Editor’s Notes:

I was once under the impression that the Israeli State was a proxy for United States’ interests in the Middle East. However, it is becomming abundantly clear that the US might not be the senior partner in this nefarious relationship. After all, although we might supply the Israelis with cluster bombs, I doubt that it is an extension of our own policy to drop these insidious weapons on populated areas, such as South Lebanon. And to the Israeli apologists who will no doubt scream that there is no evidence that cluster bombs where ever used, I direct you to the independent journalist, Robert Fisk, who documented casaulties who carried the scares associated with the use of these weapons of terror, following the Israeli onslought on Lebanon after two Israeli POW’s were captured when positioned in the occupied territories stolen by the Israelis from the Lebonese. The following article was originally published on Counterpunch. I did not obtain permission to republish it here. However, from my own impressions, Counterpunch appears more interested in the dessimination of truth than with the protection of its intellectual properties.

R Cole

Did Monty Python Fan Dupe Laurie Mylroie?

By CounterPunch News Service

A bizarre “interview” with imprisoned former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was circulated yesterday by MEMRI TV, a non-profit in Washington DC that specializes in translating and circulating mainly Arab-language materials, selected to display the Arab world in a poor light, to the advantage of Israel.

Releasing its translation of the purported interview, supposedly conducted over the phone to the imprisoned former dictator by Al-Fayhaa TV on on March 28, 2006, MEMRI TV trumpeted the news to its customers that “Saddam Hussein issues a Calls to Cut Off Nose and Ears of Former Iraqi VP ‘Izzat Al-Duri and Declares: It Will Make Me Happy if Iraq Turns Into Ashes, Iraq is Not Worth Two Bits Without Saddam Hussein.”

Saddam is allegedly reacting to a taped message issued by his former vice president and loyalist ‘Izzat Al-Duri, who addressed the Arab League summit in Sudan.

Saddam Hussein: “All ‘Izzat Al-Duri ever wanted was to address the Iraqis as their leader, even if just for a few short minutes. Everybody remembers that he once addressed the Iraqi Women’s Union without my knowledge. Do you know what I did to him?”

Interviewer: “We don’t know. Tell us.”

[…]

Saddam Hussein: “The first thing I did when they brought him was to spit in his face.”

Interviewer: “Why?”

Saddam Hussein: “I said to him: ‘You despicable man, I spit on your owl’s face. How do you address these glorious women without me knowing about it?’”

[…]

“The only one who makes speeches in Iraq is the supreme leader - meaning me.

Interviewer: “You’re in prison. How can you give speeches?”

Saddam Hussein: “That’s a good question. You watch the court sessions. How many sessions have there been so far? Fifteen sessions?”

Interviewer: “Seventeen.”

Saddam Hussein: “I give a speech at every single session.”

[…]

“If I don’t give speeches, I get heartburn.

“I call to punish ‘Izzat Al-Duri, because he burned my heart.”

Interviewer: “Why, because he published a statement without your permission?”

Saddam Hussein: “He gave a speech without me knowing it. The punishment that I want for him is to cut off his tongue and ears.”

Interviewer: “Why cutting off his tongue and ears?”

Saddam Hussein: “To make him the same as all the renegades whose tongues and ears I cut off. And if ‘Izzat Al-Duri continues giving speeches in sign language, like the deaf do, I demand that his hands be cut off. And so on and so forth, until ‘Izzat Al-Duri is finished, and we get rid of this degenerate.”

MEMRI TV circulated this as “Special Dispatch No. 1127″ to its customers and it was instantly seized upon by Laurie Milroie, now somewhat fallen in status, but once riding high as an “Iraq expert” and a prominent propagandist for the US-led attack of 2003.

Milroie rushed out the “interview” at 12.57 EST, March 28,to her e-mailed Iraq News, under the breathless heading “Saddam Interview (Stunning), MEMRI TV”.

Then, just over 5 hours later came a second, crestfallen communiqué:

From: “Laurie Mylroie”
Date: March 28, 2006 6:05:06 PM PST
To: “Laurie Mylroie”
Subject: Saddam Interview was Hoax

A knowledgeable US government official has informed “Iraq News” that that remarkable interview with Saddam Hussein, published by MEMRI TV, is almost certainly a hoax.

Had the credulous Mylroie and editors at MEMRI TV been familiar with the 1975 movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail, they might have wondered about such choice lines attributed to Saddam Hussein as “You despicable man, I spit on your owl’s face.”

ARTHUR: If you will not show us the Grail, we shall take your castle by force!

FRENCH GUARD:You don’t frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King, you and all your silly English k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!

GALAHAD: What a strange person.

ARTHUR: Now look here, my good man–

FRENCH GUARD: I don’t wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

GALAHAD: Is there someone else up there we could talk to?

FRENCH GUARD: No. Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time-a!
[sniff]

ARTHUR: Now, this is your last chance. I’ve been more than reasonable.

FRENCH GUARD: (Fetchez la vache.)

OTHER FRENCH GUARD: Quoi?

FRENCH GUARD: (Fetchez la vache!)
[mooo]

ARTHUR: If you do not agree to my commands, then I shall–
[twong]
[mooooooo]
Jesus Christ!

KNIGHTS: Christ!
[thud]
Ah! Ohh!…

ARTHUR: Right! Charge!

KNIGHTS: Charge!
[mayhem]

FRENCH GUARD: Hey, this one is for your mother! There you go.
[mayhem]

FRENCH GUARD: And this one’s for your dad!

ARTHUR: Run away!

KNIGHTS: Run away!

FRENCH GUARD: Thppppt!

FRENCH GUARDS: [taunting]

LAUNCELOT: Fiends! I’ll tear them apart!

The portion of the Saddam interview where the blustering ex-despot vows to chop off Mr al-Duri’s extremities is also strongly reminiscent of a scene in the Python classic where Arthur swipes off the arms and legs of the Black Knight.

BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass.

ARTHUR: What?

BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass.

ARTHUR: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge.

BLACK KNIGHT: Then you shall die.

ARTHUR: I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside!

BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man.

ARTHUR: So be it!

ARTHUR and BLACK KNIGHT: Aaah!, hiyaah!, etc.
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT’s left arm off]

ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.

BLACK KNIGHT: ‘Tis but a scratch.

ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm’s off!

BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn’t.

ARTHUR: Well, what’s that, then?

BLACK KNIGHT: I’ve had worse.

ARTHUR: You liar!

BLACK KNIGHT: Come on, you pansy!
[clang]
Huyah!
[clang]
Hiyaah!
[clang]
Aaaaaaaah!
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT’s right arm off]

ARTHUR: Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank Thee Lord, that in Thy mer–

BLACK KNIGHT: Hah!
[kick]
Come on, then.

ARTHUR: What?

BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
[kick]

ARTHUR: Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.

BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?

ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard. You’ve got no arms left.

BLACK KNIGHT: Yes, I have.

ARTHUR: Look!

BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
[kick]

ARTHUR: Look, stop that.

BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken!
[kick]
Chickennn!

ARTHUR: Look, I’ll have your leg.
[kick]
Right!
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT’s right leg off]

BLACK KNIGHT: Right. I’ll do you for that!

ARTHUR: You’ll what?

BLACK KNIGHT: Come here!

ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?

BLACK KNIGHT: I’m invincible!

ARTHUR: You’re a looney.

BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then.
[whop]
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT’s last leg off]

BLACK KNIGHT: Oh? All right, we’ll call it a draw.

ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.

BLACK KNIGHT: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!

Lately Miyroie has been eagerly promoting the supposed disclosures in documents recently released by the US government of pre-2003 ties between Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda and Zarqawi. In flushes of battiness reminiscent of Clare Sterling (the Mylroie of the Rfeagan years) she has even accused the Bush administration of promoting a cover-up in this regard. The documents have been greeted ecstatically by the war lobby, even though there are documents which do not encourage the scenario they espouse, such as one in which Iraqi security, on hearing that Zarqawi is in Iraq, puts out an APB bulletin to establish his whereabouts.

MEMRI TV has been heavily touted by such promoters of the 2003 attack as former CIA chief R. James Wolsey who said in 2004 that “MEMRI is the single most important source for understanding what is happening in the Greater Middle East.” Another member of the War Party devouring MEMRI TV is Charles Krauthammer who has said “For anyone interested in what is really happening in the Middle East - what the Arab world is saying to itself - MEMRI is utterly indispensable.”

There are other intgriguing precursors in the Pythons’ movie, including one episode in Sir Galahad’s search for the Holy Grail:

GALAHAD: Open the door! Open the door!
[pound pound pound]
In the name of King Arthur, open the door!
[creak]
[thump]
[creak]
[boom]

GIRLS: Hello!

ZOOT: Welcome, gentle Sir Knight. Welcome to the Castle Anthrax.

Tags: american empire, israel, lebanon
Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

I’d like to think that most of us who write socio-political commentary, no matter where our intimate ideology resides, write our pieces hoping to lasso those in the mini universe who read us, praying that we can hold their undivided attention long enough to allow us to display our rational wares. But more often than not, either we fall short in capturing their attention; or if we do, we fail to garner acceptance for our rationale.

Ernest Hemingway wrote in The Problems of a Writer in War Time that “It is always how to write truly and, having found what is true, to project it in such a way that it becomes a part of the experience of the person who reads it.” Amen to that.but how can a writer succeed in today’s pell-mell world where everyone is continuously bombarded not just by lobbyists but a legion of obvious as well as unrecognizable advocates?

Can anyone think of a more apropos “war time” than now in this United States? And I am not referring to foreign military interventions or crusades, such as Bush’s ill-fated adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, but of domestic upheaval not seen since the days of Civil Rights confrontations back in the sixties. A writer can hardly be expected to dispense a magic pill in his writings to project personalized experiences for all people reading him; particularly these days when the truth the writer is drawing from is not a finished mosaic but, rather, a heap of small pieces of colored-truth tile.

Welcome to the world of immigration reform in the United States, and our own sectarian violence - mostly verbal at this point - brought about through a non-military occupation by uncounted millions of undocumented or, if you prefer, illegal immigrants. Not unlike Iraq’s, an occupation where some people want the invader around, while many do not.

Why is Bush so intent in getting Congress to come up with legislation which will resolve the status of millions of undocumented workers, and their families, in the United States? Is this one more thing for him to fail in, to ensure his legacy remains unmarred by success? Such may prove to be the case in a tag of loyalties each pulling its own way, each deaf to what others may have to say.

It’s a sleeping-beauty syndrome, this illegal immigration thing; and we wake up every two decades to face not a prince but a problem that last generation’s politicians put a band-aid on but failed to resolve. It happened in 1987, and we are at it once again, but this time the problem has become far more complex. And it’s doubtful that today’s politicians in Congress are up to the task of doing what’s right to resolve the situation not just for now - which is the band-aid the president is asking for - but for generations to come. And resolve it in a way that achieves a proper balance that maximizes economic results while minimizing human pain; also addressing any and all concerns culturally-based.

There needs to be an all-encompassing, interdisciplinary approach where all Americans are made to feel they have a say in helping shape this nation’s future for the twenty-first century, and beyond. Otherwise, it’s back to the band-aid; unfortunately this time, to cover up an infected wound past the anti-biotic stage and at the beginning of a gangrenous course from which we may no longer have the opportunity to veer.

There is no issue as divisive in the US today and one that angers Americans more, including the military lunacy in Iraq, than that involving the 12 million “illegals” - an adopted but conjectural figure that could very well be 20 million - who live and work among us. For all our touted resourcefulness and hi-tech, neither the Census Bureau nor Homeland Security have a clue as to what the approximate figure should be, give or take a couple of million. A most embarrassing situation for a first world nation! But sheer repetition of this 12 million-figure during the past year has given it census-validity, including its breakdown: approximately 9 million Mexican nationals, 2 million “other” Latinos, the remaining million a catch-all classification for all others.

Although much of this anger-born-in-frustration in much of the population has been directed towards an inept government, it is now rapidly changing course and being redirected “against” the more visible copper-toned border crossers who can be made easy culprits of all our economic and societal ills. And so that everyone understands where to line up on this debate, things have been simplified; you can be either pro or against “illegals” and that’s that. Never mind anything else.

In this chaotic state of misgoverning where there hasn’t been leadership at the top ready to tackle tough controversial issues, politicians have done nothing more than tune in to one-track loyalty groups that make the loudest noise in their ears. It’s been like that all along, abortion and homosexuality being the recent issues that have elected or dethroned our politicians. And now, it’s beginning to look as if the politicians’ standing on illegal immigration is the new insignia. So every interest group has been hard at work evangelizing, displaying not only the positive things they bring to the table, but also rendering judgment on their opponents’ negative acumen.

Undocumented workers have ample, at times unconditional, support from those whose economic well-being, even viability, depend on them, i.e.: agribusiness, hospitality and construction industries, and services catering to business or private individuals; and, as one would expect, from businesses catering exclusively to Hispanics, including the Spanish-language media, that derive from the relocation of both culture and language to the host country. One could hardly imagine the shrinking multi-billion dollar networks Univision and Telemundo would undergo without an audience made up in great part of undocumented Latinos. So the overall support for immigrant workers, even if they entered the country illegally, is strong and broad based, even if mostly for economic and not humanitarian reasons.

At the other end of the divide is a strong majority of angry Americans clamoring for the deportation of all people who are in the country illegally. In most cases, the contention is that the economic cost-benefit equation ends up being negative for America; and that there are additional socio-cultural costs which are not being measured, and which are likely to be inordinately high. And the voices representing this supermajority are getting louder and louder, some with racial overtones; others, depicting a more educated tone, such as those of Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs, bring to mind that figure from seven decades ago, Father Coughlin, who in his radio broadcasts was able to translate the Fascist agenda of Hitler and Mussolini to the then American culture.

During the past two years I have read more than a dozen reports dealing with this cost-benefit economic analysis, most with the rubric of think tanks or academic institutions. I must add, all deficient and defective even to the overview of a modest, occasional practitioner in Operations Research. In most cases, it became obvious that those put in charge of conducting the studies could not tell the difference between causal and intervening variables. Could it be that their studies were intended to support an already adopted position? And the flaws were not restricted to studies which either supported or negated the overall economic contribution by the undocumented immigrants. They were, for the most part, equal opportunity garbage with restricted or no value.

The prospective legislation that Congress was recently working on, and which died in the Senate short of the necessary votes - something Bush is now trying to resuscitate - cannot be called immigration reform; only something politically expedient, and wrong.

But when politics are conducted to answer only one-track loyalties that reflect narrow and not national interests, can the citizenry expect more from those who govern?

By Ben Tanosborn

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn
http://www.tanosborn.com/

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

The  as it is in direct conflict with one of our 10KV — Social Justice.  Check out our party platform on the issue at: http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/socjustice.html#1002510

The Green party’s position is a sad reflection of the same political pressures that the Dems and the Repugs succumb to.

The ever-growing Hispanic base has become an extremely powerful political force that is causing greens to abandon core values such as future focus, sustainability, and ecological wisdom so as to not alienate a growing political power. The Sierra club is still dealing with the political fallout as a result of internal squabbles about whether to appear more anti-human than ecologically wise as it relates to their position on immigration. The USGP needs to exhibit the type of leadership that does the right thing regardless of the political price.

A fair and equitable program to help these folks will provide equal access to working people of all nationalities, not tied to a specific employer or guest worker program. Programs involving temporary worker status must include the option of permanent residency for immigrants already in the U.S. and protection of migrant worker savings.

Another way of saying what was just said in the above statement is “Allow everyone who wants to come to the United States to just come on in. No process, no rules, no requirements, no thought to the social, cultural, economic, labor, or environmental effects of such a policy, just a loyal alliance to an ideal that in the end is neither humane or reasonable.

Telling the truth is often a lonely proposition.

The truth is that unfettered immigration, legal or illegal will only escalate the environmental apocalypse that is upon us.

It is cowardly to talk about human rights while shitting in the very mechanism that provides us life.

Some things on the left never change.

-Steve Geiger

—– Original Message —–

From: George B. Hutchinson

To: SteveGeiger@Freightliner.com ; pgp-cc@list.pacificgreens.org ; pgp-discuss@list.pacificgreens.org

Cc: Melinda McComb ; Connie Razmus ; Ginger Gouveia ; Rand Dawson ; Catherine Ryan ; Milica ; Bridget Wolfe ; Alice/Bruce McCain ; Dee Meyer ; andrew rodman ; Max Glenn ; Jeannette Hodges ; Joanna Camille ; Diane Eckstein ; Denise Ross ; Cheri Russell ; Richard Koehler ; Tom Gravon ; John Colman-Pinning ; Robert Fischer ; Tessa Green ; Carol DeLong ; Francis Menlove ; Warren G. Rennie Ferris ; Greg Jones ; Joanne Cvar ; Dorothy Stern-Kucha ; Dorothy Mack ; Herb Faber ; Ardis Letey ; Tony Ogden ; Susan Fischer ; Ann Aronson ; Amy Dudley

Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:11 AM

Subject: [discuss] Re: [cc] What should be the Green position on unfetteredimmigration?

This is a cogent and thoughtful line of thinking that has been considered by many since Malthus first wrote.  In the early Seventies I became an advocate of Zero Population Growth for the environmental reasons Steve mentions below.  Having ZPG become a value that all cultures adopt is difficult due to religious values and most obviously, economic values.

Free trade and the bracero programs which have existed in this country for decades need to be terminated.  One way to help bring that about is to insist on living wages being paid for all work in the United States.  The global corporatists say: “Immigrant laborers are doing work Americans don’t want to do.”  Correct–Americans don’t want to do that sort of work for the very low wages paid.  Pay a living wage, and Americans will flock to those jobs!   If Americans flock to those jobs, there will be no plethora of jobs for immigrants–legal or illegal.

Secondly, if we really wish to slow immigration to the US, then let’s begin rigorously enforcing those laws which penalize employers that hire illegal immigrants.  A huge bust just happened in Portland where scores of “illegal immigrants” were arrested by INS.  The entire story has been one of enforcing the law, splitting up families, and the harshness/righteousness of that action.  Were any employers arrested?  Will any go to court and be found guilty and receive a prison sentence?  Put the bosses in jail, and the jobs will begin to disappear for  those who come here primarily to support themselves and their families.

ZPG must go hand-in-hand with social justice, fair pay, and economic and environmental sustainability.  It is not an either/or choice.  No good will come of strictly enforcing the law against illegal immigrants unless wages paid in all countries become living wages, and unless employers who break the law are punished.  That will make the jobs illegals currently obtain disappear.  When that happens, the motivation to come to the US, legally or illegally, will be greatly diminished.  That is the focus, I think, which the Pacific Green Party needs to address.

—– Original Message —–

From: SteveGeiger@Freightliner.com

To: pgp-cc@list.pacificgreens.org ; pgp-discuss@list.pacificgreens.org

Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 2:31 PM

Subject: [cc] What should be the Green position on unfettered immigration?

In the opinion of this green, at some point the health of our planet must supersede our desire for global social justice manifested through the support of unfettered illegal immigration.     I have never bought into the idea of scarcity, but the hard reality is that our planet is dieing and we need to begin to take measures to stop the suicidal track we are on.

Right now, the USGP has taken sides in the illegal immigration debate by siteing the fact that both major parties are operating out of the same framework to implement a massive cheap labor management program for the benefit of major and minor US corporations under the guise of immigration reform. They are correct of course, but what they fail to mention is the environmental impact of continued unfettered immigration. Does anyone else see this as odd coming from an environmental party?

The United States recently surpassed 300,000,000 people at the end of October. The current demographic predictions, based on accelerating growth levels, show America adding 100 million people by 2040. For those asleep at the wheel—that’s 34 years from now—a blink in time.

What does that mean to the land we live in? What about our overloaded cities? Overwhelmed schools? How about our water, farm land, energy, air quality, food sources, species habitat, and dozens of other critical environmental issues?

Do socially conscious Greens really understand the ominous consequences?

Can any Greens or others who care about humanity and social justice issues name one advantage to adding 3,000,000,000 more people to the globe? Is there some cosmic reason? Reasonable religious reason? Any rational reason? Any sane purpose? Already, eight million people starve to death annually. Over 35 percent of humanity does not have clean drinking water. Species extinction exceeds thousands annually. What is it that we hope to accomplish by adding another 3.0 billion people to the planet with the consequences already raining down on us with current population levels? In the next 50 years, you can expect 1,000,000 to as many as 3,000,000 more people added to your state depending on location. Once their numbers manifest, they won’t go away. Today, states like Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and California don’t possess enough water for their residents. Aquifers degrade as fast as diesel engines pump them dry. No matter how many reservoirs they build, it won’t rain or snow more because they add millions of people. Water shortages and rationing will become the norm.

While we exceed the land’s carrying capacity, we pack ourselves in like sardines with smart growth, slow growth and managed growth. We continue to expand urban sprawl by building suburbs for the vanishing middle class to escape from the crowded cities. It’s all growth that adds cars, trucks, homes, power plants, malls and smoke stacks. Have you noticed traffic in your city? Have you seen the Brown Cloud thicken in toxicity over your area? How about the bumper-to-bumper traffic? Can you imagine what it will be with an added 100 million people in 34 years? How about your quality of life? What about species extinction? Air pollution? Acid rain? Crowding of national parks? Lakes? Streams? How about soil erosion? The continued assault on what is left of our vanishing forests?

As Greens do we simply ignore the incredibly devastating environmental effects of allowing corporate America and their Democrat and Republican lackeys to utilize an illegal workforce that can’t vote at the expense of what is left of our fragile environment? Should our commitment to social justice for illegal immigrants trump our future focus? Should social justice for illegal immigrants trump sustainability? Does prioritizing social justice for illegal immigrants constitute ecological wisdom?

These are tough questions that most greens want to just go away so they don’t have to face the realities of unfettered illegal immigration.

I don’t want to be misunderstood and I stand in solidarity with my Latin American brothers and sisters and have advocated the elimination of Free trade agreements like NAFTA that have helped to create the horrific economic conditions in Mexico and central American countries. But as a Green who cares about the world I am leaving my granddaughter, I can not in good conscience support unfettered illegal immigration and I think it high time that the Green party stop playing politics with the future of the planet.

–Steve Geiger

Tags: immigration, trade, workplace
Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

Big Oil pays little state income tax

Governor says tiny sliver collected from firms justifies gross receipts tax

By STEVEN WALTERS
swalters@journalsentinel.com

Posted: May 28, 2007

Madison - Three giant oil companies - ExxonMobil, BP and Chevron USA - paid $7.3 million in Wisconsin corporate income taxes over a three-year period in which they reported worldwide profits of $165.7 billion, state Department of Revenue records show.

And two other oil companies - Shell and Murphy Oil, which has a Wisconsin refinery - paid no Wisconsin corporate income taxes in 2003, ‘04 and ‘05. Shell reported profits of $55.9 billion in those years; Murphy Oil had profits of $1.8 billion.
Gov. Jim Doyle said some of those profits have come from gouging drivers - including those in Wisconsin - and justify his proposal for a new 2.5% gross receipts tax on oil company sales in Wisconsin. That would bring in an estimated $270 million over the next two years to help pay for transportation programs. Doyle also proposed criminal penalties for any oil company that raises pump prices to cover the tax.
Doyle said oil companies have hit Wisconsin drivers with unjustified price increases in recent weeks and added, “We should be imposing a tax on the big oil companies to have them help us (pay for) a sound transportation system in this state.
“Big oil companies have been reaping huge profits on the backs of middle-class families for years.”
His proposal has generated considerable controversy, prompting the Journal Sentinel to look at how much the oil companies pay in state taxes. The newspaper found that three oil companies that file Wisconsin tax returns paid $7.3 million in corporate income taxes and two paid none from 2003 through ‘05, a period in which they collectively reported worldwide profits of $223.4 billion.
Those numbers might anger Wisconsin drivers, who were paying a record $3.43 statewide for a gallon of unleaded gas Friday. That’s 21 cents more a gallon than the national average, according to AAA Wisconsin.

Industry defended

Oil company officials say they are multinational entities that do little but sell gas to Wisconsin retailers, so they have no significant business presence in the state. And when their subsidiaries do make Wisconsin profits, they pay the same tax rate - 7.9% - as all other businesses, the officials add.
“Comparing ExxonMobil’s corporate profits generated worldwide to the amount of tax paid in Wisconsin is absurd,” said company spokesman Gantt H. Walton.
Doyle “wants to tax money we make in Nigeria, or Alaska?” Walton said. “We just don’t see how that would be good for business.”
Walton said two ExxonMobil companies paid $7 million in Wisconsin taxes - the most of the five oil companies surveyed - from 2003 to ‘05. Over that period, ExxonMobil reported worldwide profits of $82.9 billion.
Scott Dean, a spokesman for BP, said the company “pays its fair share of taxes, no matter how you approach the numbers.”
Revenue Department reports say BP companies paid $27,037 in corporate income taxes from 2003 through 2005, while the company reported worldwide profits of $48.3 billion. Dean said those taxes were paid by one subsidiary, BP Products North America, which has a company-owned gas station in Pleasant Prairie.
Another BP subsidiary, BP Pipeline North America, operates storage terminals and pipelines in Wisconsin.
But BP Pipeline paid no Wisconsin income taxes because it “continues to carry forward a net-operating loss, which is allowed by state tax law,” Dean said. “Under state law, a net operating loss can be carried forward for a period of up to 20 years.”
Dave Podratz, an executive for Murphy Oil, which has a refinery in Superior, said the company had financial losses after Hurricane Katrina damaged its production facilities in the South.
A Wisconsin tax on oil company profits would be an incentive for Murphy Oil to try to sell more of its gas in Minnesota, Podratz said.
Chevron USA paid $310,640 in taxes to Wisconsin over the three years, when it reported profits of $34.5 billion. A company spokesman said the taxes paid reflected the relatively little business the parent company does in the state.
Shell Oil Co. paid no Wisconsin corporate income taxes in the three-year period, when it reported worldwide profits of $55.9 billion.
Shell declined to comment. “It is Shell’s policy to not disclose or discuss proprietary and confidential information,” Shell said in a statement.

Playing within the rules

University of Wisconsin-Madison economist Andrew Reschovsky said the state’s tax laws do not require major oil companies to pay taxes on their worldwide profits.
“Under current law a corporation can - quite legally - reduce its Wisconsin corporate income tax liability by choosing to operate parts of its business as separate out-of-state subsidiaries,” Reschovsky said. “Wisconsin then taxes only the apportioned share of the net income of the parent company, totally ignoring the income earned by the subsidiaries.”
He said that would change if the state adopted “combined reporting,” which treats subsidiaries “as if they were divisions or branches of the parent company.” For years, Republican legislators and businesses have killed all attempts to go to that tax structure.
“The bottom line is that, as long as Wisconsin does not adopt combined reporting, lots of multinational corporations doing business in Wisconsin - obviously, including oil companies - will either avoid paying Wisconsin corporate income taxes or pay substantially less than they would if we adopted combined reporting,” he said.
Reschovsky questioned why Doyle recommended a 2.5% gross receipts tax.
“In my view, if the governor wants to raise more money from oil companies, and other multinational companies, the most effective thing he could do would be to urge the Legislature to adopt combined reporting,” he said.
Erin Roth, executive director of the American Petroleum Institute, said major oil companies have contributed to Wisconsin’s economy.
Looking only at what oil companies paid - or didn’t pay - in Wisconsin corporate income taxes is too narrow an approach, Roth said.
“To be fair, I think you need to look at the whole picture and not just focus on the political angle that these big, bad corporations aren’t paying their fair share of taxes,” Roth said.

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

An Article by:Thomas Melaccio

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

An Article by
Ben Tanosborn

Heads or tails, go ahead, you call it! Heads you say? It looks like it came out heads, so we’d better make it two out of three. Damn, heads again! Let’s make it three out of five. Kids’ game, you say? Think again. That’s how grown-up bully nations play this thing we call “the democracy game.”

We are seeing it happen all over in Latin America, Venezuela being most news-worthy because of its colorful leader, Hugo Chávez, and his quips directed at George W. Bush or US’ historical mismanagement of relations with its southern neighbors. But we are also seeing it everywhere else, and with a recent sordid outcome in the Near East.

When Hamas won the Palestinian elections a year and a half ago, Israel and the US just didn’t accept the results. Not because there were irregularities in how the election was conducted, but because the majority of Palestinians didn’t vote “the right way.” And, as a measure of punishment for Palestinians’ lack of docility, both Israel and the United States put an economic chokehold on all Palestinians; also quickly twisting the EU’ arm to suspend aid, thus keeping the pressure on until those politically-illiterate ingrates were ready to capitulate to despair, and bring on a mini civil war - since one cannot conduct a coup on oneself, as the recent altercation has been misnamed.

Abbas’ reaction to Hamas’ takeover in Gaza went by the book (the PA Basic Law, or de facto constitution) when he dismissed PM Ismail Haniyeh, but he acted illegally on all other counts, such as the declaration of an “emergency government,” or the naming of a new prime minister, Salam Fayyad, since this gentleman is not a Hamas party member. And the president cannot rule by decree unless all the elements of such decree are approved by the Legislative Council during its first meeting under emergency conditions, as stipulated in Article 43 of the Basic Law.

Bottom line: the Palestinian Authority has in fact ceased to be courtesy of a fratricidal act of desperation. The Fayyad government cannot be truly recognized as a legitimate government, one representative of the Palestinian people now geographically, and for now politically, divided in two. Although these West Bank power-holders are likely to receive full support from Washington and Tel Aviv, and long withheld tax funds by Israel are starting to be released, negotiations that may originate between this illegitimate group and Israel will not hold water; and the US position will continue to be seen in the same light as that which has shone during the past 40 years.

In every respect the Palestinian Authority, the path to statehood, has been terminated, declared null and void. The introduction to the Basic Law referring to the Palestinian people as its ultimate political authority by being the source of power has extinguished its flame, becoming just poetic history. The reality now faced is that this is 2007, 1428 for most Palestinians, and the gravel path established by the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords was to be “asphalted” within a period of five years, something which has not come to past. Arguably, thanks for the most part to Bush’s inertia on this critical issue, prompted to be sure by the parasitic relations between the United States and Israel.

The two-state solution for Old Palestine (Israel and New Palestine) has now taken a new turn as a two-encampment solution to a people who have been suffering non-stop for almost six decades. Two-encampments: Gaza and the West Bank. back to square one and suffering re-dux.

Shame, shame on us! We have gone from “divide et impera” to “divide et humilito.” Our political effort in the Near East has taken a new approach, from divide and conquer (or divide and rule) to divide and humiliate. There just isn’t another honest way to view it.

When you are the ultimate holder of power, you make up the rules with the game still in progress or even right at the end. But, how long can the US keep flipping coins and declaring that it has won every game? That remains to be answered, but for now, Bush and the State Department have made it pretty clear: the US will not stop anyone from making a choice; they can either play America’s game or, simply, abstain.

Meanwhile let’s just give a decent burial to the Palestinian Authority and the hope it once gave not just Palestinians but peace-loving people throughout the world. Rest in peace, the peace you never had.

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn
http://www.tanosborn.com/

Tags: fatah, gaza, hamas, israel, middle east, palestine
Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

Regarding the immigration legislation that has been pounded out by the Senate:

We are being led by politicos who lack any and all inhibitions when it comes to misleading the people who are theoretically their constituencies.

We are being repeatedly told that the current immigration system is broken and we need to modify the system in order to adequately address the contingencies that have�proven to overwhelm our current procedures when it comes to immigration. However, putting the rhetoric aside for a moment, and, instead, switching to a decidedly sober look at the modifications that are being proposed in this new legislation, I think all of us - no matter what our personal convictions are in respect to this issue - can agree that this ‘bipartisan’ legislation is a canard.

Assuming there is some credibility to the estimates of the staggering numbers of illegal immigrants in this country, we can assume that there are approximately 12,000,000 - give or take millions upon millions - undocumented, illegal immigrants in this nation. The proposed legislation will apparently compel these undocumented residents to pay back-taxes; undergo a background check; leave the country - in some instances - in order to reapply for residency, only to return; and, depending upon one of the statuses for which they apply, leave the country for a period, only to return again, according a cyclical pattern of defined intervals; or, in other instances, learn English and American Civics, (not that native Americans even have a grasp of American civics), in order to eventually acquire citizenship.

I hate to expose myself to accusations of a Doubting Thomas; however, how the hell will all of these bureaucratic processes be implemented, and, if we are to believe they will actually be implemented, how much will these augmentations to our current immigration system cost?

Are we going to import foreign labor - specializing in accounting - in order to assess the back-taxes owed by the undocumented immigrants, whom we are assuming will even subject themselves to the background checks and so forth; not to mention the necessity, under some conditions, of returning to their homeland in order to reapply for legal entry into the country?

I could continue with the sarcasm; although, the point is so transparent, I doubt any further elaboration will be necessary in order to drive home the senseless nature of this proposed legislation. What we are being told is preposterous, and it is being proffered by politicians, who, apparently, lack any compunction when it comes to representing their constituencies, for whom they obviously have no regard, because they are selling a package that is absent of any substantive contents.

Of course, the current immigration system is broken. Nevertheless, this bullshit that is being served up as a solution is nothing less than fraudulent. This legislation needs to be obstructed and killed, because we are all better off deferring this issue to a point in time when we might - under extraordinary circumstances - have some representation in Congress that possesses the conviction and character to address the realities of the situation, rather than contributing to its lunacy.

Russell Cole

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

An Article by:

Thomas Melaccio

Evidently America has now become the sanctuary of all in the world who are under duress? Not that helping others is bad thing that is not and never has been an issue with most decent people or me. Also, this has always been a nation of immigrants no doubt about it. However, these developers of this “immigration” bill cleverly and carefully avoid any mention of the key word “legally”. Remember “I did not have sex with that women?” Yes, even Christians found no fault with that act. “I like the man” they said. Speaks a lot about people who profess doesn’t it? Forgive yes; be careful, by all means.

Do people really believe we have an unending stream of wealth in this nation? I for one would like to know where it all is? Oh, I know with that 20%. We are trillions in debt, we owe our enemies, and our dollars buy the weapons they point and will use against us. We no longer own our own resources, we have no manufacturing to speak of and they talk about “full employment” and low statistics. Tell those who are out of work for over a year that. However, they never mention the type of jobs these are that people have and they talk about more new business but they never talk about every Tom, Dick and Harry with their MLM pitch trying to make money to survive. They never talk about the real plight of American middle income and average and poor. Yes, just like Katrina, remember, they just did not exist.

So open the door and let everyone in. Why won’t you do this in your own home? Why not take these people in? Why not give them shelter, food, money and whatever it takes for as many that show up at your door? What is wrong with you, are you not a “humanitarian” are these not “good” people? You may also be a good Christian or of some other faith and isn’t it the right thing to do? So we can eliminate the problem if we all take as many as we can in.

Why should anyone be upset when your loved one is replaced by one of him or her at work? Why would you be upset when you have no money to save for retirement, no money to send your child to college, no money food or health insurance or even gas to get to work? Why should you be upset when family, trying to come here legally and waiting 20 plus years is told get behind these illegal workers who we have now rewarded for crime. After all you are supposed to be a ‘humanitarian” are you not and isn’t it the right and just thing to do? I ask is this a message to send our youth? Yet, these newsmen on TV ask the dumb question, “what is happening to America” while lauding these same people day in and day out. They are in my opinion the Baghdad Bobs of this day. Crime is ok if it is the right crime and for the right reason.

It would not matter if you lost your home or you had to work long hours and maybe multiple jobs. After all you are helping people and “that’s what Jesus would want” isn’t it?

Well I think Jesus wants us to start with our own first. To make sure they are protected, secure and housed and fed. Then with our excess to tithe, oh I struck a nerve the rich will not be happy about, with our excess and tithe, if there is any, you can do what is right for others. Yes, “charity begins at home.”

So with that in mind all you who seek to help these “immigrants” that we all know in truth, not lies, are people who exploited an opportunity for personal gain. There is no lie in that. Can you blame them? Well that is a real hard question. Can you blame the thief who steals from you to feed their children or their habit? Is not a crime a crime and does it not impact someone? Are there now degrees of crime and categories of crime? Is it that Selective Application Theory again? What about the starving, poor, homeless, sick, dying here in America? Do you have no “humanitarian” comments for them? What about those out of work? No money to retool them, no grant money of education funds for them or their children? No comments, they are left out of the equation, is that right all you who profess to be religious?

Please, do not tell us the government provides social programs and millions every year. You are right but have you looked who gets it? I give you the French wealthy “let them eat cake“! Yes, there are handouts and yes there are social programs but until you know what these are like and about average and poor Americans understand they have little to no chance of any real help. These illegal workers, instant whatever you need. Americans even have to prove over and over again that they are real Americans even though born here. Yes, even if they went to school all their life here. Ever wonder why they have to question you when you call on your own account at the bank?

So I will close because I am really tired of people throwing falsehood around as example, they take jobs Americans do not want to do. Look into it and get the true answer, or that they are “good and decent’ just like the Mafia Don, because I am positive they also loved their families to the point of killing for them.

So no more when you hear these whiners and gripers that want to shove this down Americans throats. They in my opinion evidently are the real power brokers in this country. They hold the reigns of power and now that they have met resistance they are upset. Like I said, in my opinion do not work for the good of Americans but for their objectives and ideals. If you don’t even consider what I am saying is plausible, you never will.

But for you who are concerned write, call, email and do not stop until there is a just plan. Let them know you will not go away because that is just what they are hoping will happen.

Categories: Commentary
7 Comments »

An Article by:
Ben Tanosborn

Less than two months after the senior senator from Arizona, John Sidney McCain III, of noble military lineage and great matrimonial wealth, announced informally on The Late Show with David Letterman that he was seeking the Republican presidential nomination for 2008, he can be considered toast - burnt toast. Well, that’s my early prediction.

McCain running a distant second in the Republican race in most polls - after Giuliani - is no reason to discard his candidacy. His absurd pro-war stance is, however; leaving him standing at the post against both Giuliani and at least three or four Democrats.

And a good thing that is! For if there is one thing this nation can ill afford, it’s another dubious Dubya - with comparable lackluster brainpower, similar lack of curiosity or knowledge, and a parallel strong affection for war!

Thanks but no thanks. America has had enough royalty at the White House for this century and it doesn’t need another Bush, which is exactly what the nation would get from an individual for whom straight talk signifies but a slogan written on a campaign bus, a PR way to seduce independent voters and the media. McCain did succeed in 2000 presenting himself as a moderate Republican and sort of a maverick, and did have much of the press ready to pimp for his candidacy, had it not been cut short because of the dirty tricks Bush’s handlers pulled on him. But trying to revive the romance this year, after a series of faux pas (political as well as social), has failed to resuscitate the type of commentary delivered by an enamored press of seven years before.

McCain’s standing against torture, although commendable, is just not an issue in and of itself that can elevate him to a position of presidential contention. Nor his used, reused and forever recycled hero status as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. The udder of such a POW fete has been milked dry with nary drop left, whether he knows it or not.

His loss of stature is not based on his inbred tendency to insult; whether jokes in bad taste - comment on Chelsea Clinton’s looks comes to mind - or racial slurs, ‘gook’ being a term he has constantly used. He certainly does not appear as a sensitive or forgiving individual by even an overreach of anyone?s imagination.

Nor has his popularity diminished because of any new discoveries on the Savings and Loan scandal of the late 80’s, and his relationship with Charles Keating. After all, the Senate ethics committee exonerated (or whitewashed) his and Sen. John Glenn’s participation in the affair, although the other three senators investigated paid their dues. Heroes must remain heroes, one guesses, since there seem to be few to draw from.

Neither should we believe for a minute that his standing has suffered because of his age, which would potentially make him the oldest president ever to be inaugurated at 72; or his health, and bouts with malignant melanoma; or his lack of the all important physical attribute for male politicians in the United States: hair.

And McCain’s poorest-among-poor standing at Annapolis (99.5% percentile of his 1958 Class - fifth from the bottom) would not faze voting Americans; after all they will tell you, he had to be smart enough to be admitted to the Naval Academy, notwithstanding the fact that his father and grandfather, admirals both, were alumni - and that acceptance in most of ‘these cases’ is simply a formality.

But where McCain lost credibility, as legislator and presidential contender, occurred during those town hall meetings a few weeks back when he couldn’t even answer the simplest of questions about pending or past legislation on Social Security, Medicare, etc., deferring the answers to his staff at the end of the meetings. If anything, that display of ignorance spoke volumes as to his competency, although little commentary was made on this topic in the mainstream press, other than in those locales where the meetings took place.

His two exposures to ridicule this month have really exacted a toll; and if his candidacy was suffering an acute illness before, it’s now ready to enter the ICU wing of the Public Opinion Hospital. Exposing his lack of gray matter with his statements certifying that a great level of public safety exists in Baghdad, - seen by millions in CBS’ TV magazine ‘Sixty Minutes’ and cartooned to death in the printed and online press, tops in idiocy the myriad dumb things he has done throughout his political career; and his deranged follow-up last week at Virginia Military Institute on bombing Iran, something which he did in a sardonic way, couldn’t have helped much. His ‘let’s nuke them’ choir was no doubt happy to hear that, but that’s not what moderate America wants to hear.

Perhaps Americans should be thankful that a ‘unity ticket’ of Kerry-McCain did not come about in 2004 - offer of the vice-presidential spot was purportedly made by Kerry but turned down by McCain - or the entire nation might have been tagged by the world as a warmongering monster. At least now both the nation and the world can selectively blame the entire mess in the Middle East on George W. Bush and his gang of neocons.

I will not examine those things many question in him such as his lack of honesty and integrity, or his blatant hypocrisy. My contention is simply that he is totally incompetent to lead this nation, and that he is first and foremost a man of war, not peace - a carbon copy of the man now occupying the White House - brains and heart. America certainly doesn’t need a Bush-replica continuing to endanger an already fragile world order.

It won’t be long now before McCain’s presidential ambitions are laid to rest marked by an appropriate R.I.W. (Rest In War) instead of an R.I.P. (Rest In Peace).

Copyright 2007 Ben Tanosborn

www.tanosborn.com

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

There is a term that tends to be deployed when referring to atheists in American society, who have the apparent audacity of publicly iterating their convictions. It is the referring expression, militant atheists; a phrase used to designate any instance where atheology is defended or supported by an interlocutor, who demonstrates a cognitive disposition that indicates that he or she fails to be immured in the theism that has taken a center stage in the public discourse throughout this Country’s history.

The connotative implications of using such a phrase to refer to atheists who fail to ‘politely’ remain hidden in their bedroom closets; instead, mustering the courage to openly articulate their lack of beliefs, and, further, argue against the pervasively reinforced second class position they assume in American society; is more than transparent: Atheists fall outside of the spectrum of ideological manifestations that are considered to be demonstrative of reasonability and rationality. In other words, atheists are a breed comparable to fanatical Islamists - who commit violent acts of terror - or, individual anarchists - who carry out assassination attempts upon government officials.

The ultimate effect engendered by these crude, implicit comparisons indicated by the phrase, militant atheists, is the persistent identification of atheists under a social label, which renders their skepticisms and the polemics they put forth against their socially legitimized marginalization in American society as expressions that should be interpreted as outside the rationally treatable; falling, alternatively, in the regions inhabited by the delusional madman who rants and raves on the street corner.

Despite the best attempt of religious leaders to portray atheists according to the stereoypical forms that are used as representations of cognitive illness and pathology, the looking glass could not be more transparent. I have no knowledge of any war that has been waged by atheists; although I can think of innumerable wars that have been conducted under the sanctums of religiosity. To intransigently insist upon the existence of invisibles - which cannot be demonstrated through any appeal to empirical evidence - is certainly not a criticism that can be aptly leveled against atheists; although it is by all means an inescapable aspect belonging to the discourses produced under the auspices of religion. Atheists point to reality and experience when arguing the validity of their conclusions; the pious revert to faith, dogma, and knowledge based on authority, in order to propagate their prejudices.

To take the argument a step further, Catholic Universities often insert in their mission statements a principle that serves within the institutional philosophy they stake out as a premise for all of their ensuing intellectual engagements. To paraphrase in a modality that goes beyond giving the proposition justice: Faith and reason do not contradict one another, and are, contrarily, mutually compatible and amenable to each other’s interests.

I am prepared to assert that nothing could be farther from reality. The pursuit of knowledge is never founded upon convictions of faith. Instead, it is skepticism that serves as the antecedent for knowledge. It is the ability to hold to scrutiny the narratives that have traditionally served as an explanation for the ordering of cosmos. Knowledge flows from criticality toward that which has - as its only pillars of support - legitimation based upon tradition and authority. Faith is not an extension, or co-pillar, of reason; but, rather, the antipathy to reason; the manifestation of ignorance.

Consequentially, the terminology, militant atheists, should be understood not as an expression that refers to the elements in society who possess the intellectual tenacity to hold to scrutiny the mythology that continues to dominant the worldviews possessed by the religious; the flocks of mindless followers. To the contrary, the unfortunate phrase is best understood as the projection upon the reasoned and rational, by those who lack such lucid deliberations, of the very shortcomings that impede the intellectual maturation of the faithful.

Just remember, atheists did not launch the Crusades. Atheists have not burnt people alive on the stakes. Atheists do not instruct the meager to turn the other cheek in hopes of rewards that consist entirely of invisible conditions in some posit called the afterlife.

Atheists are, in fact, the living embodiments of the temperaments that the religious claim to possess but fail to embody.

Russell Cole

Tags: atheism, power, religion, Russell Coles Blog, society
Categories: Commentary, Russell Cole's Blog
17 Comments »