America's corporatacracy says "No MAS"
by Jason Miller
November 20, 2005
While he may be dead in the corporal sense, the spirit of Simon Bolivar continues to wage the struggle for freedom from oppression. Hugo Chavez is perhaps the most familiar incarnation of Bolivar's élan vital as he defies the neocolonial policies of the United States, a nation which has supplanted the European colonial empires as looters of Latin American bounty. Bolivar's spiritual essence also burns brightly in Evo Morales, another leader of the poor and oppressed in Latin America. Barring a CIA-orchestrated assasination or sabotage of the election process, in December Morales will be the next democratically-elected president of Bolivia. And deservedly so.
The only thing they have to fear is fear itself....or is there something more?
As they have with Chavez, the United States government and its lapdogs in the mainstream media have vilified Morales. Morales and Chavez are both portrayed as "threats" to the United States and have been characterized as "enemies". It is mind-boggling that the leaders of the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of humanity can view these men or their tiny nations (neither of which have the military might to overpower the state of Rhode Island) as legitimate threats. Is the US power elite suffering from delusional paranoia? Actually, their fears are well-founded, but one needs to analyze the situation a bit more closely to discern the root cause of their trepidations.
The "Least of my Brethren"
Hugo Chavez has publicly castigated the United States (and Bush II in particular) on several occasions. Drawing calls for his assasination from "respected US Christian leader" Pat Robertson, Chavez has clearly stated his intention to use his vast petroleum resources as a geopolitical weapon against the United States. He drew thunderous applause at the UN for his speech in which he maligned the United States government and its policies. As the democratically-elected president of Venezuela, a member of the indigenous population, a survivor of a US-sponsored coup in 2002, and the winner of a recall referendum in 2004, Chavez has utilized his nation's rich oil reserves to wage a war on poverty. He has used oil revenues to provide schools, medical care, and basic necessities at subsidized prices to the 80% of Venezuelans who live below the poverty line. He has also instituted land reforms to provide impoverished farmers an opportunity at ownership.
Aligning himself closely with Fidel Castro, a man who has been a thorn in the collective sides of the United States ruling elite for years, Chavez has drawn further ire from US leaders. Since 1959, Castro has bedeviled the US government as the Cuban leader who deposed Fulgencio Batista, a ruthless dictator whom the US government supported. While ruling Cuba, Batista widened the wealth gap to a chasm (sound familiar?) and dispatched his death squads, which captured, tortured, and murdered thousands of "Leftists". Castro is certainly no saint, but Cuba was not exactly a paradise under America's proxy either.
Trading oil for the use of many of Cuba's superbly-trained physicians, Chavez has parlayed his relationship with Castro to an advantage for the poor of his nation. Ironically, the infinitely benevolent and wise leaders of the United States rejected offers of help from both Chavez and Castro during Hurricane Katrina. While the Bush regime spurned overtures of help from our "enemies", over a thousand Americans died in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as a result of criminal neglect and incompetence on the part of a US government now geared almost solely to represent and sustain the interests of the wealthy, corporations and the military industrial complex.
Chavez is not alone as the revolution gains momentum
Meanwhile, in Bolivia, a man named Evo Morales represents another incarnation of the spirit of Simon Bolivar as he fights to squelch US imperial interests in his nation. Standing on the brink of winning the presidency in the elections scheduled for December of 2005, Morales represents the next link in the chain of fierce Latin American resistance to US exploitation of their people and resources.
Juan Evo Morales Ayma was born in 1959 in Orinco to a family of indigenous Quechuans, but moved to Chapare province in the 1980's to cultivate coca leaf. Growing coca leaf is a practice dating back to the Incan Empire. While the Indigenous people of Bolivia, who comprise over 50% of the population, chew coca leaves to ease hunger and make folk medicines, coca leaf is also the primary ingredient in cocaine. As part of its "War on Drugs", the United States began a program in the 1990's to eradicate coca production. In 1998, Plan Dignity, a barbaric and violent US-sponsored effort, resulted in the elimination of nearly 80% of coca production and left the campesinos in Bolivia with no economically viable alternative crops to cultivate. Supplied and supported by the United States, the Expeditionary Task Force, a paramilitary unit which the locals called "America's Mercenaries", reportedly engaged in violence and murder. Just imagine if Canada financed paramilitary forces in the United States which wiped out 80% of the production of Sudafed and Iodine because they are used in the manufacture of crystal meth. How long would Americans stand for that?
In response to the intrusive, oppressive policies of the United States and its puppet Bolivian president, Hugo Banzer, Evo Morales emerged as a leader of the Cocaleros, an opposition movement comprised primarily of coca growers. His support in Chapare and Carrasco de Cochabamba was strong enough that he was elected to the national Congress in Bolivia in 1997 by the widest margin amongst the 68 Congresspeople who won in that election.
In the words of Morales:
'There is a unanimous defence of coca because the coca leaf is becoming the banner for national unity, a symbol of national unity in defence of our dignity. Since coca is a victim of the United States, as coca growers we are also victims of the United States, but then we rise up to question these policies to eradicate coca.
'Now is the moment to see the defence of coca as the defence of all natural resources, just like hydrocarbon, oil, gas; and this consciousness is growing. That is why it is an issue of national unity.'
As a leader with widespread popular support, and a powerful force within the Movement to Socialism (MAS) party, Morales began to broaden his agenda beyond that of supporting the cultivation of coca. Like Chavez in Venezuela, Morales has emerged as a champion of the poor and oppressed, and by default, a fierce opponent of the blatantly corrupt plutocracy in Washington DC.
The (Corporate) "American Way"
In early 2000, Morales began intense efforts to stymie the imperial policies of the United States, which enable multinational corporations to engage in obscene exploitation of other nations. Demonstrating the depths of the cruelty of the "free market", neoliberal economic policies which the corporatacracy of the United States imposes on other nations, a large multi-national corporation called Aguas de Tanari was on the verge of purchasing the water works in Cochabamba, a Morales strong-hold. Under their business plan, 65% of the locals would not have been able to afford drinking water. Supporting Aguas de Tanari's dreams of imposing nightmares on the people, local laws were passed which criminalized catching and using rain water. Morales and his allies led powerful protests, which included road-blocks, and eventually crushed the despicable effort to inflict misery and suffering to generate profit.
Down, but definitely not out
In early 2002, the Bolivian government issued Supreme Decree 26415, which essentially prohibited the sale of coca-leaf. Riots broke out in Sacaba, which was home to a legal coca market. Four campesinos and three Bolivian soldiers were killed. Pressure from the US embassy led to the removal of Morales from his Congressional seat for his involvement in so called "terrorism" in Sacaba. His removal was later determined to be unconstitutional.
The next round of elections in Bolivia in June of 2002 whisked Morales back into office. In pre-election polling, MAS barely registered with a paltry 4%. However, thanks to powerful opposition to US presence and influence in their nation, 20.94% of Bolivians supported MAS in the election. MAS came in only slightly behind the winning party. Unfortunately for the Bolivian people, they traded one proponent of US policies for another. Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada replaced Jorge Quiroga.
Leave our hydrocarbons alone!
Lozada's allegiance to US interests eventually cost him his presidency. Bolivia possesses vast natural gas reserves, which until the Bolivian Gas War in 2003, were exploited by multi-nationals through neoliberal policies instituted by the United States. In October of 2003, the Bolivian military killed nearly one hundred members of the poor and working class who participated in strikes and created road blocks in opposition to the theft of their nation's precious resources. Lozada resigned and fled the country, leaving his vice-president, Carlos Mesa, to rule Bolivia.
More protests against Bolivian government-enabled exploitation of the nation's hydrocarbon resources erupted in mid-2005. Morales was instrumental in the protests and in the subsequent ouster of Mesa as president. Attacking from yet another angle, Morales (and his increasingly powerful MAS party) also called for the indictments of Mesa, Quiroga, and Lozada for their complicity in partnering with multi-national corporations in plundering Bolivian oil and natural gas (without the approval of the Bolivian Congress).
Take another moment to empathize here
Envision LUKoil of Russia seizing control of the oil industry in Alaska. In return for paying small royalties and minimal taxes, LUKoil gets to pump, keep, and sell as much American oil as it chooses. LUKoil profits handsomely while consuming our resources with minimal return to the United States. Somehow, I do not think that would fly with the American public. Yet our government enables powerful corporations to treat Bolivians in this manner. Maybe that is why they are called free market policies. Hypocrisy be thy name.
As Morales gears up for the impending presidential election in December, his commitment to economic justice and human rights in the face of the oppressive, malevolent agenda of the United States government and its proxies in Bolivia remains clear and strong.
Summarizing his position succinctly, Morales stated, "The worst enemy of humanity is capitalism. That is what provokes uprisings like our own, a rebellion against a system, against a neoliberal model, which is the representation of a savage capitalism. If the entire world doesn't acknowledge this reality, that the national states are not providing even minimally for health, education and nourishment, then each day the most fundamental human rights are being violated."
To what conclusion do the facts lead?
After careful consideration of the facts, it becomes quite clear why the corporate interests and incredibly wealthy hijackers of our constitutional republic in the United States are so desperate to convince their "electorate" that men like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are our "enemies". These men do pose a grave threat. If they maintain their hold on power and continue to advance the Bolivarian Revolution throughout Central and South America, powerful corporations will lose their capacity to commit legal larceny by plundering resources (a practice which leaves much of the Latin American population living in abject poverty). Morales is undermining the charade our government calls the "War on Drugs", which is simply another means of employing military intervention in the region and supporting ruthless leaders who implement policies favorable to the interests of the wealthy elite of the United States.
Yes, Morales is a dangerous man indeed. Like Chavez, he is rising like an ominous storm on the horizon, poised to strike powerful bolts of lightening through the fat wallets of the proponents of neoliberal economic policies (which are modern means of non-violent colonization). The Bush regime has legitimate reasons for fearing these men. They are imminent threats to the health of US cash cows throughout the Latin American region.
Based on the fact that the US government and media are defining Morales and Chavez as our "enemies" because they champion human rights and economic equality for their people in the face of American neocolonialism, I conclude that the Bush regime and many members of our Fourth Estate are morally bankrupt. What is even more distressing about their persistent efforts to convince Americans that Morales and Chavez are Antichrists is the fact that those who stand to "suffer" from this Bolivarian "diabolical scheme" to end US economic exploitation and oppression in Latin America represent a small fraction of the US population.
Who will "feel the pain" if multi-nationals can no longer steal from Latin Americans?
Members of the Bush regime....do you really care?
The 1% of Americans who own 33% of the wealth....yawn
Executives and major share-holders of large corporations.....oh, the pain, the pain
Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez are friends to the majority of Americans, and to most of humanity. Each step of success for the Bolivarian Revolution will be a step in the evolution of humanity toward the fulfillment of the teachings and dreams of Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and other great spiritual leaders throughout human history. Progress for the Bolivarians means regression for the cancer on humanity referred to as neoliberalism, or more appropriately, economic imperial conquest.
So the next time Fox or CNN portrays Morales and Chavez as enemies of the United States, remember that sometimes rooting for the "bad guys" can be a good thing.
---
Jason Miller is a 38 year old activist writer with a degree in liberal arts. He works as a loan counselor in the transportation industry, and is a husband with three sons. His affiliations include Amnesty International and the ACLU. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/.
Bankruptcy Law, Tort Reform, Medicare Reform, Social Security Privacy accounts, etc. etc.
The shock of these bills to me is the fact that there are plenty of democrats voting for them. These are all laws slanted toward big corporations. For instance, the Credit Card lobbies pushed for Bankrupcty reform so they can continue to give credit cards to high risk cardholders, but now they can collect even when the holder can't pay.
Here in my state, our Senator Debbie Stabenow is a corporacrat. There's no doubt in my mind that she cares about those corporate bucks funding her campaign more than she cares about the welfare of her constituents. She voted for the bankrupcty bill.
And Obama, the brash new democrat with a great oral presense, voted for the new tort reform bill.
Questions:
Has corporate influence on our electoral process become too large?
Do you think there's really a Left and Right in the party system, or is it just a matter of "who your sponsor is"?
What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
Has corporate influence on our electoral process become too large?
According to this table, public sector employment in the United States is around 15%. Meaning that 85% of people work in the private sector. According to the sba, while small businesses add 3/4 of new jobs, they still only employ about 50% of the private sector work force. So, doing the math - 85% times 50% = around 42% of Americans working for "big business." I'd say that they are getting their money's worth. Moreover, I would add that some website shouldn't ask you or me not to patronize the employers of those 42% of workers just because the CEO gave money to a Republican congressional candidate, but that's just me :P . Many workers in america share in the success of their employers - profit sharing, benefits, stock options, etc., so what's good for their employer may actually be good for them personally.
What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
As Worldcom chief Bernie Ebbers is headed to prison, and Kenny Lay of Enron fame is about to go to trial, I think this question is ironic. In what other nation would such powerful, well-connected men have a chance of going to jail for corporate malfeasance? We seem capable of holding money and corporate interests accountable, if not of keeping them out of politics.
As I've stated numerous times on this forum - we should allow unlimited personal donations and no restrictions on political speech, but demand full disclosure of everything online instantly, at places like the FEC site noted by Cube Jockey - it's all out there for you to see - Big Finance donates to republicans, Big Trial Lawyers donate to Democrats, etc.
Corporatacracy" would lead one to believe that the men/women committing these crimes would be above the law, which is obviously not the case.
I disagree with the definition of corporatocracy being thrown around (which isn't even a real word by the way, but corporatism is). We aren't talking about the way a corporation might operate under some communist regime or something.
What we are talking about is the amount of influence corporations have on both our political process and on public policy. This means exactly what it sounds like "influence" it does not mean "immunity" as some people are trying to argue in order to present a strawman argument.
There are numerous documented examples of instances when a law was passed that benefited corporations (which do not vote for politicians) and hurt individuals (which did vote for said politicians). The reason is simple - money.
This is the point of this debate. It very well may not be a new thing historically, but I would argue that 1) people haven't started paying attention to it until recently and 2) Corporations were never so bold and free with their money as they are today.
Meaning that 85% of people work in the private sector. According to the sba, while small businesses add 3/4 of new jobs, they still only employ about 50% of the private sector work force. So, doing the math - 85% times 50% = around 42% of Americans working for "big business." I'd say that they are getting their money's worth.
Really, so did those businesses vote in a congressional election and I missed it carlito? The American people put politicians in office in the hope that they'll act in their best interests. That is the very definition of representative Democracy.
Of course there are times when business interests coincide with the interests of average Americans, more often than not they don't. Case in point this bankruptcy bill and I could make the same case for numerous other bills.
Furthermore Carlito, you haven't explained why a business should be donating to an inaugural fund or a certain representative's legal defense fund.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
As Worldcom chief Bernie Ebbers is headed to prison, and Kenny Lay of Enron fame is about to go to trial, I think this question is ironic. In what other nation would such powerful, well-connected men have a chance of going to jail for corporate malfeasance? We seem capable of holding money and corporate interests accountable, if not of keeping them out of politics.
And in what other nation would someone like Anne Coulter be able to blame the Enron thing on liberals?
I'm not sure I see your point. If we let the abuses here slide then we might as well just give up all laws, the government didn't have any choice but to do something here. How many other cases of "corporate malfeasance" go unnoticed? A lot. White Collar crime isn't real crime in this country, especially from the CEO class, you'll be heading off to camp cupcake like Martha Stewart where your biggest concern won't be whether you are going to be violated in the shower, but whether or not you'll have capuccino available and lamenting over the lack of lemons in the prison diet. :wacko
This post has been edited by Cube Jockey: Mar 15 2005, 08:39 PM
Why do they hate us? President George Bush posed this question to the American public shortly after 9/11. It is a strong affirmation of the power of propaganda that some Americans still pose this as a serious question, and are legitimately dumb-founded that such antipathy exists toward the United States. Our government, media and schools start burnishing the false notion of American moral superiority into our brains at a very young age. However, beneath the thin veneer of their white-washed accounts of history and current events, abundant sources of information reveal the true malevolence of the moneyed elite who rule America. There is a great body of evidence which obliterates the inane notion that the United States is a benevolent world leader. Despite the ready availability of contrary evidence, many Americans remain blind to the truth about our despised nation, and choose to believe the fairy tale version of “truth, justice and the American Way”. The sad reality is that America is an imperialistic, avaricious war machine ruled by the wealthy. Yes, much of the world despises this nation. Our leaders have virtually assured abhorrence of America, and what’s more, they do not care!
Hubris, avarice, over-consumption….what's not to love?
America’s Corporatacracy is leading the human race down a path of global extinction. Representing only 5% of the world population, the United States consumes 25% of the world's energy and possesses approximately 27% of its wealth. Through lobbying efforts and major campaign donations, the major oil companies ensure the implementation of government policies that ensure continued dependence on fossil fuels, a non-renewable resource (for more on this, study the theory of Hubbert Peak theory at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil). Despite being a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect, the US Plutocracy has spent millions of dollars to create junk science (look to efforts by the Cato Institute) to "debunk" the notion of global warming, and has refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty. The United States innovated, tested (on hundreds of thousands of human beings), and possesses devastating nuclear weapons. Yet with blatant hubris and hypocrisy, our ruling Oligarchs attempt to dictate which nations can and cannot develop nuclear capabilities. America’s allies, like Pakistan, India, and Israel have developed nuclear weaponry with America's blessing, while countries like Iran are forbidden to even acquire the technology to generate nuclear power. The ruling Aristocracy of the United States has long exhibited a flagrant disregard for international law, world opinion, and most recently, for the United Nations (consider the appointment of John Bolton as America’s UN "ambassador").
While the rest of the world has many reasons to hate the United States, perhaps their most compelling motivation is the mayhem, abject poverty, and murder resulting from the imperialistic endeavors of the US military industrial complex, which includes the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Energy; the intelligence community; and the myriad private corporations which have incestuous relationships with the government (i.e. Halliburton). Spending $500 billion per year on the perpetuation of the world's largest and mightiest war machine, the US (with a mere 5% of the world's population) accounts for half of the world's military spending. Regardless of which half of the Democratic/Republican Duopoly has been in power, the ruling elite has perpetuated domination of the rest of the world through direct military intervention (think Iraq), economic warfare (i.e. the persistent yet failed policies toward Cuba), and overt or covert support of ruthless totalitarian regimes which advance the interests of US corporations (i.e. the Shah of Iran).
Not as free as we are taught we are, but still freer than most….in spite of them
Despite the ruthless devotion of our aristocratic leaders to unrestrained capitalism, the perpetuation of a majority of the wealth remaining in the hands of the few (the wealthiest 20% of Americans possess 83% of our nation's vast wealth), and the reduction of the civil liberties of "commoners", the brilliant Constitution drafted by our forefathers has maintained a semblance of a liberal democracy in the United States. The fact that I am writing this essay for publication is a testament to that fact. However, before celebrating too hard, remember that throughout American history there has been an ebb and flow of social justice, and the tide is clearly ebbing. Need evidence? Consider the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, the declaration of a perpetual state of war on terror (increasing the authority of the federal government), higher regressive taxes, lower progressive taxes, a growing concentration of political power in the hands of legalistic Christians (the Religious Right), legislated discrimination against gays, an erosion of affirmative action, and a significant decline in funding for social safety net programs (i.e. Medicaid) coupled with increases in defense spending. As Americans, we still enjoy many of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but we enjoy them in spite of the true nature and intent of our leaders. We are taught and programmed to believe that we enjoy these freedoms because of the imperialistic endeavors of our elite leaders (like the "War to End All Wars"), which "keep the world safe for democracy". The reality is that Americans remain free because of the ongoing vigilance of many amongst us, and to some extent because allowing a degree of freedom amongst their own subjects enables the American ruling class to engage in aggression against other nations under the pretext of "spreading freedom and democracy".
Like Capra’s Potter, these “warped frustrated old men” view people as cattle….
The American ruling elite's ultimate goal of global domination precedes the well-being of its subjects. In fact, to the US aristocracy, the poor, working class, and diminishing middle class are disposable cogs in their monolithic money-making machine. They understand that they are endangering the American people by continuing to foster hatred and inspire terrorism, but it is of little consequence to them.
Concerning America’s current leadership, Noam Chomsky wrote:
For the political leadership, mostly recycled from more reactionary sectors of the Reagan–Bush I administrations, “the global wave of hatred” is not a particular problem. They want to be feared, not loved. They understand as well as their establishment critics that their actions increase the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and terror. But that too is not a major problem. Higher on the scale of priorities are the goals of establishing global hegemony and implementing their domestic agenda: dismantling the progressive achievements that have been won by popular struggle over the past century and institutionalizing these radical changes so that recovering them will be no easy task.
While both parties of the bloated, corrupt Duopoly ruling the United States are guilty of blatant violations of international law and crimes against humanity throughout history, the current administration has operated more brazenly and with more impunity. Kennedy had Cuba. Johnson and Nixon shared the culpability for the deaths of over 3 million in Vietnam. Reagan bloodied his hands in Nicaragua. Clinton's bombing campaign killed thousands of innocents in Kosovo. Yet somehow, these presidents managed to maintain the United States' image of an aloof and perhaps even benevolent super-power. America's current administration has not maintained this facade nearly as well, and has led the United States down a path entailing a much more blatant disregard and disrespect for international law and the rights of other nations. There are numerous historical examples of the immoral, illegal, and repulsive US imperial dominance of other nations achieved through a variety of means, perhaps the most inclusive, perpetual, instructive, and relevant example is that of Iraq. Recognizing a nation rife with political instabilities and virtually incalculable riches through its oil reserves, the US Plutocracy has been targeting Iraq for years. Bush II finally bagged it, but got more than he bargained for in the process.
Today, staunch ally….tomorrow, sworn enemy
One of the most disturbing aspects of US involvement in Iraq has been our government’s schizophrenic relationship with Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld, an influential member of the Reagan, Bush I and now Bush II administrations made the following statements that demonstrate the gross inconsistency of the US Oligarchy’s position on Saddam and Iraq (explained by their shifting loyalties based on their shifting needs for more money and power rather than a commitment to their self-proclaimed Higher Purpose of spreading freedom):
"As with all sovereign nations, we respect Iraq's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity."
- Donald Rumsfeld, 1983
"This is a regime that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people."
-- Donald Rumsfeld March 21, 2003
In 1979, the year of the Iranian hostage crisis, Saddam Hussein became president of Iraq as a member of the ruling Ba'ath party, which the CIA had propelled to power in 1963. The following year, Iraq invaded Iran and the eight year Iran-Iraq war ensued. The cost was one million lives. Before Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency in 1981, the Carter administration had listed Iraq as a nation which sponsored terrorism. Despite this, and despite the knowledge within the US intelligence community that Iraq had been building an arsenal of chemical weapons (WMDs) since the mid 1970's, Reagan began supporting Iraq and Hussein in the war against Iran. Under Reagan, Iraq was no longer an "official" sponsor of terrorism and quickly became a clandestine strategic ally of the United States, with full eligibility for American economic and military aid waiting in the wings. The US started funneling weaponry to support Hussein’s' war effort through third parties like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and by 1983 was selling conventional arms directly to Iraq.
In 1983, US envoy Donald Rumsfeld paid a personal visit to Hussein and restored diplomatic relations, which had been cut during the 1967 Arab-Israel War. America’s rulers resumed relations with Iraq despite their knowledge that Hussein had used chemical weapons against Iran only a few months before. They also knew that Hussein was building manufacturing facilities to produce more WMDs. Rumsfeld, one of the strongest advocates of the removal of Hussein from power under Bush II, was a strong proponent of the relationship with Hussein under Reagan. By 1984, both the US State Department and European doctors had confirmed that Iraq was using nerve gas against Iranians. After digesting this information, the US Aristocracy decided to initiate a program which forgave $5 billion worth of agricultural loans to Iraq between 1983 and 1990, freeing up more cash for Hussein to fund his war machine.
Hussein's relationship with the United States came into full bloom in 1985. Protecting the flow of US weapons and money to Saddam, the Reagan administration pressured a member of Congress to drop a proposed resolution that would have reclassified Iraq as a supporter of terrorism. The US Commerce Department began a five year pattern of approving sales of US computers to Iraq for use in weapons labs. 1985 marked the advent of the Reagan administration supplying Hussein with biological weapon precursors like botulism and anthrax. By 1988, the US had made 70 shipments of these precursors to fuel Saddam’s WMD program.
Perhaps the most egregious example of the hypocrisy of the US Oligarchs in Iraq occurred in 1988. In March, Hussein launched a poisonous gas attack and killed 5,000 Kurds in the Iraqi town of Halabja. In July, one of the Corporatacracy's own, Bechtel (Secretary of State George Shultz’s' company), won a contract to build a petrochemical plant, which Hussein could use to manufacture more WMDs. Besides continuing to support Iraq and to enable its corporate darlings (like Honeywell, Rockwell, Hewlett Packard, and DuPont) to profiteer from the war, the Reagan administration crushed a Congressional attempt to sanction Hussein for committing genocide against Iraqi Kurds.
Fall from grace
Saddam Hussein committed political suicide in 1990 when he invaded Kuwait. With the Iran-Iraq conflict over, our ruling elite no longer needed Hussein. Having the chutzpah to violate international law, which America's leaders hold to be sacrosanct when it suits their purposes, Hussein gave the US a justification for starting a war with him. The Gulf War served several purposes for the US Aristocracy. It enabled them to flex their military might as the Soviet Union, the world's other super-power, was collapsing. The victory over Saddam erased the American public’s memory of the embarrassing defeat in Vietnam. Most importantly, it enabled the Plutocracy to reap the bountiful harvest of corporate profits fueled by a war. America’s ruling elite class knows the true bounties of war, particularly if the opponent is relatively weak and hapless.
Estimates vary widely, but hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died during the Gulf War and the period of harsh economic sanctions which followed. On August 6, 1990 (shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait), the United Nations Security Council, led by the United States, imposed "comprehensive" economic sanctions on Iraq. These sanctions remained in place after the US-led coalition forces drove Hussein from Kuwait a year later. Before the Gulf War, Iraq was one of the most highly developed countries in the Middle East, offering a majority of its people electricity, potable water, free education, sewage treatment, and according to the World Health Organization, access to health care. Since the UN originated the use of economic sanctions in 1945, Iraq was the first (and only) nation to suffer under comprehensive sanctions, in which the UN controls virtually all of the exports and imports of a nation. The US, as the most powerful member of the UN Security Council, was instrumental in delaying or choking off imports of food, medicine, and other necessities. Again, estimates vary, but anywhere from 250,000 to 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of the economic sanctions. The mortality rate for children under five tripled between 1989 and 1997. From 1990 to 1995, the infant mortality rate doubled. Safe drinking water availability was down 50% from pre-Gulf War levels. Malaria and other diseases became epidemics. School enrollment for Iraqis from ages 6-23 dropped by 53%. While some of the statistics and numbers are subject to debate, what is indisputable is that the severe economic sanctions (spear-headed by the United States) resulted in suffering, misery and death for many innocent civilians, while Saddam Hussein, the target of America's wrath, continued to prosper.
It is worthwhile to note that while Iraqis were suffering under brutal economic sanctions driven by the US, Dick Cheney (a poster child for America's ruling Plutocracy) was the CEO of Halliburton Corporation (from 1995 to 2000), and was prospering nicely. When he left to become Vice President, they bestowed him with a parting gift of $34 million. The Washington Post reported that during Cheney's tenure as CEO, Halliburton sold $73 million worth of services and equipment to Iraq to rebuild its oil infrastructure. Cheney, a true capitalist, was not about to let Hussein’s enemy status stand in his way of making a profit.
The business of America WAS business….now it is war
When Bush II assumed office in 2000, US leadership took its obsession with Hussein and Iraq to a new level. Surrounding himself with men like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz, three Neocons who were veterans of the reign of Bush I, Bush crafted the "Bush Doctrine". Under the Bush Doctrine, the United States proclaimed its indisputable right to engage in pre-emptive war against those they deemed to be terrorists or rogue states, and asserted the US right to act unilaterally (without regard for international law or the UN). Two other aspects of this hubristic, bellicose, machismo-driven set of principles included the US intent to keep its "military strengths beyond challenge" and the US objective that it would actively seek to promote "democracy and freedom in all regions of the world". The members of America’s military industrial complex were elated. America was (and still is) the largest war machine in the history of humanity. To ice their cake, the profit hungry Capitalists now had publicly-stated policy that its government partners were going to “unleash the beast” on the world. After seeing the "democracy and freedom" the US Oligarchy helped perpetuate in Iraq when Hussein was our ally (not to mention numerous similar examples in Latin America), do Americans really need to ask why many in the world hate us?
Lies and consequences…..
The weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had created with materials supplied by the US under the Reagan administration had been destroyed or rendered harmless under UN supervision by 1996. However, for over a year prior to the March, 2003 invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq, the Aristocracy governing America bombarded the “commoners” with a stream of propaganda designed to prey on fears fostered by 9/11. With little to support their pathetically flimsy arguments that Saddam Hussein (their own creation and former ally) had somehow amassed a cache of WMDs after his disarmament in 1996, and that Hussein (a secular leader) had formed close ties with Osama bin Laden (a radical Muslim), they utilized the power of the herd mentality to gain popular support for the war they craved. Growing bodies of evidence, including the absence of WMDs in US-occupied Iraq, the findings of the 9/11 Commission, and the Downing Street Memos, indicate that the US Oligarchs lied to Congress and to the American people to garner support to launch their war (in defiance of the UN).
As of 8/4/05, 1,827 US soldiers had died in combat and 13,559 had been wounded. Estimates of civilian casualties caused by the US invasion vary from 25,000 to the 100,000 reported in the reputable British medical journal, The Lancet. Discrepancies aside, an obscene number of innocents have been slaughtered. Human Rights Watch notes that a significant number of the civilian casualties resulted from the decision of the US military to use cluster munitions in highly populated areas, a violation of international humanitarian laws of war. These laws oblige armed forces to "refrain from attacks that are indiscriminate or where expected civilian harm exceeds the military gain." America entered the war in defiance of the UN and riding on Congressional and public support based on the lies of the Bush Administration. Thousands and thousands of people have died. They have wasted billions of dollars. American leaders have defied international law by using cluster munitions and torturing prisoners of war. What was that question again? Why do they hate us?
Get on the gravy train……
Now that the military industrial complex has torn Iraqi infrastructure down, someone will need to rebuild it. Who could possibly be up to such a task? With an estimated price tag of over $100 billion to rebuild post-war Iraq, the Corporatacracy is lining up for the contracts. Bechtel was at the head of the line as they received a $680 million contract in April of 2003. As Dick Cheney continues to receive deferred compensation from Halliburton at the rate of $1 million per year, Halliburton's subsidiary, Kellogg Brown and Root secured a 10 year contract (with an open-ended budget) to provide support services to the US military starting in 2001, and is heavily exercising that contract in Iraq. The US government paid KBR $3.6 billion in 2003 and $5.4 billion in 2004 for Iraq-related work. As the number two US contractor in Iraq, Bechtel's war-related revenue was over $4 billion in 2004. Halliburton is under investigation for charges of over-billing to the tune of $1 billion, while Bechtel has been plagued by problems related to shoddy work. While flag waving propaganda may fool some Americans into believing the war in Iraq is "making the world safe for democracy", many in the rest of the world see the profit motive that has led to so much human suffering. I cannot imagine what could possibly motivate detestation of the Red, White, Blue, and Green(backs).
Terrorist acts and acts of military aggression are morally repugnant. Those committing these crimes deserve to face justice. Regrettably, as evidenced by the poignant example of Iraq, the leaders of the United States have been committing war crimes and acts of terrorism for years without consequence. While the US has rendered justice upon its attackers throughout its tenure as the world’s superpower (and has rendered a grossly misplaced justice on the “terrorists” by invading Iraq), the rest of the world has had little choice but to turn the other cheek when it comes to the profiteering, imperialism, and state-sponsored terrorism perpetrated by America’s Oligarchy. Acting with impunity and arrogance, America’s leaders have an unprecedented military might at their disposal, possess a nuclear arsenal powerful enough to destroy the world thousands of times over, ignore international law but impose it on others, use the UN to inflict damage on other nations but openly defy its rules, hoard the world’s riches and resources, defile the Earth which sustains us, support ruthless dictators, and employ terrorism through the CIA. George Bush knows why they hate us, and he likes it……
America's corporatacracy says "No MAS"
by Jason Miller
November 20, 2005
While he may be dead in the corporal sense, the spirit of Simon Bolivar continues to wage the struggle for freedom from oppression. Hugo Chavez is perhaps the most familiar incarnation of Bolivar's élan vital as he defies the neocolonial policies of the United States, a nation which has supplanted the European colonial empires as looters of Latin American bounty. Bolivar's spiritual essence also burns brightly in Evo Morales, another leader of the poor and oppressed in Latin America. Barring a CIA-orchestrated assasination or sabotage of the election process, in December Morales will be the next democratically-elected president of Bolivia. And deservedly so.
The only thing they have to fear is fear itself....or is there something more?
As they have with Chavez, the United States government and its lapdogs in the mainstream media have vilified Morales. Morales and Chavez are both portrayed as "threats" to the United States and have been characterized as "enemies". It is mind-boggling that the leaders of the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of humanity can view these men or their tiny nations (neither of which have the military might to overpower the state of Rhode Island) as legitimate threats. Is the US power elite suffering from delusional paranoia? Actually, their fears are well-founded, but one needs to analyze the situation a bit more closely to discern the root cause of their trepidations.
The "Least of my Brethren"
Hugo Chavez has publicly castigated the United States (and Bush II in particular) on several occasions. Drawing calls for his assasination from "respected US Christian leader" Pat Robertson, Chavez has clearly stated his intention to use his vast petroleum resources as a geopolitical weapon against the United States. He drew thunderous applause at the UN for his speech in which he maligned the United States government and its policies. As the democratically-elected president of Venezuela, a member of the indigenous population, a survivor of a US-sponsored coup in 2002, and the winner of a recall referendum in 2004, Chavez has utilized his nation's rich oil reserves to wage a war on poverty. He has used oil revenues to provide schools, medical care, and basic necessities at subsidized prices to the 80% of Venezuelans who live below the poverty line. He has also instituted land reforms to provide impoverished farmers an opportunity at ownership.
Aligning himself closely with Fidel Castro, a man who has been a thorn in the collective sides of the United States ruling elite for years, Chavez has drawn further ire from US leaders. Since 1959, Castro has bedeviled the US government as the Cuban leader who deposed Fulgencio Batista, a ruthless dictator whom the US government supported. While ruling Cuba, Batista widened the wealth gap to a chasm (sound familiar?) and dispatched his death squads, which captured, tortured, and murdered thousands of "Leftists". Castro is certainly no saint, but Cuba was not exactly a paradise under America's proxy either.
Trading oil for the use of many of Cuba's superbly-trained physicians, Chavez has parlayed his relationship with Castro to an advantage for the poor of his nation. Ironically, the infinitely benevolent and wise leaders of the United States rejected offers of help from both Chavez and Castro during Hurricane Katrina. While the Bush regime spurned overtures of help from our "enemies", over a thousand Americans died in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as a result of criminal neglect and incompetence on the part of a US government now geared almost solely to represent and sustain the interests of the wealthy, corporations and the military industrial complex.
Chavez is not alone as the revolution gains momentum
Meanwhile, in Bolivia, a man named Evo Morales represents another incarnation of the spirit of Simon Bolivar as he fights to squelch US imperial interests in his nation. Standing on the brink of winning the presidency in the elections scheduled for December of 2005, Morales represents the next link in the chain of fierce Latin American resistance to US exploitation of their people and resources.
Juan Evo Morales Ayma was born in 1959 in Orinco to a family of indigenous Quechuans, but moved to Chapare province in the 1980's to cultivate coca leaf. Growing coca leaf is a practice dating back to the Incan Empire. While the Indigenous people of Bolivia, who comprise over 50% of the population, chew coca leaves to ease hunger and make folk medicines, coca leaf is also the primary ingredient in cocaine. As part of its "War on Drugs", the United States began a program in the 1990's to eradicate coca production. In 1998, Plan Dignity, a barbaric and violent US-sponsored effort, resulted in the elimination of nearly 80% of coca production and left the campesinos in Bolivia with no economically viable alternative crops to cultivate. Supplied and supported by the United States, the Expeditionary Task Force, a paramilitary unit which the locals called "America's Mercenaries", reportedly engaged in violence and murder. Just imagine if Canada financed paramilitary forces in the United States which wiped out 80% of the production of Sudafed and Iodine because they are used in the manufacture of crystal meth. How long would Americans stand for that?
In response to the intrusive, oppressive policies of the United States and its puppet Bolivian president, Hugo Banzer, Evo Morales emerged as a leader of the Cocaleros, an opposition movement comprised primarily of coca growers. His support in Chapare and Carrasco de Cochabamba was strong enough that he was elected to the national Congress in Bolivia in 1997 by the widest margin amongst the 68 Congresspeople who won in that election.
In the words of Morales:
'There is a unanimous defence of coca because the coca leaf is becoming the banner for national unity, a symbol of national unity in defence of our dignity. Since coca is a victim of the United States, as coca growers we are also victims of the United States, but then we rise up to question these policies to eradicate coca.
'Now is the moment to see the defence of coca as the defence of all natural resources, just like hydrocarbon, oil, gas; and this consciousness is growing. That is why it is an issue of national unity.'
As a leader with widespread popular support, and a powerful force within the Movement to Socialism (MAS) party, Morales began to broaden his agenda beyond that of supporting the cultivation of coca. Like Chavez in Venezuela, Morales has emerged as a champion of the poor and oppressed, and by default, a fierce opponent of the blatantly corrupt plutocracy in Washington DC.
The (Corporate) "American Way"
In early 2000, Morales began intense efforts to stymie the imperial policies of the United States, which enable multinational corporations to engage in obscene exploitation of other nations. Demonstrating the depths of the cruelty of the "free market", neoliberal economic policies which the corporatacracy of the United States imposes on other nations, a large multi-national corporation called Aguas de Tanari was on the verge of purchasing the water works in Cochabamba, a Morales strong-hold. Under their business plan, 65% of the locals would not have been able to afford drinking water. Supporting Aguas de Tanari's dreams of imposing nightmares on the people, local laws were passed which criminalized catching and using rain water. Morales and his allies led powerful protests, which included road-blocks, and eventually crushed the despicable effort to inflict misery and suffering to generate profit.
Down, but definitely not out
In early 2002, the Bolivian government issued Supreme Decree 26415, which essentially prohibited the sale of coca-leaf. Riots broke out in Sacaba, which was home to a legal coca market. Four campesinos and three Bolivian soldiers were killed. Pressure from the US embassy led to the removal of Morales from his Congressional seat for his involvement in so called "terrorism" in Sacaba. His removal was later determined to be unconstitutional.
The next round of elections in Bolivia in June of 2002 whisked Morales back into office. In pre-election polling, MAS barely registered with a paltry 4%. However, thanks to powerful opposition to US presence and influence in their nation, 20.94% of Bolivians supported MAS in the election. MAS came in only slightly behind the winning party. Unfortunately for the Bolivian people, they traded one proponent of US policies for another. Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada replaced Jorge Quiroga.
Leave our hydrocarbons alone!
Lozada's allegiance to US interests eventually cost him his presidency. Bolivia possesses vast natural gas reserves, which until the Bolivian Gas War in 2003, were exploited by multi-nationals through neoliberal policies instituted by the United States. In October of 2003, the Bolivian military killed nearly one hundred members of the poor and working class who participated in strikes and created road blocks in opposition to the theft of their nation's precious resources. Lozada resigned and fled the country, leaving his vice-president, Carlos Mesa, to rule Bolivia.
More protests against Bolivian government-enabled exploitation of the nation's hydrocarbon resources erupted in mid-2005. Morales was instrumental in the protests and in the subsequent ouster of Mesa as president. Attacking from yet another angle, Morales (and his increasingly powerful MAS party) also called for the indictments of Mesa, Quiroga, and Lozada for their complicity in partnering with multi-national corporations in plundering Bolivian oil and natural gas (without the approval of the Bolivian Congress).
Take another moment to empathize here
Envision LUKoil of Russia seizing control of the oil industry in Alaska. In return for paying small royalties and minimal taxes, LUKoil gets to pump, keep, and sell as much American oil as it chooses. LUKoil profits handsomely while consuming our resources with minimal return to the United States. Somehow, I do not think that would fly with the American public. Yet our government enables powerful corporations to treat Bolivians in this manner. Maybe that is why they are called free market policies. Hypocrisy be thy name.
As Morales gears up for the impending presidential election in December, his commitment to economic justice and human rights in the face of the oppressive, malevolent agenda of the United States government and its proxies in Bolivia remains clear and strong.
Summarizing his position succinctly, Morales stated, "The worst enemy of humanity is capitalism. That is what provokes uprisings like our own, a rebellion against a system, against a neoliberal model, which is the representation of a savage capitalism. If the entire world doesn't acknowledge this reality, that the national states are not providing even minimally for health, education and nourishment, then each day the most fundamental human rights are being violated."
To what conclusion do the facts lead?
After careful consideration of the facts, it becomes quite clear why the corporate interests and incredibly wealthy hijackers of our constitutional republic in the United States are so desperate to convince their "electorate" that men like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are our "enemies". These men do pose a grave threat. If they maintain their hold on power and continue to advance the Bolivarian Revolution throughout Central and South America, powerful corporations will lose their capacity to commit legal larceny by plundering resources (a practice which leaves much of the Latin American population living in abject poverty). Morales is undermining the charade our government calls the "War on Drugs", which is simply another means of employing military intervention in the region and supporting ruthless leaders who implement policies favorable to the interests of the wealthy elite of the United States.
Yes, Morales is a dangerous man indeed. Like Chavez, he is rising like an ominous storm on the horizon, poised to strike powerful bolts of lightening through the fat wallets of the proponents of neoliberal economic policies (which are modern means of non-violent colonization). The Bush regime has legitimate reasons for fearing these men. They are imminent threats to the health of US cash cows throughout the Latin American region.
Based on the fact that the US government and media are defining Morales and Chavez as our "enemies" because they champion human rights and economic equality for their people in the face of American neocolonialism, I conclude that the Bush regime and many members of our Fourth Estate are morally bankrupt. What is even more distressing about their persistent efforts to convince Americans that Morales and Chavez are Antichrists is the fact that those who stand to "suffer" from this Bolivarian "diabolical scheme" to end US economic exploitation and oppression in Latin America represent a small fraction of the US population.
Who will "feel the pain" if multi-nationals can no longer steal from Latin Americans?
Members of the Bush regime....do you really care?
The 1% of Americans who own 33% of the wealth....yawn
Executives and major share-holders of large corporations.....oh, the pain, the pain
Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez are friends to the majority of Americans, and to most of humanity. Each step of success for the Bolivarian Revolution will be a step in the evolution of humanity toward the fulfillment of the teachings and dreams of Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and other great spiritual leaders throughout human history. Progress for the Bolivarians means regression for the cancer on humanity referred to as neoliberalism, or more appropriately, economic imperial conquest.
So the next time Fox or CNN portrays Morales and Chavez as enemies of the United States, remember that sometimes rooting for the "bad guys" can be a good thing.
---
Jason Miller is a 38 year old activist writer with a degree in liberal arts. He works as a loan counselor in the transportation industry, and is a husband with three sons. His affiliations include Amnesty International and the ACLU. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/.
The Philosophy of Free Markets, Sound Economics, Thinking Based On Logic and Reason... Not Right, Nor Left... Just In The Middle. This Blog Is Affiliated With moneyfiles.org. The Released Materials Do Not Necessarily Express The Views Of Real Wealth Society. Contact: interest_free_money(at)juno.com
Friday, December 30, 2005
Free Enterprise or Corporatocracy By Unlawfulcombatant
Many blame our current economic difficulties on Capitalism. There are certainly good arguments for doing so. However, there are even better arguments to blame it on current perversions of capitalism, and the corporatocracy that has replaced "free enterprise."Capitalism is an extremely productive economic system. Unfortunately it is subject to almost unlimited abuses and perversions. It is these abuses that will ultimately lead us to an Economic Armageddon, not capitalism itself. "Corporatocracy" is a better definition of our current economic system, rather than free enterprise capitalism.
The number of anti-free enterprise, pro-corporate laws and policies of our government is extensive. When extensive legislation exists to protect corporate interests, our system of "free market" capitalism is compromised. There are many examples of such corporate protection. Patent exclusivity is one example. Numerous extensions of patent exclusivity greatly reduce competition. These are anything but "free enterprise" policies.
When huge amounts of taxpayer funds are given to business interests, the free market is compromised. Many "private" entities survive almost exclusively on taxpayer money. The defense industry is one such example. The only thing "private" about the defense industry is that profits go into the pockets of "private" individuals. Many other industries also gorge themselves at the taxpayer-funded feeding trough. Much of the money that funds HMO"s, health care insurance, and pharmaceutical cartels comes directly from the taxpayer, not private individuals.Less direct monetary assistance also perverts the free market. Government insurance of loans encourages riskier and less productive investments. Corporate bankruptcy protection further insulates Corporate America from paying the consequences for poor business investment and practice. It also allows for abuse of the system and rewards misappropriation of funds.
Government granted monopolies, such as phone and power companies, are further perversions of the free market system. Regardless of any issues of necessity, such monopolies limit competition.The whole concept of anti-trust policy has been perverted as well. Anti-trust legislation was designed to prevent monopolies and the control of the market by large corporations and businesses. It was designed to prevent price-fixing, as well as other market-controlling issues. Today anti-trust legislation is used to prevent smaller entities from grouping together, such as labor groups. Anti-trust legislation is now used ensure the exorbitant profits of Corporate America. It is rare for any government body to block a merger. Yet it is not uncommon to see collective bargaining rights denied under the guise of "anti-trust" violation. (For example, unionization of doctors has been blocked as an anti-trust violation.)Our tax system is another method used to subvert "free enterprise" and support corporatocracy. Tax deductions for 401Ks and IRAs encourage workers to donate part of their wages to Corporate America, thus providing even more funding for Corporate America, allowing more over-investment and misuse of funds. Few realize that much of their money goes toward CEO salaries, and further pro-corporate lobbying of Congress. Some of this money even goes into pro-corporate campaign contributions.
Deceptively encouraging workers to give part of their income to Corporate America is definitely [b]not[/b] "free enterprise." [b]There is also an ongoing trend of Corporate America to focus on short-term gains, at the expense of long-term gains.[/b] This may well be the most damaging of modern business trends. The reduction of labor costs (and labor/consumer income) may increase short-term profits. But it reduces consumer income, as well as the market created by that income. The end result is a continual reduction in the income necessary to buy American production. Much of this problem has been [b]created[/b] by government intervention, as well as selective removal of key regulations. Legislation to protect Corporate America, extensive taxpayer funding, and pro-corporate tax policy have largely eliminated "free market" capitalism. Adam Smith, the most noted proponent of "free enterprise," would roll over in his grave if he heard today's Corporatocracy was being touted as "free enterprise." Smith believed the government should take an active role to [b]promote[/b] free enterprise, not stifle it like the current administration is doing.The shortfalls of current pro-Corporate, anti-free enterprise policies have gone largely unnoticed. The reduction in labor/consumer income, government-enhanced price increases, and demand decreases that would have resulted, have been obscured by increasing consumer "deficit" spending. Consumers have been able to maintain demand with borrowed money, despite declining real wages. Spending financed with borrowed money has compensated for real wage declines. Had consumer spending been limited to income, the current Corporatocratic excesses would never have occurred. Business revenue would have been limited by the wage income that consumers had to spend.The result of current government policy has been an over-investment in most assets, as well as investment in minimally productive assets. Market forces have not been allowed to provide the negative feedback for bad business investment and practices.
As a result, bad investments and business practices have continued unchecked by normal market forces. The current business climate in America is not the result of capitalism, or "free enterprise." It's the lack thereof that is the biggest problem. Though so-called "capitalists" may be the cause of an Economic Armageddon, capitalism itself will [b]not[/b] be the cause. The cause will be the many perversions that are masquerading as capitalism and free enterprise.
I appreciate your comment. However, I'm not certain where SP's opposition to Corporatocracy is laid out. They sound like an exclusively environmentalist group. Have I missed something here?