Tuesday, December 27, 2011
City of Life and Death
City of Life and Death is the name of a movie by Chinese director Lu Chuan which depicts the story of the Japanese massacre of the city of Nanjing. 70 years ago as Japanese Imperial troops occupied China, they massacred tens of thousands of men, women and children. The film depicts the reality of what happened to Nanjing under Japanese occupation, it shows scenes of rape, murder and cruelty. In an interview with the BBC, the director said he had wanted to make a movie that represented the truth of what went on in Nanjing. Lu Chuan said that it was his goal to show people why the Chinese sill have a tremendous amount of animosity towards the Japanese. This also comes at a time when the relations between the two countries is not very good.
Monday, December 26, 2011
pilfering
On Saturday, hackers who say they are members of the collective known as Anonymous claimed responsibility for crashing the Web site of the group, Stratfor Global Intelligence Service, and pilfering its client list, e-mails and credit card information in an operation they say is intended to steal $1 million for donations to charity. The hackers posted a list online that they say contains Stratfor’s confidential client list as well as credit card details, passwords and home addresses for some 4,000 Stratfor clients. The hackers also said they had details for more than 90,000 credit card accounts. Among the organizations listed as Stratfor clients: Bank of America, the Defense Department, Doctors Without Borders, Lockheed Martin, Los Alamos National Laboratory and the United Nations.
The group also posted five receipts online that it said were of donations made with pilfered credit card details. One receipt showed a $180 donation from a United States Homeland Security employee, Edmund H. Tupay, to the American Red Cross. Another showed a $200 donation to the Red Cross from Allen Barr, a recently retired employee from the Texas Department of Banking. Neither responded to requests for comment.
Mr. Barr told The Associated Press that on Friday he discovered that $700 had been transferred from his account to charities including the Red Cross, Save the Children and CARE, but that he had not been aware that the transfer was tied to a breach of Stratfor’s site.
Stratfor executives did not return calls for comment on Sunday. In an e-mail to subscribers Sunday morning, Stratfor’s chief executive, George Friedman, confirmed that the company’s site had been hacked and said his company was working with law enforcement to track down the parties responsible.
“We have reason to believe that the names of our corporate subscribers have been posted on other Web sites,” Mr. Friedman wrote in the e-mail. “We are diligently investigating the extent to which subscriber information may have been obtained.”
The hackers took responsibility for the Stratfor attack on Twitter and said the attack would be the beginning of a weeklong holiday hacking spree. The breach was the latest in the online group’s ongoing campaign of computer attacks which, to date, has been aimed at MasterCard, Visa and PayPal as well as groups as diverse as the Church of Scientology, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Zetas, a Mexican crime syndicate.
The breach first surfaced on Saturday when hackers defaced Stratfor’s Web site with their own message. “Merry Lulzxmas!” the group wrote in a reference to Lulz Security, a hacking group loosely affiliated with Anonymous. “Are you ready for a week of mayhem?” By Sunday afternoon, the message had been replaced with a banner message that said: “Site is currently undergoing maintenance. Please check back soon.”
According to the hackers’ online postings, the group voted on what charities to contribute to. Among their choices were cancer and AIDS research, the American Red Cross, WikiLeaks and the Tor Project, a software that enables online anonymity.
Also according to their postings, the breach appears to have been conducted in retaliation for the arrest and imprisonment of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst on trial on charges of leaking classified intelligence information and more than 250,000 diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks last year.
The attack was also likely intended to embarrass Stratfor, which specializes in intelligence and security. The hackers said they were able to obtain the credit card details because, they said, Stratfor had failed to encrypt them.
“The scary thing is that no matter what you do, every system has some level of vulnerability,” says Jerry Irvine, a member of the National Cyber Security Task Force. “The more you do from an advanced technical standpoint, the more common things go unnoticed. Getting into a system is really not that difficult.”
The group also posted five receipts online that it said were of donations made with pilfered credit card details. One receipt showed a $180 donation from a United States Homeland Security employee, Edmund H. Tupay, to the American Red Cross. Another showed a $200 donation to the Red Cross from Allen Barr, a recently retired employee from the Texas Department of Banking. Neither responded to requests for comment.
Mr. Barr told The Associated Press that on Friday he discovered that $700 had been transferred from his account to charities including the Red Cross, Save the Children and CARE, but that he had not been aware that the transfer was tied to a breach of Stratfor’s site.
Stratfor executives did not return calls for comment on Sunday. In an e-mail to subscribers Sunday morning, Stratfor’s chief executive, George Friedman, confirmed that the company’s site had been hacked and said his company was working with law enforcement to track down the parties responsible.
“We have reason to believe that the names of our corporate subscribers have been posted on other Web sites,” Mr. Friedman wrote in the e-mail. “We are diligently investigating the extent to which subscriber information may have been obtained.”
The hackers took responsibility for the Stratfor attack on Twitter and said the attack would be the beginning of a weeklong holiday hacking spree. The breach was the latest in the online group’s ongoing campaign of computer attacks which, to date, has been aimed at MasterCard, Visa and PayPal as well as groups as diverse as the Church of Scientology, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Zetas, a Mexican crime syndicate.
The breach first surfaced on Saturday when hackers defaced Stratfor’s Web site with their own message. “Merry Lulzxmas!” the group wrote in a reference to Lulz Security, a hacking group loosely affiliated with Anonymous. “Are you ready for a week of mayhem?” By Sunday afternoon, the message had been replaced with a banner message that said: “Site is currently undergoing maintenance. Please check back soon.”
According to the hackers’ online postings, the group voted on what charities to contribute to. Among their choices were cancer and AIDS research, the American Red Cross, WikiLeaks and the Tor Project, a software that enables online anonymity.
Also according to their postings, the breach appears to have been conducted in retaliation for the arrest and imprisonment of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst on trial on charges of leaking classified intelligence information and more than 250,000 diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks last year.
The attack was also likely intended to embarrass Stratfor, which specializes in intelligence and security. The hackers said they were able to obtain the credit card details because, they said, Stratfor had failed to encrypt them.
“The scary thing is that no matter what you do, every system has some level of vulnerability,” says Jerry Irvine, a member of the National Cyber Security Task Force. “The more you do from an advanced technical standpoint, the more common things go unnoticed. Getting into a system is really not that difficult.”
sooner or later payments have to be made
26 December 2011 Last updated at 04:06 ET
One of the world's most successful investors, Jim Rogers, has told the BBC that the euro is not at the root of the current problems in European economies.
Mr Rogers said the euro was good for the world and needed to work, but the main issue was excessive debt.
He told BBC World Service Business Editor, Martin Webber, that the situation in both the United States and Europe is serious and getting worse.
Full transcript below
Jim Rogers: Martin, it's very serious. America is the largest debtor nation in the history of the world and it's getting bigger and bigger by leaps and bounds at the rate of over $1 trillion a year. And in Europe you have several bankrupt countries and no one is dealing with the problem. If you look at the projections for all the European countries, none of them have reduced debt a year or two or three from now. So, this situation is serious and getting worse.
Martin Webber: Thinking back to the mid-1990s, capitalism seemed ascendant, western capitalism had triumphed over communism, economies were growing, stock markets were growing. Who do you blame for the fact that we have ended up in this mess?
Jim Rogers: Well, essentially it's governments and central banks; especially in the US they just kept spending money and the central bank just kept printing money. But there are several culprits.
Martin Webber: Who else apart from these authorities?
Jim Rogers: The government of United Kingdom, the central bank in the United Kingdom, the governments in places like Greece which used phoney bookkeeping, but also even Italy and France and Germany. They all started using phoney bookkeeping. They knew that the other countries were using phoney bookkeeping and they all said, oh it's okay, everything will be okay in the end.
So, the central banks and the governments were going hand-in-hand and spending money they did not have. Now, that's wonderful. It's great. It can cause huge growth. As you just pointed out, for 15 years you had great growth. But eventually, somebody has to come up with and pay for it, or eventually you just run out of other people's money.
Martin Webber: What seems to be going on at the moment is that central banks are creating money, lending it to banks, who are then lending it to governments in terms of buying their bonds because the private investors are no longer doing that. So you have got government owned institutions effectively buying government bonds. People don't seem to really understand what on earth can be going on?
Jim Rogers: It is a recipe for disaster. I am glad you pointed it out because there is nothing more authoritative than the BBC. It's a Ponzi scheme, it's a fraud, it's a sham and we are all going to have to - we are already starting to pay for it, Martin. It's going to be much, much worse in the end.
Eventually one of two things has to happen. We have to get together now and ring-fence the problem and figure out how we are going to survive and start over. Or, in a year or two or three, the market is going to say, no more money, we won't put up any more money. And then the whole system collapses, then you have gigantic chaos, social unrest, governments failing, civil war - huge mess.
Martin Webber: Let's try the more optimistic scenario. You say it is possible still to get a grip on this problem, what are the measures that need to be taken right now then to avoid the other scenario of civil war?
Jim Rogers: Well, at the moment some governments have credibility, Germany for instance still has credibility. And if they all got into a room together and Mrs. Merkel said, okay, you guys are going to fail, you have failed, and now you are going to fail. We are going to hold these banks, these companies up. We are going to make sure they survive. We are going to make sure bank deposits are okay. We are going to make sure checks continue to clear and the system will survive. Some of you are going to take huge losses and huge pain, but then we start over.
It would be a terrible two- or three-year period, Martin, but then the system could survive and we could rebuild after the people who have made mistakes take the losses. That's what capitalism is supposed to be all about. If you fail, you fail.
Martin Webber: And what are the mistakes then? Is it that the people who bought government bonds of France, Italy and all the other countries are going to have to take losses?
Jim Rogers: Absolutely. The banks who made these loans, and the bondholders who bought these loans, and the stockholders who own stock in these banks. They were making mistakes. They are all going to have to take huge losses. Now you are going to say, that's very painful, that's bad.
Well, I will remind you Martin that in the early '90s, Scandinavia had the same problem. They did exactly this. They ring-fenced everybody, many people failed, there was horrible pain, but after three or four years Scandinavia has been one of the great growth areas of the past 15 years or so. That's the way the system is supposed to work.
In Japan in the early '90s, they said nobody will fail. Well you know they have lost two decades in Japan. You know about zombie banks. You know about zombie companies. The Japanese way doesn't work. It is not going to work in America or Europe.
Martin Webber: So we got a situation there where people invested in banks lose money, presumably people with pensions who have investments in these banks lose money, and government bonds lose money too. But the politicians have a much nicer sounding solution it seems, which they have just come up with, which is that the European Central Bank creates money, lends it to the IMF and the IMF then lends it back to them. Sounds much nicer, doesn't it?
Jim Rogers: It sounds wonderful, doesn't it? But it is not based on reality. It's based on "Never Never Land." It's based on the "tooth fairy." Somebody has got to come up with real money somewhere along the line and payoff real debts somewhere along the line.
Martin Webber: But isn't that possible, that if you are the government, you can create as much money as you want because it's your money?
Jim Rogers: You certainly can. You can debase currency, and history is replete with governments that have debased their own currency and ruined their own currency for hundreds of - well for thousands of years it has been going on. You can do that and everything is okay for a while, but eventually you have inflation, you have high interest rates, you have currency turmoil, you have people no longer trusting each other to invest with each other, and then you have the end of the system, and we have chaos, and it starts over again.
Martin Webber: Is that not the more likely scenario in that the politicians never like to tackle problems. They are always interested in the next day's headlines. Isn't it more likely they will find yet another ruse to put off the day of reckoning?
Jim Rogers: Absolutely. You are a very insightful observer of the passing scene. That's exactly what they are going to do. If a politician ran on the platform, oh my gosh, we have got to take a lot of pain. Even if he won, Martin, which is very unlikely, but even if that politician won, after six months or a year or two of serious pain, he will be either thrown out or assassinated or something would happen because people would say this is too much pain. We didn't know you meant it was going to be this bad. Let's get out of this.
Martin Webber: Now many people say it's the euro that's at the heart of this crisis. They are calling it the "euro crisis." Is that how you see it?
Jim Rogers: No, absolutely not. It's not the euro. The world needs the euro or something like it to compete with the US dollar. We need another sound currency. The eurozone as a whole is not a big debtor nation. The eurozone has some debtor problems, some debtor nations, debtor states, but it's not a big, big problem. The euro is good for the world. It needs to work.
Martin Webber: Do you think in the past that political leaders were stronger, perhaps were less influenced by short-term considerations, had a greater feeling for the common good, perhaps the people themselves had a greater community spirit and would actually be happier to take austerity to understand you have to live within your means. Do you think in a way it's not just the political class, this is something at issue in society as a whole?
Jim Rogers: That's good observation, yes. We did have more discipline and more understanding in the past few decades, but that's partly because of the history of those decades. We remembered the First and Second World War. We remembered the Great Depression. We remembered what happened when you got too leveraged and couldn't pay your bills. We knew what happened when you debased your currency.
But now of course, since the Second World War, we have had two or three generations grow up who don't remember all of that, haven't read their history, politicians who didn't know anything about history at all and don't know anything about economics at all. So everybody thinks there's a free lunch.
Martin Webber: Do you think the media is to blame?
Jim Rogers: Well, the media are the same ones, Martin. I mean, you and everybody else grew up went to the same schools, had the same teachings and had the same period of good times. Since the Second World War, things have been pretty good in most of the western world, the developed world anyway, and we all grew up thinking, well this is the way the world is and it has been that way. But that's not the way the world has been for the past few thousand years.
Martin Webber: We have had this "Occupy Wall Street" movement emerging. Do you have any sympathy with any of the things that they are saying?
Jim Rogers: Well, I do have sympathy with the fact that they are saying, we shouldn't have bailed out the banks. I would have let all those banks go bankrupt, as you've heard me say before. But beyond that I don't have too much sympathy with them. You know, we all want a free lunch. I would like somebody to pay my bills too. I would like somebody to take care of me the rest of my life too.
Listen it's outrageous that the government took the money and saved the banks. Absolutely, they are right about that. It's outrageous, totally outrageous that governments went and bailed out some banker so they could keep their Lamborghinis and their summerhouses. But beyond that, I don't have too much sympathy with them.
Martin, whenever there are hard times, people look for somebody to blame. And they always blame the financial people, they always blame foreigners, and they always blame reporters. They always say, well if the reporters didn't write about this problem, we wouldn't have a problem. So be careful. Financial types get blamed first, the foreigners get blamed second, you are next.
Martin Webber: Okay. I am prepared.
One of the world's most successful investors, Jim Rogers, has told the BBC that the euro is not at the root of the current problems in European economies.
Mr Rogers said the euro was good for the world and needed to work, but the main issue was excessive debt.
He told BBC World Service Business Editor, Martin Webber, that the situation in both the United States and Europe is serious and getting worse.
Full transcript below
Jim Rogers: Martin, it's very serious. America is the largest debtor nation in the history of the world and it's getting bigger and bigger by leaps and bounds at the rate of over $1 trillion a year. And in Europe you have several bankrupt countries and no one is dealing with the problem. If you look at the projections for all the European countries, none of them have reduced debt a year or two or three from now. So, this situation is serious and getting worse.
Martin Webber: Thinking back to the mid-1990s, capitalism seemed ascendant, western capitalism had triumphed over communism, economies were growing, stock markets were growing. Who do you blame for the fact that we have ended up in this mess?
Jim Rogers: Well, essentially it's governments and central banks; especially in the US they just kept spending money and the central bank just kept printing money. But there are several culprits.
Martin Webber: Who else apart from these authorities?
Jim Rogers: The government of United Kingdom, the central bank in the United Kingdom, the governments in places like Greece which used phoney bookkeeping, but also even Italy and France and Germany. They all started using phoney bookkeeping. They knew that the other countries were using phoney bookkeeping and they all said, oh it's okay, everything will be okay in the end.
So, the central banks and the governments were going hand-in-hand and spending money they did not have. Now, that's wonderful. It's great. It can cause huge growth. As you just pointed out, for 15 years you had great growth. But eventually, somebody has to come up with and pay for it, or eventually you just run out of other people's money.
Martin Webber: What seems to be going on at the moment is that central banks are creating money, lending it to banks, who are then lending it to governments in terms of buying their bonds because the private investors are no longer doing that. So you have got government owned institutions effectively buying government bonds. People don't seem to really understand what on earth can be going on?
Jim Rogers: It is a recipe for disaster. I am glad you pointed it out because there is nothing more authoritative than the BBC. It's a Ponzi scheme, it's a fraud, it's a sham and we are all going to have to - we are already starting to pay for it, Martin. It's going to be much, much worse in the end.
Eventually one of two things has to happen. We have to get together now and ring-fence the problem and figure out how we are going to survive and start over. Or, in a year or two or three, the market is going to say, no more money, we won't put up any more money. And then the whole system collapses, then you have gigantic chaos, social unrest, governments failing, civil war - huge mess.
Martin Webber: Let's try the more optimistic scenario. You say it is possible still to get a grip on this problem, what are the measures that need to be taken right now then to avoid the other scenario of civil war?
Jim Rogers: Well, at the moment some governments have credibility, Germany for instance still has credibility. And if they all got into a room together and Mrs. Merkel said, okay, you guys are going to fail, you have failed, and now you are going to fail. We are going to hold these banks, these companies up. We are going to make sure they survive. We are going to make sure bank deposits are okay. We are going to make sure checks continue to clear and the system will survive. Some of you are going to take huge losses and huge pain, but then we start over.
It would be a terrible two- or three-year period, Martin, but then the system could survive and we could rebuild after the people who have made mistakes take the losses. That's what capitalism is supposed to be all about. If you fail, you fail.
Martin Webber: And what are the mistakes then? Is it that the people who bought government bonds of France, Italy and all the other countries are going to have to take losses?
Jim Rogers: Absolutely. The banks who made these loans, and the bondholders who bought these loans, and the stockholders who own stock in these banks. They were making mistakes. They are all going to have to take huge losses. Now you are going to say, that's very painful, that's bad.
Well, I will remind you Martin that in the early '90s, Scandinavia had the same problem. They did exactly this. They ring-fenced everybody, many people failed, there was horrible pain, but after three or four years Scandinavia has been one of the great growth areas of the past 15 years or so. That's the way the system is supposed to work.
In Japan in the early '90s, they said nobody will fail. Well you know they have lost two decades in Japan. You know about zombie banks. You know about zombie companies. The Japanese way doesn't work. It is not going to work in America or Europe.
Martin Webber: So we got a situation there where people invested in banks lose money, presumably people with pensions who have investments in these banks lose money, and government bonds lose money too. But the politicians have a much nicer sounding solution it seems, which they have just come up with, which is that the European Central Bank creates money, lends it to the IMF and the IMF then lends it back to them. Sounds much nicer, doesn't it?
Jim Rogers: It sounds wonderful, doesn't it? But it is not based on reality. It's based on "Never Never Land." It's based on the "tooth fairy." Somebody has got to come up with real money somewhere along the line and payoff real debts somewhere along the line.
Martin Webber: But isn't that possible, that if you are the government, you can create as much money as you want because it's your money?
Jim Rogers: You certainly can. You can debase currency, and history is replete with governments that have debased their own currency and ruined their own currency for hundreds of - well for thousands of years it has been going on. You can do that and everything is okay for a while, but eventually you have inflation, you have high interest rates, you have currency turmoil, you have people no longer trusting each other to invest with each other, and then you have the end of the system, and we have chaos, and it starts over again.
Martin Webber: Is that not the more likely scenario in that the politicians never like to tackle problems. They are always interested in the next day's headlines. Isn't it more likely they will find yet another ruse to put off the day of reckoning?
Jim Rogers: Absolutely. You are a very insightful observer of the passing scene. That's exactly what they are going to do. If a politician ran on the platform, oh my gosh, we have got to take a lot of pain. Even if he won, Martin, which is very unlikely, but even if that politician won, after six months or a year or two of serious pain, he will be either thrown out or assassinated or something would happen because people would say this is too much pain. We didn't know you meant it was going to be this bad. Let's get out of this.
Martin Webber: Now many people say it's the euro that's at the heart of this crisis. They are calling it the "euro crisis." Is that how you see it?
Jim Rogers: No, absolutely not. It's not the euro. The world needs the euro or something like it to compete with the US dollar. We need another sound currency. The eurozone as a whole is not a big debtor nation. The eurozone has some debtor problems, some debtor nations, debtor states, but it's not a big, big problem. The euro is good for the world. It needs to work.
Martin Webber: Do you think in the past that political leaders were stronger, perhaps were less influenced by short-term considerations, had a greater feeling for the common good, perhaps the people themselves had a greater community spirit and would actually be happier to take austerity to understand you have to live within your means. Do you think in a way it's not just the political class, this is something at issue in society as a whole?
Jim Rogers: That's good observation, yes. We did have more discipline and more understanding in the past few decades, but that's partly because of the history of those decades. We remembered the First and Second World War. We remembered the Great Depression. We remembered what happened when you got too leveraged and couldn't pay your bills. We knew what happened when you debased your currency.
But now of course, since the Second World War, we have had two or three generations grow up who don't remember all of that, haven't read their history, politicians who didn't know anything about history at all and don't know anything about economics at all. So everybody thinks there's a free lunch.
Martin Webber: Do you think the media is to blame?
Jim Rogers: Well, the media are the same ones, Martin. I mean, you and everybody else grew up went to the same schools, had the same teachings and had the same period of good times. Since the Second World War, things have been pretty good in most of the western world, the developed world anyway, and we all grew up thinking, well this is the way the world is and it has been that way. But that's not the way the world has been for the past few thousand years.
Martin Webber: We have had this "Occupy Wall Street" movement emerging. Do you have any sympathy with any of the things that they are saying?
Jim Rogers: Well, I do have sympathy with the fact that they are saying, we shouldn't have bailed out the banks. I would have let all those banks go bankrupt, as you've heard me say before. But beyond that I don't have too much sympathy with them. You know, we all want a free lunch. I would like somebody to pay my bills too. I would like somebody to take care of me the rest of my life too.
Listen it's outrageous that the government took the money and saved the banks. Absolutely, they are right about that. It's outrageous, totally outrageous that governments went and bailed out some banker so they could keep their Lamborghinis and their summerhouses. But beyond that, I don't have too much sympathy with them.
Martin, whenever there are hard times, people look for somebody to blame. And they always blame the financial people, they always blame foreigners, and they always blame reporters. They always say, well if the reporters didn't write about this problem, we wouldn't have a problem. So be careful. Financial types get blamed first, the foreigners get blamed second, you are next.
Martin Webber: Okay. I am prepared.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Freedom of speech
Thailand has jailed a US citizen for two and a half years after he admitted posting web links to a banned biography of King Bhumibol Adulyadej.
He was sentenced to five years in jail, but the judges halved the term because of his guilty plea.
The US consul general in Thailand said the sentence was "severe".
"He was given the sentence for his right of expression," Elizabeth Pratt told reporters.
"We continue to respect the Thai monarchy but we also support the right of expression which is internationally recognised as a human right."
Activists say the lese-majeste law has become increasingly politicised, and is used as a tool of repression rather than as a way of protecting the monarchy.
Royal pardon plea
Gordon, 55, reportedly translated parts of the widely available biography, The King Never Smiles by Paul Handley, several years ago and posted them on a blog while he was living in the US.
He was arrested in May when he visited Thailand for medical treatment.
He initially denied the charges, but said he changed his plea to guilty after being repeatedly refused bail.
After being sentenced, he told the Bangkok court: "I'm not Thai, I'm American. I was just born in Thailand. I hold an American passport. In Thailand there are many laws that don't allow you to express opinions, but we don't have that in America."
His lawyer said he would not appeal against the sentence, but would ask for a royal pardon.
Foreigners convicted of lese majeste are routinely pardoned and deported shortly after being sentenced.
Prosecutions under the law have increased dramatically in recent years, amid chronic political instability.
And the authorities have passed a new law, the Computer Crimes Act, that increases their powers to tackle any perceived insults to the monarchy on the internet or through mobile phones.
Last month a 61-year-old man was jailed for 20 years for sending four text messages that were deemed offensive to the Thai queen.
The man said he did not even know how to send a text message, and rights groups expressed serious concern about his conviction.
King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 84, is the world's longest-reigning monarch and is revered as semi-divine by many Thais.
Anybody convicted of insulting the king, queen, heir or regent faces long prison sentences.
the first former French head of state to be convicted since Marshal Philippe Petain
A French court has convicted former President Jacques Chirac of diverting public funds and abusing public confidence.
Mr Chirac, 79, was not in court to hear the verdict because of ill-health.
President from 1995 to 2007, he was put on trial on charges that dated back to his time as mayor of Paris.
He was accused of paying members of his Rally for the Republic (RPR) party for municipal jobs that did not exist.
The prosecution had urged the judge to acquit Mr Chirac and nine others accused in the trial. In 2004, during his presidency, several figures including France's current Foreign Minister Alain Juppe were convicted in connection with the case.
Mr Juppe was given a 14-month suspended sentence.
Jacques Chirac, mayor of Paris from 1977 to 1995, is the first former French head of state to be convicted since Marshal Philippe Petain, the leader of the wartime Vichy regime, was found guilty in 1945 of collaborating with the Nazis.
Mr Chirac, 79, was not in court to hear the verdict because of ill-health.
President from 1995 to 2007, he was put on trial on charges that dated back to his time as mayor of Paris.
He was accused of paying members of his Rally for the Republic (RPR) party for municipal jobs that did not exist.
The prosecution had urged the judge to acquit Mr Chirac and nine others accused in the trial. In 2004, during his presidency, several figures including France's current Foreign Minister Alain Juppe were convicted in connection with the case.
Mr Juppe was given a 14-month suspended sentence.
Jacques Chirac, mayor of Paris from 1977 to 1995, is the first former French head of state to be convicted since Marshal Philippe Petain, the leader of the wartime Vichy regime, was found guilty in 1945 of collaborating with the Nazis.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
the only place with security in 300 miles of the border
BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK, Texas (AP) — The bloody drug war in Mexico shows no sign of relenting. Neither do calls for tighter border security amid rising fears of spillover violence.
This hardly seems a time the U.S. would be willing to allow people to cross the border legally from Mexico without a customs officer in sight. But in this rugged, remote West Texas terrain where wading across the shallow Rio Grande undetected is all too easy, federal authorities are touting a proposal to open an unmanned port of entry as a security upgrade.
By the spring, kiosks could open up in Big Bend National Park allowing people from the tiny Mexican town of Boquillas del Carmen to scan their identity documents and talk to a customs officer in another location, at least 100 miles away.
The crossing, which would be the nation's first such port of entry with Mexico, has sparked opposition from some who see it as counterintuitive in these days of heightened border security. Supporters say the crossing would give the isolated Mexican town long-awaited access to U.S. commerce, improve conservation efforts and be an unlikely target for criminal operations.
"People that want to be engaged in illegal activities along the border, ones that are engaged in those activities now, they're still going to do it," said William Wellman, Big Bend National Park's superintendent. "But you'd have to be a real idiot to pick the only place with security in 300 miles of the border to try to sneak across."
The proposed crossing from Boquillas del Carmen leads to a vast expanse of rolling scrub, cut by sandy-floored canyons and violent volcanic rock outcroppings. The Chihuahuan desert wilderness is home to mountain lions, black bears and roadrunners, sparsely populated by an occasional camper and others visiting the 800,000-acre national park.
Customs and Border Protection, which would run the port of entry, says the proposal is a safe way to allow access to the town's residents, who currently must travel 240 road miles to the nearest legal entry point. It also would allow park visitors to visit the town.
If the crossing is approved, Border Patrol would have eight agents living in the park in addition to the park's 23 law enforcement rangers.
"I think it's actually going to end up making security better," CBP spokesman William Brooks said.
"Once you've crossed you're still not anywhere. You've got a long ways to go and we've got agents who are in the area. We have agents who patrol. We have checkpoints on the paved roads leading away from the park."
A public comment period runs through Dec. 27 on the estimated $2.3 million project, which has support at the highest levels of government from both countries.
But U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican member of the House Homeland Security committee, questioned the wisdom of using resources to make it easier to cross the border.
"We need to use our resources to secure the border rather than making it easier to enter in locations where we already have problems with illegal crossings," McCaul said in an email. "There is more to the oversight of legal entry than checking documents. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) needs to be physically present at every point of entry in order to inspect for contraband, detect suspicious behavior and, if necessary, act on what they encounter."
While CBP will run the port of entry, the National Park Service is the driver behind the project, which it hopes will help conservation efforts on both sides of the border. Even as the National Park Service has increased cooperation with its Mexican counterpart, joint conservation has been limited by the inability of personnel to cross the border without making a circuitous 16-hour drive, Wellman said.
So the National Park Service is building the contact station just above the Rio Grande. It will house CBP kiosks where crossers will scan in their documents and talk to a customs officer in Presidio, the nearest port of entry, or another remote location. Park service employees will staff the station, offering information about the park and guiding people through the process.
Similar ports of entry are already in operation on remote parts of the border with Canada.
"We think we can do this without doing any damage to national security and possibly enhance security along the border by having better intelligence, better communication with people in Mexico," Wellman said.
The crossing would also restore a long-running relationship between the park, its visitors and the residents of Boquillas del Carmen, the town of adobe dwellings set a short distance from the river in Mexico.
For years, U.S. tourists added an international dimension to their park visit by wading or ferrying in a rowboat across the shallow Rio Grande to the town. There they bought handicrafts and tacos, providing much-needed cash in the isolated community.
But US officials discouraged such informal crossings in 2002 after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks prompted calls for tighter border security. Without access to tourists or supplies on the U.S. side, the town of just more than 100 people has seen a 42 percent drop in population from 2000 to 2010.
Gary Martin, who manages the Rio Grande Village store at a nearby park campground, recalls many Mexican residents crossing the river to pick up groceries and other necessities.
"We're their supply," Martin said. "They don't have any electricity over there. So they would come here and buy frozen chicken, cake mixes and things that they couldn't get over there."
Martin tried to stock food items Boquillas del Carmen residents wanted, such as eggs and big sacks of beans.
"After the border closed, well, I got rid of most of my food and went back to gifts because I wasn't making any money," Martin said. He estimated about 40 percent of the store's revenue came from Boquillas residents.
Few have risked crossing to the store since. "If they get caught over here they get shipped off," he said. "They get deported all the way to Ojinaga and then they've got to find their way home. It's not really worth it."
Still, most days some Boquillas del Carmen residents wade across the river a short distance downstream of the old crossing and scramble up to a paved overlook perched high above the river.
On boulders near the parking spots they lay out painted walking sticks, scorpions and roadrunners crafted from copper wire and colorful beads. Each craftsman's work occupies a different rock and operates on the honor system with the hope tourists will drop four or five dollars in their jar.
"Sometimes we don't sell anything," said Boquillas del Carmen resident Guillermo Gonzalez Diaz. "Sometimes we sell one." And other times authorities confiscate everything.
Gonzalez, a 34-year-old father of three, described his town as "very sad, very hard" and said there was no work. Without access to the Rio Grande Village store, residents depend on a bus that runs once a week to Melchor Muzquiz, a larger town about 150 miles away, for supplies.
A small military presence protects the town from the drug-related violence that has engulfed other Mexican border towns. Now with news of the port of entry, residents are already making plans for restaurants and shops, he said.
"When it closed nobody crossed and everything went downhill. People began to leave," he said. "Now people are going to return."
This hardly seems a time the U.S. would be willing to allow people to cross the border legally from Mexico without a customs officer in sight. But in this rugged, remote West Texas terrain where wading across the shallow Rio Grande undetected is all too easy, federal authorities are touting a proposal to open an unmanned port of entry as a security upgrade.
By the spring, kiosks could open up in Big Bend National Park allowing people from the tiny Mexican town of Boquillas del Carmen to scan their identity documents and talk to a customs officer in another location, at least 100 miles away.
The crossing, which would be the nation's first such port of entry with Mexico, has sparked opposition from some who see it as counterintuitive in these days of heightened border security. Supporters say the crossing would give the isolated Mexican town long-awaited access to U.S. commerce, improve conservation efforts and be an unlikely target for criminal operations.
"People that want to be engaged in illegal activities along the border, ones that are engaged in those activities now, they're still going to do it," said William Wellman, Big Bend National Park's superintendent. "But you'd have to be a real idiot to pick the only place with security in 300 miles of the border to try to sneak across."
The proposed crossing from Boquillas del Carmen leads to a vast expanse of rolling scrub, cut by sandy-floored canyons and violent volcanic rock outcroppings. The Chihuahuan desert wilderness is home to mountain lions, black bears and roadrunners, sparsely populated by an occasional camper and others visiting the 800,000-acre national park.
Customs and Border Protection, which would run the port of entry, says the proposal is a safe way to allow access to the town's residents, who currently must travel 240 road miles to the nearest legal entry point. It also would allow park visitors to visit the town.
If the crossing is approved, Border Patrol would have eight agents living in the park in addition to the park's 23 law enforcement rangers.
"I think it's actually going to end up making security better," CBP spokesman William Brooks said.
"Once you've crossed you're still not anywhere. You've got a long ways to go and we've got agents who are in the area. We have agents who patrol. We have checkpoints on the paved roads leading away from the park."
A public comment period runs through Dec. 27 on the estimated $2.3 million project, which has support at the highest levels of government from both countries.
But U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican member of the House Homeland Security committee, questioned the wisdom of using resources to make it easier to cross the border.
"We need to use our resources to secure the border rather than making it easier to enter in locations where we already have problems with illegal crossings," McCaul said in an email. "There is more to the oversight of legal entry than checking documents. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) needs to be physically present at every point of entry in order to inspect for contraband, detect suspicious behavior and, if necessary, act on what they encounter."
While CBP will run the port of entry, the National Park Service is the driver behind the project, which it hopes will help conservation efforts on both sides of the border. Even as the National Park Service has increased cooperation with its Mexican counterpart, joint conservation has been limited by the inability of personnel to cross the border without making a circuitous 16-hour drive, Wellman said.
So the National Park Service is building the contact station just above the Rio Grande. It will house CBP kiosks where crossers will scan in their documents and talk to a customs officer in Presidio, the nearest port of entry, or another remote location. Park service employees will staff the station, offering information about the park and guiding people through the process.
Similar ports of entry are already in operation on remote parts of the border with Canada.
"We think we can do this without doing any damage to national security and possibly enhance security along the border by having better intelligence, better communication with people in Mexico," Wellman said.
The crossing would also restore a long-running relationship between the park, its visitors and the residents of Boquillas del Carmen, the town of adobe dwellings set a short distance from the river in Mexico.
For years, U.S. tourists added an international dimension to their park visit by wading or ferrying in a rowboat across the shallow Rio Grande to the town. There they bought handicrafts and tacos, providing much-needed cash in the isolated community.
But US officials discouraged such informal crossings in 2002 after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks prompted calls for tighter border security. Without access to tourists or supplies on the U.S. side, the town of just more than 100 people has seen a 42 percent drop in population from 2000 to 2010.
Gary Martin, who manages the Rio Grande Village store at a nearby park campground, recalls many Mexican residents crossing the river to pick up groceries and other necessities.
"We're their supply," Martin said. "They don't have any electricity over there. So they would come here and buy frozen chicken, cake mixes and things that they couldn't get over there."
Martin tried to stock food items Boquillas del Carmen residents wanted, such as eggs and big sacks of beans.
"After the border closed, well, I got rid of most of my food and went back to gifts because I wasn't making any money," Martin said. He estimated about 40 percent of the store's revenue came from Boquillas residents.
Few have risked crossing to the store since. "If they get caught over here they get shipped off," he said. "They get deported all the way to Ojinaga and then they've got to find their way home. It's not really worth it."
Still, most days some Boquillas del Carmen residents wade across the river a short distance downstream of the old crossing and scramble up to a paved overlook perched high above the river.
On boulders near the parking spots they lay out painted walking sticks, scorpions and roadrunners crafted from copper wire and colorful beads. Each craftsman's work occupies a different rock and operates on the honor system with the hope tourists will drop four or five dollars in their jar.
"Sometimes we don't sell anything," said Boquillas del Carmen resident Guillermo Gonzalez Diaz. "Sometimes we sell one." And other times authorities confiscate everything.
Gonzalez, a 34-year-old father of three, described his town as "very sad, very hard" and said there was no work. Without access to the Rio Grande Village store, residents depend on a bus that runs once a week to Melchor Muzquiz, a larger town about 150 miles away, for supplies.
A small military presence protects the town from the drug-related violence that has engulfed other Mexican border towns. Now with news of the port of entry, residents are already making plans for restaurants and shops, he said.
"When it closed nobody crossed and everything went downhill. People began to leave," he said. "Now people are going to return."
agricultural production
by Dale Allen Pfeiffer
© Copyright 2004, From The Wilderness Publications, http://www.copvcia.com.
All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
An Open Letter from America's Port Truck Drivers on Occupy the Ports
OccupyWallStreet
Open letter:
We are the front-line workers who haul container rigs full of imported and exported goods to and from the docks and warehouses every day.
We have been elected by committees of our co-workers at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York and New Jersey to tell our collective story. We have accepted the honor to speak up for our brothers and sisters about our working conditions despite the risk of retaliation we face. One of us is a mother, the rest of us fathers. Between the five of us we have 11children and one more baby on the way. We have a combined 46 years of experience driving cargo from our shores for America’s stores.
We are inspired that a non-violent democratic movement that insists on basic economic fairness is capturing the hearts and minds of so many working people. Thank you “99 Percenters” for hearing our call for justice. We are humbled and overwhelmed by recent attention. Normally we are invisible.
Today’s demonstrations will impact us. While we cannot officially speak for every worker who shares our occupation, we can use this opportunity to reveal what it’s like to walk a day in our shoes for the 110,000 of us in America whose job it is to be a port truck driver. It may be tempting for media to ask questions about whether we support a shutdown, but there are no easy answers. Instead, we ask you, are you willing to listen and learn why a one-word response is impossible?
We love being behind the wheel. We are proud of the work we do to keep America’s economy moving. But we feel humiliated when we receive paychecks that suggest we work part time at a fast-food counter. Especially when we work an average of 60 or more hours a week, away from our families.
There is so much at stake in our industry. It is one of the nation’s most dangerous occupations. We don’t think truck driving should be a dead-end road in America. It should be a good job with a middle-class paycheck like it used to be decades ago.
We desperately want to drive clean and safe vehicles. Rigs that do not fill our lungs with deadly toxins, or dirty the air in the communities we haul in.
Poverty and pollution are like a plague at the ports. Our economic conditions are what led to the environmental crisis.
You, the public, have paid a severe price along with us.
Why? Just like Wall Street doesn’t have to abide by rules, our industry isn’t bound to regulation. So the market is run by con artists. The companies we work for call us independent contractors, as if we were our own bosses, but they boss us around. We receive Third World wages and drive sweatshops on wheels. We cannot negotiate our rates. (Usually we are not allowed to even see them.) We are paid by the load, not by the hour. So when we sit in those long lines at the terminals, or if we are stuck in traffic, we become volunteers who basically donate our time to the trucking and shipping companies. That’s the nice way to put it. We have all heard the words “modern-day slaves” at the lunch stops.
There are no restrooms for drivers. We keep empty bottles in our cabs. Plastic bags too. We feel like dogs. An Oakland driver was recently banned from the terminal because he was spied relieving himself behind a container. Neither the port, nor the terminal operators or anyone in the industry thinks it is their responsibility to provide humane and hygienic facilities for us. It is absolutely horrible for drivers who are women, who risk infection when they try to hold it until they can find a place to go.
The companies demand we cut corners to compete. It makes our roads less safe. When we try to blow the whistle about skipped inspections, faulty equipment, or falsified logs, then we are “starved out.” That means we are either fired outright, or more likely, we never get dispatched to haul a load again.
It may be difficult to comprehend the complex issues and nature of our employment. For us too. When businesses disguise workers like us as contractors, the Department of Labor calls it misclassification. We call it illegal. Those who profit from global trade and goods movement are getting away with it because everyone is doing it. One journalist took the time to talk to us this week and she explains it very well to outsiders. We hope you will read the enclosed article “How Goldman Sachs and Other Companies Exploit Port Truck Drivers.”
But the short answer to the question: Why are companies like SSA Marine, the Seattle-based global terminal operator that runs one of the West Coast’s major trucking carriers, Shippers’ Transport Express, doing this? Why would mega-rich Maersk, a huge Danish shipping and trucking conglomerate that wants to drill for more oil with Exxon Mobil in the Gulf Coast conduct business this way too?
To cheat on taxes, drive down business costs, and deny us the right to belong to a union, that’s why.
The typical arrangement works like this: Everything comes out of our pockets or is deducted from our paychecks. The truck or lease, fuel, insurance, registration, you name it. Our employers do not have to pay the costs of meeting emissions-compliant regulations; that is our financial burden to bear. Clean trucks cost about four to five times more than what we take home in a year. A few of us haul our company’s trucks for a tiny fraction of what the shippers pay per load instead of an hourly wage. They still call us independent owner-operators and give us a 1099 rather than a W-2.
We have never recovered from losing our basic rights as employees in America. Every year it literally goes from bad to worse to the unimaginable. We were ground zero for the government’s first major experiment into letting big business call the shots. Since it worked so well for the CEOs in transportation, why not the mortgage and banking industry too?
Even the few of us who are hired as legitimate employees are routinely denied our legal rights under this system. Just ask our co-workers who haul clothing brands like Guess?, Under Armour, and Ralph Lauren’s Polo. The carrier they work for in Los Angeles is called Toll Group and is headquartered in Australia. At the busiest time of the holiday shopping season, 26 drivers were axed after wearing Teamster T-shirts to work. They were protesting the lack of access to clean, indoor restrooms with running water. The company hired an anti-union consultant to intimidate the drivers. Down Under, the same company bargains with 12,000 of our counterparts in good faith.
Despite our great hardships, many of us cannot — or refuse to, as some of the most well-intentioned suggest — “just quit.” First, we want to work and do not have a safety net. Many of us are tied to one-sided leases. But more importantly, why should we have to leave? Truck driving is what we do, and we do it well.
We are the skilled, specially-licensed professionals who guarantee that Target, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart are all stocked with just-in-time delivery for consumers. Take a look at all the stuff in your house. The things you see advertised on TV. Chances are a port truck driver brought that special holiday gift to the store you bought it.
We would rather stick together and transform our industry from within. We deserve to be fairly rewarded and valued. That is why we have united to stage convoys, park our trucks, marched on the boss, and even shut down these ports.
It’s like our hero Dutch Prior, a Shipper’s/SSA Marine driver, told CBS Early Morning this month: “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”
The more underwater we are, the more our restlessness grows. We are being thoughtful about how best to organize ourselves and do what is needed to win dignity, respect, and justice.
Nowadays greedy corporations are treated as “people” while the politicians they bankroll cast union members who try to improve their workplaces as “thugs.”
But we believe in the power and potential behind a truly united 99%. We admire the strength and perseverance of the longshoremen. We are fighting like mad to overcome our exploitation, so please, stick by us long after December 12. Our friends in the Coalition for Clean & Safe Ports created a pledge you can sign to support us here.
We drivers have a saying, “We may not have a union yet, but no one can stop us from acting like one.”
The brothers and sisters of the Teamsters have our backs. They help us make our voices heard. But we need your help too so we can achieve the day where we raise our fists and together declare: “No one could stop us from forming a union.”
Thank you.
In solidarity,
Leonardo Mejia
SSA Marine/Shippers Transport Express
Port of Long Beach
10-year driver
Yemane Berhane
Ports of Seattle & Tacoma
6-year port driver
Xiomara Perez
Toll Group
Port of Los Angeles
8-year driver
Abdul Khan
Port of Oakland
7-year port driver
Ramiro Gotay
Ports of New York & New Jersey
15-year port driver
Open letter:
We are the front-line workers who haul container rigs full of imported and exported goods to and from the docks and warehouses every day.
We have been elected by committees of our co-workers at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York and New Jersey to tell our collective story. We have accepted the honor to speak up for our brothers and sisters about our working conditions despite the risk of retaliation we face. One of us is a mother, the rest of us fathers. Between the five of us we have 11children and one more baby on the way. We have a combined 46 years of experience driving cargo from our shores for America’s stores.
We are inspired that a non-violent democratic movement that insists on basic economic fairness is capturing the hearts and minds of so many working people. Thank you “99 Percenters” for hearing our call for justice. We are humbled and overwhelmed by recent attention. Normally we are invisible.
Today’s demonstrations will impact us. While we cannot officially speak for every worker who shares our occupation, we can use this opportunity to reveal what it’s like to walk a day in our shoes for the 110,000 of us in America whose job it is to be a port truck driver. It may be tempting for media to ask questions about whether we support a shutdown, but there are no easy answers. Instead, we ask you, are you willing to listen and learn why a one-word response is impossible?
We love being behind the wheel. We are proud of the work we do to keep America’s economy moving. But we feel humiliated when we receive paychecks that suggest we work part time at a fast-food counter. Especially when we work an average of 60 or more hours a week, away from our families.
There is so much at stake in our industry. It is one of the nation’s most dangerous occupations. We don’t think truck driving should be a dead-end road in America. It should be a good job with a middle-class paycheck like it used to be decades ago.
We desperately want to drive clean and safe vehicles. Rigs that do not fill our lungs with deadly toxins, or dirty the air in the communities we haul in.
Poverty and pollution are like a plague at the ports. Our economic conditions are what led to the environmental crisis.
You, the public, have paid a severe price along with us.
Why? Just like Wall Street doesn’t have to abide by rules, our industry isn’t bound to regulation. So the market is run by con artists. The companies we work for call us independent contractors, as if we were our own bosses, but they boss us around. We receive Third World wages and drive sweatshops on wheels. We cannot negotiate our rates. (Usually we are not allowed to even see them.) We are paid by the load, not by the hour. So when we sit in those long lines at the terminals, or if we are stuck in traffic, we become volunteers who basically donate our time to the trucking and shipping companies. That’s the nice way to put it. We have all heard the words “modern-day slaves” at the lunch stops.
There are no restrooms for drivers. We keep empty bottles in our cabs. Plastic bags too. We feel like dogs. An Oakland driver was recently banned from the terminal because he was spied relieving himself behind a container. Neither the port, nor the terminal operators or anyone in the industry thinks it is their responsibility to provide humane and hygienic facilities for us. It is absolutely horrible for drivers who are women, who risk infection when they try to hold it until they can find a place to go.
The companies demand we cut corners to compete. It makes our roads less safe. When we try to blow the whistle about skipped inspections, faulty equipment, or falsified logs, then we are “starved out.” That means we are either fired outright, or more likely, we never get dispatched to haul a load again.
It may be difficult to comprehend the complex issues and nature of our employment. For us too. When businesses disguise workers like us as contractors, the Department of Labor calls it misclassification. We call it illegal. Those who profit from global trade and goods movement are getting away with it because everyone is doing it. One journalist took the time to talk to us this week and she explains it very well to outsiders. We hope you will read the enclosed article “How Goldman Sachs and Other Companies Exploit Port Truck Drivers.”
But the short answer to the question: Why are companies like SSA Marine, the Seattle-based global terminal operator that runs one of the West Coast’s major trucking carriers, Shippers’ Transport Express, doing this? Why would mega-rich Maersk, a huge Danish shipping and trucking conglomerate that wants to drill for more oil with Exxon Mobil in the Gulf Coast conduct business this way too?
To cheat on taxes, drive down business costs, and deny us the right to belong to a union, that’s why.
The typical arrangement works like this: Everything comes out of our pockets or is deducted from our paychecks. The truck or lease, fuel, insurance, registration, you name it. Our employers do not have to pay the costs of meeting emissions-compliant regulations; that is our financial burden to bear. Clean trucks cost about four to five times more than what we take home in a year. A few of us haul our company’s trucks for a tiny fraction of what the shippers pay per load instead of an hourly wage. They still call us independent owner-operators and give us a 1099 rather than a W-2.
We have never recovered from losing our basic rights as employees in America. Every year it literally goes from bad to worse to the unimaginable. We were ground zero for the government’s first major experiment into letting big business call the shots. Since it worked so well for the CEOs in transportation, why not the mortgage and banking industry too?
Even the few of us who are hired as legitimate employees are routinely denied our legal rights under this system. Just ask our co-workers who haul clothing brands like Guess?, Under Armour, and Ralph Lauren’s Polo. The carrier they work for in Los Angeles is called Toll Group and is headquartered in Australia. At the busiest time of the holiday shopping season, 26 drivers were axed after wearing Teamster T-shirts to work. They were protesting the lack of access to clean, indoor restrooms with running water. The company hired an anti-union consultant to intimidate the drivers. Down Under, the same company bargains with 12,000 of our counterparts in good faith.
Despite our great hardships, many of us cannot — or refuse to, as some of the most well-intentioned suggest — “just quit.” First, we want to work and do not have a safety net. Many of us are tied to one-sided leases. But more importantly, why should we have to leave? Truck driving is what we do, and we do it well.
We are the skilled, specially-licensed professionals who guarantee that Target, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart are all stocked with just-in-time delivery for consumers. Take a look at all the stuff in your house. The things you see advertised on TV. Chances are a port truck driver brought that special holiday gift to the store you bought it.
We would rather stick together and transform our industry from within. We deserve to be fairly rewarded and valued. That is why we have united to stage convoys, park our trucks, marched on the boss, and even shut down these ports.
It’s like our hero Dutch Prior, a Shipper’s/SSA Marine driver, told CBS Early Morning this month: “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”
The more underwater we are, the more our restlessness grows. We are being thoughtful about how best to organize ourselves and do what is needed to win dignity, respect, and justice.
Nowadays greedy corporations are treated as “people” while the politicians they bankroll cast union members who try to improve their workplaces as “thugs.”
But we believe in the power and potential behind a truly united 99%. We admire the strength and perseverance of the longshoremen. We are fighting like mad to overcome our exploitation, so please, stick by us long after December 12. Our friends in the Coalition for Clean & Safe Ports created a pledge you can sign to support us here.
We drivers have a saying, “We may not have a union yet, but no one can stop us from acting like one.”
The brothers and sisters of the Teamsters have our backs. They help us make our voices heard. But we need your help too so we can achieve the day where we raise our fists and together declare: “No one could stop us from forming a union.”
Thank you.
In solidarity,
Leonardo Mejia
SSA Marine/Shippers Transport Express
Port of Long Beach
10-year driver
Yemane Berhane
Ports of Seattle & Tacoma
6-year port driver
Xiomara Perez
Toll Group
Port of Los Angeles
8-year driver
Abdul Khan
Port of Oakland
7-year port driver
Ramiro Gotay
Ports of New York & New Jersey
15-year port driver
Thursday, December 8, 2011
An empire going into bankruptcy
Ron Paul
US Congressional Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) have written an op-ed urging a cut to US military spending in order to save America from bankruptcy.
“They are realizing, and I think more Americans besides just these two gentlemen are realizing, that we have a humongous budget deficit, on par with Greece. This is $1.5 trillion per year which is 11 percent of our GDP, which is a record. The previous record was 5 percent under Ronald Reagan. They have to do something to close the gap and the military budget has been off limits for many years, even a decade now,” said Ivan Eland, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute in Washington.
Eland argued that the massive US military spending began after US President Harry Truman established a permanent defense industry following World War II. This industry has taken shape over the years to include large lobbying efforts aimed at extending a US worldwide empire.
The lobbying efforts include actions by foreign policy individuals, businesses, defense contractors and others pushing for a perceived increase in security.
“I think this empire causes reduced security for those who really matter, and that’s US citizens. I mean, we get blow back terrorism from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda simply because we are occupying Muslim lands and interfering in Arab governments,” said Eland.
He argued that the US could be more secure and cost effective if they reduced their overseas empire. There’s no reason to continue old Cold War overseas policing policies because we no longer need to. Eland argued the US need to be more cautious to whom it gives security commitments.
The United States was traditionally an anti-militarization state. However, in more recent years the US increased its drive towards military strength.
“This same thing happened to Rome and other empires. What usually happens to empires is they become militarized at the end of their road and they eventually either collapse or have to retrench because they can’t afford the empire anymore,” said Eland.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
China bidding for top dog status
China's navy should speed up its development and prepare for warfare, President Hu Jintao has said.
He told military personnel they should "make extended preparations for warfare".
China is locked in territorial disputes with several other nations in the South China Sea. Political tension is also growing with the US, which is seeking to boost its presence in the region.
After Mr Hu's comments, the US said China was entitled to defend itself.
"Nobody's looking for a scrap here," said Pentagon spokesman Admiral John Kirby in quotes carried by the AFP news agency.
"Certainly we wouldn't begrudge any other nation the opportunity to develop naval forces."
China has recently acquired its first aircraft carrier and has been vocal about its naval ambitions.
But its military remains primarily a land-based force, and its naval capabilities are still dwarfed by the US.
Mr Hu told a meeting of military officials that the navy should "accelerate its transformation and modernisation in a sturdy way, and make extended preparations for warfare in order to make greater contributions to safeguard national security".
The word "warfare" was used in official media, but other translations used "military combat" and "military struggle".
Analysts say Mr Hu's comments are unusually blunt, and are likely to be aimed at the US and Beijing's rivals in the South China Sea.
Both the Philippines and Vietnam have repeatedly accused China of overt aggression in the region.
They are among the nations claiming sovereignty over islands in the sea in the hope that there could be oil and gas deposits there.
And US President Barack Obama announced last month that the US was boosting its presence in the region, and will base a full Marine task force in northern Australia.
Analysts say the US move is a direct challenge to China's attempts to dominate the area, and is likely to bolster US allies in the South China Sea dispute.
He told military personnel they should "make extended preparations for warfare".
China is locked in territorial disputes with several other nations in the South China Sea. Political tension is also growing with the US, which is seeking to boost its presence in the region.
After Mr Hu's comments, the US said China was entitled to defend itself.
"Nobody's looking for a scrap here," said Pentagon spokesman Admiral John Kirby in quotes carried by the AFP news agency.
"Certainly we wouldn't begrudge any other nation the opportunity to develop naval forces."
China has recently acquired its first aircraft carrier and has been vocal about its naval ambitions.
But its military remains primarily a land-based force, and its naval capabilities are still dwarfed by the US.
Mr Hu told a meeting of military officials that the navy should "accelerate its transformation and modernisation in a sturdy way, and make extended preparations for warfare in order to make greater contributions to safeguard national security".
The word "warfare" was used in official media, but other translations used "military combat" and "military struggle".
Analysts say Mr Hu's comments are unusually blunt, and are likely to be aimed at the US and Beijing's rivals in the South China Sea.
Both the Philippines and Vietnam have repeatedly accused China of overt aggression in the region.
They are among the nations claiming sovereignty over islands in the sea in the hope that there could be oil and gas deposits there.
And US President Barack Obama announced last month that the US was boosting its presence in the region, and will base a full Marine task force in northern Australia.
Analysts say the US move is a direct challenge to China's attempts to dominate the area, and is likely to bolster US allies in the South China Sea dispute.
Surveillance
Website Wikileaks has begun releasing information on the multi billion dollar global spying industry. The database contains hundreds of documents on the methods being used by secret services all over the world.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
$250 a barrel of oil
Tuesday's storming of the British embassy attracted swift condemnation from around the world, further isolating Iran.
Britain evacuated its diplomatic staff from Tehran and expelled Iranian diplomats from London in retaliation. Several other EU members like Germany, France and Spain also recalled their ambassadors from Tehran.
The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails to resolve a dispute over a programme they suspect is aimed at developing atomic weapons. Iran says it would respond to any strike by attacking Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf.
Western nations on Thursday significantly tightened sanctions against Iran, with the European Union expanding an Iranian blacklist and the U.S. Senate passing a measure that could severely disrupt Iran's oil income.
Iran warned the West on Sunday any move to block its oil exports would more than double crude prices with devastating consequences on a fragile global economy.
"As soon as such an issue is raised seriously the oil price would soar to above $250 a barrel," Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told the Sharq newspaper.
So far neither Washington nor Brussels has finalised a move against Iran's oil trade or its central bank. Crude prices were pushed up over the British embassy storming with ICE Brent January crude up 95 cents on Friday to settle at $109.94 a barrel.
Britain evacuated its diplomatic staff from Tehran and expelled Iranian diplomats from London in retaliation. Several other EU members like Germany, France and Spain also recalled their ambassadors from Tehran.
The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails to resolve a dispute over a programme they suspect is aimed at developing atomic weapons. Iran says it would respond to any strike by attacking Israel and U.S. interests in the Gulf.
Western nations on Thursday significantly tightened sanctions against Iran, with the European Union expanding an Iranian blacklist and the U.S. Senate passing a measure that could severely disrupt Iran's oil income.
Iran warned the West on Sunday any move to block its oil exports would more than double crude prices with devastating consequences on a fragile global economy.
"As soon as such an issue is raised seriously the oil price would soar to above $250 a barrel," Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told the Sharq newspaper.
So far neither Washington nor Brussels has finalised a move against Iran's oil trade or its central bank. Crude prices were pushed up over the British embassy storming with ICE Brent January crude up 95 cents on Friday to settle at $109.94 a barrel.
two bombs from World War II in the riverbed of the Rhine
Unexploded Allied bombs in Germany
- 600 tonnes of old munitions from two world wars discovered every year
- One in about eight bombs dropped during WWII did not explode
- Three bomb-disposal experts killed in while defusing WWII bomb in Goettingen in 2010
Bomb disposal experts in the German city of Koblenz have successfully defused two bombs from World War II found in the riverbed of the Rhine.
They were discovered when water levels fell because of a prolonged dry spell.
The bigger of the two bombs weighed 1.8 tonnes and was dropped by the Royal Air Force between 1943 and 1945.
Nearly half the city's population - 45,000 - has been evacuated, including the inhabitants of two hospitals, seven nursing homes and a prison.
It is the biggest bomb disposal operation in Germany since 1945.
The smaller of the two bombs - weighing 125kg (275lb) - was dropped by US forces. Experts said it was the more dangerous of the two.
Both bombs have now been made safe, but a smoke grenade canister containing dangerous chemicals is to be blown up in a controlled explosion. Everyone living within a 2km (1.25 mile) radius of the bomb site was ordered to leave the area.
The evacuation order remains in force until the smoke grenade has been disposed of, according to the Koblenz fire department.
Shelters with 12,000 beds have been set up in schools to accommodate those with no other place to go.
However, only 500 people were reported to have made use of them. Most residents went to stay with friends or relatives.
A fleet of 500 emergency vehicles - including ambulances and police - stood ready in case one of the bombs went off.
River drained
Hundreds of sandbags were laid around the site of the bombs, and water pumped out from the surrounding area. Only once the bomb site was dry could work to defuse the explosives begin.
Wartime bombs are frequently found in Germany - but this is believed to be one of the biggest ever.
In July 2010, three people were killed in the central German town of Goettingen when a 500kg World War II bomb unearthed during the construction of a sports stadium exploded.
The RAF bomb in the Rhine - discovered on 20 November - is one of the so-called block-busters designed to cause maximum damage to buildings.
More than 250 bombs of the block-buster type were dropped on Koblenz between 1943 and 1945, Ronald Eppleheim of the city's fire department told the BBC. Some still lie undiscovered.
If the bomb were to go off, Mr Eppleheim said it would send "shrapnel flying through the air in and around 1.5km". There would also be a "big, big air blast that would crash into the walls and the houses and put the windows out, or the doors," he said.
The newspaper Die Welt quoted one woman who said her elderly relative in one of the care homes was distressed by the evacuation.
"She lived through nights of bombing in World War II, and now it is all coming back to her," the woman said.
Trains were not stopping at the main railway station in Koblenz, and access roads into the city have been closed.
The city authorities began distributing leaflets on Tuesday, advising residents to close up their properties and pull down shutters where possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)