Monday, September 29, 2003

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10693-2003Sep27.html

From Pumping Iron to Pushing Political Ideas

By Sharon Waxman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 28, 2003; Page A07




Arnold Schwarzenegger first gained public notice
as a champion bodybuilder. By the age of 20, he
had become Mr. Universe, the youngest person
to hold the title in the competition's history.





LOS ANGELES -- When Twentieth Century Fox was releasing the action thriller "Commando" in 1985, the film's rising star, Arnold Schwarzenegger, went to see Fox chairman Barry Diller to demand more billboard advertising for the movie's release. Diller told him: "I don't believe in billboards," and turned him down. But when Schwarzenegger relayed the news to other Fox executives, they laughed and said: "He's b.s.-ing you. On '48 Hours' we had a big billboard on Sunset."

From that experience, Schwarzenegger drew a lesson: It was his own fault -- for not being prepared. "I did not do the proper research," he later chided himself during an interview. "You've got to have your act together. You have to have a total understanding."

The actor's reaction lends insight into the rise of the candidate now competing for the governorship of California. Schwarzenegger's much-noted ambition helped him conquer bodybuilding and the movies, and his willingness to learn helped him garner a fortune through a range of business ventures. Those who know him say that his transition from bodybuilder to politician has brought with it a maturity and a political evolution as well.

Now, as California hurtles toward the Oct. 7 vote on whether to replace Gov. Gray Davis (D), Schwarzenegger's evolution is being examined more closely than ever before. Dubbed a "rock-ribbed conservative Republican" in the 1970s, he opposed gun control, believed in up-by-the-bootstraps economics and thought women belonged in the kitchen, or the bedroom. But over time, Schwarzenegger, 56, evolved into a political moderate: Though he angered some Latino voters here with his support of a referendum a decade ago to ban government services for illegal immigrants, he backs what he calls "sensible" gun control and abortion rights and led a voter initiative last year to provide after-school care for poor families.

Schwarzenegger's political development over the past three decades has been influenced by the entertainment industry; his exposure to career women such as his wife, television journalist Maria Shriver of the Kennedy family; contact with his wife's family; his volunteer work with minority and immigrant children in Los Angeles; and his own parenting of four children.

If not yet a liberal, Schwarzenegger -- the man who persuaded General Motors to sell the military Hummer to civilians -- is at least now having his eight-mile-a-gallon truck retrofitted for hydrogen technology. To some, Schwarzenegger's shift is nothing short of astonishing. But those who know him say they are not surprised.

"He's a person who actually does grow and evolve," said Charlotte Parker, who was Schwarzenegger's publicist for 15 years, during his rise from obscurity to the height of his stardom. "He's had many years surrounded by sophisticated, intelligent, accomplished people. He aspires to learn from them, and he surrounded himself with those people."

Schwarzenegger declined requests for an interview for this article but has left a long record of his thoughts and opinions in interviews over the past 25 years.

"In the past I was inexperienced, insensitive and intolerant. I was not as worldly or sophisticated as I might have been. But I am a lot different these days. I've learnt a lot" he said in 1999 to the British men's magazine, Loaded. But in that same interview, Schwarzenegger showed he hadn't shed his macho persona that many movie fans adore but which can play poorly on the campaign trail:

"Apologies are for wimps," he said. "If you behave like a wimp, you're going to get stiffed, simple as that. If you're a man then you should behave like a man."

Schwarzenegger's political evolution from being "to the right of Genghis Khan," as "Pumping Iron" producer George Butler put it recently, started well after he became a celebrity. But his interest in politics appears to go back almost as far as his interest in bodybuilding.

Schwarzenegger signed up with the Republican Party shortly after arriving in the United States, while watching a Richard Nixon-Hubert Humphrey debate in 1968 with a friend who interpreted it for him because his English was still poor. Nixon was espousing ideas that appealed to Schwarzenegger: A strong military. Less government bureaucracy. Free trade. He told his friend: "I love what this guy is saying. If this guy is a Republican, then I am a Republican."

Years later Schwarzenegger told the story to Nixon, and the former president told him he should try politics himself. "If you ever run for governor, you have my help," Nixon told him, the actor recalled last year to the Weekly Standard.

Schwarzenegger's instinctive affinity for conservative ideas was an outgrowth of his background and his personal philosophy of self-reliance.

He grew up in a small, southern Austrian village, Thal, where poverty was pervasive, food was scarce, and communism was just across the border. The Schwarzenegger home had no refrigerator or flush toilet.

His father, Gustav, was the village's police chief, a harsh disciplinarian and a heavy drinker. Schwarzenegger has said that his father showed little outward love and had no patience for children. "There was a wall. He established that wall," the actor told Rolling Stone in 1985. "I always knew that punishments could come at any time if I screwed up."

Screwing up meant, for example, having spelling or grammar errors in the 10-page essays that Schwarzenegger and his older brother, Meinhard, had to write on Sunday after Saturday outings. Their father sometimes pitted the boys against one another in boxing and skiing races. To Arnold, every loss was a lesson: Winning was all that mattered in his father's eyes. Ultimately, it became Arnold's mantra as well.

Schwarzenegger had a much closer relationship with his mother. His maternal ideal is anchored in the glowing memories of her devotion to the family and cleanliness -- "you could eat off the floors" he once told an interviewer. "I have one of the best mothers anybody could have."

Despite the hardships, Schwarzenegger has frequently extolled the values instilled by the austerity of his childhood. It drove him, he said, to become goal-oriented and self-sufficient. "I would want a bicycle, and he [my father] would say, 'Get it yourself. Work,' " he said.

Work he did. By 15, Schwarzenegger had already determined to be a champion bodybuilder, a goal he reached by the age of 20, becoming the youngest Mr. Universe in the competition's history.

He constantly sought out mentors who would help him. In 1966, Schwarzenegger moved to London where he lived with Wag Bennett and his wife. Bennett, a bodybuilding judge who groomed young talent, routinely asked the young bodybuilders what they wanted to achieve in life. "When I asked Arnold that question, his answer was 'I want to be the greatest bodybuilder in the world, the greatest bodybuilder of all time, and the richest bodybuilder in the world. I want to live in the United States and own an apartment block and be a film star,' " Bennett told Wendy Leigh, a British author who has written an unauthorized biography of Schwarzenegger.

Moving to Southern California in the late 1960s, Schwarzenegger quickly accomplished most of those goals. By 1975 when he retired from bodybuilding, he had won Mr. Universe titles four times, Mr. World once and Mr. Olympia six times (he would win the latter title again in 1980, returning from retirement).

With his bodybuilding success, Schwarzenegger simultaneously turned his attention to business, writing best-selling books on fitness, starting a mail-order business and beginning to amass lucrative real estate holdings in Santa Monica, Denver and Ohio.

The real money, however, was in Hollywood. By the late 1970s, Schwarzenegger had turned to an acting career in earnest, after the surprise success of the documentary "Pumping Iron."

In 1977, Schwarzenegger gave a now-controversial interview to Oui magazine, boasting of a "gang-bang" with a woman bodybuilder, describing the sexual encounter in the lewdest of terms. He now claims that he made up the story to "get headlines. We were promoting bodybuilding," he told a Los Angeles television station earlier this month.

Still, Schwarzenegger's crude comments about women have come back to haunt him on the campaign trail. Some women's groups have criticized him, and at a recent political convention in Los Angeles, protesters held a banner reading "Groper for Governor." Polls show his support among women voters is far less than among men.

"Arnold does not have outdated views on women," said his wife, Shriver, who declined to speak in more detail on the question. "Ask any of the women who've worked for him."

There weren't many jobs in Hollywood for brawny Austrians with thick accents and no evident acting ability. But Schwarzenegger, as he has said many times, created a market for himself. He first won the attention of the entertainment industry as the heroic lead in "Conan the Barbarian" in 1982, and then became a pop culture icon with the 1984 film "The Terminator," playing a robot who comes from the future to exact revenge.

That film was followed by a stream of violent, action blockbusters -- "Commando," "Predator," "Running Man," "Total Recall." Schwarzenegger became emblematic of the star-driven action movies that dominated Hollywood in the 1980s and early into the 1990s.

He had reached the pinnacle, and ever since has been surrounded by a coterie of agents, managers, lawyers, publicists and handlers who have burnished his image and protected him in public and in private. Schwarzenegger lived in the rarified world of a Hollywood star where almost no behavior is unacceptable, no whim too outrageous, no idea less than brilliant. He could dictate the terms of an interview, as he often did, and at times even insisted on controlling the publication dates of stories about him.

He enjoyed celebrity stardom and the adoring coverage that went with it. It wasn't until Premiere magazine profiled him in 2001 that Schwarzenegger took some of his toughest hits from the Hollywood press. The article detailed alleged sexual trysts with women on movie sets and complaints from women about him touching them inappropriately.

It was widely viewed in Hollywood that the article derailed what many analysts believed was Schwarzenegger's tentative plan to run for governor in 2002.

During the 1970s and early '80s, Schwarzenegger had been increasingly active in politics, and his conservative views tracked with his cultural image.

In 1980, he boasted that his political views hadn't changed since he was 18 years old. He was devoutly anti-Communist, believed in the death penalty, low taxes and minimal government.

In 1984, Schwarzenegger attended the Republican national convention in Dallas, giving a speech about how thrilled he was to be able to vote -- a year after becoming a citizen -- for Ronald Reagan. He called Reagan one of his heroes: "He's done the impossible," he said in Rolling Stone. "He's never been beaten in any election. He's really in touch with the people, which is why he wins."

A staunch defender of the violence in his films -- journalists had taken to counting the bodies -- Schwarzenegger supported the National Rifle Association. "Outlawing guns is not the right method of eliminating the problem" of violence, he said in 1988.

But change was in the air, most significantly in Schwarzenegger's marriage in 1986 to Shriver, daughter of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, sister of John F. Kennedy, and Sargent Shriver, who was George McGovern's running mate in 1972. It was the beginning of his sustained exposure to Democrats and liberal activists.

"At home, I'm surrounded by Democrats," he told the St. Petersburg Times in 1987. "Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden are always coming over to the house. And we have a great time because we have so much in common despite our politics."

At the time, Joan Goodman, a seasoned celebrity journalist, interviewed Schwarzenegger over several months for a 1988 Playboy magazine article. In a transcript of his unpublished remarks Goodman provided to The Washington Post, Schwarzenegger compared the prejudice faced by black actors to his experience as an Austrian immigrant trying to get work in Hollywood and compared the Mexican immigrant experience to his own.

"He can't really compare himself to Mexicans coming over the border," Goodman said in an interview for this article. "That's kind of insensitive of him. It's weird, but he doesn't seem to realize that he's saying things that are offensive."

But Schwarzenegger's actions sometimes belied his politically incorrect talk. He began to do charity work with the Special Olympics, which Eunice Shriver had founded.

Schwarzenegger remained a Republican and forged a close friendship with then-Vice President George H. W. Bush. Bush attended the premiere of the actor's movie "Twins" in 1988, while Schwarzenegger threw his star power behind Bush's campaign for president the same year. He traveled around the country making speeches on Bush's behalf.

In 1990, Bush rewarded Schwarzenegger by naming him chairman of the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. Schwarzenegger used the post to promote fitness.

His role on the fitness council led to his introduction to the Hollenbeck Youth Center in East Los Angeles, an urban community center. That in turn led to the establishing of the actor's own charity, the Inner-City Games, now held in cities around the country. The presidential appointment "opened his eyes. When he traveled around the country, he realized that some kids in America don't have boots," said Bonnie Reiss, a former entertainment lawyer who is advising Schwarzenegger's campaign. "He saw that some kids don't have parents. He started seeing the way kids in America live."

At the same time, Schwarzenegger found himself diverging from his party as Republicans took control of the House and Newt Gingrich became speaker.

"No one knows what our party really stands for rather than going from one convention to the next talking about what we're against," he complained in 1999 to George magazine. "Guys like [Pat] Buchanan are up there and speaking about, 'We are anti-gay and we're anti-lesbian. We are anti-taxation and anti-federal government.' '' He said he was ashamed to call himself a Republican during the impeachment.

In 1997, after undergoing heart surgery, Schwarzenegger quipped, "We made, actually, history, because it was the first time ever that doctors could prove that a lifelong Republican has a heart." He stopped making major donations to the party and kept a low profile in the past few election campaigns even as he gave hints that he might run for office in California.

Schwarzenegger made his first public political move in 2002 by campaigning for Proposition 49, the ballot proposal for before- and after-school programs sponsored by the state, which the conservative American Spectator magazine derided as "nanny-state liberalism at its best."

"I think this is one place he felt comfortable, because he and his wife likely agreed precisely on this issue," said Sheri Annis, a political consultant who worked with Schwarzenegger on the initiative. "This was an issue that didn't ruffle a lot of feathers in his family life and something he strongly believed in."

The campaign was a political success for Schwarzenegger and a sure sign of his political evolution from his swagger-talking bodybuilding days. Whether it is where he expected to be at this point in his life, he clearly had been contemplating the journey for a long time.

He told the German magazine Stern in 1977: "When one has money, one day it becomes less interesting. And when one is also the best in film, what can be more interesting? Perhaps power. Then one moves into politics and becomes governor or president or something."


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10693-2003Sep27.html

Saturday, September 27, 2003

Poverty Rate Rises for Second Year in Row
Fri Sep 26, 7:27 PM ET

By GENARO C. ARMAS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Poverty rose for a second straight year in 2002 as 1.7 million more people dropped below the poverty line, according to Census Bureau (news - web sites) estimates released Friday that provided fresh evidence of the struggling economy's effect on Americans' pocketbooks.

The poverty rate was 12.1 percent last year, an increase from 11.7 percent in 2001 even though the last recession ended in November 2001. That meant nearly 34.6 million people were living in poverty.

Before the two years of increase, poverty had fallen for nearly a decade to 11.3 percent in 2000, its lowest level in more than 25 years.

Bureau estimates showed poverty increased significantly for several segments of the population that could be crucial in the 2004 presidential election: blacks, married couples, suburbanites and people in the Midwest.

The bureau on Friday also reported a 1.1 percent decline in median household income between 2001 and 2002 to $42,409, after accounting for inflation. Income levels had risen through most of the 1990s, then were flat in 2000.

Median income is the point at which half all households earned more than that amount, and half earned less.

Daniel Weinberg, who oversees the bureau's housing and household economic statistics, said trends between 2001 and 2002 were consistent with changes following past recessions.

With President Bush (news - web sites)'s approval ratings in decline 13 months before the next election, White House aides demanded on Friday passage of virtually his entire domestic agenda, from increased involvement in federal programs by religious groups to legislation limiting personal injury lawsuits.

"The economy is moving in the right direction," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said. "But the president is not satisfied. ... It's important to create the conditions for job growth, and that's why the president continues to say that there's more that we can do."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the tax cuts that had been pushed by Bush weren't creating jobs. "It has only created obstacles for Americans working hard to get ahead," the California Democrat said.

The latest estimates are the government's official measures based on a survey of 78,000 households taken each March.

Many experts had predicted that rising unemployment and the still unsettled economy last year would increase poverty and lower income for most people, despite the end of recession two years ago.

Syracuse University economist Tim Smeeding worried that poverty levels could get worse because of more layoffs, especially in the manufacturing sector.

"Everyone's taking a bump down, and you haven't seen the worst of it," he said.

Jason Turner, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation who served as welfare commissioner in New York City under Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, called the rise in poverty between 2001 and 2002 minimal compared with previous post-recession periods. He said getting more work hours for poor families and increasing the number of children raised in two-parent families were keys to improvement.

In 2002, 12.1 million children were in poverty, or 16.7 percent of all kids, up from 11.7 million, or 16.3 percent, the previous year.

Of the 400,000 additional poor children, more than half were Latino, according to an analysis of the data by the advocacy group, the Children's Defense Fund.

The poverty threshold differs by the size and makeup of a household. The average poverty threshold for a family of four was $18,392 in annual income in 2002.

Comparing poverty rates and income for racial and ethnic groups was more difficult in 2002 because the Census Bureau for the first time allowed survey respondents to report if they were of more than one race.

For instance, the poverty rate for blacks in 2002 ranged slightly from 23.9 percent for those who identified themselves as being black and another race, to 24.1 percent for those who selected only black.

Measured either way, the bureau considered it a significant increase from 2001, when 22.7 percent of blacks lived in poverty.

Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, a civil rights group, speculated that a loss in manufacturing jobs over the past two years spurred the increase in poverty among blacks and in the Midwest.

___

On the Net:

Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/IncomePoverty.html

Friday, September 26, 2003

good morning folks! I am just testing on offsite blog poster.

Jammy
http://www.ocweekly.com/printme.php?&eid=47353

Sept. 26 - Oct. 2, 2003

Total Recall

Schwarzenegger’s business scams


by Paul Brennan


What excites Arnold Schwarzenegger these days? It’s not gangbangs, or even what seemed to excite him during summer interviews promoting Terminator 3—shoving an actress’s face into a toilet bowl. No, these days, what excites Arnold is learning about "all those issues" he would deal with as governor of California—at least, that’s what he told Oprah Winfrey during his recent appearance on her show. Drawing on her journalistic background, Oprah asked the tough follow-up: "Like, are they at your house to—teaching you stuff every night?"

They are. Like, every night. Oprah was impressed by Arnold. Arnold was impressed by Arnold. The audience dutifully applauded. Everyone was happy—except, it seems, home viewers.

The message board on Oprah’s website has more than 420 comments about Oprah’s show featuring Arnold and his wife, Maria Shriver. Of these, approximately 400 are negative. The words used most often are "disappointed" and "angry," as in this post from grammitr: "I was shocked and disappointed today by Oprah’s flagrant use of her program to gain votes for her best friend’s husband." (Oprah says Maria has been one of her best friends for more than 20 years.) And someone posting under the name dcitti summed up the feelings of many, writing, "Giving Arnold free air time is just another way of making a campaign contribution."

Sometimes the best thing a talk-show host can do for a celebrity pal is nothing. This is certainly the case with Jay Leno, whose Tonight Show was the launching pad for Schwarzenegger’s campaign. During a 1981 appearance on the show, Arnold told then-host Johnny Carson a story that adds an important detail to some recently uncovered illegal behavior on the part of Schwarzenegger. But so far, Leno has remained silent about this part of his show’s history.

"Like so many of us," the narrator says in a Schwarzenegger commercial running on Spanish-language radio, "he came to his country with a dream in his eye. He started as a bricklayer, and through sheer determination and hard work, he achieved the goals he set for himself." While it’s very nice to have a dream in your eye, a Sept. 21 story in the San Jose Mercury News reveals there’s a problem with this uplifting story of Arnold the noble immigrant: at the time, he was in this country on an H-2 visa. As the Mercury News explains, "H-2 visas were created to allow workers from other nations to come to the United States for short periods to take on temporary jobs such as picking seasonal crops, cooking at summer resorts or working as ski instructors." Starting his own masonry business was a clear violation of the terms of his visa—a deportable offense—but that is exactly what Arnold says he did.

In several interviews over the years, Arnold has told the story of how he formed European Brick Works in Santa Monica with his friend Franco Columbu, a bodybuilder from Italy, after the Sylmar earthquake of 1971. "We had 16 people working for us, and we were all over town, building chimneys after the earthquake," Arnold told Interview magazine in 1985, leaving out a detail he told Johnny Carson four years earlier about his chimney-building days.

During his 1981 appearance, Arnold explained to Johnny how his bricklaying business worked. Franco and Arnold would call on a homeowner. Arnold, always good with the public, would keep the homeowner busy, discussing prices and such. "In the meantime," Arnold recounted, "Franco climbed up on the roof to check the chimney—and he, of course, is a very strong guy and a [weight] lifter—he pushed all the chimneys over so they fall down. So these people come and say, ‘Oh, thank you so much for helping us. This could have fallen on somebody’s head, you know. Thank you for doing it for us.’"

Johnny was impressed. "What a racket," he told the immigrant with a dream in his eye. "You go and push chimneys down and then rebuild them."

"Exactly," Arnold replied.

A videotape of this interview is available in the Tonight Show archives at the Museum of Television and Radio in Beverly Hills. Arnold’s friend Leno could play the tape of the interview so the public could see for itself. But that seems unlikely. So far, only Mickey Kaus of the online magazine Slate has gone to Beverly Hills to view the tape. Schwarzenegger’s campaign insists Arnold was just "joking around with Johnny Carson" about ripping off unsuspecting homeowners in the wake of an earthquake that killed 65 and did more than $500 million in damage.


Thursday, September 25, 2003

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/25_arnold.html

September 25, 2003


Arnold, Bush, and Baghdad
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY

"Bring them on."
GEORGE W. BUSH (AP) JULY 1, 2003:

Just days later….

"You guys are the true terminators"
Speaking to US soldiers on a visit Baghdad.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
-- (AP) JULY 4, 2003


"I think he'd be a good governor." President George W. Bush said on Friday.
-- (REUTERS) 8/8/03


"‘That would be nice,’ Mr. Rove said of the prospect of a Governor Schwarzenegger. ‘That would be really nice. That would be really, really nice.’"
- New York Times 4/15/01


Schwarzenegger met in April with Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser. White House officials said at the time that Schwarzenegger simply dropped by to talk about an after-school program that California voters approved last year and to see what he could do to support U.S. troops overseas.
-- The Guardian UK 8/8/03


* "This is really wild driving around here (Iraq). I mean the poverty. And you see there is no money. Disastrous financially. Then there is a leadership vacuum. Pretty much like in California right now," Schwarzenegger said.
-- Reuters 7/4/03

* The advantages of Hollywood's Terminator suggest an unanticipated windfall for George W. Bush…. George W. Bush welcomes anybody invigorating a comatose California GOP.
-- Robert Novak townhall.com 8/14/03

* The California governorship would also give Bush a key organizational base for fundraising and campaign activity in 2004. If Schwarzenegger sweeps into office, bringing a wave of new voters with him - and if the state's budget situation improves as a result of either new policies or external forces - it could reap dividends for the president.
-- Christian Science Monitor 8/14/03

* More from Schwarzenegger speaking to troops in Baghdad:
" First of all congratulations for saying hasta la vista (goodbye) baby to Saddam Hussein. I came here from the United States because I wanted to pump you all up," he said... Schwarzenegger said he could not believe how he was frisked on airplanes on his way to Iraq. "I got frisked so many times that I feel like the movie 'Freddy Got Fingered'," he said to roars of laughter. "I tell you oil wells all around. I have not seen that much oil since the last time I oiled up for the Mr Universe contest." The Austrian-born actor told U.S. soldiers "I'll be back," a phrase he uses in movies to rattle his enemies.
-- Reuters 7/4/03

*The California recall and Arnold Schwarzenegger's candidacy have been a boon to President Bush, pushing questions about Iraq ..out of the nightly newscasts. "Arnold has become the weapon of mass distraction, taking the heat off the Bush White House," Mr. Felling said… "Karl Rove must be the luckiest man on the planet. The phrase 'yellowcake uranium' has completely disappeared from the public lexicon," said Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication and director of the Norman Lear Center.
-- The Washington Times 8/13/03

"Lay met secretly with California Republicans at the Beverly Hills Hotel and pushed a plan that called for ratepayers to pay the billions in debt racked up by the state's public utilities. The plan contended that federal investigations of price gouging are hindering the situation."
-- AP 6/21/01

* During a stop at a Los Angeles middle school, Schwarzenegger said he didn't recall the meeting with Ken Lay. "I can't remember every meeting I've had over the last 10 years," he said.
-- CNN 8/14/03

* I don't know who Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, had in mind, but in early July he introduced the "Equal Opportunity to Govern'' Amendment, which, according to the Senator, would "amend the Constitution to permit any person who has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years to be eligible for the Office of President." The bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.
-- WorkingForChange 9/4/03

* During the run-up to George Bush's invasion of Iraq, right-wing commentators, political pundits and Republican Party faithful blasted the so-called Hollywood elite for speaking out against the administration's hunger for war. Fox's fair and balanced Bill O'Reilly called them "pinheads." Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and others -- found their own demeaning terms. A deck of anti-Hollywood playing cards was created, and the Boycott Hollywood Web site went online with a banner reading "Hey Hollywood....listen up!! You do not speak for me!!" But now that many of these same pundits, columnists, radio and television talk show hosts and GOP apparatchiks have latched onto to their very own La La Land hunk, the anti-Hollywood silence is deafening.
-- WorkingForChange 9/4/03

President Bush is supporting Arnold, but a lot of Republicans are not, because he is actually quite liberal. Karl Rove said if his father wasn't a Nazi, he wouldn't have any credibility with conservatives at all.
-- Bill Maher

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/25_arnold.html

Wednesday, September 24, 2003

World Media Watch on BuzzFlash.com: "World Media Watch"

by Gloria R. Lalumia

BUZZFLASH NOTE: Once again, these are the views and perspectives of the individual papers, not of BuzzFlash or Gloria. They offer BuzzFlash readers a way of reading what other nations are saying about the crisis, whether we like it or not. We repeat: This is not an endorsement of their viewpoints.


1/Asia Times Online, Hong Kong-THE ROVING EYE: HOT OFF THE PRESS (Abdo Satar al-Chaalan, chairman of the weekly newspaper al-Mustaki (The Independent) - the self-described "spokesman of the Iraqi resistance" - proudly recalls the five times that he was arrested by Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1970s, as a member of an opposition party. He has already been arrested once by the Americans, and another arrest may be just around the corner...Al-Mustakil believes that the resistance will keep growing - spreading to the whole country. "Iran is saying to the Americans that if you press us with nuclear issues, we are going to tell the Shi'ites in Iraq to start resisting. Iran is saying 'leave us alone'. One word from al-Hawza [the powerful Shi'ite clergy, seated in Najaf] would be enough to launch a jihad. If the situation continues like this, al-Hawza will say the word. And the Americans know it.")

2//Times of India, India--NO TROOPS TO IRAQ, SAYS FERNANDES (The Iraqi situation is ''very complex'' and ''there is virtually no UN role in Iraq as on today''. Unless these matters are resolved, India ''cannot think of sending its troops to Iraq'', said Fernandes, in an interview to Doordarshan... Declaring that terrorism was the biggest challenge facing India today, Fernandes said intrusions across the Line of Control (LoC) were ''still continuing''. Replying to a question on the proposed Indo-US-Israeli axis against terrorism, Fernandes said this idea had been floated recently. ''When one of the countries in this axis (the US) has close links with Pakistan, which is the foremost country sponsoring terrorism, the axis does not seem feasible,'' said Fernandes.)

3//The Chosun Ilbo, South Korea--DEFENSE MINISTER TALKS DISPATCH (Defense Minister Cho Yung-gil said Tuesday that if Seoul dispatched troops to Iraq the annual cost of the endeavor would be about W200 billion ($170 million). Cho, speaking before the defense committee of the National Assembly, said that the decision on whether to send troops should be made by Oct. 25, when an annual meeting on security between Korea and the U.S is scheduled to be held.)

4//The Moscow Times, Russia--ENERGY SUMMIT FUELS U.S. PROMISES ("We all recognize a simple truth. Russia will be an important player in the global energy market," U.S. Commerce Secretary Donald Evans told a packed house of some 500 executives and officials from both countries Monday...Leading up to the summit, the oil world was abuzz with reports that either ChevronTexaco or ExxonMobil would agree to pay up to $11 billion for 25 percent of Yukos, Russia's largest oil producer. All three of the companies, however, would neither deny nor confirm the reports, adding to speculation that something big was in the works...The "language and the tone" of the summit are consistent "with the talk of big transactions within a defined period of time," said Stephen Jennings, CEO and founder of Renaissance Capital, a leading Moscow investment bank.)

5//The Independent, UK--BLAIR FACES MOTION AT CONFERENCE TO RESIGN (Labour sources said yesterday that the party in Brent, north London, would table an emergency motion at Labour's annual conference in Bournemouth next week calling for a leadership contest. Some members have complained that the Labour campaign was "taken over" by figures from the party's national headquarters.)

Click on the link at the top of the page for there is plenty more suckage to read!


broadband » General Distributed Computing
broadband » Seti@Home club
At the U.N., Bush Wins No Fresh Pledges of Iraq Aid
U.S. Military Action's Value Has Limits, Delegates Say


By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 24, 2003; Page A24


UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 23 -- President Bush's appeal for greater financial and military support for the reconstruction of Iraq failed to elicit fresh pledges today as members of the United Nations demanded that the United States yield greater power to the U.N. and the Iraqis.

The cool reaction to Bush's address by delegates at the opening of the U.N. General Assembly's general debate reflected concern at the United Nations that a larger military force in Iraq will not enhance security in the country unless authority also is transferred to a transitional Iraqi authority with real power.

Representatives from Brazil to South Africa used the General Assembly podium to underscore the limits of U.S. military action in resolving the dispute in Iraq and elsewhere. They said the obstacles faced by U.S. forces in Iraq prove the need for a greater U.N. role.

"Let us not place greater trust on military might than on the institutions we created with the light of reason and the vision of history," President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil said in a speech to the 191-member body moments before Bush delivered his remarks. "A war can perhaps be won single-handedly, but peace, lasting peace, cannot be secured without the support of all."

U.S. officials acknowledged they are resigned to the probability that a new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq -- which the Bush administration is proposing -- will not lead to a surge in commitments by key Muslim states, including Pakistan and Turkey, to send troops to the country.

One U.S. official said the administration hoped that Bush's speech would at least persuade governments to provide more money for Iraq's reconstruction at a donors' conference to be held in Madrid next month. "The expectation is that we are not going to get a great number of troops to participate," the official said. "But we want them to provide funds at the donor conference and we will try to make that happen."

Discussions over the U.N. role in Iraq have been complicated by two suicide bombing attacks against the United Nations in Iraq over the past month, most recently on Monday. In the Aug. 19 bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, 22 people were killed, including the U.N.'s top representative, Brazilian diplomat Sergio Vieira de Mello.

Some senior advisers to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan have asked him to consider withdrawing, or at least sharply reducing, the presence of U.N. personnel in Iraq after Monday's attack outside the U.N. compound, which killed the bomber and an Iraqi guard.

Annan also warned the Security Council last week that he will not expand the U.N. presence in Iraq unless he is given a clearer mandate, stronger council backing and greater assurances of security. Some of Annan's top advisers believe that security can best be achieved by returning sovereignty to the Iraqis, not by increasing the international military presence there.

The debate over Iraq in the General Assembly today revealed a deeper unease over the United States' increasing use of force to defend its national interests. "Naturally, the powerful will set the agenda for all residents of the global village," South African President Thabo Mbeki said. "Because we are poor, we are partisan activists for a strong, effective and popularly accepted United Nations."

Delegates welcomed Bush's decision to launch new negotiations on a resolution that would assign the United Nations a specific role in helping to write an Iraqi constitution, training an Iraqi civil service and preparing for free elections. But they said the president's proposal does not go far enough.

French President Jacques Chirac continued to seek support for an amendment to the U.S. draft resolution that would endorse the transfer of power to an Iraqi transitional government within 90 days.

Bush and his top foreign policy team -- who filed out of the General Assembly hall shortly before Chirac delivered his speech -- favor the establishment of a constitutional process and elections before sovereignty can be handed to the Iraqis.

The French position has gained broader acceptance in recent days. The temporary president of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, Ahmed Chalabi, and Annan indicated that the United States must accelerate the handover of power to the Iraqis.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54470-2003Sep23.html

Tuesday, September 23, 2003

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7350504^2,00.html



Journo claims proof of WMD lies
By Paul Mulvey in London
September 23, 2003

AUSTRALIAN investigative journalist John Pilger says he has evidence the
war against Iraq was based on a lie that could cost George W. Bush and
Tony Blair their jobs and bring Prime Minister John Howard down with them.

A television report by Pilger aired on British screens overnight said US
Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza
Rice confirmed in early 2001 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been
disarmed and was no threat.

But after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September
11 that year, Pilger claimed Rice said the US "must move to take
advantage of these new opportunities" to attack Iraq and claim control
of its oil.

Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001
saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant
capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to
project conventional power against his neighbours."

Two months later, Rice reportedly said, "We are able to keep his arms
from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Powell boasted this was because America's policy of containment and its
sanctions had effectively disarmed Saddam.

Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of US President George W
Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard
- to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a
huge deception.

Pilger interviewed several leading US government figures in Washington
but said he did not ask Powell or Rice to respond to his claims.

"I think it's very serious for Howard. Howard has followed the Americans
and to a lesser degree Blair almost word for word," Pilger told AAP
before his program was screened on ITV tonight.

"All Howard does is say `well it's not true' and never explains himself.

"I just don't believe you can be seen to be party to such a big lie,
such a big deception and endure that politically.

"It simply can't be shrugged off and that's Howard's response.

"Blair has shrugged it off but Blair is deeply damaged. It's far from
over here, there's a lot that is going to happen and much of it could
wash onto Howard.

"And it's unravelling in America and Bush could lose the election next year.

"I've not seen political leaders survive when they've been complicit in
such an open deception for so long."

Howard last week dismissed an accusation from Opposition Leader Simon
Crean that he hid a warning from British intelligence that war against
Iraq would heighten the terrorist threat to Australia.

In his report, Pilger interviews Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA
officer and friend of Bush's father and ex-president, George Bush senior.

McGovern told Pilger that going to war because of weapons of mass
destruction "was 95 per cent charade."

Pilger also claims that six hours after the September 11 attacks on the
World Trade Centre, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he wanted
to "hit" Iraq and allegedly said "Go Massive ... Sweep it all up. Things
related and not."

He was allegedly talked down by Powell who said the American people
would not accept an attack on Iraq without any evidence, so they opted
to invade Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden had bases.

Pilger claimed war was set in train on September 17, 2001 when Bush
signed a paper directing the Pentagon to explore the military options
for an attack on Iraq.



Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium

"The United States is putting together a Constitution now for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It's served us well for 200 years, and we don't appear to be using it anymore. So what the hell?" -- Jay Leno

"They're saying Arnold will get 95% of the vote. At least according to his brother, JEB Schwarzenegger." -- Craig Kilborn




Claudia sent me this last week.
September 23, 2003

"Did U.S. Forces Allow a Massacre of 3,000 Taliban Prisoners to Occur?" BuzzFlash asks Jamie Doran, Producer-Director of "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death"

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

This riveting documentary charges that American forces were present at and permitted the massacre of approximately 3,000 Taliban prisoners. Although it has been shown in Europe, "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death" has received virtual little distribution or air time in the United States.

"Afghan Massacre" tells of how American Special Forces took control of the operation, re-directed the containers carrying the living and dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried.

And it details how the Pentagon lied to the world in order to cover up its role in the greatest atrocity of the entire Afghan War. This is the documentary they did not want you to see.

"'Afghan Massacre' was produced over ten months in extremely dangerous circumstances: eyewitnesses were threatened and subsequently killed, the film crew were forced into hiding and our researcher was savagely beaten to within an inch of his life. He was recently awarded the 2002 Rory Peck Award for Hard News, The SONY Award and the film has been nominated for a Royal Television Society Award for Current Affairs."

BuzzFlash didn't want this grim, compelling documentary to become lost in the tidal wave of Bush Administration lies and deception. Worthy of note is also a bizarre interview with Richard Perle who feigns shock at the notion that such a war crime could have occurred, even though Rumsfeld was running around at the time proclaiming that he didn't care how we got rid of the Taliban.

The documentary can be obtained at (http://www.acftv.com/archive/article.asp?archive_id=1)

Recently, we interviewed Jamie Doran, the European-based
Producer-Director of "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy Of Death"

* * *

BUZZFLASH: There are several events leading up the massacre that our readers should understand before we get into the more troubling issues in your film. Can you give us some history and background in Afghanistan and how you got involved in making a documentary about this tragedy?

JAMIE DORAN: In early December of 2001, I was a news reporter covering the war, or the so-called war, in Afghanistan. In early December, I was at the opening of the Freedom Bridge or Friendship Bridge –- depending on whose interpretation -- between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. This is a major event because the bridge had been closed for all those years during Taliban rule. And of course, that meant that all the various war lords sent their people to give themselves representation -- you know there’s a kind of territorial approach to everything that happens in Afghanistan.

Anyone who knows Afghanistan knows that the various ethnic groups don't exactly go out to dinner together. They would probably rather blow each other’s brains out. And what I heard from two different ethnic groups –- two different warlord soldiers -– was that American soldiers had been breaking the necks of Taliban prisoners. Now this obviously was, you know, of interest to me because I thought it needed some investigation. So I began my investigation, first of all, to try and find out was there any basis to it, and secondly, to actually employ a full-time researcher on the job to actually do the work, because I couldn't spend my whole time in Afghanistan. It ended up that I actually spent an enormous time there, but that was unexpected.

Let’s go through some of the background. 8,000 Taliban soldiers had given themselves up at the siege of Kunduz, when the Northern alliance surrounded the town and Taliban soldiers were effectively stuck inside. Then we know that about 470 soldiers decided not to surrender and had gone off on their own to fight a "last stand" near Mazar-I-Sharif – they were all killed in the battle.

The rest of the surrendered Taliban –- about 7,500 -- were sent to a prison at Kalai Janghi including John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban. Kalai Janghi was an old 19th century fortress that was now being used as a prison. At the Kalai Janghi prison of course the riots broke out.

BUZZFLASH: Right, and that was where Mike Spann, a CIA agent, was killed during the prison uprising. Now the prison uprising at Kalai Janghi lasted three days. But one of the questions I have is how the Taliban were able to not only initiate a prison uprising, but also hold out for three days? The fighting was described as vicious. American and British -– as indicated in your documentary -- were involved in suppressing the insurrection. In fact, there was even a mortar attack from the prisoners that almost killed one of your researchers. How were the prisoners able to get access to arms? Did they find a cache of weapons in the prison?

DORAN: It was utterly bizarre. If you look at Kalai Janghi, you will find there are two main kind of quadrants to the fort. For some wildly crazy, perhaps Afghan reason, they hadn't considered the fact that they housed the Taliban prisoners in the section -– the quadrant –- where the munitions dump was. Their armory was actually in the same section that the Taliban had been housed in. So when the Taliban broke out, the first thing they did was head for the armory. And of course, there they had a plethora of Kalashnikovs and RPGs -– everything else you can imagine –- and were actually able to put up a hell of a good fight.

BUZZFLASH: General Dostum, a Northern Alliance warlord who was friendly to the U.S. whom we’re going to talk about later, said that he lost 47 men and that 205 were injured, in the documentary.

DORAN: He lost quite a number of his men, but also, crucially, he lost a couple of his very favorite generals. And as a result of that, if you like, revenge got in the air. Once the prison uprising was put down, the media found about the American Taliban, John Walker Lindh.

Everyone, as you know from the film, forgets about the other seven and a half thousand prisoners. The world’s media is obsessed with John Walker Lindh. When he’s captured, they get their interviews or they get their clips, and then off they go, and everyone disappears. No one bothered asking what happened to the other seven and a half thousand Taliban. And this, of course, was the key to my story.

Well those seven and a half thousand Taliban prisoners were first taken to a place called Kalai Zeini -- which was kind of a holding depot. The Taliban prisoners were to be taken to another prison in Sheberghan.

The American Special Forces and CIA had effectively taken control of Sheberghan prison where they could actually screen the prisoners. They have to filter to actually see who was there –- who were the bad guys and where they were from: who was Al-Qaeda, who was simple Taliban, who was heavy Taliban, et cetera, et cetera,?

And so the processing of the prisoners had to happen, but there was no place to put them. You understand? There’s no other major prison in the area. That’s the only prison. Although the Sheberghan prison holds 500 to 600 people, they squeeze in 3,000.

But there’s no room for the other 3,500 to 4,500 remaining surrendered Taliban soldiers. And remember, some of them were sold to their respective security agencies, and Lord knows what happened to them, because these are not the kindest people in the world.

Now the plan is that 7,500 Taliban prisoners were all being taken to Sheberghan Prison. Again, here’s a prison built to take 500 to 600 at most, okay? I was at Sheberghan. I was in Sheberghan a number of times. In fact, when I was there, there was only about 2,000 there. It was crammed. There was no room at the inn, as they say. So when you’re moving seven and a half thousand people into a prison that’s built to take 500 –- you squeeze two to three thousand in there. There isn't any room at the inn left. What are you going to do with the 3,000 that you can't squeeze into the prison? And what I’m suggesting to you is that in many ways, in the great Afghan tradition, sadly, this massacre was preplanned. A number of these people who surrendered at Kunduz were never, ever expected to make it alive.

BUZZFLASH: In other words, the implication is well, because these are Taliban soldiers, there’s no room or no place to put them –- no one can trust sending them somewhere else, or no other country wants them, so the last result is to kill them.

DORAN: Absolutely.

BUZZFLASH: And the Taliban fighters that were not from Afghanistan and were sold to their country’s security agencies, the probability is that they were tortured for information?

DORAN: Of course -- automatically. And almost certainly dead.

BUZZFLASH: Okay so let’s recap these events because this is important.

DORAN: --8,000 Taliban surrender at Kunduz.

--470 Taliban break away and end up being killed in a final battle near Mazar.

--At the Kalai Janghi prison where many surrender Taliban are held, an uprising breaks out and CIA agent Mike Spann is killed. The American Taliban John Walker Lindh is discovered. Most journalists go home.

--Okay, the other 7,500 are then processed through Kalai Janghi -– the plan is to take all the prisoners to the Sheberghan prison to be interrogated and to root out which men are Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters.

--The first 3,000 or so to move on to Sheberghan –- they were the lucky ones. They went transported in open-backed trucks and taken to Sheberghan where they were processed by the American forces on the ground, checking for identity, everything else.

--There’s another 3,500 or so yet to come to Sheberghan.

--Many Taliban fighters from other countries are handed over to the various security agencies.

--But you still have these 3,000 men who have to be processed by the American forces at Sheberghan. There is no room at the inn. The prison is several times beyond capacity. What do you do with them?

BUZZFLASH: And here is where we get to the truly disturbing part of your documentary. Trucks loaded with airtight containers are brought in. And surrendered Taliban soldiers are literally packed into the airtight containers to travel many miles to their destination -– the Sheberghan prison.

DORAN: That’s right. Before long, Northern Alliance soldiers hear pounding inside the containers as the men inside are gasping for air. And there are accounts of soldiers shooting into the containers, even admitting killing soldiers to create ventilation holes.

BUZZFLASH: One soldier who you interviewed saw blood pouring from the containers after he shot into them.

DORAN: The key about the ventilation holes, by the way, is that if they were genuinely just trying to give air, they, of course, like any logical individual, would actually shoot just through the very top of the container, if you like. From a ground position, they would shoot along the top to actually allow air because, you know, their heads don't come up that high. If you actually see the containers, both in my film and the other ones I saw, they actually shoot sporadically right across the boards – you know, from the bottom through the middle, and up the top.

BUZZFLASH: When the trucks eventually reach Sheberghan prison and people open the containers, witnesses in your film describe a graphic scene. Of course there are these horrific accounts of how many people died in each container. But even more haunting, is that not everyone inside the containers did die according to some of your witnesses. Your film indicates that the 3,000 men that died inside these airtight containers was not a mistake. And those that survived the journey had to be executed, correct? Before all the bodies are buried in a mass grave at Dasht Leile?

DORAN: Well, that’s key to the whole thing, because the most important thing, from the American point of view, was that these people had to be processed -– interrogated by intelligence officials at Sheberghan. They needed to know more than anything else, the identities of the people, okay?

So the reason that this transportation of only 120 kilometers took up to four days was that the containers were actually queuing in long lines outside Sheberghan Prison. The containers were taken into Sheberghan. The living and the dead were poured off the containers. American CIA and Special Forces then searched for identification, along with the Northern Alliance and General Dostum. And then crucially, the living and the dead, many of whom had simply lost consciousness, were then thrown back onto the back of lorries and, under the orders of an American officer, taken out to the dessert. One of my witnesses was told, "Get rid of them. Just get them out of here before satellite pictures can be taken."

BUZZFLASH: You interviewed a Northern Alliance General, Abdul Ramatulah. At one point, your researcher asks him about the containers. And his demeanor changes, and he says, "Oh, you shouldn't ask me about the containers."

DORAN: That’s right.

BUZZFLASH: Watching the documentary, no one’s overtly suggesting that the American Special Forces who were there and in control, orchestrated the mass murder. The real implication is that -– and I’m not saying that this is any less serious –- that the American Special Forces just let it happen. That U.S. Special Forces watched and stood idly by as some Northern Alliance commanders basically did away with 3,000 surrendered Taliban soldiers. Would you agree with that?

DORAN: I have to tell you I think it’s stronger than that. In fact, I know it to be stronger than that. I don't know if you ever saw that shocking Newsweek report which they did entirely off the back of my film. And they came to see me and interviewed me. And then they called me up the week before publication for final quotes. And then suddenly, when the piece appears, I’m not mentioned, which is not a problem for me. But amazingly, it’s like an apologist’s piece, suggesting that there was no evidence of American involvement whatsoever.

But again, if you read the article clearly and carefully, you’ll see that there’s a beginning and there’s an end, and there’s nothing in the middle. And what’s the best way of putting this? I understand that there was more information in the original article which –- let’s just say it didn't make into the magazine.

When I was showing my film at the American University in Washington, one of the Newsweek authors was there –- and this is all on camera, not in the documentary but on camera –- and he admitted that the entire article was based on my film. But then he attempted to defend Newsweek’s approach and was suggesting that American forces were not involved and had no knowledge of the events.

The Newsweek journalist then, after this great attempt at defense -– and believe me, he failed –- just about an hour after that meeting, he called me on my cell phone and said, "Jamie, I didn't know you had so much information. Can I see the film again? Can I get a copy?"

If you remember Newsweek claimed that only, I think, four or four and a half thousand actually surrendered at Kunduz. And here I was, and the very points you make, with the General at Kalai Janghi admitting to processing over 7,000 prisoners. So Newsweek effectively had simply ignored the existence -- or frankly their failed journalism had not enabled them to actually even understand how many prisoners had been processed in the first place.

BUZZFLASH: There is potentially several levels of concern in regards to American forces. Some would argue that even if the U.S. soldiers weren't involved, they were in control of the situation. One implication could be that even if they didn't know about it, they should have known about it. Although some of your witness claim that U.S. soldiers were present when the 3,000 Taliban were buried in a mass grave at Dasht Leile and stood idly by as though Taliban that were killed being transported in the containers were summarily executed.

DORAN: Let me tell you something on that. If I had been in Dasht Leile, I could have stopped the massacre. Any Westerner could have stopped that massacre. I know Afghanistan rather well, and I know the way that Westerners are perceived by the Afghanis. Sometimes I would have 100 to 150 people running along the streets after me and my camera. And I would come and say, "Stop," and they would stop on the spot and not move.

Equally, at one point during the war, I affected 40 Northern Alliance soldiers baying for the blood of the first Taliban prisoner who was captured. And I was lucky enough to interview the guy. I then stopped him being murdered, okay? I turned to them all. I formed every single face in the room, and I said, "You will face war crimes -– a war crimes tribunal -– if anything happens to this man." He’s probably one of the few Taliban who actually made it out alive. But this guy was absolutely scared beyond belief. And these guys clearly were about to murder him. And I’ll bet you he’s still alive today.

And the point I’m making is that when you have fifty-plus American Special Forces in effective command and control of Sheberghan Prison, there is no way they are taking orders from Afghans. They are in charge. And don't forget one of my witnesses specifically says that an American officer ordered the removal of the bodies -– the living and the dead –- out to the desert.

BUZZFLASH: Your documentary talks about the existence of a smoking gun -- which you haven't seen -– that implicates U.S. soldiers involvement in the form of a videotape. Allegedly the videotape documents when the containers were ordered out to the desert to dispose of the bodies in a mass grave. Those men that hadn't yet died were summarily executed. Your researcher, Najibullah Quaraishi, saw part of that videotape and attempted to make a copy of it. While attempting to make a copy he was attacked and beaten. Do you have any idea if the videotape still exists? There’s some implication in your documentary that the Northern Alliance warlord, General Dostum, keeps it as an insurance policy so that if there was ever a war crimes tribunal, Dostum could show American soldiers involved or complicit in the massacre and create an utter military and political disaster for the United States government.

DORAN: It’s pretty obvious that it is an insurance policy. And the answer to your question is I have no idea if the videotape still exists.

BUZZFLASH: What else besides that videotape, or some other videotape or pictures of some kind, could be conclusive enough to essentially force a serious international inquiry into the massacre?

DORAN: That’s actually damned easy to answer, and it’s in the film, in the sense that it is the witnesses. I mean, as you know, normally these massacres -– for instance, Bosnia or whatever –- are not videotaped, okay?

As one professor of international law has said very clearly, instances like this massacre rely on eyewitness testimony. And that the diversity of the witnesses is key to the evidential nature of what we were producing. And we have this diversity of witnesses, I can assure you.

As I said to you at the very beginning, you have to understand that the various ethnic groups do not mix. They simply don't mix. And when I have people from every single ethnic background, from very different –- I mean, widespread regions of Afghanistan –- the drivers of the containers for example, giving this evidence, then that evidence is easily sufficient to bring about an investigation. As I say to you, it’s not about a videotape of one event or another, because normally these things are not videotaped. It’s about the strength of the witnesses. And this is why some of my witnesses have been murdered.

BUZZFLASH: You interviewed Richard Perle. Perle acknowledged that if your claims in the documentary are true, then there should be an investigation. It does seem to bother him, at least for the sake of the cameras, that there’s an implication that U.S. soldiers may have been involved. Tell me more about your interview with Perle -– what you did not put on the film. And secondly, why hasn't the Pentagon and the U.S. Administration authorized an inquiry?

DORAN: Well, I’ll answer the second one first, and then go back to Perle. And that is, of course, because they know they’re guilty. They know their men carried out war crimes. They know their men were in command and control of the operation. And they know that their men will, if an open investigation takes place, will face courts martial at the very least.

The American authorities will hide behind this statement that’s been made very clear that their men will not be tried for war crimes abroad. What they don't seem to recognize is that these are crimes under American military law also. You know that -– was it Lieutenant Calley and My Lai? He was not tried by a Vietnamese Court. He was not tried at the Hague. He was tried by an American military court in the United States.

DORAN: That’s what this is about. These are crimes under American military law. And all I’ve ever asked for is an open investigation. Let’s put all the cards on the table here. Let’s be utterly open. Let’s give security to these incredibly brave witnesses to actually be able to tell what they saw, what they witnessed.

Now going back to Richard Perle. You will notice that I didn't try and interview what some people would describe as the usual suspects -- i.e., some kind of people with a left-wing agenda, or something like that. I went specifically for people like Robert Fox from the Institute of Strategic Studies, which is a right-wing group in the U.K.

I love one of the phrases of Richard Perle in the film: the U.S. wasn't particularly keen on having General Dostum as an ally. They would have preferred Mother Teresa, but she wasn't available. Well, you know, no one would ever describe Richard Perle as Mother Teresa either, but he, in the film, specifically says that, if this evidence is available, then there should be an investigation.

BUZZFLASH: Did you ask him specifically about the fact that there are eyewitness accounts –- that a researcher of yours saw footage of U.S. involvement in the massacre?

DORAN: Let me tell you: Richard Perle was absolutely shocked. Let’s just say that I haven't given him all the detail I had before the interview. Perle was absolutely shocked by the detail I gave him, and if you look at him in the film, you can actually see the shock in his face. And it was very interesting that, after the interview, I went outside to have a cigarette, as I do after interviews. And Richard came out after me and said specifically, "Jamie, how high does this go?" And my answer to him was that I know at least it goes as high as Rumsfeld’s office. And we’re talking about the cover-up.

BUZZFLASH: There’s no question that if this was ever exposed or could be proven -– if these allegations are true that it would be a crisis to say the least.

DORAN: So many people have lied about this story, so many people have defended the indefensible, that, yes, I mean, heads would roll. I’m talking about people like spokespersons for the Pentagon, who must know that they aren't reflecting the true facts. And frankly, some of them will appear at a forthcoming inquiry, because, believe me, there will be an inquiry.

BUZZFLASH: Conducted by the Hague?

DORAN: I don't know if it will be the Hague. I’m certainly hoping that it will be under American military law. I won't go into too much detail –- far more evidence will come forward on this story and I would be amazed if, coincidentally, it didn't actually come out at the time of the Guantanamo trials. And thus, if America is trying Taliban prisoners for war crimes -– many of whom, incidentally, were taken from Sheberghan Prison for the great crime of speaking English -– then I think it’s going to be fascinating when further evidence comes out during the Guantanamo trials of war crimes committed by their own men.

BUZZFLASH: Are you trying to get your documentary distributed in the United States? How can people get the film? Is it appearing in different film festivals?

DORAN: I think actually this month alone, it’s being seen at seven different festivals around the world. It’s been seen at countless festivals. I’ve done so many interviews it would bore you, frankly, to every single country you can imagine, including countries like Iran.

I think it was Tehran radio came on and they would say things to me like, you know, "So these American men -– these American soldiers –- they murdered the prisoners in front of these people." And I would say, "No, that’s not true."

Then again, "and so these American soldiers –- they were cutting the neck of Taliban soldiers." No, that’s not true. "So these . . ." and I said, "Look, do you want to hear the truth? Because you know I have no political agenda. If you check my background, I have no affiliations of any kind whatsoever. I have no political affiliations of any kind. And the reality is that the film has now been seen in almost thirty countries worldwide. And why? I have to laugh. Why are the American people being denied the opportunity to make up their own minds on the evidence? Isn't that democracy: that people can actually make up their own minds? This is the home of press freedom, the world’s largest of all, in fact, apart from India –- certainly the world’s foremost democracy. And yet at the moment, you have this pervasive atmosphere of fear and control through paranoia in your country, whereby broadcasters are frightened to even consider showing such a film.

BUZZFLASH: You mentioned Newsweek. Why is it that American journalists haven't contacted you? Or have you contacted them about the information in the documentary?

DORAN: Well, American journalists have contacted me, and it’s been rather fascinating. I think I may have mentioned to you before, but if I didn't , one journalist who’s rather well-published in the NYT, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal –- she was following this story down and couldn't understand why none of the nationals would touch it. You know, a few regional newspapers took it, but the nationals wouldn't take her article, which was obviously a very big story. Why wouldn't they touch it?

Well, one journalist told me that she talked to a high ranking State Department spokesperson and asked him why this was being covered up. "You have to understand we’re in touch with the nationals on a daily basis," he told her. "This story just won't run, even if it’s true." Now if that doesn't explain to you why the story isn't appearing across America –- although I have to say to you now, including your own interview, it’s beginning to happen. It’s coming up. I’m interviewing with a Chicago publication. I had a New York Film Festival on this morning. I’ve been offered a forty or fifty cinema or theatre release across America. I’m supposed to be doing a tour of America in, you know, January-February, to the universities and et cetera. So it’s not going away. That’s the key thing. It’s not going away. And frankly if any of your readers want to get hold of the film, they just go onto the website acftv.com.

BUZZFLASH: We should point out that since you’ve finished the documentary, two eyewitnesses that you interviewed were killed. And several other witnesses -- some involved with your film, some not -- have been arrested, detained and tortured. The people you interviewed are at great risk essentially.

DORAN: They’re at enormous risk. The two men that died, I mean, all the witnesses who took part, were phenomenally brave, beyond belief. And in fact, the terrible sadness, as you know, I disguised their voices and their faces. But the two men who died hadn't even asked for their faces to be disguised. It was a decision I took myself. And I have to tell you: I’m fantastically angry over their deaths for other reasons. I understand that certain groups knew that they had been taken three weeks before they were finally killed. These men were being tortured for 21-22 days before they were finally killed –- "dispatched" was the phrase, one of the phrases I heard. And what shocked me about that is that I understand the Afghan system, and you should know that we’ve managed to be able to get about five guys who were also arrested, who were taken in –- we’ve managed to get them away.

I openly admit to paying ransoms, to paying this, that and the other thing –- also into many, many thousands of dollars -- to save, to get these guys out of there. I was not given the opportunity even to save these two men. And I still feel, to this day, and would have been willing to do so, I still feel that I could have paid to save their lives. And I was not given that opportunity. And certain Western groups knew that these men had been taken, and did not tell me. And for me, that’s entirely unforgivable. I look after my people. I look after my witnesses. These people knew about this and didn't tell me. We were specifically keeping a low profile to give them, if you like, space –- not to draw attention to them. When these men were taken, I should have been informed immediately, and this did not happen. And as I said to you, when that happened, we managed then to get five others out. Three others were actually taken in, and I paid money to get them out. One of them -- one of the three, incidentally -- was beaten within an inch of his life.

BUZZFLASH: And you yourself have been threatened, correct?

DORAN: Of course. It goes with the territory. We leave these people there. It’s all my life, you know, from places you cannot imagine. I’ve gone into silly places, and, you know, we think we’re all big tough journalists going into these places, okay? But we’re only there for a week, two weeks, three weeks. We then leave, and we will leave the people whom we were with, fighting on in their way. They’re the ones who are in danger -– not people like me.

I am someone who loathed the Taliban beyond belief. I was fired upon by them on a good number of occasions, because, frankly, unlike the other brave 600 journalists or so in Northern Afghanistan, I paid enough money in bribes to actually live on the front line during the war. And, you know, I got to know these people. And frankly, it’s a bizarre thing, I have to say to you. The Afghans are absolutely beautiful people, they’re beautiful, but the value of life is almost zero. And America got into bed with one devil opposing another devil, and is now trying to, if you like, almost apologize for its association with one devil when their men actually got involved in murder and war crimes.

BUZZFLASH: I know you interviewed at length and relied on a lot of the work of Andrew McEntee, a human rights lawyer whose investigated the mass grave at Dasht Leile. What’s next in terms of what is he doing and how are other people involved in getting the word out about what happened and about "Afghan Massacre"?

DORAN: Well, Andrew McEntee is now the head of Human Rights at the OSCE -– that’s the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe –- based in Belgrade now, and he’s still following his human rights drive. I think the man, more than anyone else we should be talking about, is Najibullah Quaraishi, who was an astonishingly brave man. After his beating, we had to put him into hiding, as you know. And finally we brought him and his family to London, where they are now living. Najibullah would love one day to return to his homeland. He doesn't want to stay in Britain. He’s an Afghan, and would love one day to return. But that can only be under circumstances where the whole regime has changed.

I understand in recent days that General Dostum has effectively been given control of Northern Afghanistan. Just in the last week and a half, there have been major battles in Northern Afghanistan that no one refers to in the Western press anymore, because they’re still trying to portray Afghanistan as something of a success. Afghanistan is in a bigger mess just now than it ever was before the war.

Albeit, we got rid of the Taliban, but did we? They’re still ruling half the hillsides of Afghanistan. They’re still killing God-knows-how-many people. As I told you before, I have no time for these people whatsoever. But, you know, we replaced one bad bunch with another bunch of warlords. And when Hamid Karzai talks about running the Afghan government, that’s only if the Afghan government remains within the boundaries of Kabul. Outside Kabul, he has no influence.

And the warlords are stronger and richer than they ever were. The amount of money being taken in import duties, bribes and drugs is absolutely mind-boggling. We are now talking billions of dollars. These men have everything at their hands, and, you know, this is called a liberated country.

BUZZFLASH: Jamie Doran, thank you so much for your time. Good luck with your film.

DORAN: Thank you.

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
This Blog is finally working again!

Jammy

Sunday, September 21, 2003

This is a test!

Jammyt

Saturday, September 20, 2003

hey
test

Friday, September 19, 2003

Thursday, September 18, 2003

OK Guys . . .this blog is finally working again!

Jammy

Wednesday, September 17, 2003

test

Tuesday, September 09, 2003

http://liberty.hypermart.net/Newsletter/3/4_The_2004_Election_Has_Already_Been_Rigged.htm

BLOG-MERGENCY -- this is TOPS

September 8, 2003

The Voting-Machine Industrial Complex
http://www.counterpunch.com/fitrakis09082003.html
Demostration Democracy
By BOB FITRAKIS

During the Cold War, the CIA, in the words of long-time agent Ralph McGehee, practiced the art of "deadly deceits." Throughout the Third World, the secret spy agency engaged in covert operations, blatant acts of economic destabilization and wanton acts of mass violence.

In the 1970s, Idaho Senator Frank Church's investigatory committee established that the CIA also engaged in so-called "benign" operations including rigging elections. The agency used the term "demonstration elections"--elections that are superficially democratic but the results manipulated by the CIA.

The Company did everything from stuffing ballot boxes, creating political parties, merging smaller political parties into large coalitions as in Uno in Nicaragua, paying death squads to intimidate voters and the occasional use of computer fraud. In the mid-80s, the Reagan and Bush administration used a computer to help their "man in Panama" and CIA asset Manuel Noriega gain electoral support; they backed dictator Ferdinand Marcos when he brought in the pre-programmed election tapes in the middle of an election to turn his sure defeat into a fixed victory. The people of the Philippines didn't accept the computer results as credible, but Reagan and Bush argued it was necessary to preserve our "traditional" relationship with the brutal dictator. Remember, his political opponent, Senator Aquino was shot to death after disembarking from an airplane to run against Marcos.

Now that we have the son of the former CIA director as President, we should recognize that the more reprehensible tactics of the CIA have been brought home with the Bush dynasty. What George Bush's energy friends from Texas, including Enron, did to the California economy through the massive "mega-watt" laundering of energy should be viewed as just another economic destabilization of an enemy regime.

In the Houston area, two Republican U.S. representatives were declared winners in the last election until it was discovered that the results were caused by a "faulty" and Republican-friendly microchip. When the proper chip was installed in the computerized voting machine the correct results were revealed: two Democratic victories.

The 2000 Florida election included all of the signs of a Third World CIA demonstration election. Bizarrely constructed butterfly ballots, obscure third parties receiving unexplained and unfathomable votes and heavily Jewish areas voting unexpectedly for right-wing nationalistic anti-Semitic candidates like Pat Buchanan. Remember that the exit polls predicted that Gore would win. Only when the psych-ops operation at Fox News changed that call did some people begin to believe in the myth of the Bush victory.

What began as covert operations in the Third World are now overt practices by the Bush administration in the United States.

Take for example the August 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, Chief Executive of Diebold, Inc., pledging that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its votes to the President next year." Diebold is one of three finalists currently seeking $100 million contract with the state of Ohio to provide computerized voting machines for the 2004 elections. Diebold has worked on its computers with Battelle, a well-established collaborator with the U.S. military and CIA. Computer scientists from John Hopkins indicated that it would be relatively easy to hack into and manipulate the computer voting results in these machines.

The Seattle Times ran a feature story on Diebold in their August 21 edition. Bev Harris, a Seattle-area public relations company owner, recently uncovered "some 4000 files that included user manuals, source code and an executable files for voting machines made by Diebold, a corporation based in North Canton, Ohio."

Jason Leopold recently wrote a revealing article on this issue that you can read here. A detailed anaylsis of the flaws in Diebold's electronic voting machines can be found at www.scoop.co.nz.

So, what do we have here other than the obvious denial by mainstream America? We've got a CIA family, their corporate supporters working with CIA contractors at Battelle in order to bring flawed electronic voting to the U.S. with no paper trails and questionable exit polls. Recall that Battelle was also the contractor for Voter News Service (VNS) and failed to produce exit polls for the 2002 Congressional election.

Factor in the reality that, out of 435 Congressional districts in the U.S., only 39, or 9%, are actually competitive (when major party candidates won with less than 55% of the vote). Under our political system, also, the vast majority of Congressional seats are gerrymandered as "safe" or noncompetitive districts by the party that controls the state government. Eleven Texas Democrats are hiding out in New Mexico in hopes of thwarting another round of Republican district-rigging in their state. So little democracy is actually left.

Over the years, well-known and respected political theorists and leaders have warned of the rise of authoritarianism. In the 50s, U.S. President Eisenhower warned of the "military-industrial complex." C. Wright Mills detailed the "power elite"--the convergence of the top levels of the military, corporations and governmental leaders during the Cold War. In the 60s, Herbert Marcuse, who worked for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in WWII, pointed out that Americans' inability to think critically was making us a "one-dimensional" society with an authoritarian culture. In the 70s, political scientists like William Domhoff and Thomas Dye began to document empirically the undemocratic and elitist nature of the U.S. political system. In the 80s, Bertrand Gross warned of the rise of "friendly fascism." In the 90s, William Grieder documented that the U.S. had the best democracy money can buy and asked the question, "Who will tell the people?"

But the most damning and lasting testimony that foretold the rise of America's new authoritarian demonstration democracy are still the massive volumes produced by the Church Committee. Back in the late 70s, the Agency's shadowy hands were all over the Idaho ABC Committee (Anybody but Church). Bush's election coup of 2000, our first obvious CIA-style demonstration election, gave the Bush clan and their friends in the CIA the opportunity to field test whether or not you can blatantly steal an election in the U.S. just like Panama or the Philippines. The 9-11 attacks provided Bush, Jr. with the authority to push U.S. society massively to the right and pursue militarism and imperialism. It also allowed Bush to test market neo-Nazi-style mass propaganda to the American public.

The voting machines are simply the final nail in the people's coffin. The comatose electorate rests silently as the hammer of authoritarianism falls.

Bob Fitrakis is a professor at Columbus State Community College and an editor of the Free Press.


Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium

"The United States is putting together a Constitution now for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It's served us well for 200 years, and we don't appear to be using it anymore. So what the hell?" -- Jay Leno

"They're saying Arnold will get 95% of the vote. At least according to his brother, JEB Schwarzenegger." -- Craig Kilborn
Claudia just emailed this important message to me:


Ramsey Clark, Former U.S. Attorney General, Responds to Bush's Television Address

Dear VoteToImpeach Member:

Sunday night, September 7, President Bush told the American public and the world to expect more of the same from his administration. More crimes against peace and humanity, more deaths and destruction, more debts and poverty. He wants everyone to help.

President Bush has spent $79 billion attacking Afghanistan and Iraq and seeks $87 billion more for another year of violence. What he calls "one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history" has taken more than 30,000 Iraqi lives, destroyed "tens of billions" in facilities essential to life, electricity, water supply, sewage disposal, according to Paul Bremer, and left the whole country destitute, in turmoil, growing violence and rage. Thousands perished in Afghanistan where the destruction remains unrepaired, the people disoriented and impoverished, the highway from Kabul to Kandahar is impassable and violence is mounting.

U.S. casualties in Iraq alone have reached 300 dead, 1200 with disabling injuries, and a total of 6000 returned to the United States in body bags, on stretchers, or sick in body or mind. U.S. soldiers are being killed at a growing rate, now 1 or 2 a day.

In the meantime, 2 1/2 million jobs have been lost in the U.S., 1.3 million families slid below the impossibly low poverty line of $17000 a year for a family of four. U.S. government deficits have erased a surplus of $590 billion and created a debt of $400 billion, a trillion dollar loss, with deficits of $400 billion plus expected for the next several years at least.
Not content with his crimes against peace, wars of aggression, crimes against humanity, assassination, summary execution, torture and illegal and secret detentions, President Bush boasted "...and we have captured or killed hundreds of Saddam loyalists and terrorists... seizing many caches of enemy weapons and massive amounts of ammunition. We have carried the fight to the enemy... the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans."

That means more wars of aggression. More summary execution and assassinations. More arbitrary arrests, more illegal detentions and disappearances. Guantanamo is a symbol to the world of President Bush's contempt for human rights: torture, suicides, secret detention, military trials, an execution chamber waiting. Guantanamo should be returned to Cuba now -- a century late.

U.S. forces must be withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. These must be our last foreign military interventions. U.S. companies must be barred from profiting from contracts for "rebuilding Iraq" which the U.S. destroyed. Ten percent of the U.S. military budget at the 2003 level should be paid into a U.N. fund for the next decade to compensate Iraq and Afghanistan for U.S. crimes against them, to be used as they choose.

We are virtually guaranteed more of the same unless President Bush is impeached for his high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
To take back the Constitution and save our country Vote to Impeach now. This vote is an unmistakable message from the American people. The world and the present Administration will understand this message. It means we do not accept the crimes President Bush has committed in our name and will not permit their repetition.

Sincerely,

Ramsey Clark


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forward this message to your friends and colleagues who may have not yet cast their ballot for impeachment at www.VoteToImpeach.org, and invite them to visit VoteToImpeach.org and become active and vocal members of this important national movement to impeach George W. Bush.

At this critical time, please give your generous support to the movement to Impeach George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld. To make a contribution to the Impeachment Campaign online through our secure server, or for information on how to write a check, please visit the Impeach Bush online donation page.

- - - - This e-mail has been sent to persons who have previously signed up at the VoteToImpeach.org web site to receive VoteToImpeach E-Updates. If you have been forwarded this e-mail by a friend and wish to receive future e-mails from VoteToImpeach.org, simply Click here to Subscribe. If you have received this in error, or wish to not receive future e-communication from us, please Click here to Unsubscribe.


Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium

"The United States is putting together a Constitution now for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It's served us well for 200 years, and we don't appear to be using it anymore. So what the hell?" -- Jay Leno

"They're saying Arnold will get 95% of the vote. At least according to his brother, JEB Schwarzenegger." -- Craig Kilborn

Monday, September 08, 2003

Europe shows us the right way

http://www.sbpost.ie/web/Sitemap/1.9did-363363658-pageUrl--2FBusiness-2FComment-and-Analysis-2FDavid-McWilliams.asp

By David McWilliams
Pierre and Claudine have just come back from their annual four-week sojourn in the south of France, refreshed, tanned and ready for their 35-hour week at Airbus.

Chuck and Barbara, Boeing workers in Seattle, are feeling the strain. They haven't taken a holiday for two years apart from a few snatched weekends in the Rockies. When Pierre and Claudine were basking on the Med, Chuck and Barbara were working overtime to set cash aside for young Billy's school fees.

When he's not working more than 60 hours a week, Chuck spends at least three nights in the gym trying to work off the encroaching middle-age spread.

Although he has been watching his weight since his early 30s, he can't seem to beat the mid-40s flab. Pierre, on the other hand, is a walking example of the French paradox.

He never misses his three-course lunch with wine, gorges on smelly Roquefort and hasn't broken sweat (at least publicly) since he was a boy, yet there's more meat on a seagull.

Claudine can be slightly neurotic about little Jean-Yves (and probably as a result of wearing sailor-suits at a young age there is a good chance that he'll turn out to be a bit of a prat), but at least all the bills are paid by the state.

Barbara, in contrast, constantly worries about Billy - whether he's doing drugs, getting caught on the wrong side of town in a drive-by or simply falling into bad company.This is why they've sent him to the best school in the neighbourhood, even though the fees are exorbitant.

Claudine goes to work on a spanking new metro that runs on time and is heavily subsidised. Barbara finds it hard to get out of her footpath-free estate onto the main highway, as the junction is gridlocked from 7am. Although both petrol and insurance are cheap, it takes her 50 stressful minutes to travel five miles.

Pierre and Chuck do more or less the same jobs in more or less similar companies. Chuck earns 30 per cent more than Pierre - but Pierre works half the hours, and as such is more productive.

In fact, the difference between the two men is mirrored across the board between the two countries. Income per head in the US is about 20 per cent more than in France, but on average the French work 20 per cent less.Thus in economic terms the difference between the two countries amounts to a three-course lunch every day and six weeks holidays.

Pierre speaks English fluently and sometimes spends time in Airbus's British office. Having spent most of the day being patronised by Ricky Gervais-style middle managers in Slough, he muses on the difference between the continental approach and the Anglo-A mer ican one as he catches the Eurostar home.

On the English side everything is haphazard and shoddy. Once in France, everything is pristine and efficient.

In England, the fancy French train snails through the Kent countryside at around 50 miles per hour, shuddering periodically on second-rate privatised infrastructure (supplied by the now bankrupt Railtrack).

On the French side it rapidly hits its maximum speed of around 200 kilometres per hour without as much as a ripple on your coffee. In no time it glides into Gare du Nord, where any number of metro connections deliver you to your final destination.

Cast your mind back to when the Channel Tunnel was being built in the late 1980s and you would be forgiven for suggesting that the opposite should have been the case. At the time, it appeared a safe bet that the British side would work smoothly and chaos would reign over in Normandy.

The British agonised publicly over plans, and ideology dominated arguments about how best to finance the project. Ultimately, the private sector forked out. According to the British press, this open procedure would ensure best practice.

In France, the state didn't bother itself with such trivia as cost.The tunnel was a great project for France, and it would be built using the best French technology with no expense spared. For the French, this was all about vision and national pride, and, as a consequence, it was far too important to be left to bean-counters, shareholders or irate residents' committees.

It has ever been thus.The continental/French approach is to conceive the big vision and worry about the details later. In contrast, the British start with the detail, and, by allowing themselves to get bogged down in the minutiae, sometimes missing out on the big picture altogether.

In recent days, when I hear the Minister for Transport talking about public-private partnerships to finance

the Metro and talking heads on the radio and television telling me how banjaxed the French and continentals are, it is hard to square reality with the rhetoric.

Why does the business press have such a jaundiced view of continental society?

Typical headlines in the business press refer to the `lack of reform' on the continent or the `delinquency of the French economy'. Yet a cursory glance at the figures indicates that the difference between the high-tax EU and low tax US is not so great.

Over the past three years the US economy has grown by 5.9 per cent - just 1 per cent more than that of the EU. This is not particularly impressive. Since 1995, living standards have risen by 16.1 per cent in the US but by 18.3 per cent in the EU.The US economy has grown by an average of 3.2 per cent in the period 1995 to 2002 versus the EU figure of 2.3 per cent.

However, as the US population has increased by 10 per cent in the past six years and Europe's has hardly grown, the average European has seen his income grow more than the average American. American-lovers point to the productivity of the Americans, which has grown by 1.9 per cent over the past seven years, but this figure is beaten by seven European countries: Ireland, Austria, Finland, Greece, Germany, Norway and Belgium.

And while the output per worker is higher in the US, that is because they work much longer hours.

Ireland apart, the six other European countries that are more productivethan the US all havehigh taxes. Britain, the country that more than most champions low taxes, languishes ninth in the European league of productive countries.

There comes a time when cutting taxes for its own sake becomes selfdefeating, and it would appear that Ireland is close to that point. Ireland needs enormous investment in infrastructure and without tax increases it is hard to see how we are going to pay for these projects.

Inthe years ahead, Ireland will have to make a choice about our society, ourlifestyles and ourbottom line. Don't be surprised if we elect to move closer to Berlin than either Birmingham or Boston.

David McWilliams presents The Breakfast Show on NewsTalk 106, 7±9.30am



Chuck and Barbara, Boeing workers in Seattle, are feeling the strain. They haven't taken a holiday for two years apart from a few snatched weekends in the Rockies. When Pierre and Claudine were basking on the Med, Chuck and Barbara were working overtime to set cash aside for young Billy's school fees.

When he's not working more than 60 hours a week, Chuck spends at least three nights in the


gym trying to work off the encroaching middle-age spread.

Although he has been watching his weight since his early 30s, he can't seem to beat the mid-40s flab. Pierre, on the other hand, is a walking example of the French paradox.

He never misses his three-course lunch with wine, gorges on smelly Roquefort and hasn't broken sweat (at least publicly) since he was a boy, yet there's more meat on a seagull.

Claudine can be slightly neurotic about little Jean-Yves (and probably as a result of wearing sailor-suits at a young age there is a good chance that he'll turn out to be a bit of a prat), but at least all the bills are paid by the state.

Barbara, in contrast, constantly worries about Billy - whether he's doing drugs, getting caught on the wrong side of town in a drive-by or simply falling into bad company.This is why they've sent him to the best school in the neighbourhood, even though the fees are exorbitant.

Claudine goes to work on a spanking new metro that runs on time and is heavily subsidised. Barbara finds it hard to get out of her footpath-free estate onto the main highway, as the junction is gridlocked from 7am. Although both petrol and insurance are cheap, it takes her 50 stressful minutes to travel five miles.

Pierre and Chuck do more or less the same jobs in more or less similar companies. Chuck earns 30 per cent more than Pierre - but Pierre works half the hours, and as such is more productive.

In fact, the difference between the two men is mirrored across the board between the two countries. Income per head in the US is about 20 per cent more than in France, but on average the French work 20 per cent less.Thus in economic terms the difference between the two countries amounts to a three-course lunch every day and six weeks holidays.

Pierre speaks English fluently and sometimes spends time in Airbus's British office. Having spent most of the day being patronised by Ricky Gervais-style middle managers in Slough, he muses on the difference between the continental approach and the Anglo-A mer ican one as he catches the Eurostar home.

On the English side everything is haphazard and shoddy. Once in France, everything is pristine and efficient.

In England, the fancy French train snails through the Kent countryside at around 50 miles per hour, shuddering periodically on second-rate privatised infrastructure (supplied by the now bankrupt Railtrack).

On the French side it rapidly hits its maximum speed of around 200 kilometres per hour without as much as a ripple on your coffee. In no time it glides into Gare du Nord, where any number of metro connections deliver you to your final destination.

Cast your mind back to when the Channel Tunnel was being built in the late 1980s and you would be forgiven for suggesting that the opposite should have been the case. At the time, it appeared a safe bet that the British side would work smoothly and chaos would reign over in Normandy.

The British agonised publicly over plans, and ideology dominated arguments about how best to finance the project. Ultimately, the private sector forked out. According to the British press, this open procedure would ensure best practice.

In France, the state didn't bother itself with such trivia as cost.The tunnel was a great project for France, and it would be built using the best French technology with no expense spared. For the French, this was all about vision and national pride, and, as a consequence, it was far too important to be left to bean-counters, shareholders or irate residents' committees.

It has ever been thus.The continental/French approach is to conceive the big vision and worry about the details later. In contrast, the British start with the detail, and, by allowing themselves to get bogged down in the minutiae, sometimes missing out on the big picture altogether.

In recent days, when I hear the Minister for Transport talking about public-private partnerships to finance

the Metro and talking heads on the radio and television telling me how banjaxed the French and continentals are, it is hard to square reality with the rhetoric.

Why does the business press have such a jaundiced view of continental society?

Typical headlines in the business press refer to the `lack of reform' on the continent or the `delinquency of the French economy'. Yet a cursory glance at the figures indicates that the difference between the high-tax EU and low tax US is not so great.

Over the past three years the US economy has grown by 5.9 per cent - just 1 per cent more than that of the EU. This is not particularly impressive. Since 1995, living standards have risen by 16.1 per cent in the US but by 18.3 per cent in the EU.The US economy has grown by an average of 3.2 per cent in the period 1995 to 2002 versus the EU figure of 2.3 per cent.

However, as the US population has increased by 10 per cent in the past six years and Europe's has hardly grown, the average European has seen his income grow more than the average American. American-lovers point to the productivity of the Americans, which has grown by 1.9 per cent over the past seven years, but this figure is beaten by seven European countries: Ireland, Austria, Finland, Greece, Germany, Norway and Belgium.

And while the output per worker is higher in the US, that is because they work much longer hours.

Ireland apart, the six other European countries that are more productivethan the US all havehigh taxes. Britain, the country that more than most champions low taxes, languishes ninth in the European league of productive countries.

There comes a time when cutting taxes for its own sake becomes selfdefeating, and it would appear that Ireland is close to that point. Ireland needs enormous investment in infrastructure and without tax increases it is hard to see how we are going to pay for these projects.

Inthe years ahead, Ireland will have to make a choice about our society, ourlifestyles and ourbottom line. Don't be surprised if we elect to move closer to Berlin than either Birmingham or Boston.

David McWilliams presents The Breakfast Show on NewsTalk 106, 7±9.30am

Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium

"The United States is putting together a Constitution now for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It's served us well for 200 years, and we don't appear to be using it anymore. So what the hell?" -- Jay Leno

"They're saying Arnold will get 95% of the vote. At least according to his brother, JEB Schwarzenegger." -- Craig Kilborn