwan’s opposition party. Bush admitted to meeting Chen, but denied that he received any money from the Taiwanese leader. Meetings between officials of the US and Taiwanese governments have been prohibited since 1979, when the US normalized relations with Beijing.

On July 19, 1999, Neil experienced one of his greatest triumphs. He made $171,000 in a single day by buying and selling shares of the Kopin Corporation, a display panel company, which on that very afternoon announced a surprise deal with Japanese electronics giant, JVC, causing the stock to soar. … Kopin had been one of Interlink’s early clients and Neil had recently arranged a deal where Telecom Holdings, a Hong Kong company, invested $27 million in Kopin. As a reward, Neil received stock options in the newly beefed up firm. It was merely a coincidence, Neil told the Associated Press earlier this year, that he exercised those options on that July morning and sold them later in the same afternoon, following the momentous JVC deal.

None of this would not have come out, if it wasn’t for his nasty little divorce with Sharon Bush.

Ignite! Profiting From Public Education
Less than a month after Dudya took office, the Austin Business Journal published that Neil’s Ignite! Inc had been “raising at least $10 million in second-round funding.” According to the business newsweekly, Bush had already raised $7.1 million from 53 investors underwriting Ignite! Inc, an educational software company.

According to The Times, thirteen districts were using federal funds from NCLB to obtain Neil’s program, which he was charging each school district $3,800 apiece despite that the fact there is a problem purchasing Neil’s program. According to federal law, the funds are supposed to be used for disadvantaged students to improve their performance in reading and math. Neil’s program does not offer reading and math instruction. In an e-mail to The Times, Neil writes:

“As our business matures in the USA we have plans to expand overseas and to work with many distinguished individuals in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Africa,” he wrote. “Not one of these associates by the way has ever asked for any access to either of my political brothers, not one White House tour, not one autographed photo, and not one Lincoln bedroom overnight stay.”

True it may not be the Lincoln bedroom scandal, but it is a scandal worth looking into.

The Bush administration has championed the transfer of public funding to private bank accounts right from the outset, but in its second term, the process accelerated. Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the administration used these disasters to advance their cause to transferring public school students to religious or corporate education programs.

The Con
Neil’s business venture with the school district started to unravel back in March when the Houston Chronicle reported that Former First Lady Barbara Bush had earmarked donated money to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund with directions that it be spent on educational software created by her son Neil’s company.

Former first lady Barbara Bush donated an undisclosed amount of money to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund with specific instructions that the money be spent with an educational software company owned by her son Neil.

To cover up the contributed funds, she instructed that the money should be sent on a non-Katrina related program, in which that program is to apply the money to purchase eight Ignite software programs for “Harris County schools with large numbers of Hurricane Katrina evacuees.” This is how the con works.

The same business who “invested” in Ignite! Learning would either make grant and/or gift to the school district with the requirement that the money be used to buy Ignite! Learning products.

According to The Times, 2003 US Securities and Exchange Commission documents showed

Neil Bush had raised about $23 million from more than a dozen outside investors, including Mohammed Al Saddah, the head of a Kuwaiti company, and Winston Wong, the head of a Chinese computer firm. Most recently he signed up Russian fugitive business tycoon Boris A. Berezovsky and Berezovsky’s partner Badri Patarkatsishvili.

Other investors have come from Saudi-owned Aramco Services Co, Apache Corp, BP and Shell Oil Co, and from The Washington Times Foundation, an organization backed by the Rev Sun Myung Moon, head of the Unification Church.

According the Austin Business Journal, in 2002, Neil had laid off 42% of its workforce in order to sign a $15 million deal with Grupo Carso Telecom SA allows Ignite, Inc. “to outsource software production.” The Mexican telecommunications giant “would assume all nuts-and-bolts production” to “help Ignite’s bottom line.”

Grupo Carso is a conglomerate that owns a majority stake in CompUSA Inc. and Teléfonos de México SA and oversees MSN Latin America. Its chairman, billionaire Carlos Slim Helu, sits on the board of San Antonio-based SBC Communications Inc.

It must be noted that Ignite had been on shaky grounds before Neil inked the deal.

The current deal arose after earlier talks with Grupo Carso to form a joint venture had fallen through, Leonard says. The talks collapsed because of Ignite’s precarious financial position and the shaky equity markets, he says.

The Bush strategy to education is simple, transfer federal funding out of public schools to private entities like his brothers. The ultimate outcome is predictable – Education delivered by corporations will be strengthened; education in public schools will be weakened.