What level of income makes a person one of the rich people?

Parents who make 90k per year in salary or pensions who can't spare a penny to help their children who struggle through life on 12 bucks per hour with no benefits...

Know anybody like that? I sure do... Lots of 'em... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

What level of income makes a person one of the rich people?

Parents who make 90k per year in salary or pensions who can't spare a penny to help their children who struggle through life on 12 bucks per hour with no benefits...

Know anybody like that? I sure do... Lots of 'em... ;)

I help, but in a fashion that is oddly demeaned in our society. I hire about 20 indians in Bhubaneswar India, to work for an information based business and I've changed their lives. They have become productive and learned skills that help them to STAY making money so they can stay fed. Teach a man to fish.

I am so deeply saddened when "pro child rights" groups shut down those Nike factories in Pakistan, and other areas. Over half of the girls went into prostitution and the other half were starving. It's not like they can get a nice cushy office job.

Some states have made it a crime to feed stray cats for instance, calling it "cruel and unusual punishment" because you merely temporarily feed the cat so it can starve again. Somehow we fail to see the same logic with humans. We need more than temporary solutions.

Free trade, itself is the most charitable giver since we do it at cost of our own economy. Oddly we're the only nation in the world where the conservatives are in favor of it. Protectionism is the technically better economic choice, but free trade helps third world countries, while hurting our own. Charitable sacrifice. We may need some moderation on it so we don't hurt ourselves to the point where we can't help anymore.

But my point was, it's the businessowners with cheap outsourcing that have made the biggest impact on third world lives and given them jobs to feed themselves, permanently, not just temporarily.

---

The truth is out there. Or in here. Who left the door open? (my dog comes running back in) There's the truth!

Matchmaking

What level of income makes a person one of the rich people?

Parents who make 90k per year in salary or pensions who can't spare a penny to help their children who struggle through life on 12 bucks per hour with no benefits...

Know anybody like that? I sure do... Lots of 'em... ;)

I know people like that, but I know many more who donate more than 10% of their gross income, their time and their talents to helping those less fortunate. If you only see the people who act as you describe above, then I suggest to you that you are associating with the wrong people. Look for people who give their time and talents; when you see them you should realize that most of those people also give their hard earned money but do not announce it to the public.

America has the most giving population on the planet. Period. Americans give more charitable contributions, donate more hard goods and provide more services to the entire world than any other country. In 2005, monetary charitable donations alone in the US amounted to more than $260 billion. This does not include the billions sent in US foreign aid. This does not include the donated services and hard goods.

No other country evens comes close.

Look for people who give their time and talents; when you see them you should realize that most of those people also give their hard earned money but do not announce it to the public.

That is very commendable, and I have known a few people like that... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

---

me@rescam.org

Some food for thought for you all... I got this in an e-mail.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RED PILL: America officially becomes a dictatorship.

By Mike Adams
America lost: Congress votes to legalize war crimes and bolster a military dictatorship

If you haven't been watching the political arena lately, you may not have noticed that the U.S. Congress last week handed President Bush a bill that, if signed, would spell the end of America as we know it.
Called the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the bill abandons the Geneva Convention (formed after Hitler's atrocities in WWII), legalizes the torture of U.S. citizens, suspends all civil rights for prisoners and allows the President to declare virtually anyone to be an "enemy combatant" -- artists, writers, scientists, protestors or anyone who does not agree with the pro-war stance of the current regime.
It would also retroactively grant blanket immunity to all U.S. military personnel who have committed war crimes under the Geneva Convention. Such immunity would extend to present and future war crimes as well. In other words, the United States will now officially harbor and support war criminals. In the context of international law, the United States is effectively declaring itself to be a criminal state that will respect no international law.
Just as frighteningly, the new Act would utterly nullify the courts and make it illegal for the judicial branch of government to interfere with the imprisonment and torture of anyone, thus affecting a dangerous power shift from the judicial branch of government to the executive branch.
Hitler followed the same strategy in centralizing his own power, and by nullifying the courts while taking over the media, he was able to propagandize his war, arrest all dissenters, and concentrate power in his own hands. The ultimate result was an unjust war and a humanitarian disaster that haunts the world to this day.
The United States is now firmly on the same path. These are dark times for our nation, and future historians will no doubt look upon this historic vote as the trigger that thrust the United States into a full-fledged police state, complete with secret arrests, government spying on citizens, and the mysterious "disappearance" of those who dared to speak out against the dictator.
A disgraced nation
What the U.S. Congress has done is beyond shameful. The rest of the world now sees the United States as a rogue nation, led by a power-grabbing madman who has, in six short years, taken us to the threshold of Police State tyranny, all while claiming to be protecting the Constitution.
Read the Military Commissions Act yourself! Here's a passage that nullifies the judicial branch:
"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter."
And here's another passage that rebukes the Geneva Convention:
"No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories."
It makes you wonder. What kind of evil nation would reject, with such legal precision, the humanitarian protections of the Geneva Convention? What kind of U.S. Attorney General would allow a new law to nullify the federal courts? And what kind of traitorous Senator or Congressperson would vote for such a law in the first place?
Even twelve Democrats voted for the bill. The names of these traitors to our nation are:
Tom Carper of Delaware
Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey
Menendez of New Jersey
Bill Nelson of Florida
Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Senator Pryor of Arkansas
Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia
Ken Salazar of Colorado
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan
Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut
And, of course, most Republicans voted for the bill as well. That's because their strategy for winning elections is to frame all reasonable men as "cut-and-run" sissies who don't have the backbone to bomb civilians, torture young children and imprison their own people under a system of legalized tyranny.
It is no exaggeration to say that every lawmaker who voted for this bill should be arrested and tried for treason. Failure to do so, in fact, is itself a crime against the United States of America.
By the way, this is NOT about Republican vs. Democrat. It's about the structure of power in this country and the dangers of consolidating political power. If these laws are left in place, any future President (even a Democrat) could use them to terrorize the nation and erect an impenetrable dictatorship. The real danger is not found in any one politician, but rather in the existence of a great political imbalance that invites dictatorship and nullifies the checks and balances that have kept our nation relatively free for so long. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
A repeat of Nazi Germany
Ever wonder how German citizens in the 1930's allowed the rise of a brutal dictator and the emergence of a military dictatorship? Actually, you're watching it happen right now in the United States. This is exactly how it happened in Nazi Germany.
The comparison is no longer metaphorical. It is literal. The U.S. government is following the recipe to the letter: The selling of fear to create a reaction where citizens demand greater "security," the centralization of power, the suspension of civil rights, the defiance of accepted international law, the control of the press through threats and propaganda, the excusing of war crimes committed by our own military leaders, the arrogance of believing the whole world should think, and act, and govern just like us. These are the ideas of madmen, and yet today, they are now official policy of the United States government.
Chavez, the President of Venezuela was absolutely right in his recent United Nations speech (which almost everyone vilifies in the mainstream media, but no one has actually read). Read the speech yourself and then ask yourself, doesn't Chavez make a lot more sense than Bush? Read it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092000893.html
It's not just Chavez, either. Practically the whole world can see what's happening. The citizens of Canada, Australia, South America, Asia, India, the UK and yes, even Germany can see the United States government is fast becoming a radical military dictatorship, nullifying its own founding principles and diving head first into a bottomless pit of war, fear mongering, aggression and counterfeit righteousness.
Things you need to see
I've created a political cartoon entitled, "Freedom Flakes" that illustrates much of this in a single cartoon. View it at http://www.CounterThink.org/020440.html
Read the NY Times editorial, "Rushing Off A Cliff" at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html
Read Alex Jones' analysis of how this law gives the Bush Administration the right to sexually torture U.S. children at http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/290906sexuallytorturehtm
Frequent http://www.Truthout.org and read the op-ed pieces there. These are from some of the best political writers on the 'net.
Tune in to http://www.OpEdNews.com and read the articles there.
Read anything by Noam Chomsky. I recommend his latest book, "Failed States: The abuse of power and the assault on Democracy." Although the book's material is presented in a technical, academic tone, this book is a major eye opener, especially if you haven't lived outside the United States and you still think U.S. news reports the truth. Another book I recommend by Chomsky is, "Manufacturing Consent," which explores the role of the mainstream media in controlling the people for political gain.
And most importantly, if you are an American citizen, vote the criminals out of office in the next election. This includes voting against anyone who supported the Military Commissions Act of 2006, regardless of their party affiliation. These politicians only get away with this because the voters let them. By exercising your vote, you exert real influence over the future of this country.
Even if you believe the elections are rigged (hint: they are), your voting action at least registers in the consciousness of other voters. (Intention is a powerful thing.)
Read the 20 Amazing Facts about voting in the USA at http://www.nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html
The time has come to take a stand
If we don't take major action right now to save our nation from tyranny, we will all soon be prisoners under our own government. The disappearance of dissenters, ramping up of secret police operations and the suspension of all remaining freedoms will begin shortly thereafter.
This is not conjecture, nor exaggeration, nor worst-case scenario. This is reality. This is happening right now, right under our noses. You are witnessing the planned destruction of a free nation, piece by piece, and the rise of an evil empire that can only result in mass suffering, death and despair.
This new evil empire has no respect for human life, civil rights or international law. But it does have nuclear weapons and insane leaders who are no doubt willing to do anything to further consolidate power and control over the resources of the world. This is precisely the recipe for disaster, and do not be surprised if these madmen resort to the unthinkable in order to win more elections and further centralize their power. Pay careful attention to events in the weeks before major elections, as these war mongers know full well that a carefully-planned "terrorist attack" on U.S. soil in the weeks before an election would turn the tide in their favor.
Read about "false flag" operations at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
These people will stop at nothing, I believe, to stay in power. And as we have seen throughout history, the greater the concentration of power, the more cruel and insane every government becomes. Remember: It is the distribution of power among separate branches of government that has kept the United States so free for so long, and yet today, our legislative branch (the Senators and Congresspeople) have voted to make themselves irrelevant, effectively ceding all power to the executive branch (the President and his soldiers) by the simple fact that the President can now have any lawmaker arrested and imprisoned if they do not vote in alignment with the President's wishes. Dissent is now illegal.
Unless this decision is vigorously opposed and reversed, this nation is lost. We are at a crossroads, a crucial turning point for the future of our nation, and if we do not halt this madness, impeach this President and arrest all those who would so easily trample upon the freedoms we have held so dear for so long, then we are no wiser, nor any freer than the German citizens of the 1930's who watched their own country devolve into the infamous Nazi empire.
RED PILL: America officially becomes a dictatorship. http://www.counterthink.org/020596.HTML
Step by step, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4757274759497686216&q=terror+storm

---

Official Persuasion Technician For Calm Chaos
Join Calm Chaos!
Team Stats

Looks like a post to dailykos. Digest this food with a liberal dose of salt.

Looks like a post to dailykos. Digest this food with a liberal dose of salt.

Bill, why are you so sure that it can't be happening? So many people have tried to tell you.

Explain to me why we are all so wrong about what is happening to your country.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Army chief denies rift with government

James Sturcke and agencies
Friday October 13, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

The head of the British army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, this afternoon insisted the UK will not "surrender" in Iraq - despite calling for troops to be pulled out "sometime soon".

Britain's most senior soldier sparked a storm with an interview in which he said the presence of coalition forces was "exacerbating" the problems there.

It was seen as an unprecedented attack on government policy and forced the general, who took up the job just six weeks ago, into denying there was any rift with Tony Blair's foreign policy.

In a statement , he said: "I'm a soldier - we don't do surrender, we don't pull down white flags. We will remain in southern Iraq until the job is done - we're going to see this through."

Downing Street has said Sir Richard retains the "full support" of Tony Blair despite the furore over his article in the Daily Mail.

Earlier, Gen Dannatt repeated his belief that British soldiers' presence in the country was provoking violence. He added that "a tremendous amount had been made" from comments extracted from a long conversation on a wide range of issues with a Daily Mail journalist.

"It was never my intention to have this hoo-ha which people have thoroughly enjoyed overnight in trying to suggest there is a chasm between myself as head of the army and the prime minister or between myself as head of the army and the secretary of state for defence," he told Radio 4's Today programme.

In comments to journalists gathered outside the Ministry of Defence this morning he added: "Hardly anything I said during the interview constituted news." However, he insisted: "I am not backtracking and I have withdrawn none of the comments I have made."

In his later statement, Sir Richard said: "The point that I'm trying to make is the mere fact that we are still in some places exacerbates violence from those who want to destabilise Iraqi democracy.

"Currently Operation Sinbad is trying to make Basra better and a lot of British soldiers are doing a really good job. In that regard, their presence is helping but there are other parts where our mere presence does exacerbate and violence results. But that is not a reason for us to leave."

Sir Richard received overwhelming support from across the ranks. Senior officers said he should be "saluted" for his honesty, while frontline soldiers praised their commander for "telling it how it is".

The Guardian's security affairs editor, Richard Norton-Taylor, said Dannatt was reflecting the views of many senior figures in the British and American military who were "desperately unhappy" about the continued allied presence in Iraq.

Conservative MP and military historian, Keith Simpson, said the General was motivated by "frustration".

Mr Simpson, who has known Sir Richard for 30 years, added: "The fact that somebody as cautious and professional as this has done this I think is highly significant."

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's World at One, Mr Simpson suggested that Sir Richard's future was now uncertain.

"Are ministers going to say, well, we encourage debate or ultimately are they going to sack him? I don't know," he said.

John Williams, the former communications director at the Foreign Office, said: "It is a very serious matter for the head of the army to go against government policy."

He warned the government against trying to put Sir Richard "back in the bottle", but added: "The public is entitled this lunchtime to have doubts about the army's commitment to a really serious piece of government policy."

Gen Dannatt caused a political storm by making remarks that were unprecedented for such a senior military figure during an interview with feature writer Sarah Sands. The paper reports that the general called for British troops to be withdrawn from Iraq soon and that the UK presence in the country "exacerbates the difficulties we are facing around the world". The paper interprets his comments as a "devastating broadside on the prime minister's foreign policy".

Today Sands admitted that the general was "giving a soldier's view" of the conflict in Iraq and was "was not trying to be political", adding that Gen Dannatt did not mention the prime minister during their 90-minute conversation.

"He was trying to give an honest soldier's assessment of what is going on," she told Sky News.

Commentators said the general was naive to make such unguarded comments.

"What he said was unguarded and foolish as well as unprecedented. He should have known that if you give the media an inch they will take a mile. He was naive but he is still a brilliant officer," the military commentator Col Mike Dewar told Sky News.

Gen Dannatt insisted that insurgents did not have the British army on the run and that his troops had "convincingly won" all their tactical engagements.

"It is a fact that because we are there we are being attacked in some areas. In other areas of the country we are welcomed. But in some places because we are there we are being attacked," he said.

Gen Dannatt told the Guardian last month that the army could only just cope with what the government was demanding of it, and said he believed ministers were taking British soldiers for granted.

---

Reality Internet Personality

"I'm a soldier - we don't do surrender, we don't pull down white flags. We will remain in southern Iraq until the job is done - we're going to see this through."

We heard a similar statement over here that went something like this:

"Marines never quit. We will stay the course, we will finish the job."

An old saying comes to mind:

'All balls and no brains'... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

---

me@rescam.org

Is Hezbollah filling your prescription?

LEONARD PITTS JR.
THE MIAMI HERALD

Pitts, a former associate Food and Drug Administration commissioner, is president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest .

October 13, 2006

With Mexico less than 20 miles south of downtown San Diego, you'd probably have a pretty easy time getting your hands on cheap foreign medicine. But while people in the market for “lifestyle” drugs such as Viagra may indeed be cruising to Tijuana, those who need medicines for chronic conditions such as high cholesterol and diabetes probably wouldn't risk purchasing a knock-off that might be a sugar pill – or worse.

If they're looking for cheap foreign alternatives, they're far more likely to purchase their prescriptions from a “Canadian” Internet site. Most people think that buying foreign drugs from Canada is completely safe. Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been petitioning Congress “to allow Americans to import safe prescription drugs.” And even though they're misinformed about the safety issue, the practice is now easier than ever.

This week, U.S. customs agents stopped seizing prescription drugs imported through the mail from Canada. Even though the drugs are illegal, customs agents – under pressure from Congress – have decided to cease enforcing the law.

This latest development comes only days after Congress approved an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill that would also prohibit U.S. Customs and Border Protection from seizing prescription drugs purchased at brick-and-mortar pharmacies in Canada.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who sponsored the amendment, has touted the measure as “a major victory in [the] fight to bring lower prescription drugs to all Americans.” Vitter and his allies believe their measure would ensure access to safe and effective pharmaceuticals.

Unfortunately, Canadian drugs are hardly safer than the ones coming in from Mexico.

Supposedly, a Canadian pharmacy cannot fill an American prescription unless it's co-signed by a Canadian doctor. And most Canadian provinces have a provision requiring doctors to actually examine the patient before co-signing a prescription.

But those laws are rarely followed.

That's why, despite conventional wisdom, walking into a pharmacy in Windsor, Ontario, and having your prescription filled by pharmacist is no guarantee that your drugs will be genuine.

Why? Because most Canadian pharmacies situated near the American border employ physicians who do nothing more than blithely sign their names without even bothering to see what – or to whom – they're prescribing.

Consider this: Last year, a doctor in Toronto was prosecuted for co-signing 24,212 prescriptions over six-and-a-half months so that U.S. citizens could have their prescriptions filled by an Ontario pharmacy. In addition to never having seen the patients, he charged $10 per signature.

Nice work if you can get it.

Considering that, on average, this one Toronto-based physician co-signed more than 124 prescriptions each day, it's obvious that many Americans are already purchasing their pharmaceuticals in Canada. But that's no reason to exacerbate the problem. By blocking Customs and Border Patrol agents from doing their jobs, Vitter's amendment would open the floodgates to dangerous drugs.

“This [bill] really breaks the dam, and it shows that it's only a matter of time before we pass a full-blown reimportation bill,” says Vitter.

According to a recent report issued under the signature of the U.S. surgeon general, opening up our borders to drugs from Canada would result in an uncontrollable influx of untested, impure, expired and counterfeit drugs from around the world.

Further, terrorists have already proven that they are adept at exploiting weakened chains of pharmaceutical custody.

In fact, according to the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force, a global terrorist ring with ties to Hezbollah is importing counterfeit drugs into the United States by way of Canada. It's a great money-maker for rogue regimes, too. The Congressional Research Service says that North Korea is now producing counterfeits to fund its military development.

The last thing we need is to encourage the illegal drug trade. Without legalized prescription drug importation, the number of counterfeit drug investigations has increased fourfold since the late 1990s. And now that customs agents are no longer allowed to do their jobs, it's even easier for terrorists and counterfeiters to abuse the porous nature of America's borders.

It's hard to see how any of this will improve our “homeland security” – or the health of Californians.

---

me@rescam.org

Explain to me why we are all so wrong about what is happening to your country.

He lives in the 'Greenzone' while the rest of us live in Central Baghdad...

Metaphorically speaking... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

The real Russia - A brave journalist killed for her work

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

October 14, 2006

The murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya is one more tragic signpost along Russia's descent from democratic promise to an ugly authoritarian reality. Politkovskaya, a fierce critic of President Vladimir Putin and of Russia's dirty war in Chechnya, was shot to death in a gangland-style hit in Moscow just before she completed work on an expose of Russian atrocities in the Chechnya conflict.

Hardly an accident, as the Soviets used to say of any suspicious event. Politkovskaya, a 49-year-old mother of two, had reportedly received death threats for her brave and honest reports. But she continued writing for one of Russia's last independent newspapers.

Now her voice is silent, her pen is still. Yet her murder can still serve a purpose she would have approved. It can awaken the West to the darkening shadows over Russia during Putin's rule.

Politkovskaya is the sixth Russian journalist to be murdered under suspicious circumstances in just the last few years, and the 52nd Russian journalist to die violently since 1992. Nor are journalists the only targets of the dark forces that hold sway in Russia. Politkovskaya's murder was the third politically tainted killing in Russia in just three weeks. Another victim was Andrei Kozlov, the deputy governor of Russia's central bank. He was leading a campaign against financial fraud when he was assassinated last month.

President Putin promised President Bush in a phone conversation Monday that “all necessary efforts will be made for an objective investigation into the tragic death.” We wish we could believe that. But reality in today's Russia is so far removed from such sentiments. If the murder of this courageous journalist is anything like that of so many of her compatriots, the killers will never be found and the motives never uncovered.

That is Russia today, and it's long past time that the world noticed.

---

me@rescam.org

Bolivia hurting those trying to help

MARCELA SANCHEZ
THE WASHINGTON POST

October 14, 2006

For James Cooper, head of a small nonprofit promoting judicial reform throughout Latin America, working in Bolivia today is very much like practicing an “extreme sport: You have no idea what's going to happen. . . . You go from moments of extreme happiness to total desolation.”

That's life in the philanthropic fast lane – under the auspices of President Evo Morales' new Bolivia. The former leader of the country's coca growers last year became the Andean nation's first indigenous president, putting an end to a history of white minority rule that he blames for his country's deep-seated poverty. So far, he has nationalized natural gas resources, launched ambitious land reform projects and promised to re-examine coca eradication programs.

This agenda has created an unfriendly environment that threatens foreign investment and challenges international relations. And it has also altered the terrain for philanthropic organizations that play an essential role in a country where nearly half of all public investment funds depend on foreign aid and private generosity.

Cooper's Proyecto ACCESO promotes the rule of law in Bolivia through unusual means. The California Western School of Law professor has designed a clothing line with human rights messages and trained shoe shiners in La Paz to help impart civic education among their customers. Last month he co-sponsored a national conference for law enforcement officials on the use of drug treatment courts and flew U.S. judge Laura Safer Espinoza to La Paz to share experiences from her Bronx courtroom.

Starting these and other projects has grown more complicated during Morales' administration. Simply meeting with government officials is an exercise in frustration. “The senior people are being replaced all the time, and the junior people are too afraid to make a decision,” he said. “The only expectation I have is to have no expectations.”

What's going on in Bolivia is not simply a problem of personnel shuffling, but the reflection of a radical change among those who hold power. In this transformation, the U.S.-based Soros Foundation sees opportunity. Together with the Norwegian government, it is currently exploring ways to help Bolivian officials develop the know-how to run the industries recently nationalized.

This type of assistance is similar to what the foundation did in former Soviet bloc countries to help them embrace democracy. At the Organization of American States earlier this month, George Soros said his foundation's niche is helping governments deliver on their promises in countries where “a group previously excluded comes to power with good intentions but without capacity.”

Soros and Cooper may be the exception rather than the rule. In general, philanthropic activity, like money, abhors instability. As Soros put it in his OAS speech, “philanthropists don't like to be involved in things that may be politically controversial.”

Corporate giving is particularly vulnerable in an unfriendly environment such as Bolivia's. But a study last year showed that the chilling effect of uncertainty also affects homegrown giving, both at the national and local levels. Jeffrey Davidow, former U.S. ambassador and now president of the Institute of the Americas at the University of California San Diego, has found in Mexico that “the willingness of local business to donate . . . has a relationship to the question of the confidence in their own future in that country.”

To the degree that political changes or anti-business attitudes lessen the confidence of business owners, they spend more time figuring out short-term advantages for themselves, including getting the money out of the country, Davidow said. In Bolivia, where national wealth largely concentrates in the eastern part of the country, there has even been talk of secession from the poorer mountainous regions of the west.

There is also the fear that populist policies undermine initiatives designed to create self-sufficiency. Nancy Birdsall, president of the Washington-based Center for Global Development, warns that populism can rapidly disintegrate into “patronage systems that end up hurting the poor” by pushing aside legitimate community-driven local initiatives favored by international donors.

Bolivia has yet to come to that point. In fact, Morales is spending far more than he planned on nationalizing the gas and oil industry – leaving less for social programs. In August, the Bolivian government announced that the nationalization process would be “temporarily suspended” due to lack of funds.

Morales' popularity has been falling as popular discontent rises, and the threat of violence hovers over the country. In that environment the work of nonprofits is only likely to become much more perilous, and helping Bolivia's poor will be far more difficult.

---

me@rescam.org

Looks like a post to dailykos. Digest this food with a liberal dose of salt.

Bill, why are you so sure that it can't be happening? So many people have tried to tell you.

Explain to me why we are all so wrong about what is happening to your country.

The simplest response is that most of that article (like most similar articles) is just nearly irrational partisan rhetoric. The article is not concerned with presenting information and letting the reader decide, it is, however, concerned with presenting one opinion as the jeebus' honest truth--as if there can be no disagreement.

For example:

"Read Alex Jones' analysis of how this law gives the Bush Administration the right to sexually torture U.S. children at ...." Needless to say, this is partisan rhetoric. 'Nuff said here.

"Frequent http://www.Truthout.org and read the op-ed pieces there. These are from some of the best political writers on the 'net."
More misleading rhetoric. "These" may be some of the "best political writers" on the interweb dealie, if your definition of the best political writers is "far far left writers who aren't interested in anything unless it furthers their liberal agenda and will mislead you to do so."

"Read anything by Noam Chomsky...."
Sure. If of course, all you want is one-sided commentary that reinforces what those on the far left already believe. Not to mention his hypocrisy, i.e., he thinks it's wrong for the rich to shelter their income, yet he thinks it's OK, for him (as a very rich person), to shelter his income, et cetera.

This isn't to say that none of those on the right do the same thing, the point is that partisan rhetoric is just more Barbra Streisand, regardless of who says it.

As far as "why we are all so wrong about what is happening to your country," well, that's just gov't for you. Whatever "it" is, is happening to the UK, and to Germany, and Venezuela and all the rest. What "it" is, is gov't. And many of you have literally BEGGED for it.

"Mr. Blair, damn hell ass Dell is trying to sell me a computer at a price I can afford, and not only did I buy it, they made a profit doing so! Somebody's got to stop them!"

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Dodging blame - Lawmakers on both sides of aisle are guilty

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

October 16, 2006

It's become the standard modus operandi of members of Congress who wind up under an ethical cloud: Blame the whole mess on the members of the other party.

Confronted with charges that GOP House leaders knew about former Florida Rep. Mark Foley's improper behavior with underage male pages much earlier than they have let on, Republican members of Congress hit the talk shows to insist that the story was leaked by Democrats.

Now at least one Democrat is doing the same thing. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is accused of violating Senate ethics rules by failing to disclose that he had transferred to a holding company ownership of a piece of land that was eventually sold for a $700,000 profit. Senate rules require that such disclosures be made so as to identify a lawmaker's business partners and avoid potential conflicts that might arise if those partners were to gain some benefit from action taken by that lawmaker.

Reid is no rookie. He has served in the Senate for 20 years, and served two terms in the House of Representatives before that. He must know the rules. So why didn't he follow them in this case?

Pressed to explain, Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, blamed the Republican Party, which, he said, is “once again trying to smear Democrats.”

That doesn't seem necessary. When confronted with scandals, we find that politicians and their spokesmen and spokeswomen – on both sides of the aisle – often do a good job of smearing themselves.

Whatever happened to admitting a mistake and taking responsibility? And if our representatives can't do even that much, how can we take them seriously?

=====

Do the right thing. Blame Misfit!

---

me@rescam.org

---

me@rescam.org

100th post!

---

me@rescam.org