Pipeline Low Down from the Northeast

Hello all, I have just received information of a fourth pipeline bombing and the word is out that this is indeed likely an inside job!

To explain: The Tomslake Valley is prime land for drilling and all other facilities for the extraction, gathering and piping of the natural gas. Too many farms and other holdings are in the way of this expansion. So, the idea is to scare the population so that they will abandon their property.

And it is working!!

Several have already just up and left, others are becoming so terrified that they are planning on leaving. My son and his wife have planted their feet and said they will have to drag them off their land! This very same tactic was used in Alberta in several areas in order for the companies to claim all the property they wanted. Also, if any of you have read the entire story of Wiebo Ludwig and his fight with big oil you are well aware of how he was "set up" by the company and the police. Yes, Mr. Ludwig did some of the mischief but not all of it.

The police and company admitted to doing a number of things which was blamed on Ludwig. The bottom line is...this is very likely an inside job in order for big oil to obtain full control of the entire Tomslake area so it can be turned into a complete industrial site.

They have done it in Alberta, why not here?!!

And, is this just the start? There are other areas of the Peace that big oil would like to force the landowner off of. Until you see it for yourself, you have no conception of the scope of this industry and what they will do to gain control!

Leona G

Victoria City Politics and the Plot to Take Over the World

Victoria City Politics and the Plot to Take Over the World

Alrighty... we have the new mayor, Dean Fortin, on video stating that if we took the tent-city to the Legislature lawn he would supply the porta-potties. Quaintly cute at first glance, I would advise closer scrutiny.

The city has given indication that it would prefer the tent-city thing be taken on by the province which, in my submission, means regional tent-cities where those without property or the means and opportunity of other people's 'property' could be interned.

They (the city and province) will fight tooth and nail to avoid the notion of every municipality having to sport their own tent-cities, and I expect them to fail. The city will continue pretending like public opinion has some sort of say in the right to deny people the ability to take care of themselves and they will continue to manufacture 'public opinion'.

The spirit of the Supreme Court of BC ruling on 'homeless' people being able to construct their own temporary shelter is that an 'across the board' prohibition is unconstitutional. What the city has done in response to this, using the excuse that the judge agreed that the city has the authority to create new Constitutionally compliant bylaws to manage how tents can be allowed, was to ignore the
'Constitutionally compliant' part and suggest that instead of having a 24/7 'across the board' prohibition they are allowed to have a 12 hour a day 'across the board' prohibition. They are enforcing it, acting as if they have the right to.

People have been arrested for 'Obstruction of Justice' in not complying and go to court (WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19TH at 2:00 PM in Courtroom #103) to plea 'not guilty' and set a trial date. It is expected that the first thing determined at this trial will be whether or not the City is in Contempt of Court. Which they are.

In the meantime, there is going to be much spin-doctoring and hate propaganda directed at the notion of tent-city and all those who like them. The city will be dedicating much energy into mats on floors in churches and overflow in the emergency shelters. These things are not adequate, not only because of the culture of violence and drugs that asserts itself in these places, but also because there is no just reason to not presume innocence of people in their ability to take care of themselves, providing their own survival.

Speaking of shelters and the such... there is a phenomenon called 'poverty pimps' and right now some of them are busy crucifying Reverend Al Tysick so that the new 'Our Place' can be completely corporate run and devoid of any compassion beyond allowable
maintenance criteria. I also expect organizations like Food Not Bombs to be made illegal unless they apply for licensing to share food.

Have you noticed the condemnation from the media and police towards people who live in houses that help those that don't? The subtle conditioning that would have people think that only those with the least means and opportunities can help themselves. The 'take over the world' management plan will leave survival to said 'poverty pimp'
corporations with the help of municipal and regional bylaws that restrict things like having more than 4 non-relatives residing on a 'property' and sleeping in cars.

Whether or not the city is found guilty of Contempt of Court will indicate how we will all face the future. If I am not forced into an internment camp I will facilitate, from my temporary abode in my tent-city, Gardens Not Lawns (a massive volunteer campaign offering free labour and expertise in converting lawns into food producing gardens).

David Arthur Johnston
Victoria, BC, Canada

Hatrackman@Gmail.com

Home page- http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman

Journal of the Occupation of St. Ann's Academy (Victoria, BC, Canada)-
http://www.angelfire.com/apes/hatrackman/welcome.htm

Crimes of Necessity- http://www.loveandfearlessness.com (from
filmmaker Andrew Ainsley. Very comprehensive.)



http://janinebandcroft.blogspot.com
http://relativenewz.ca

How Did Your Canadian Pension Plan Fare at the Casino?

The second quarter CPP Fund investment results are now posted. Please remember, the reporting period ended on 30 Sep.; before the real damage occurred in the subsequent weeks. The reported loss on investments was $9.5 B or about 7.5% of the fund value as at the beginning of the quarter. The fund account was bolstered by $4.3 in contributions not needed for benefit payments (taxes by another name). In the equity category the total $ amount is shown to be $70B of which $11.6 is in private equities. As of the 2008 annual report this category totaled $13.4B. It is difficult to know without a detailed examination of investment changes made along the way if the reduction of nearly $2B is from write downs or sales. Private equity investments that I am aware of are in serious trouble presently as financing sources have melted away.

Since 30 Sep. 08 the equity markets have retreated about 15-20% which means that the $70B is probably more like $58B today. My earlier estimate of a loss of $23B, while premature, looks like it might be too conservative.

The December presentation to Parliament of the Actuary's report will be interesting. It is hard to imagine that his assumptions will not be modified to reflect a growing reality. This will challenge the present understanding that the fund is sound for 75 years forward.

Does anyone wish to volunteer what they think it will take to cause the government to reverse the investment strategy for the fund?

The "line in the sand" question from before.

Regards from Erik



The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to:
http://www.cppib.ca/News_Room/News_Releases/nr_11120801.html

Agony of Gaza

The Agony of Gaza
by Patrick Seale


In a flagrant breach of international law, Israel has once again tightened its siege on Gaza, imposing punitive collective punishment on its 1.5 million people.


Because of Israel’s closure of the crossing points, the UN has been unable to deliver the food packages on which some 750,000 people depend. Israel has also stopped delivering fuel to the Strip’s single power plant, with the result that half the population is without electricity. Battered, starved, cut off from the world, its economic activity reduced to nothing, Gaza is on the edge of the abyss.


The international community has been criminally indifferent to Israel’s cruel behaviour towards the captive Palestinians, both in Gaza and the West Bank. But this time, it seems to be reacting with somewhat greater vigour.


At the United Nations in New York, in government circles in London and Paris, and even in Washington -- as it prepares for the transition from George W. Bush to Barack Obama -- there is a sense that the situation in the Palestinian territories is untenable. An explosion there could ignite the whole region.


Twelve UN agencies have warned of an impending humanitarian crisis, while the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has himself repeatedly warned Israel that it was in breach of international humanitarian and human rights law.


But Israel seems indifferent to these appeals. On the contrary, in the year since the Annapolis Conference of 27 November 2007, which was meant to re-launch the peace process, it has killed 514 Palestinians and injured a further 2,112 (many of them children); it has demolished 330 Palestinian homes, including 95 in East Jerusalem; and it has issued tenders for the construction of 2,210 new housing units in its illegal West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements.


Meanwhile, movement throughout the West Bank has been restricted by some 630 checkpoints and roadblocks, while the Palestinian population has suffered countless attacks and humiliations from soldiers and settler thugs.


In an unusual move, Switzerland last week accused Israel, in a sharply-worded note, of destroying Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and near Ramallah in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which lays down the obligations of occupying powers. Britain, in turn, has announced that it will refuse to extend tariff exemption to goods grown or manufactured in Israel’s West Bank settlements.


The present crisis in Gaza started on 4 November when Israeli forces, in violation of the current six-month truce, entered Gaza to destroy a tunnel that Israel alleges could have been used to kidnap Israeli soldiers, if completed. In that operation, six members of Hamas were killed. Another five were killed in an Israeli raid last week. Hamas responded by firing its homemade rockets towards the Israeli town of Sderot in the Negev, slightly wounding one Israeli. A number of others were “treated for shock.”


Unless extended, the truce is due to end on 19 December. Both sides would like to extend it -- but on their own terms. Hamas wants the truce to be accompanied by the opening of the crossing points, but Israel wants to be free to besiege and starve Gaza at will, in the hope of bringing down the Hamas government. Hamas wants the truce extended to the West Bank, but Israel refuses.


Israel wants the freedom to strike and kill, but not to be hit back. It wants protection for its own people, but refuses it to others. Yet, security is indivisible. Israel cannot hope to enjoy security at the expense of the insecurity of its neighbours. This is the dilemma at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict.


Israel seems not to care about the serious damage to its international image and -- perhaps worse still -- about the way its oppression of the Palestinians has brutalized its own young people. It has also aroused great hate among Palestinians and in the Arab and Muslim world in general.


Daniel Barenboim, the celebrated pianist and conductor, has warned Israel that hate is transmitted from one generation to another, meaning that Israel’s present crimes will, no doubt, have to be paid for in the future. In a gesture of reconciliation with the Palestinians, Barenboim, a brave peace activist, accepted a Palestinian passport to add to his current Israeli and Argentinian passports.


A desperate Salam Fayyad, Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, was in Paris last week to plead for French intervention to stop the expanding Israeli settlements, which, he said, were killing the chance of a two-state solution of the conflict. “We can wait no longer,” he told the press. “The international community must intervene to save the peace process.” He lamented the fact that, in the current campaign for Israel’s general elections next February, not a single Israeli politician thought it necessary to mention the expanding settlements.


Speaking on CNN last week, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter declared that President-elect Barack Obama had given him a personal promise that he would address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict immediately on taking office in January.


The world must hope that Obama will find the courage to honour this pledge.




Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.


Copyright © 2008 Patrick Seale – distributed by Agence Global

War Over? No.

The Fake Ads Of The Fake New York Times
By Hamilton Nolan, 1:04 PM on Wed Nov 12 2008, 5,540 views
The actual stories in The Yes Men's fake issue of the New York Times today are a little too earnestly liberal to be funny, though they're still... nifty? (And look, we know earnest liberals are the easiest group to make fun of, even easier than religious psychos, but let's give them some props for pulling the whole thing off okay? Hope, etc.) But the fake ads they put throughout the issue are a little sharper. Dr. Z makes a cameo! After the jump, five of the best ad spoofs, that have corporate America tumbling down as we speak:








[The group that produced the paper put out a statement announcing their work this morning. It doesn't say that the Yes Men are responsible, but they are. And to the one guy who's already put a copy of the spoof issue on eBay for $199, good luck, you nut. People are going to be a little smarter after going through this.]

Blackwater Waiting Justice Still

Blackwater May Face Criminal Charges, Hefty Fines Over Arms Shipments

By Jason Leopold
The Public Record
Sunday, November 09, 2008


Private security contractor Blackwater Worldwide may be slapped with millions of dollars in fines by the State Department for shipping weapons to law enforcement facilities in Iraq and Jordan without authorization, according to a report published in the magazine Government Executive.

“Officials in the Commerce Department, which has jurisdiction over some military exports, are conducting a related regulatory review of Blackwater shipments,” the magazine reported, citing unnamed sources. “And federal officials in North Carolina have convened a grand jury to consider criminal charges related to the arms shipments.”

In a separate development involving the controversial security contractor, a Washington, D.C. Grand jury will soon decide whether to indict several Blackwater security guards over a shooting in Baghdad last year that claimed the lives of 17 civilians, unnamed sources told Government Executive.

The unauthorized arms shipments are said to total about 900 weapons sent to police training facilities in Iraq and Jordan.

Blackwater “didn't do the original paperwork, therefore they don't know where the guns are," one source familiar with the matter told Government Executive, adding that each weapon shipped overseas might result in a separate violation and result in hefty fines.

In a statement released by Blackwater Oct. 9, General Counsel Andrew Howell confirmed the company is under scrutiny.

"Ongoing reviews by the departments of Justice, State and Commerce have highlighted the need for a significant and systems-wide initiative," Howell said. On the same day Blackwater announced the formation of a new export compliance committee to oversee it’s international dealings. The committee was formed immediately after Blackwater received a letter from the State Department’s Defense Trade Control Directorate alerting the security firm to potential violations, Government Executive quoted sources familiar with the matter.

Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., a former U.S. Attorney is a member of the committee.

In July, Blackwater said it would slowly exit the security business. The same month, the Inspector General of the Small Business Administration (SBA) released a report that said Blackwater misrepresented the size of its firm so it could receive more than $100 million in small business contracts from the federal government.

The report said the mercenary outfit obtained a total of 39 contracts intended for small businesses with annual revenues of $6.5 million between 2005 and 2007. But the report said Blackwater’s revenue surpassed $200 million for those years.

Blackwater “obtained a total of 33 contracts during Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007, totaling $2,188,620, which may have involved misrepresentations to obtain the contract.”

The report also found that “it is possible that misrepresentations took place" on the remaining six contracts, totaling $107,311,356.”

Of the 39 contracts reviewed, 38 were awarded by the Defense Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded one. The Inspector General’s report says the small business contracts "could have involved potential misrepresentations by Blackwater.

Moreover, the Department of Defense wrongfully awarded Blackwater aviation contracts worth $107 million. That contract was earmarked for companies with annual revenues of less than $25 million or less than 1,500 employees, the report said.

The Small Business Administration was singled out and criticized for not thoroughly investigating Blackwater’s finances prior to awarding contracts to the company.

The report was prepared at the request of Congressman Henry Waxman, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who sent a letter in March to Steven Preseton, the administrator of the Small Business Administration.

“As part of the Oversight Committee's investigation into the business practices of Blackwater Worldwide, the Committee has obtained evidence indicating that Blackwater may have applied for and received federal contracts by improperly claiming that it was eligible for small business preferences,” Waxman’s March 10 letter said. “It appears Blackwater sought these small business contracts by improperly designating its security guards as "independent contractors" rather than "employees."

The Inspector General’s 27-page report released Monday said Blackwater appeared to have improperly classified its guards stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan as independent contracts as opposed to full-fledged employees in order to obtain government contracts.

According to a memo issued by Waxman to Oversight Committee members Monday, “The key issue... was whether personnel hired by Blackwater to provide security services for the Department of State (DOS) and other agencies were Blackwater employees . . . or independent contractors."

“In claiming it was a small business, Blackwater argued that 1,000 security personnel it provided under the State Department’s $1.2 billion Worldwide Personal Protective Service (WPPS) contract were independent contractors,” Waxman’s memo says. “The [Small Business Administration Inspector General] reports that Blackwater claimed that it "had little or no knowledge of the activities of the security personnel performing the contract and exercised little or no supervision over these personnel once they were deployed.”

The report “concludes that these assertions were incorrect,” Waxman’s memo says.

The Inspector General’s report says “Our review of the WPPS Statement of Work indicates that it contained a number of provisions that appeared to be inconsistent with SBA's conclusion that Blackwater did not have knowledge about the actions of the personnel once they were deployed.”

Separation Of Corporation And State

"Fisherma'am" Proposes 28th Amendment: Separation Of Corporation And State
from Chelsea Green
Huffington Post
November 10, 2008

Every so often an idea comes along that rings with such clarity and purpose that it ignites the imaginations of millions of people. That spark of excitement becomes hope, hope becomes action, action becomes community, and that community grows to become a movement. Marine biologist, author, fisherma'am, and Exxon Valdez survivor, Dr. Riki Ott has such an idea.

Exxon's recently reported record profits marks a new height of American corporate corruption and influence over our federal government--corporations find more protection under the law than American citizens, health and safety regulations are stripped away to serve profits ahead of people, politicians serve only their corporate backers, and our environment is falling victim to the lustful greed of this disaster capitalism. How did it come to this?




Dr. Riki Ott is launching the movement for the 28th Amendment to the Constitution: Separation of Corporation and State. In the video above, she explains what a 28th Amendment will accomplish, how it is possible, why it is necessary for our democracy.

In Riki's own words:

In my book, Not One Drop, I answer the question I frequently heard on the streets in Cordova. (It's a small town where people often visit in groups on Main Street or at the post office.) How did corporations get so big where they could manipulate our legal system?

As survivors of the Exxon Valdez spill and 20-year lawsuit, practically everyone in town has first-hand experience with a legal system that failed to deliver justice and Exxon's promise to make us whole.

In researching our nation's legal history, I found the answer. In this 4-minute video, I explain the solution--passing the 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution: separation of corporation and state.

Please listen. Then ask others to listen. In Not One Drop, I explain this idea more fully. Together we can build a movement to restore government of, for, and by the people.

There's even a Facebook group dedicated to the movement.

TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO:

I am a survivor and witness of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. It happened in my backyard, Prince William Sound, Alaska.

We have been in a lawsuit now for nearly two decades, and Exxon has managed to drag this out while it has managed to increase its profits to, basically, obscene levels: over $40 billion in net profits now. How did things get this bad?

The conclusion that I came to in Not One Drop is that we need the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: the separation of corporation and state.

Starting in 1886, judges started recognizing corporations had rights accorded to people. The first one was the 14th Amendment. And nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the Bill of Rights, do we find the word "corporation." This is totally judicial fiat. What this has done is allow a consolidation of wealth and power to the corporations that now threatens to destroy the republic. We want separated church and state—we now need to separate corporation and state.

On March 24, 1989—which is when [the] Exxon [Valdez] grounded and spilled 11–38 million gallons of oil in Prince William Sound, I was commercial fishing. I held a commercial fishing permit, and I fished salmon. I also held a Masters and a PhD in marine toxicology. Exxon came to Cordova, Alaska, stood in our high school gym, and promised us, "We will make you whole." Instead, Exxon worked behind the scenes to eliminate thousands of business claims. Exxon threw an army of attorneys at this case. And it's not just the Exxons of the world, it's any of these big transnational corporations have the ability, because of their wealth and power, to completely overwhelm small communities that get in their way.

If we had had the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, Exxon would not have been able to use the 5th Amendment and the 7th Amendment.

The 7th Amendment is that facts tried by a jury cannot be undermined or revisited by higher courts. So in this case, a jury of peers, ordinary people, determined that the price that Exxon had to pay was one year's net profit. Exxon challenged the amount, and also that punitive damages should be held at all.

Exxon also used, in a related lawsuit, the 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment is a takings—takings of property. After the Exxon Valdez oil spill, there was a federal law passed (the Oil Pollution Act of 1990) that essentially banned the Exxon Valdez from Prince William Sound. It banned any tanker that has spilled over a million gallons from transporting oil in Prince William Sound. Exxon said, that is a takings of our future profit: that's illegal under the 5th Amendment. If Exxon was not a person, Exxon would not have been able to apply the 5th Amendment.

Five years after the Exxon Valdez ran aground, we had our hearing, and the jury awarded us—the fishermen, the natives—$5 billion in punitive damages and $287 million in compensatory damages. Exxon appealed that $5 billion for over fourteen years, and ultimately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finally threw its hands in the air and cut the 5 billion in half. The Supreme Court, in June of 2008, slashed the $2.5 billion to $507 million.

If we're planning on passing a livable planet onto future generations, the democracy debate needs to be entwined with the sustainable future debate, and I believe now that the best way to do that is to pass the 28th Amendment to the Constitution—separation of corporation and state—and strip corporations of their personhood.

Huffington Post, 10-Nov-2008

http://www.sqwalk.com/blog2008/001407.html

Veterans Arraigned on Disorderly Conduct Charges

Iraq Veterans Arraigned on Disorderly Conduct Charges: Vow to Defend Right to Free Speech and Assembly

Cheryl Biren-Wright

On Monday, the day before Veterans day, 14 members of the ‘Hempstead 15' were arraigned on charges of disorderly conduct. The charges stem from a protest outside of the final presidential debate at Hofstra University on October 15.

Nick Morgan wounded outside presidential debate (photo by Bill Perry)

The protest was organized by Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) who wanted the issue of poor veterans’ healthcare and support of war resisters to be addressed by the candidates. What began as an orderly and peaceful gathering escalated into an aggressive use of force by the Nassau County Police Department leaving one Iraq war veteran, Nick Morgan, with a fractured eye orbit and cheekbone.




Video coverage of the protest shows Morgan standing solemnly, hands clasped behind his back while mounted police backed their horses onto the sidewalk and into the crowd. Despite serious injuries and semiconscious state, the police proceeded to handcuff Morgan dragging him across the street to an awaiting bus.

Yesterday Nick, along with 13 others, faced disorderly conduct charges in Nassau County Court. Ten of the 15 charged are members of IVAW. Iraq war veteran, Adam Kokesh, is scheduled to appear in court today, Veterans day.

A throng of supporters gathered outside the Nassau County Court House early yesterday and filled the court room.

Nick Morgan following reconstructive surgery (photo by Bill Perry)

IVAW member and defendant, Mathis Chiroux spoke to reporters before the arraignment, "We the Hempstead 15 are out here today to be arraigned for disorderly conduct. We are moving to dismiss. We were assembling October 15 to force the issue that service members and veterans are not being heard or cared for by the leaders of our country. We were responded to by the candidates by being ignored. In fact, we were brutalized and arrested by the Nassau County Police Department before also being charged."

Each of the defendants pled not-guilty to the charges. In what they and their lawyer, Jonathan Moore, describe as a "divide and conquer" tactic, the judge ordered separate court dates be held thus preventing them from being co-defendants.

After the arraignment, Moore declared "What happened in court today was basically nothing except an attempt by the district attorney to separate people into smaller groups so that there wouldn’t be the same appearance of a large crowd at the next court date. I don’t know why cities and states and counties are so afraid of people engaging in lawful political protest. To the extent that there was a hazardous condition created, it was created by the police not by the individuals who were simply engaging in protected first amendment speech. Some people were seriously injured by the use of these horses in a reckless and dangerous way."

Nick Morgan thanking the crowd for their support added "You know I hope a lot of you especially from around this area are as appalled as I am about the actions of the Nassau County Police Department and the gross violations of the constitution that all of us veterans swore to protect and uphold against all enemies foreign and domestic."

Mathis Chiroux vowed to fight until their names are cleared and justice is served. "Today, make no mistake about it. Nassau County has added insult to injury. But, I am grateful and thankful and I am overwhelmingly happy to report that every single member of the Hempstead 15 pled not guilty today. And, we are going to fight this thing out. This is unacceptable," he said.


Mathis Chiroux speaks to reporters (photo by Bill Perry)

Chiroux continued "We cannot be brutalized and silenced and told that we don’t have the right to oppose those who would take away our rights and literally trampling everything that it is to be American. Condemn, condemn the Nassau County Police Department for their trampling of Nick and others and as well their sneaky backdoor maneuvering to try and have us all tried on separate days to keep you from coming out and having your voices heard in our support. We are going to continue forcing this issue and we are not going to stop until the names of every single one of the Hempstead 15 are cleared and Nick Morgan sees justice."


Co-Defendants Jose Vasquez & Kris Goldsmith (photo by Bill Perry)

According to Newsday.com, police spokesman, Det. Sgt. Anthony Repalone, claimed that officers showed restraint in handling the protest, but they are reviewing the incident.

IVAW is raising funds to assist in Nick Morgan’s medical expenses. Readers can donate at IVAW.org. For video of yesterday's events visit Adam Kokesh Revolutionary Patriot. Vietnam veteran and Veterans for Peace member, Bill Perry, contributed to this report.




Writer/Photographer. Special interests in media reform, restoring/protecting the constitution, support for returning veterans, ending the Iraq occupation and improving relations with Iran. In the meantime, I'll settle for a vanilla latte and a keyboard while exposing those who promote and encourage ideologies like the Bush Doctrine that subvert our constitution, inflict more damage on our nation's standing in the world, promote terrorism and are morally and ethically corrupt. Writer and managing editor for OpEdNews.com. Contact info: cheryl[at]opednews.com cherylbirenwright.wordpress.com

GM - Cerberus - Chrysler Bailout Bad for Taxpayers

Why the GM - Cerberus - Chrysler Bailout is Bad for Taxpayers

By Robert Farago

November 6, 2008 -"TTAC" - - [The following analysis was sent to TTAC by a New York City bankruptcy lawyer who wishes to remain anonymous. It's twice as long as our usual editorial, but I think you'll find it's well worth your time. Thanks to you-know-who-you-are.]

Cerberus Capital, a highly secretive NYC-based vulture investment fund, wants the U.S. government and taxpayers to bailout its failed investment in Chrysler and its failing investment in GMAC. Its partner in this raid on the US Treasury is General Motors, a woefully insolvent automobile manufacturer whose CEO is paid $40k each day. Here’s why a bailout for GM and/or Chrysler is a bad idea.

Background

Cerberus Capital uses hedge funds as the vehicles in which to invest in various companies. Apparently, the hedge fund known as Cerberus Series 4 is the owner of an 80 percent interest in Chrysler and a related fund owns or controls a 51 percent interest in GMAC. Not surprisingly for a company known for its secrecy, Cerberus has not disclosed which entities actually own the interests in Chrysler and GMAC, has not disclosed what fees Cerberus has taken or accrued from its investments, and has not disclosed what severance payments would have to be made if GM actually acquired Chrysler. For example, would Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli get another big payday if he’s cut loose in a merger? The interrelationships among GMAC, Chrysler Financial, Cerberus and other entities are also a well-kept secret.

Secrecy, Secrecy, Secrecy

Why is everything so secret? What happened to the idea of open government? A few questions come to mind:

1. Exactly what is the Cerberus/GM proposal to borrow $10b from the US Treasury in order to fund a merger, the terms of which are also secret? Is it in writing? Where is a copy? What were the proposed terms that were rejected by the current US Treasury? Is another proposal in the works? How is the $10b going to be repaid by two insolvent auto manufacturers?

2. Which lobbyists represented GM and Cerberus in getting their loan application before the US Treasury? How much were the lobbyists paid? With whom did GM/Cerberus meet? Where are the notes of any meeting or other communications about the loan proposal?

3. What do we know about the financial condition of the proposed borrowers? Where is Chrysler’s current balance sheet and income statement? Surely Chrysler is insolvent on an equitable basis, and probably insolvent on a balance sheet basis. Why is basic financial information not available for public inspection and comment?

4. Where are the financial statements for the Cerberus Series Four hedge fund? US taxpayers are being asked to bailout the failed auto related investments by Cerberus Series Four, while the profitable investments in the same fund are not being shared with taxpayers.

GM is woefully insolvent and should file Chapter 11

5. As of June 30, 2008, GM had total assets of $136b and total liabilities of $191b, a $55b deficiency. Thus, GM is insolvent. How can GM ever repay a $10b bailout, or any bailout for that matter? As of June 30, 2008, its current liabilities were $70b, dwarfing its current assets of $55b. Moreover, we do not know what deals GM has made to stretch/defer repayment of its account payables.

6. Is Chrysler in any better shape than GM? Probably not, but without a current balance sheet the definitive answer is a secret.

7. Assuming Chrysler is insolvent (liabilities exceed assets), then the equity interest of Cerberus and Daimler (the 20 percent equity owner) are worthless and these entities are not even entitled to a seat at the merger negotiating table. The real economic owners of Chrysler are its creditors and employees, who are also in the dark about the proposed US treasury bailout.

Who really benefits from a GM/Cerberus/Chrysler merger?

8. The US taxpayers can’t benefit since there is no repayment plan. Not surprisingly, Cerberus and its hedge fund are back door beneficiaries, because the 51 percent Cerberus ownership interest in GMAC will increase in value if GM and GMAC survive. Chrysler is a lost cause, but with the value of the Cerberus investment in GMAC also plummeting, Cerberus is trying to prop-up GMAC by helping GM survive. Is Cerberus pledging its equity interest in GMAC to the US Treasury as security for a government loan to GM? Why not? Is GM pledging its 49 percent equity interest in GMAC to secure repayment of any loan by the US Treasury? More secrets kept from the public.

9. The self-dealing by Cerberus extends to wanting to cherry-pick the Chrysler assets and keep the auto financing arm for itself. What is the value of the Chrysler auto financing business, and why should Cerberus benefit?

10. GMAC had negative net income of $3b for the first 6 months of 2008. GM’s ownership interest in GMAC was impaired by at least $2.7b during the same six month period, meaning that Cerberus Series Four hedge fund had suffered a similar loss in value in its investment in GMAC. Why should taxpayers bailout the millionaire investors in the Cerberus hedge funds?

More secrecy and lack of disclosure

11. Does GM plan to make any payments to GMAC, payments that directly benefit Cerberus? As vehicle residual values decrease, GM is obligated to make payments to GMAC under “residual support and risk sharing” agreements. On August 6, 2008, GM paid GMAC/Cerberus $646m, money which could have been used by GM to fund its ongoing operations and its obligations to employees.

12. Should any taxpayer money be used to fund payments to GMAC/Cerberus, whether that money is used directly or indirectly? How much, if anything is Cerberus investing in new money to prop up its investment in GMAC? If it is not investing in Chrysler or GMAC we can reasonably conclude that its analysis shows that the investment is a bad one. What’s bad for Cerberus is bad for the US Treasury.

Although it appears that the Cerberus Series Four has money available to make follow-on investments, it makes no sense to throw good money after bad if you can lobby the US Treasury to make the bad investment for you. A related question is whether the Cerberus equity interests in GMAC are going to be used as collateral for the loans that will be used (albeit indirectly) to bailout GMAC. Why should equity bear none of the risk but get all of the benefit?

More non-disclosure

13. What is Cerberus ResCap Financing LLC and who has seen its financial statements or the agreements relating to the $3.5b secured loan facility? How is this secured loan impacted by the bailout of Cerberus/GM/Chrysler?

Deepening insolvency is likely

14. GM’s current insolvency and continuing losses will trigger additional liabilities, and make it doubtful that GM will be able to make payments promised to employees and former employees or perform its labor agreements. GM’s worsening financial condition also deepens its losses from its derivative contracts. How would a GM/Cerberus Chrysler merger affect these liabilities? Will any government loans be used to reduce the $30b of GM accounts payable, or, in the event of a merger, to pay down Chrysler accounts payable in some still unknown amount? Sadly, we don’t even know what Cerberus proposed as the use of funds and we have no idea how Cerberus will benefit since we have no financial information on Chrysler or Cerberus.

15. As GM and Chrysler idle plants and facilities, more employees are laid off the employee related liabilities of GM/Chrysler will increase by hundreds of millions. Since GM and Chrysler are insolvent, who will pay these increased costs? Can any of these costs be avoided in a Chapter 11 case of Chrysler or GM?

16. Should taxpayer money be used, directly or indirectly, to pay GM and Chrysler obligations that are coming due while these entities are unable to pay from their own assets. Surely not, but what is being proposed, and who will benefit if GM debt is redeemed at par by vulture investors that bought the debt at pennies on the dollar? A related question: will any Cerberus entities benefit from government funded redemptions of auto maker debt? Is it possible that Cerberus is trading in credit default swaps and actually benefiting from the difficulties of Chrysler, GM and GMAC? Yet more items of non-disclosure on a long list of secret items.

Conclusion

17. GM, GMAC and Chrysler are not credit worthy and are unable to borrow money on any basis, secured or unsecured.

What’s Good for GM/Chrysler is a Chapter 11 Filing

18. GM needs to be restructured, which means it must change the terms of its legal obligations to suppliers, bondholders and employees. The only vehicle to accomplish the needed changes is Chapter 11, which lets GM reject unfavorable contracts, renegotiate its debt obligations, defer interest and principal payments and gives it time to fix its business. Without a chapter 11 filing a government infusion of $10b cash will be gone in six months when GM uses the money in 2009 to pay bondholders and employees billions of dollars, payments which do nothing to help GM survive.

19. Chrysler, the stepchild of a distressed debt vulture fund, is also a prime candidate for Chapter 11. But Chrysler should be liquidated, not reorganized. A liquidating Chapter 11 case, expressly permitted by the Bankruptcy Code, can be used to keep Chrysler operating while its divisions are sold. With adequate Chapter 11 funding line workers can keep their jobs and benefits, and non-essential executives can be fired at minimal cost to the Chapter 11 debtor, known as the debtor-in-possession. Trade creditors will continue to ship to Chrysler because their post-petition claims will have a priority in payment. Chapter 11 also lets the Bankruptcy Judge appoint an examiner to conduct an investigation into the financial affairs of Chrysler and its equity owners, and to sue to recover any improper payments. Chapter 11 will also make it clear to Daimler and Cerberus that their investment is worthless and they will not be able to use their position of control to improperly benefit.

20. Cerberus should acknowledge the financial reality and either file a Chapter 11 case for Chrysler or have a federal receiver appointed so that the value of the Chrysler assets can be maximized in an orderly sale procedure. The US government should fund the Chapter 11 case and keep Chrysler operating by giving Chrysler a debtor-in-possession loan having seniority over all other liabilities of Chrysler, thereby assuring taxpayers that the money will be repaid out of the proceeds of asset sales. The US could also give a senior secured loan to GM to help GM acquire assets from Chrysler, but this would require the cooperation of bondholders, cooperation not likely to be forthcoming. On the other hand, if GM is in Chapter 11 then the government could refinance the GM operations without fear that taxpayer money would be diverted to pay existing creditors.

Last Champion of Financial Deregulation

Gordon Campbell,
Premier Campbell: radical among peers? The crash should have killed TILMA.
By Murray Dobbin

TheTyee.ca

In the midst of the financial meltdown, one man, apparently, stands alone calling for more deregulation. While anti-government George Bush buys up banks and insurance companies, former Fed chair Alan Greenspan admits he was "partially wrong" in his hands-off approach towards the banking industry, and the crisis has caused right-wing French President Sarkozy to virtually denounce capitalism.

Yet, while everyone else is demanding the rogue financial industry be brought to heel, B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell is actually pushing for even more financial deregulation right across the country.

That would seem to be the only logical interpretation of his call at the premiers' meeting in Montreal to get every province signed on to his pet project, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, or TILMA. Campbell claimed this would help counter the economic slowdown. But what TILMA does is make a broad range of government regulations vulnerable to challenge, including regulations over the financial sector.

How TILMA ties regulators' hands

Among other things, TILMA has a standstill clause so that any new regulations on financial services that got in the way of investment would be a violation, potentially subject to a $5 million penalty. Article 5(3) of TILMA states: "Parties shall not establish new standards or regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility."

Existing financial regulations will also be open to challenges under TILMA if they restrict investment. And unlike other trade agreements, there is nothing in TILMA to exempt regulations designed to ensure the stability of the financial system. In stark contrast to other agreements, TILMA has no safeguards to protect prudential regulations from challenges by investors.

TILMA does allow governments to do things that are inconsistent with the agreement if they are pursuing objectives the agreement defines as legitimate. But nowhere on TILMA's list of "legitimate objectives" is anything about safeguarding the soundness of financial institutions.

ADVERTISEMENT
Right now, just Alberta and B.C. are TILMA signatories. The Yukon recently said no, as have all other provinces either by act or omission. Most seem to have decided the agreement is too radical -- an ideological solution looking for a problem. But despite repeated rejections, Campbell continues to push his fellow premiers to join. It makes him the most determined deregulation advocate among the premiers.

Anyone not blinded by laissez faire theology can see the agreement for what it is: the most radical investment agreement in existence. Article 3, "No Obstacles," states unequivocally: "Each Party shall ensure that its measures do not operate to restrict or impair trade between or through the territory of the Parties, or investment or labour mobility between the Parties." Period. You cannot put up obstacles to investment, which is arguably what every government regulation does by definition.

Learn from Quebec's narrow escape

So what would happen if other provinces accepted Campbell's sales pitch and signed on? Take for example Quebec, and its recent moves to regulate the financial sector. In July, Quebec gave royal assent to Bill 77, the Derivatives Act, which establishes a broad legal framework specifically aimed at regulating derivatives traded in Québec. Québec is the first province to take on the regulation of these investments, the most toxic of any of the financial "innovations" unleashed on the world over the past 10 years. Warren Buffett refers to derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction."

But Quebec's laudable efforts to get some control over these risky financial products would have been impossible if the province had signed TILMA. Its regulatory initiative on derivatives would have broken TILMA's rules: that governments cannot introduce new regulations that restrict investment; that they have to reconcile their regulations with those of other parties to the agreement; that they cannot create obstacles to investment.

As of April 1, 2009, all existing B.C. and Alberta regulations over financial institutions and products will be challengeable under TILMA -- never mind these provinces ever trying to introduce new financial reforms. What about other provinces that might hopefully follow Quebec's lead in strengthening financial regulation? If they sign TILMA, they might as well forget it, as they would in effect be setting their own regulations up for a legal challenge.

Who says the Washington Consensus is dead? It is being defended by deregulation's last crusader, Premier Gordon Campbell.

Related Tyee stories:


Vancouver Joins Towns Spooked by TILMA
Council wants more info on trade pact.


'Very Big Teeth' Threaten Campbell's Green Ambitions
TILMA trade agreement would penalize his plans.


Trade Debate Libs Don't Want
Talk of TILMA deal censored in the leg. But not here.

Lesson to Canada: Making Your Own Hitler from a Minority Government

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp
How Hitler Became a Dictator
by Jacob G. Hornberger, Posted June 28, 2004


Whenever U.S. officials wish to demonize someone, they inevitably compare him to Adolf Hitler. The message immediately resonates with people because everyone knows that Hitler was a brutal dictator.

But how many people know how Hitler actually became a dictator? My bet is, very few. I’d also bet that more than a few people would be surprised at how he pulled it off, especially given that after World War I Germany had become a democratic republic.

The story of how Hitler became a dictator is set forth in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer, on which this article is based.

In the presidential election held on March 13, 1932, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg. The results were:

Hindenburg 49.6 percent
Hitler 30.1 percent
Thaelmann 13.2 percent
Duesterberg 6.8 percent

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, almost 70 percent of the German people voted against Hitler, causing his supporter Joseph Goebbels, who would later become Hitler’s minister of propaganda, to lament in his journal, “We’re beaten; terrible outlook. Party circles badly depressed and dejected.”

Since Hindenberg had not received a majority of the vote, however, a runoff election had to be held among the top three vote-getters. On April 19, 1932, the runoff results were:

Hindenburg 53.0 percent
Hitler 36.8 percent
Thaelmann 10.2 percent


Thus, even though Hitler’s vote total had risen, he still had been decisively rejected by the German people.

On June 1, 1932, Hindenberg appointed Franz von Papen as chancellor of Germany, whom Shirer described as an “unexpected and ludicrous figure.” Papen immediately dissolved the Reichstag (the national congress) and called for new elections, the third legislative election in five months.

Hitler and his fellow members of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party, who were determined to bring down the republic and establish dictatorial rule in Germany, did everything they could to create chaos in the streets, including initiating political violence and murder. The situation got so bad that martial law was proclaimed in Berlin.

Even though Hitler had badly lost the presidential election, he was drawing ever-larger crowds during the congressional election. As Shirer points out,

In one day, July 27, he spoke to 60,000 persons in Brandenburg, to nearly as many in Potsdam, and that evening to 120,000 massed in the giant Grunewald Stadium in Berlin while outside an additional 100,000 heard his voice by loudspeaker.

Hitler’s rise to power


The July 31, 1932, election produced a major victory for Hitler’s National Socialist Party. The party won 230 seats in the Reichstag, making it Germany’s largest political party, but it still fell short of a majority in the 608-member body.

On the basis of that victory, Hitler demanded that President Hindenburg appoint him chancellor and place him in complete control of the state. Otto von Meissner, who worked for Hindenburg, later testified at Nuremberg,

Hindenburg replied that because of the tense situation he could not in good conscience risk transferring the power of government to a new party such as the National Socialists, which did not command a majority and which was intolerant, noisy and undisciplined.
Political deadlocks in the Reichstag soon brought a new election, this one in November 6, 1932. In that election, the Nazis lost two million votes and 34 seats. Thus, even though the National Socialist Party was still the largest political party, it had clearly lost ground among the voters.

Attempting to remedy the chaos and the deadlocks, Hindenburg fired Papen and appointed an army general named Kurt von Schleicher as the new German chancellor. Unable to secure a majority coalition in the Reichstag, however, Schleicher finally tendered his resignation to Hindenburg, 57 days after he had been appointed.

On January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany. Although the National Socialists never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote, and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and fewer than 50 percent of the seats in the Reichstag, Hitler and the Nazis set out to to consolidate their power. With Hitler as chancellor, that proved to be a fairly easy task.


The Reichstag fire

On February 27, Hitler was enjoying supper at the Goebbels home when the telephone rang with an emergency message: “The Reichstag is on fire!” Hitler and Goebbels rushed to the fire, where they encountered Hermann Goering, who would later become Hitler’s air minister. Goering was shouting at the top of his lungs,

This is the beginning of the Communist revolution! We must not wait a minute. We will show no mercy. Every Communist official must be shot, where he is found. Every Communist deputy must this very day be strung up.
The day after the fire, the Prussian government announced that it had found communist publications stating,

Government buildings, museums, mansions and essential plants were to be burned down... . Women and children were to be sent in front of terrorist groups.... The burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for a bloody insurrection and civil war.... It has been ascertained that today was to have seen throughout Germany terrorist acts against individual persons, against private property, and against the life and limb of the peaceful population, and also the beginning of general civil war.
So how was Goering so certain that the fire had been set by communist terrorists? Arrested on the spot was a Dutch communist named Marinus van der Lubbe. Most historians now believe that van der Lubbe was actually duped by the Nazis into setting the fire and probably was even assisted by them, without his realizing it.

Why would Hitler and his associates turn a blind eye to an impending terrorist attack on their national congressional building or actually assist with such a horrific deed? Because they knew what government officials have known throughout history — that during extreme national emergencies, people are most scared and thus much more willing to surrender their liberties in return for “security.” And that’s exactly what happened during the Reichstag terrorist crisis.


Suspending civil liberties

The day after the fire, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to issue a decree entitled, “For the Protection of the People and the State.” Justified as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state,” the decree suspended the constitutional guarantees pertaining to civil liberties:

Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Two weeks after the Reichstag fire, Hitler requested the Reichstag to temporarily delegate its powers to him so that he could adequately deal with the crisis. Denouncing opponents to his request, Hitler shouted, “Germany will be free, but not through you!” When the vote was taken, the result was 441 for and 84 against, giving Hitler the two-thirds majority he needed to suspend the German constitution. On March 23, 1933, what has gone down in German history as the “Enabling Act” made Hitler dictator of Germany, freed of all legislative and constitutional constraints.


The judiciary under Hitler

One of the most dramatic consequences was in the judicial arena. Shirer points out,

Under the Weimar Constitution judges were independent, subject only to the law, protected from arbitrary removal and bound at least in theory by Article 109 to safeguard equality before the law.
In fact, in the Reichstag terrorist case, while the court convicted van der Lubbe of the crime (who was executed), three other defendants, all communists, were acquitted, which infuriated Hitler and Goering. Within a month, the Nazis had transferred jurisdiction over treason cases from the Supreme Court to a new People’s Court, which, as Shirer points out,

soon became the most dreaded tribunal in the land. It consisted of two professional judges and five others chosen from among party officials, the S.S. and the armed forces, thus giving the latter a majority vote. There was no appeal from its decisions or sentences and usually its sessions were held in camera. Occasionally, however, for propaganda purposes when relatively light sentences were to be given, the foreign correspondents were invited to attend.
One of the Reichstag terrorist defendants, who had angered Goering during the trial with a severe cross-examination of Goering, did not benefit from his acquittal. Shirer explains:

The German communist leader was immediately taken into “protective custody,” where he remained until his death during the second war.
In addition to the People’s Court, which handled treason cases, the Nazis also set up the Special Court, which handled cases of political crimes or “insidious attacks against the government.” These courts

consisted of three judges, who invariably had to be trusted party members, without a jury. A Nazi prosecutor had the choice of bringing action in such cases before either an ordinary court or the Special Court, and invariably he chose the latter, for obvious reasons. Defense lawyers before this court, as before the Volksgerichtshof, had to be approved by Nazi officials. Sometimes even if they were approved they fared badly. Thus the lawyers who attempted to represent the widow of Dr. Klausener, the Catholic Action leader murdered in the Blood Purge, in her suit for damages against the State were whisked off to Sachsenhausen concentration camp, where they were kept until they formally withdrew the action.
Even lenient treatment by the Special Court was no guarantee for the defendant, however, as Pastor Martin Niemoeller discovered when he was acquitted of major political charges and sentenced to time served for minor charges. Leaving the courtroom, Niemoeller was taken into custody by the Gestapo and taken to a concentration camp.

The Nazis also implemented a legal concept called Schutzhaft or “protective custody” which enabled them to arrest and incarcerate people without charging them with a crime. As Shirer put it,

Protective custody did not protect a man from possible harm, as it did in more civilized countries. It punished him by putting him behind barbed wire.
On August 2, 1934, Hindenburg died, and the title of president was abolished. Hitler’s title became Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. Not surprisingly, he used the initial four-year “temporary” grant of emergency powers that had been given to him by the Enabling Act to consolidate his omnipotent control over the entire country.


Accepting the new order

Oddly enough, even though his dictatorship very quickly became complete, Hitler returned to the Reichstag every four years to renew the “temporary” delegation of emergency powers that it had given him to deal with the Reichstag-arson crisis. Needless to say, the Reichstag rubber-stamped each of his requests.

For their part, the German people quickly accepted the new order of things. Keep in mind that the average non-Jewish German was pretty much unaffected by the new laws and decrees. As long as a German citizen kept his head down, worked hard, took care of his family, sent his children to the public schools and the Hitler Youth organization, and, most important, didn’t involve himself in political dissent against the government, a visit by the Gestapo was very unlikely.

Keep in mind also that, while the Nazis established concentration camps in the 1930s, the number of inmates ranged in the thousands. It wouldn’t be until the 1940s that the death camps and the gas chambers that killed millions would be implemented. Describing how the average German adapted to the new order, Shirer writes,

The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation.... The Nazi terror in the early years affected the lives of relatively few Germans and a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed.... On the contrary, they supported it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country.

What Do We Have to Fear Victoria?

Happy Halloween!
by Steve Filipovic

Oh what fun this annual event is! You get to dress up and run screaming into the night trying your best to scare away those things that scare you. Death, taxes, poverty, public speaking, what is it that most scares you?

I have been facing my fears so I am able to see them clearer now. What scares me most right now is that both Dean Fortin and Rob Reid will comply with the Victoria Chamber of Commerce and hire another 60 police officers for Victoria. We don't have a problem with crime, the stats show that it has been going down in Victoria.

We do have another problem and more police can't fix it, because it is not illegal to be homeless or impoverished. We need to spend the $6 million on Housing not Policing. There has been no real increase in the rental stock of Victoria for years and the strain is showing itself both in the high rents of apartments and in the numbers who have given up and ended up on our streets.

This election is boiling down to the issues of Affordable housing and assisting our neighbours in need with the establishment of tent cities. My idea for affordable housing is rent-to-own, set up in such a manner as to distribute equity to those who care for their buildings and create positive neighbourhood relationships; co-operatives and non-profit groups play a big role in affordable housing as well.

My ideas for tent cities are to follow the lessons learned in Dignity Village Portland Oregon and to help those in need to help themselves to shelter and security. That means setting up two or three small tent communities in and around Victoria complete with running hot and cold water and washroom facilities. The people in the tents can form their own committees to establish the rules and enforce them. The police will still be responsible for ensuring that no laws are broken and can be relieved of the duties of moving people along, a policy that is getting everyone nowhere.

Location ideas: Cridge Family center for homeless families, Ellice Street park that has been usurped for housing but nothing has started yet and St. Anne's as it is a provincial property and would help motivate the province into action on these issues.

It is time to start getting excited about electing a Green Mayor. I have been doing very well at the debates and have already handed out over 2000 handbills regarding the importance of affordable housing. It is a message that is going over very well as 60-70% of Victorians are trapped in the high rental market. This election is a choice between policing and housing, I support housing make your voice known!

This election is ours to win! The plan is to network, network, network, tell all your friends and associates. Come out and help in mainstreeting call me to find out where I will be and join in the fun of chasing away our fears and bringing in a new tomorrow. It is as easy as saying hi to strangers and discovering that they feel the same way as we do about so many important issues.

Happy Halloween, be safe and have fun!



Steve Filipovic
Candidate for Mayor
250 216 5903
www.SteveFilipovic.ca

greens@stevefilipovic.ca

Passing: Studs Terkel

There Will Never Be Another Studs Terkel
by John Nichols


When Studs Terkel was in the seventh grade, his teacher, Miss Henrietta Boone, asked the smart young whippersnapper who he was supporting in the presidential election of 1924.


"Are you for Calvin Coolidge or John W. Davis?" Miss Boone inquired, mentioning the names of the Republican and Democratic nominees.


Terkel, who had already imbibed the radicalism of Chicago's labor left, was for neither of the major party candidates. Rather, he favored the third-party contender who was campaigning against imperialism abroad and Wall Street at home.


"Innocently -- or was I damnably perverse even then? -- I piped, 'Fightin' Bob La Follette,'" Terkel recalled eight decades later, mentioning the name of the progressive senator from Wisconsin who earned his support that year. "She was startled, poor dear. Why have I always upset such gentle hearts? Why couldn't I have been my cute little button self and said the right thing: 'Keep Cool with Coolidge.'"


Studs could be cute, and damnably perverse.


But the Pultizer Prize-winning author, pioneering radio personality, battler against Joe McCarthy and McCarthyism, raconteur, rabble-rouser and grand old man of the American left, who died Friday at age 96, never pulled his punches when it came to politics.


Early in 2002, as George Bush was scheming to exploit the fear of terrorism in order to steer the United States toward a new career of empire, I wrote an article for The Nation about the lonely dissents of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich.


Studs responded, as he had to La Follette's call 80 years earlier:


"When I finished reading John Nichols's exhilarating communiqué from California ("Kucinich Rocks the Boat," March 25), the bells began to ring," he wrote for The Nation.


"In his speech to the Southern California Americans for Democratic Action, criticizing Bush's conduct of the war on terrorism, Dennis Kucinich set the crowd on its ear -- one standing ovation after another. Sure, they were all liberals, but what counted was the response on the Internet. The Cleveland Congressman's e-mail box was stuffed to overflowing with 20,000-plus enthusiastic letters. Among them was the call: Kucinich for President."


"Kucinich is the man to light the fire," Studs declared. "Amen."


As it turned out, Kucinich didn't get any closer to the presidency than did La Follette. Studs was disappointed, but undaunted. Politics was never a game for Studs. It was the work of a lifetime. He wrote brilliant books about the lives of working people not merely because their stories were fascinating but because he wanted to get a conversation started about class in America.


He wrote about "the good fight" of World War II because he wanted to remind new generations of Americans that this country had once united to battle fascism.


And he kept his sense of humor and his optimism, even when those around him despaired.


Not long after the invasion of Iraq, when President Bush was still enjoying the ill-gotten high approval ratings of his "Mission Accomplished" moment, Studs explained to me that one of the benefits of his advancing years was his pronounced loss of hearing.


"My bad hearing leads me to higher truths," he quipped. "For instance, terms like 'embedded journalist' come through to me as in-bed with journalist. My problem with the media right now is that we've got too many in-bed-with-journalists and not enough of the skeptical, questioning, challenging journalists who will hold George Bush and his boys accountable."


For Studs, who had made his name as an incisive radio interviewer, the increasing consolidation of radio station ownership, and the homogenization that went with it, was deeply troubling. But Studs was not only concerned about the sector of media he knew best.


"Information, news, ideas -- that's the juice that gets a democracy going. When a few corporations control all the juice, they decide how the democracy works. Or how it won't work. I don't worry that much about people doing the right thing if they have the facts about what their government is up to. But if they don't get the facts, the whole thing falls apart," said the man who had spent most of his life interviewing Americans regarding their work, their ideals, their politics -- and in his last years, their optimism about the prospect of making a better world.


As far as Studs was concerned, the run-up to the war in Iraq provided a perfect example of how things fall apart when the media fails to do its job. While TV news anchors pinned on flag pins and conducted fawning interviews with members of the Bush administration, the senior member of the U.S. Senate, West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd, was virtually ignored as he questioned the rush to war.


"Senator Byrd has been fantastic. He's the one guy who said 'bugger off' when Bush came around trying to sell the idea of this war. I think he's the one guy who really stood up for our kids in the military, when he said he did not want them going off and invading a country that was no threat to us," Studs said. "But Byrd got no headlines. You hardly ever saw him on television. I think that if he had, we might not be in this war today. That's an example of what happens when the big media companies just give us the administration's version of the news."


Long before others dared do so, the man who immortalized the generation of Americans who fought "the good war" of the 1940s termed the Iraq war "a quagmire for America."


"We were the most honored country in the world at the end of World War II," he noted. "Now we're the most loathed country. We need a media that asks: 'What the hell are we doing there?' "


Studs was delighted when, in 2004, a young Chicago state senator with whom he had marched on picket lines, was elected to the U.S. Senate on an anti-war "what-the-hell-are-we-doing-there?" platform. He followed Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency with enthusiasm. The old civil rights campaigner wanted to see an African-American elected president in his lifetime.


But he also wanted the Democrat to remember his roots as, dare we say it, a community activist. "Obama can't be a moderate!" Studs said in one of his last interviews. "He's got to remember where he comes from! Obama, he has got to be pushed!" In particular, the man who well recalled the first 100 days of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency wanted to make sure that Obama was pressed to promote a new New Deal.


"I'd ask Obama, do you plan to follow up on the program of the New Deal of FDR? I'd tell him, 'Don't fool around on a few issues, such as health care. We've got bigger work to do! Read FDR's second inaugural address!'" he told a Chicago reporter. "The free market has to be regulated. And the New Deal did that and they provided jobs. The government has to. The WPA provided jobs. We have got to get back to that. We need more reg-u-la-tion."


The truth is that we need more Studs Terkels. There will never be another quite like him.


But as Americans of good will ponder the notion of forging a change we believe in, we would be wise not merely to recall but to emulate the disdain for moderation, the enduring progressive faith and the delighted determination to speak truth to power -- from the days when he was talking up Bob La Follette to the days when he was talking up Barack Obama -- that defined the politics and the life of Studs Terkel.




John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine.

Taliban rule returning

Taliban rule returning to Kandahar province

28 October, 2008 09:50:00 Tom Blackwell


KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- They mete out justice in their own courts, ban schools and even organize large religious gatherings, like one that drew thousands of people just outside Kandahar city recently.

As Canadian Forces continue to fight and die throughout Kandahar province, the Taliban have quietly set up parallel governments only kilo-metres away from the provincial capital, local residents say.

Large swaths of the province for which Canada is responsible have fallen under the control of the insurgents, they said, and out of the grasp of a national government villagers consider corrupt and weak.

The three farmers, interviewed this weekend by a Canwest News Service translator, painted a fascinating picture of life under the unofficial Taliban administrations. And while they voiced dismay at the continuing conflict and some of the insurgents' policies, they say not everyone is displeased with the situation.

A panel of three or four judges in Maiwand district, for instance, has for the past year been issuing prompt rulings on civil and criminal matters, said one man.

"The Taliban announced to the villagers that if they face any kind of problems, they should come to the court and they will find a transparent judgment," he said. "They deal with a number of cases: land disputes, family disputes, loan disputes, robbery, killing, fighting... and the people are happy with them."

In Zhari, the insurgent court has sentenced 27 people to death, said a resident of that district. Surprisingly, the farmers said the Taliban have issued no edicts against radio and TV or even shaving beards -- all things banned under their government -- though the villagers tend to eschew such behaviour out of fear, anyway.

Their accounts raise difficult questions about the progress being made by Canadian troops in almost three years of hard fighting and reconstruction efforts in the province.

A Canadian Forces spokesman said he could not comment immediately on the stories. The men spoke of deep frustration at having to choose between insurgents they say are often too harsh, government officials who are crooked and ineffective, and NATO forces who bring them little more than warfare.

"If the Taliban knew that I am giving information to you, they would skin me alive, but my heart and mind are full of words," said another Maiwand resident. "We see trouble from the Taliban, from NATO and from the Afghan government.... They [Taliban] don't allow schools. We don't have schools and our children don't understand what schools are. We are totally deprived of the rights that a human being should have."

All asked that they not be identified, and none would meet directly with a foreign journalist, for fear of repercussions. They said about 70% of the districts of Zhari and Maiwand, both west of Kandahar city, are under Taliban control.

It was in Maiwand that insurgents hijacked a passing bus this month and executed as many as 24 of the passengers, claiming they were army recruits.

The Taliban, sometimes appearing in "huge" numbers, have separate units of eight to 12 men each in the district, said the first Maiwand farmer. One is responsible for planting improvised explosive devices, one carries out attacks on police and NATO forces directly, one ambushes military supply convoys and another conducts intelligence on locals, reporting anyone working with the government or foreign forces, he said.

For the Eid festival marking the end of Ramadan early this month, Taliban invited people to a special prayer in Senjaray, 15 kilometres west of Kandahar city. Thousands came, with the insurgents handling security.

"It was amazing, and shameful for the current government," he said.

Taliban courts move from place to place, hearing complaints and seeking out witnesses before delivering a decision, which the people tend to heed, said the farmer.

The Zhari resident said he is not always happy with the insurgents' brand of justice, though. "Yes, we do like Islamic Sharia law, but not the way the Taliban are doing it right now," he said. "Islam is not strict and harsh, it's a religion of peace and brotherhood."

The same man said education is simply not an option in areas controlled by the insurgents. "They are burning the schools, killing the teachers and the students," he said.

The Taliban do have willing supporters in these areas, including young people who enjoy the insurgent life because "they have guns, power and money, plus motorbikes," said the second Maiwand farmer. But others "don't like to kill people, they don't want to fight."

Still, the residents said that taking their troubles to the notoriously corrupt Afghan National Police or other government agencies simply causes more problems.

Even in Kandahar city, more or less under government control, the Taliban have officials who secretly parallel actual positions, from mayor to police chief, said Mohammad Naseem, a local businessman.

Yousuf Ahmadi, a Taliban spokesman, confirmed the insurgents have set up such shadow administrations and that it has barred any kind of non-religious teaching in areas under its sway, but blamed NATO for endangering schools with its bombing.

"We let boys study in the mosques, we are not against modern education or against schools, but this time is not suitable for schools to be set up or remain open," he said. "We are in the phase of serious fighting."

Ultimately, though, the residents said they do not believe in either the Taliban or the Afghan government.

"We don't like all these troubles," said the first Maiwand farmer, tears welling in his eyes. "We have the right to have schools for our children, clinics for health, roads for driving, business for income. People think we like this chaotic situation. No, we don't like it at all."

The farmer from Zhari said he favours neither the foreigners nor the Taliban.

"I would like a new government, a government that brings peace and stability to our country," he said. "I don't expect to get any of that."

Diplomacy Of Lying

The Diplomacy Of Lying

By John Pilger

October 27, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse" -- In 1992, Mark Higson, the Foreign Office official responsible for Iraq, appeared before the Scott inquiry into the scandal of arms sold illegally to Saddam Hussein. He described a "culture of lying" at the heart of British foreign policymaking. I asked him how frequently ministers and officials lied to parliament.

"It's systemic," he said. "The draft letters I wrote for various ministers were saying that nothing had changed, the embargo on the sale of arms to Iraq was the same."

"Was that true?" I asked.

"No, it wasn't true."

"And your superiors knew it wasn't true?"

"Yes."

"So how much truth did the public get?"

"The public got as much truth as we could squeeze out, given that we told downright lies."

From British involvement with the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, to the supply of warplanes to the Indonesian dictator Suharto, knowing he was bombing civilians in East Timor, to the denial of vaccines and other humanitarian aid to the children of Iraq, my experience with the Foreign Office is that Higson was right and remains right.

As I write this, the dispossessed people of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean await the decision of the Law Lords, hoping for a repetition of four previous judgments that their brutal expulsion to make way for a US military base was "outrageous", "illegal" and "repugnant". That they must endure yet another appeal is thanks to the Foreign Office – whose legal adviser in 1968, one Anthony Ivall Aust (pronounced "oarst" and since knighted), wrote a secret document headed "Maintaining the fiction". This advised the then Labour government to "argue" the "fiction" that the Chagossians were "only a floating population". Today, the depopulated main island, Diego Garcia, over which the Union Jack flies, serves the "war on terror" as an American interrogation and torture centre.

When you bear this in mind, the US presidential race becomes surreal. The beatification of President Barack Obama is already under way; for it is he who "challenges America to rise up [and] summon 'the better angels of our nature'", says Rolling Stone magazine, reminiscent of the mating calls of Guardian writers to the "mystical" Blair. As ever, the Orwell Inversion Test is necessary. Obama claims that his vast campaign wealth comes from small individual donors, yet he has also received funds from some of the most notorious looters on Wall Street. Moreover, the "dove" and "candidate of change" has voted repeatedly to fund George W Bush's rapacious wars, and now demands more war in Afghanistan while he threatens to bomb Pakistan.

Dismissing the popular democracies in Latin America as a "vacuum" to be filled by the United States, he has endorsed Colombia's "right to strike terrorists who seek safe havens across its borders". Translated, this means the "right" of the criminal regime in that country to invade its neighbours, notably uppity Venezuela, on Washington's behalf. The British human rights group Justice for Colombia has just published a study concerning Anglo-American backing for the Colombian regime of Álvaro Uribe, which is responsible for more than 90 per cent of all cases of torture. The principal torturers, the "security forces", are trained by the Americans and the British. The Foreign Office replies that it is "improving the human rights record of the military and combating drug trafficking". The study finds not a shred of evidence to support this. Colombian officers with barbaric records, such as those implicated in the murder of a trade union leader, are welcomed to Britain for "seminars".

As in many parts of the world, the British role is that of subcontractor to Washington. The bloody "Plan Colombia" was the design of Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president and inspiration for Blair's and Brown's new Labour. Clinton's administration was at least as violent as Bush's – see Unicef's report that 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of the Anglo-American blockade in the 1990s.

The lesson learned is that no presidential candidate, least of all a Democrat awash with money from America's "banksters", as Franklin Roosevelt called them, can or will challenge a militarised system that controls and rewards him. Obama's job is to present a benign, even progressive face that will revive America's democratic pretensions, internationally and domestically, while ensuring nothing of substance changes.

Among ordinary Americans desperate for a secure life, his skin colour may help him regain this unjustified "trust", even though it is of a similar hue to that of Colin Powell, who lied to the United Nations for Bush and now endorses Obama. As for the rest of us, is it not time we opened our eyes and exercised our right not to be lied to, yet again?

www.johnpilger.com

"Heroes: the Films of John Pilger (1970-2007)" is released on DVD on 27 October

tar sands undermine democracy

Author Andrew Nikiforuk fears tar sands undermine democracy
By Charlie Smith
A Calgary author and journalist says most Canadians don’t understand that we’re living in a “petrostate” that could undermine our democracy. Andrew Nikiforuk, author of Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent (Greystone Books, $20), told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview that Canada needs a national debate on the topic. “I think the tar sands has created a political emergency for the country,” he said.

In his book, Nikiforuk describes the Alberta tar-sands developments as the world’s largest construction project, the world’s largest capital project, and the world’s largest energy project—one that uses as much water in a year as a city with a population of two million.

“We need reporters from our national daily newspapers living in Fort McMurray and writing about this nation-changing event,” Nikiforuk said. “This is an event much greater than the building of the national railway. This is an event much greater than the Apollo moon project.”

Canada, which has approximately 175 billion barrels of recoverable oil, is the largest supplier of oil to the United States, having surpassed Saudi Arabia. “We have become a petrostate without any of the safeguards that a petrostate should have,” Nikiforuk said.

He noted that there is a vast amount of political-science research demonstrating that oil wealth hinders democracy. He said this is true regardless of whether the petrostate is in the Middle East, and whether it’s a large or small country. Nikiforuk pointed out that Canada has ignored recommendations from the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development calling on countries that generate a great deal of oil wealth to put those revenues into a separate fund that cannot be touched by politicians.

“Canadians need to start thinking of themselves as a petrostate, and they need to start thinking of the kinds of controls needed to protect the country from the excesses of oil,” he said. “We also need to think about the pace, and where we want to go with it. It is out of control.”

He said that oil wealth undermines democracy in several ways. Governments enriched by petroleum revenues reduce taxes, which makes the public feel good about politicians who make these decisions. Oil money is also used to buy votes, he alleged.

“Then, those parties tend to stay in power for long periods of time,” Nikiforuk said, noting that Conservatives have governed Alberta for 37 years. “Parties that stay in power for long, long periods of time tend to become more authoritarian in nature.”

Alberta has the lowest provincial voter turnout in the country. Nikiforuk said governments that remain in power for decades tend to make more appointments based on patronage rather than merit. “So you end up with all kinds of people being appointed to positions they should not be in,” he claimed.

He estimated that $200 billion has been spent developing the Alberta tar sands if the cost of pipelines, refinery expansions, and upgraders is included. “It has brought 700,000 people into Alberta since 1996,” Nikiforuk said. “It is almost like the invasion of Iraq, but in this case, it’s a petroboom.”

According to the Alberta-based Pembina Institute, two tonnes of the bituminous sands, otherwise known as tar sands, and two tonnes of overburden must be excavated to create a single barrel of oil. Nikiforuk writes that producing each barrel generates three times as much greenhouse gas as a barrel of conventional oil because of the work involved.

He noted that the tar-sands developments are playing a role in preventing Canada from meeting its climate-change goals. But the impact goes beyond that, affecting cross-Canada labour mobility and causing politicians to amend immigration legislation to allow more temporary foreign workers. “The tar sands has changed Canada in the same way the fur trade has changed Canada,” Nikiforuk said.

He said that Canadian provincial and federal governments have generated $60 billion from tar-sands development, but claimed that Canadians have little to show for it. In his book, he notes that Ottawa will have collected at least $50 billion from tar-sands developments by 2020. “True to the First Law of Petropolitics,” Nikiforuk writes, “government has used this windfall so far to reduce corporate taxes and slash 2 per cent off the federal sales tax. While Norway has kept the resource curse largely at bay with clear accounting and its dedicated oil/pension fund, Ottawa has spent the cash to win friends and influence elections.”

Nikiforuk said that Canada has no strategy for ensuring self-sufficiency in energy over the long term, even though it appears that conventional oil production has peaked around the world. He also said that no Alberta politician ever expected that environmentally concerned Americans would start asking questions about degradation wrought by tar-sands developments. “What we’re seeing is a complete vacuum here in terms of political direction, political policy, political strategy,” he claimed. “It’s dangerous for Alberta. It’s dangerous for Canada. It’s dangerous for North America.”

Andrew Nikiforuk will speak on Sunday (October 26) at 7 p.m. at the Capilano Performing Arts Theatre (2055 Purcell Way, North Vancouver). Tickets are $10/$12.

Island Watersheds Need Protection from Private Owners

Island Lens #111 – October 24, 2008

By Richard Boyce

WATERSHEDS NEED PROTECTION FROM PRIVATE OWNERS

On a recent walk around Labour Day Lake, I was enchanted by the mycrological world that erupts with the return of the rains. I spent the entire day examining mushrooms with a wide range of colours: bright yellow, orange, red, dull purple, green, white, and every variation of brown. Some were so tiny they made the evergreen needles look big, while others were the size of soccer balls. They grew on rotting logs, amongst the evergreen needles, and high up on dying trees. Some looked extremely delicate and others hard shelled.

I particularly enjoy hiking at this time of year because of the profusion of life that comes out of death. Decaying wood and the thick layers of humus that have accumulated over the years, forming a rich forest floor, dotted with a diversity of mushrooms. I have only seen such an abundance of mushrooms in old growth forests where centuries of vegetable matter decaying into soil provides a lush environment for fungi.

Mushrooms that appear on a wide variety of surfaces in the forest are actually the fruiting bodies of fungi, which for the most part are hidden below the surface and can stretch out for great distances. They are an indication of a healthy and vibrant forest ecosystem. Water is purified through soil, which is stabilized by tree root systems, that live in a semiotic relationship with fungi.

Labour Day Lake is the main water source for the Cameron River, which flows into Cameron Lake at Cathedral Grove and then into the Little Qualicum River. This water becomes the drinking water source for Whiskey Creek and the Town of Qualicum Beach. Human Resources Development Canada invested in the recreation site around Labour Day Lake by hiring out-of-work forestry workers to build trails around this sub-alpine lake.

Island Timberlands owns the land around Labour Day Lake and has plans to log this old growth forest in the near future. In 2005 a Federal court ruling stated that the BC Liberal government must have meaningful negotiations with Hupacasath First Nation before Island Timberlands could privatize 70,300 hectares of forestland in TFL 44. The deal went through anyway and now the land is being logged with no regards for the public or the environment.

Public drinking water is being threatened from many different angles including: logging, mining, residential developments, insecticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, sewage, ditching of roadways, farming, golf courses, and wetland diversions. At some point the interest of water protection must come first. Private land owners cannot be allowed to destroy the watersheds that provide the public with drinking water.

Every level of government, municipal, provincial, and federal must work together in order to establish laws that are able to supercede the rights of private landowners, when it comes to protecting the safety and quality of drinking water. Today water does not have any real protection under the law, because our society is based around private ownership of land.

What you can do to change the status quo is to make water protection an election issue by asking your local candidates what they plan to do about private destruction of public water. Local municipal Elections are fast approaching on Saturday November 15, 2008 and the BC Provincial elections will be on May 12, 2009.

I live in the Nanaimo Regional District area F where there are two candidates running for the position of area director. The incumbent, Lou Biggemann, has shown his colors as a supporter of development, and commercial industry. I have met Biggeman at several public events where he has verbally expressed displeasure with my writing and my stance on the environment.

Ceri Peacey is also running for the position of director of the RDN area F, she is a director with the Friends of French Creek Conservation Society in charge of the Hamilton Marsh Committee. I have heard her speak to the regional board in Nanaimo, with passion and articulation, calling for action to protect the watershed. She has put a great deal of time and energy into public awareness of the environment and she asks for input from others.

Vancouver is a rock in the ocean, which dries out completely during the long draughts of summer and fall. Some years are exceptionally dry while others include sporadic rains that dampen the moods of many locals, but do little for the water table. Aside from human consumption, fresh water is essential for salmon, fresh water fish, tourism, forests, plants, and animal life. Water is the essence of life! Where’s the protection?

La Complainte du Phoque en Alaska

***IMPORTANT NOTE: To see subtitles, you need to turn the captions "on" by clicking on the arrow button at the bottom right of the screen, then hover over the CC symbol and turn the captions "on". Thanks.***

This video was created by a few Québec artists to denounce the cuts in cultural funding by the Conservative government, led by Stephen Harper. This version includes english subtitles.

When Beau Dommage's Michel Rivard visits a newly formed governmental committee overseeing cultural financing, language gaps and cultural misunderstandings abounds, mostly when Rivard plays his classical song, "La Complainte du Phoque en Alaska" (The Complaint of the Seal in Alaska)...

***I received a message from the original creators, so I assume it's accepted that my subtitled version doesn't interfere with their intellectual property.***