Archive: Michael Munk's 2007 Portland Messages

The Big O's The ultimate price paid by Michael Munk Mon, Dec 31, 2007

To Oregonian editors: RE: "The ultimate price paid" (Dec 30, B5) Your accounting of war deaths of those "with ties to Oregon and southwest Washington" measures a larger community than the official Pentagon, whose state counts include only those casualties "with homes of record" in Oregon and Washington. Also, the Pentagon does not count dead employes of private companies in the war zones. These differences presumably account for the difference between your total of 123 dead from the region and the Pentagon's 74 dead (63 from "hostile action") from Oregon and 88 (65 from "hostile action") from all of Washington.* But the Pentagon does count casualties who were wounded in action--surely also a significant sacrifice for Oregonians and their families. As of December 22, 513 military personnel with homes of record in Oregon were wounded in combat in Iraq (466) and Afganistan (47). You have never provided these facts to your readers. Finally, even the Pentagon total of 587 casualties suffered by Oregonians only tells half the story. Almost the same number of non fatal casualties are injuries produced by the same causes responsible for "non-hostile" deaths--accidents, illness serious enough to evacuate and suicides. But the Pentagon does not break down its official total of over 30,000 such casualties by state. * you can look it up at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/STATE_OEF_OIF.pdf visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Courthouse Square Inc versus Portland Peaceful Response by Michael Munk Thu, Dec 27, 2007

Last Friday's rally was told in no uncertain terms: if you continue to do what you've been doing for the past six years, you will be issued a citation. What was it that we were doing? Using a megaphone or playing drums. PPRC has been doing both at Pioneer Courthouse Square for over half of this current decade, and with no problems. We've never received a complaint from the city of Portland. We've never received a complaint from any of the downtown businesses. Indeed, the city of Portland's noise control office hadn't received complaints until recent weeks when Pioneer Courthouse Square, Inc. (a corporation created to manage PCS, which is a city park) decided to flex a little muscle. PCS, Inc., said that they had to enforce a ban on the use of any sound amplification (which included our little megaphone and our drums). They said that they felt compelled to enforce this ban on the Friday rally because they were concerned that others might complain of selective enforcement if they didn't enforce it against the Friday rally. When asked if anybody or any group had based such a complaint on our 6-year traditions at Pioneer Courthouse Square, they quickly changed the subject. After repeating the question a few times, however, their spokesperson confessed that nobody had ever yet made such an argument; they wanted to pre-empt any such attempt. PPRC is now exploring whether and how to challenge this effort to muzzle the Friday rally. We will continue to drum and to use the megaphone on the streets, but while we're on Pioneer Courthouse Square, we will have only our voices. Will you join us this Friday to add your voice to our chorus for peace and justice in the coming new year? With each voice, our message becomes stronger, stronger than any battery-powered megaphone or drum, stronger than any city ordinance, stronger than the plans of a private corporation to reduce our downtown public park to a commercial zone for advertisements, a space merely bridging one department store to another. Help us to keep the message of peace and justice loud and clear in Portland's living room. Please join us this Friday, or any other Friday, at 5PM, for the weekly rally for peace and justice. For peace, for justice, for solidarity, PPRC General Meeting

Oregon war casualties rise to 531 by Michael Munk Thu, Dec 27, 2007

US military occupation forces in Iraq suffered at least 66 combat casualties as of Dec. 27, as the official total reached at least 62,857.The total includes 31,950 killed or wounded by what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 30,907 (as of Dec. 10) dead and injured from "non-hostile" causes.* The actual total is almost 83,000 because the Pentagon chooses not to count as "Iraq casualties" the approximately 20,000 casualties discovered only after they returned from Iraq -mainly brain trauma from explosions.** US media also divert attention from the actual cost in American life and limb by routinely reporting only the total killed (3,900 as of Dec. 27) and rarely mentioning the 28,773 wounded in combat. To further minimize public perception of the cost, they cover for the Pentagon by ignoring the 30,907 (as of Dec. 10)*** military victims of accidents and illness that caused death or were serious enough to require medical evacuation, although the 3,900 reported deaths include 723 (up one last week) who died from those same causes, including 132 suicides. These totals include 531 Iraq combat casualties with homes of record in Oregon as of Dec. 22. Another 58 Oregonians are combat casualties in the Afgan occupation. These figures include deaths but not injuries from "non-hostile" causes. Reported monthly by the Pentagon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/STATE_OEF_OIF.pdf * The number of wounded is updated weekly (usually Tuesdays) by the Pentagon at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf. The dead are reported by Iraq Coalition Casualties http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ ** see USA Today, Nov. 23, 2007 *** the number of "non combat" injured is reported by Iraq Coalition Casualties visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Dec. 29: Penny Allen's THE SOLDIER'S TALE by Michael Munk Mon, Dec 24, 2007

THE SOLDIER'S TALE FRANCE/US 2007 Director: PENNY ALLEN Sat Dec 29 7:00 PM Whitsell Auditorium, Portland Art Museum On a flight to the U.S., former Portland director Penny Allen (PROPERTY, PAYDIRT), now living in Paris, happened to sit next to a traumatized American soldier on leave from Iraq. Horrified by what he had seen and done as a soldier, he shared his stories with her, later sending photos and videos shot by himself and his friends that confirmed the grim realities of the war. A year later, Allen and the soldier rendezvous back home for a filmed conversation, which supplies the surprising soundtrack for painful images of chaos, destruction and futility. War is hell, but it's exciting and it pays the bills. Instead of leaving the military, he's going back for another tour. Allen's film, driven by the compulsion to "do something" about the War in Iraq, reflects the reality that life, and death, go on no matter the insanity. (60 min) Penny Allen will introduce the film. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

NYTimes: Correction needed by Michael Munk Sun, Dec 23, 2007

The article referred to is at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/washington/23habeas.html?ref=us In "A 1950 Plan: Arrest 12,000 and Suspend Due Process," (A30, Dec. 23) you write that "the president signed" the Internal Secuirty Act of 1950 that codified Hoover's proposed dentention of "subversives." Harry Truman was an enthusiastic supporter of the supression of the American Left--the consequence of which we still suffer from--during what is now referred to as the McCarthy Era, but he did not sign the act. Its provision for concentration camps for leftists violated the Constitution too violently even for him, and the President vetoed it. In a reflection on the climate in today's Congress, they overrode his veto 248-48 and 57-10. Michael Munk visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

One Dem cave too many by Michael Munk Thu, Dec 20, 2007

"This is a blank check," complained Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "The new money in this bill represents one cave-in too many. It is an endorsement of George Bush's policy of endless war." McGovern was one of 141 Dems (and one Rep) to vote against the amended $700+ B for the Penatgon that includes $70 B more for the Iraq occupation. But a sizeable minority of Dems--78, incuding the reliable warmonger Baird-- joined 194 Reps to pass the bill by 272-142. Blumenauer, Wu and DeFazio voted against (Hooley is still sick). As McGovern observes,this is "one cave-in too many" but those 78 Dems (see list below) demonstrate how their party enables the regime in Washington and is in effect part of it. Altmire Baird Barrow Bean Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Boren Boucher Boyd (FL) Boyda (KS) Brown, Corrine Carney Chandler Clyburn Cooper Costa Cramer Cuellar Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis, Lincoln Dicks Dingell Donnelly Edwards Ellsworth Emanuel Etheridge Giffords Gillibrand Gonzalez Gordon Green, Gene Herseth Sandlin Hill Hinojosa Holden Hoyer Kanjorski Kildee Kind Lampson Larsen (WA) Levin Lynch Mahoney (FL) Marshall Matheson McIntyre Melancon Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Murtha Pomeroy Reyes Rodriguez Ross Ruppersberger Rush Salazar Schwartz Scott (GA) Sestak Shuler Skelton Snyder Space Spratt Tanner Taylor Udall (CO) Walz (MN) Wilson (OH) visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Smith still defends racist Lott by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 19, 2007

Gordon Smith Defends Lott's Segregationist Comments Sam Stein The Huffington Post, Dec 18, 2007 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/18/gordon-smith-defends-lott_n_77296.html Speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, Sen. Gordon Smith, R-OR, offered a passionate defense of the pro-segregationist comments made by his colleague and friend, Sen. Trent Lott, more then three years ago. "I was half way around the world when an event befell Trent Lott that shook me deeply," Smith said, referencing Lott's 2002 remarks in praise of Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond's 1948 run for the White House. "I was celebrating my re-election and on vacation. I watched over international news as his words were misconstrued, words which we had heard him utter many times in his big warm-heartedness trying to make one of our colleagues, Strom Thurmond, feel good at 100 years old. We knew what he meant. But the wolfpack of the press circled around him, sensed blood in the water, and the exigencies of politics caused a great injustice..." Smith's comments were made in a session noting Lott's impending retirement from the Senate. In 2002, Lott lost his Senate Republican Leader post after he was quoted praising the staunch segregationist Strom Thurmond during Thurmond's 100th birthday party. "I want to say this about my state: when Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him," Lott boasted. "We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Lott apologized repeatedly for his remarks, calling them "insensitive," "repugnant" and "inexcusable" during an appearance on a black-oriented cable channel. And at the time, Smith himself seemed to think an apology was in order. As the Oregonian declared in December 2002, "However they were intended, Senator Lott's words were offensive and I was deeply dismayed to hear of them. His statement goes against everything I and the people of Oregon believe in. I look forward to working with my Republican colleagues to arrive at a decision that is best for the U.S. Senate and the country." Today, however, Smith seemed to insisted that Lott should never have stepped down from his leadership position. "It was a wrong," Smith said of Lott's 2002 resignation, "but it was a wrong that was righted." Lott recently found himself back among the leadership ranks. His election as minority whip in November 2006 came by a 25 to 24 vote. Sen. Smith played a key role in the internal party election. According to the New Republic: "Smith rose to give a nominating speech for Lott. Smith's address was deeply emotional: He described Lott's honorable character and talked about the possibility of redemption. He even quoted from Mark Antony's funeral oration in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. The room fell silent; Lott wept. When the doors opened, Lott had been elected minority whip by a single vote." visit my website www.michaelmunk.com Thanks to Gerry Sussman for this item

History's first draft on Congressional Dems by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 19, 2007

Recent media predictions that the Dems will collapse again and vote another blank check for the regime in Washington's wars turned out to be correct. So isn't it time to begin calling them the Dems wars? The leadership intended the multiple choreographed votes on the eve of the holliday to avoid and confuse the public and hide its collapse behind media inattention to the disgraceful spectacle. As Sen Feingold--one of only three senators(the others were Sanders and Byrd; six Dems didn't vote) to oppose the $700 billion Pentagon authorization bill that included almost $200 B for the wars--told his colleagues: "If those of us in Congress who want to end this war don't take every opportunity to push back against this administration, we will be just as responsible for keeping our troops in Iraq," There were only 45 votes* against the $700 B (mostly corporate welfare) authorization in the House. So it's also time to begin writing the first draft of history's take on this cowardly and phoney bunch --from Pelosi and Reid on down to the newest electee who voted for that blank check. Their names will forever be linked to their enabling the worst debacle of US imperialism while claiming they were "misled" by false intelligence, intimidated by charges they were "endangering our troops" and by an inexplicable and false fear of a Republican fillbuster (enabled by a few GOP wantabee Democratic Senators) or a Bush veto. The farce concludes soon with the House voting on the Senate's extra $70 B for Iraq with no restrictions. * To their credit, DeFazio and Wu were among them (Hooley didn't vote) visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Half of Senate Dems vote more money for their wars by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 19, 2007

Seventy senators including about half the Dems voted Tuesday to give Bush another $70 billion for their wars. Note that Oregon's Smith was only Republican voting against so all west coast senators except Feinstein (who didn't vote)were among the following 25 voting "NAY." Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Smith (R-OR) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR) Not Voting - 5 Biden (D-DE) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Feinstein (D-CA) Obama (D-IL) visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

588 Oregon war casualties not updated by Michael Munk Tue, Dec 18, 2007

US military occupation forces in Iraq suffered at least 56 combat casualties in the week ending Dec. 18, as the official total reached at least 62,791. The total includes 31,884 killed or wounded by what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 30,907 (as of Dec. 10) dead and injured from "non-hostile" causes.* The actual total is almost 83,000 because the Pentagon choses not to count as "Iraq casualties" the aproximetly 20,000 casualties discovered only after they returned from Iraq--mainly brain trauma from explosions.** US media divert attention from the actual cost in American life and limb by routinely reporting only the total killed (3,895 as of Dec. 18) and rarely mentioning the 28,711 wounded in combat. To further minimize public perception of the cost, they cover for the Pentagon by ignoring the 30,185 (as of Dec. 10)*** military victims of accidents and illness that caused death or were serious enough to require medical evacuation, although the 3,895 reported deaths include 722 (up one last week) who died from those same causes, including 132 suicides. These totals include 530 Iraq combat casualties with homes of record in Oregon as of Dec. 8. Another 58 Oregonians are combat casualties in the Afgan occupation. These figures include deaths but not injuries from "non-hostile" causes. Reported monthly by the Pentagon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/STATE_OEF_OIF.pdf * The number of wounded is updated weekly (usually Tuesdays) by the Pentagon at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf. The dead are reported by Iraq Coalition Casualties http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ ** see USA Today, Nov. 23, 2007 *** The number of injured is reported by Iraq Coalition Casualties visit my website www.michaelmunk.com visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Senate votes for war 90-3 by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 14, 2007

Only three Senators-- Byrd (D-WV), Feingold (D-WI), and Sanders (I-VT)-- voted against $700 billion more for the Pentagon, including almost $200 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afganistan. On Wednesday only 45 members fo the House stood up against it. Clinton, Obama and five others (Biden, Boxer, Dodd, Innoye and McCain) didn't vote. All west coast Senators, including Wyden, voted for it except the missing the action Boxer. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Blumenauer backs war spending, DeFazio and Wu oppose by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 14, 2007

DeFazio and Wu were among the only 45 Dems who stood against the Pentagon's $700 Billion bloated war machine, including almost $200 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afganistan Dec. 12. Inexplicably, Blumenauer (Hooley is sick and didn't vote) joined Baird, Walden and almost all the Republicans in another Dem collapse before the phoney threats of filibuster and veto by the regime in Washington. Portlanders should ask him why. Here are the few who may be more favorably looked upon in the history books--the rest will carry the burden of shame. Baldwin Capuano Clarke Cleaver Conyers Davis (IL) DeFazio Doggett Duncan Ellison Fattah Filner Frank (MA) Goode Grijalva Gutierrez Hinchey Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jones (OH) Kucinich Lee Lewis (GA) Markey McDermott McGovern Meeks (NY) Michaud Miller, George Moore (WI) Olver Pallone Pastor Payne Petri Schakowsky Sensenbrenner Serrano Stark Tierney Towns Velázquez Waters Watson Welch (VT) Woolsey Wu Wynn Yarmuth visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

to the Oregonian editor by Michael Munk Tue, Dec 11, 2007

To: Cc: That The Oregonian would give a property rights- fossil fuel radical nutcake like Randal O'Toole ("Contrarian unabashedly bashes Portland" Dec 10) a front page hede and generous jump space testifies to the rightwing bias of your owners and editors. If you were to challenge the far-right skewing of our nation's "legitimate" political spectrum, you'd have to balance it with to a genuine radical socialist "contrarian view"of our urban condition. You should have answered PSU's mainstream Ethan Seltzer when he asked why "anyone would waste time writing about O'Toole -- or even listening to what he has to say." And did you ask Homer Williams, one of Portland's leading land speculators who thrives on "growth," why he thinks O'Toole is an "idiot." Michael Munk visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Portland 's corporate welfare for Denver speculator by Michael Munk Tue, Dec 11, 2007

Hotel above Macy's overshoots its budget Development: - Sage Hospitality Resources hopes public money can help fill a $15 million budget hole before Dec. 31 December 11, 2007 RYAN FRANK The Oregonian Staff The hotel above downtown Portland's renovated Macy's store is $15 million over its construction budget and its developers want an infusion of public money to finish. Sage Hospitality Resources of Denver has defaulted on its construction loan because it can't cover what's now a $133 million renovation. The developer has until Dec. 31 to plug the budget gap. On Wednesday, Portland's urban-renewal agency, the Portland Development Commission, will consider boosting its low-interest loans by $3 million to $16.9 million. The rising costs fall primarily into two categories: Unexpected construction trouble and Sage's recognition that its original design wasn't upscale enough. The construction headaches include a false 14th floor that had to be replaced. They continued when Sage found lead paint on columns obscured by concrete. The design upgrades include local art, a fancier atrium, nicer plumbing fixtures and stone and glass in the grand staircase. The new designs would attract more guests and boost revenues, said Ken J. Geist, a Sage executive vice president. "As with many historic properties, you do not discover things until you start ripping it apart," Geist said. The Nines hotel is a major piece of Portland's ongoing efforts to revitalize downtown. The 1909 Meier & Frank building on Southwest Fifth Avenue was considered an icon in disrepair for years. In 2005, the city brokered a public-private deal that called for Macy's to renovate the bottom floors and Sage to put a hotel on the top floors. City officials hoped the renovation would spur other landowners to reinvest in downtown. Read the whole scandalous story at http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/1197352506216900.xml&coll=7FACTBOX visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Oregon war casualties rise to 588 by Michael Munk Tue, Dec 11, 2007

US military occupation forces in Iraq suffered at least 37 combat casualties in the week ending Dec. 11, as the official total reached at least 62,133. The total includes 31,828 killed or wounded by what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 30,305 (a figure now more than two months old) dead and injured from "non-hostile" causes.* The Pentagon does not count casualties discovered after they returned from Iraq which total about 20,000-mainly brain trauma from explosions.** US media divert attention from the actual cost in American life and limb by routinely reporting only the total killed (3,888 as of Dec. 11) and rarely mentioning the 28,661 wounded in combat. To further minimize public perception of the cost, they cover for the Pentagon by ignoring the 30,305 (as of Oct. 1)*** military victims of accidents and illness that caused death or were serious enough to require medical evacuation, although the 3,888 reported deaths include 721 (up one last week) who died from those same causes, including 130 suicides. These totals include 530 Iraq combat casualties with homes of record in Oregon as of Dec. 8. Another 58 Oregonians are combat casualties in the Afgan occupation. These figures include deaths but not injuries from "non-hostile" causes. Reported monthly by the Pentagon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/STATE_OEF_OIF.pdf * The number of wounded is updated weekly (usually Tuesdays) by the Pentagon at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf. The dead are reported by Iraq Coalition Casualties http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ ** see USA Today, Nov. 23, 2007 *** The number of injured was updated monthly by the Pentagon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/gwot_reason.pdf but this site seems to have closed. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Dec 13: Ask your Rep to act against Iran attack by Michael Munk Mon, Dec 10, 2007

From MoveON: This week is a key moment in the fight to block a Bush war against Iran. Can you help Thursday in Oregon and Washington? News that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program years ago has President Bush on the defensive-scrambling to explain why he misled the nation and saber-rattled against Iran. But instead of changing course, Bush is recklessly continuing his march to war. Now's the time to demand that Congress step in. This Thursday in over 300 other places across the country-local MoveOn members are getting together to demand that Congress make clear that President Bush has no authority to attack Iran. Can you join us for a delivery to yopur Re in Congress this Thursday, Dec. 13, 2007, at 12:00 PM? Here are the details. Thursday, 13 Dec 2007, 12:00 PM Petition Delivery Park&Main Street 3 registered participant(s) (50 maximum) 620 SW Main, Suite 606 Portland, OR 97205 Description We will meet just around the corner from David Wu's Portland office at the park across the street. Very disability-accessible, kids and elders welcome! Thursday, 13 Dec 2007, 12:00 PM Deliver Iran Petitions to Rep. Blumenauer across NE Oregon St. from the state office bldg 4 registered participant(s) (500 maximum) 729 N.E. Oregon Street Portland, OR 97232 Directions: 700 block of NE Oregon St., across from the state office bldg. Description Please come join us as we deliver petitions to Rep. Blumenauer to express our concern about the possibility of a misguided war with Iran. Depending on how many of us there are, some or all of us will meet with a member of Rep. Blumenauer's staff to ask for his help in blocking this awful possibility. Thursday, 13 Dec 2007, 12:00 PM Portland's "Stop Bush's Iran War" Petition 6th & Main 0 registered participant(s) (30 maximum) 3950 SW 102nd Avenue Apartment 116 Beaverton, OR 97005 Directions: Please use Google maps to find either my residence or 6th & Main downtown. Description Hi everyone, We'll be assembling at 6th & Main in downtown Portland at noon. We'll wait 15 minutes to allow everyone to assemble and then deliver the petition to Rep. David Wu. Looking forward to seeing you all there! Thursday, 13 Dec 2007, 12:00 PM Stop Bush's War with Iran Petition Rep. Darlene Hooley's Office 2 registered participant(s) (20 maximum) 21570 Willamette Drive West Linn, OR 97068 Description It is not handicap accessible Thursday, 13 Dec 2007, 12:00 PM Wake Up To Iran Intelligence SE corner of Mission and Commercial 0 registered participant(s) (1000 maximum) 315 Mission Street SE #101 Salem, OR 97302 Directions: Can be easily Googled. A map is available on Darlene Hooley's page on Google. Description We will deliver signed petitions regarding the fact that the President cannot wage war against Iran without the consent of Congress. Thursday, 13 Dec 2007, 12:00 PM "Stop Bush's War with Iran" Petition Delivery Rep. Peter DeFazio's Office, Eugene Federal Bldg. 0 registered participant(s) (100 maximum) 405 East 8th Ave. #2030 Eugene, OR 97401 Directions: New Federal Building. Call DeFazio's office at 465-6732 for directions. Description We will meet outside the Federal Building and then go inside the building to deliver the petitions to Rep. DeFazio and thank him for his steadfast opposition to the Bush Administration's Iran policy. Handicap Accessible Thursday, 13 Dec 2007, 4:00 PM No Free Pass on a War With Iran Brian Baird's Olympia Office 1 registered participant(s) (50 maximum) 120 Union Ave. SE Suite 105 Olympia, WA 98501 Directions: Baird's office is across Capitol Blvd. from Subway, kittycorner from Meconi's, and across Union from the United Churches parking lot. Description This is a simple action. We are going to present Brian Baird's staff with a petition with thousands of signatures from MoveOn members urging Brian to support HJR 64, which would bar the president from unilaterally attacking Iran. Thursday, 13 Dec 2007, 12:00 PM Petition Delivery Bend Office 0 registered participant(s) (100 maximum) 131 NW Hawthorne, Ste. 201 Bend, OR 97701 Description Petition delivery to Congressman Walden. Thursday, 13 Dec 2007, 12:00 PM Deliver petitions against war with Iran Across from Norm Dicks Government Center, meet in front of Admiral Theater, Pacific and 6th 0 registered participant(s) (1000 maximum) 345 6th, suite 500 Bremerton, WA 98337 Description Deliver petitions to Norm Dicks against war with Iran. This is the best way to make our wishes known to government officials. Please plan to use your lunch hour for this. Thursday, 13 Dec 2007, 12:00 PM NO to War with Iran Rep. Dave Reichert's Office in Mercer Village 5 registered participant(s) (40 maximum) 2737 78th Ave. SE, #202 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Description We'll hand deliver anti-war petitions to Congressman Dave Reichert with the signatures of voters in WA's 8th District. The petitions strongly oppose unilateral US military action against Iran. As America remains mired in endless military occupations in Iraq & Afghanistan we will not allow Bush/Cheney to instigate further neo-con horror. Thursday, 13 Dec 2007, 12:00 PM Deliver Petitions Against Iran Action to McDermott's Office McDermott's Office 3 registered participant(s) (100 maximum) 1807 7th Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Description Join us to deliver the petitions that MoveOn members have signed to force congressional approval before any action is taken toward Iran. Thursday, 13 Dec 2007, 12:00 PM Stop Bush's War with Iran Between Wall and Hewitt 1 registered participant(s) (20 maximum) 2930 Wetmore Everett, WA 98201 Directions: It's downtown on Wetmore, between Wall and Hewitt. Please bring a clipboard and pens. Description Greet people in front of Rep Rick Larsen's office with petitions protesting Bush's desire to have war with Iran. Thursday, 13 Dec 2007, 12:15 PM deliver petition to Rep Norm Dicks Rep Dick's office 2 registered participant(s) (500 maximum) 332 East Fifth Port Angeles, WA 98382 Description Let's gather to present the signature positions against war on Iran at the office of Representative Norm Dicks. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Dec 11: CELEBRATE GRACE PALEY'S LIFE AND WORK by Michael Munk Fri, Dec 7, 2007

An Interest in Life: GRACE PALEY Grace Paley, one of this country's most honored and best loved writers, died several months ago on August 22. Her commitment to anti-militarism, environmentalism, feminism and anti-racism was inseparable from her stories, essays and poems. CELEBRATE GRACE PALEY'S LIFE AND WORK Tuesday, December 11 @ 7 pm Broadway Books 1714 NE Broadway 503.284.1726 Grace visited and taught in Oregon, and had many friends, students and colleagues who will tell stories about her and read from her work: Ursula K. LeGuin, Elisabeth Linder, Judith Arcana, Elinor Langer, Marjorie Sandor, Judith Barrington, Miriam Budner, Nancy LaPaglia, Paulann Peterson, Ruth Gundle, Martha Roth, Gwyn Kirk, and Rebecca Gundle. The evening will also include some chances for audience participation, and cake. Commemorating Grace's membership in the War Resisters League for nearly fifty years, 10% of Broadway Books’ sales at the event will be donated to the Portland chapter’s Military and Draft Counseling Project.

On Merkley and the war by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 5, 2007

Kiss of death? Schumer for Merkley by Michael Munk Wed, Dec 5, 2007

It's worth noting that Chuck Schumer, together with Diane Feinstein, is responsible for an attorney general who can't say waterboarding is torture in order to shield his President from a war crimes tribunal. And now the same Schumer, as bag man for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is spending its money on the Oregon primary to persuade Dems to put up Jeff Merkley against Gordon Smith. But many of those Dems remember Merkley's enthusiastic support for the Iraq invasion and occupation and sense that Steve Novick might offer Oregonians a clearer choice. Nevertheless, the local Dem establishment except for Les AuCoin (minus Elizabeth Furse who continues her outrageous endorsement of Smith and other Republicans) are on board with Schumer and Merkley. Merkley has the Chuck Schumer vote The Oregonian, December 04, 2007 by Steve Duin I n the grand scheme of elective politics, $93,000 is chump change, a weekend ad blitz, a friendly bet between CEOs on the Civil War. For the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Portland, said, "$93,000 is a rounding error." But the DSCC's decision to spend $93,000 on Jeff Merkley's fledgling U.S. Senate campaign is further evidence that the party's chief fundraising committee wants to pick the Democrat candidate before Oregon voters do. What's more, it's a harbinger of things -- and all the dollars -- to come in the battle with the Republican incumbent, Gordon Smith. As first reported in the Bend Bulletin, the DSCC spent $93,000 in the third quarter to hype Merkley's kickoff tour and provide some opposition research. That probably bought Merkley, Oregon's speaker of the House, as many votes as the endorsements by Ted Kulongoski and Barbara Roberts. "It's a signal," Blumenauer said. "It's not a major commitment. They care about this race and they're watching. But there are levels of engagement." The symbolism in that signal -- and the promotion of Merkley as the anointed one on the DSCC Web site -- understandably irks Steve Novick, who fared marginally better than Merkley against Smith in a November Roll Call poll. "It's their job to help Democrats beat Republicans, not to take sides in a primary," Novick said Sunday. "What sense does it make for the DSCC to use the money they've raised from Democrats all over the country not to fight Republicans but to put their thumb on the scale of a primary between Democrats?" Perfect sense, I suppose, if you're betting that a traditional progressive has a better shot than an authentic iconoclast. Former U.S. Rep. Les AuCoin bet differently Monday. "I like and respect Jeff Merkley," AuCoin said. "At another time, in a different election, I'd be happy to endorse him." But AuCoin, who lives in Ashland, has been unnerved by the "Republican Lite" policies of the Democrat centrists such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who recruited Merkley and won't give Novick the time of day. "We've got a Republican Party that is taking us toward an authoritarianism I would have never thought possible," AuCoin said. "And I don't see a commensurate sense of outrage among Democrats to fight that battle. "That's why I'm for Novick. Gordon Smith is a very talented, traditional politician. I believe Steve Novick to be a shrewder, tougher, better fighter against this galloping madness, this clear and present danger." Blumenauer doesn't believe the DSCC is focused on Oregon to the extent that it's promoting Mark Udall in Colorado, Mark Warner in Virginia and Tom Allen in Maine, and defending Mary Landrieu in Louisiana. But as the drive for control of the Senate intensifies come spring, Blumenauer believes Oregon will be flooded with politicking that will rival, even dwarf, the tobacco industry's jihad against Measure 50: "I'd take the bet that we'll see more money spent here on the U.S. Senate race than in any time in history. Gordon will have all the money he needs. You'll see a well-funded challenger." Yet the candidates' campaigns, Blumenauer said, "will only be 10-12 percent of the media activity. All the rest will be everybody defining you and beating you up, and doing the same to your opponent. Once this race gets up onto the radar screen, you'll see swift-boating like you've never seen before. It's going to be a wild time. "And that's what people should be outraged about." Steve Duin: 503-221-8597; 1320 S.W. Broadway, Portland, OR 97201 steveduin@news.oregonian.com http://blog.oregonlive.com/steveduin visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Oregonians to guard those permanent bases by Michael Munk Tue, Dec 4, 2007

Oregon ,which has already suffered at least 584 combat casualties in the wars of the regime in Washington, is now ordered to add a 3,500 member National Gurad unit to the occupation of Iraq in the summer of 2009. Its mission will be to guard permanent US bases and their supply routes.. The date itself --more than six years after the invasion--confirms that the Oregonians will be guarding the "permanent" (or "enduring" ) bases built at the cost of billions of dollars to assure control of Iraq's oil. This was and remains the strategic objective of the Bush administration's invasion and appears to be that "vital US interest in Iraq" that Hillary Clinton supports but refuses to identify. The background is all here in Tom Ebgelhardt's careful analysis. It offers very recent evidence for my long term contention that the NYTimes, the most authoritative US mainstream media, consistently ignores both the fundamental US efforts to control Iraqi oil and the establishment of permanent/enduting bases from which to control it. . Iraq as a Pentagon Construction Site: How the Bush Administration "Endures" By Tom Engelhardt TomDispatch.com Sunday 02 December 2007 The title of the agreement, signed by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki in a "video conference" last week, and carefully labeled as a "non-binding" set of principles for further negotiations, was a mouthful: a "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America." Whew! Words matter, of course. They seldom turn up by accident in official documents or statements. Last week, in the first reports on this "declaration," one of those words that matter caught my attention. Actually, it wasn't in the declaration itself, where the key phrase was "long-term relationship" (something in the lives of private individuals that falls just short of a marriage), but in a "fact-sheet" issued by the White House. Here's the relevant line: "Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq." Of course, "enduring" there bears the same relationship to permanency as "long-term relationship" does to marriage. In a number of the early news reports, that word "enduring," part of the "enduring relationship" that the Iraqi leadership supposedly "asked for," was put into (or near) the mouths of "Iraqi leaders" or of the Iraqi prime minister himself. It also achieved a certain prominence in the post-declaration "press gaggle" conducted by the man coordinating this process out of the Oval Office, the President's so-called War Tsar, Gen. Douglas Lute. He said of the document: "It signals a commitment of both their government and the United States to an enduring relationship based on mutual interests." In trying to imagine any Iraqi leader actually requesting that "enduring" relationship, something kept nagging at me. After all, those mutual vows of longevity were to be taken in a well publicized civil ceremony in a world in which, when it comes to the American presidential embrace, don't-ask/don't-tell is usually the preferred course of action for foreign leaders. Finally, I remembered where I had seen that word "enduring" before in a situation that also involved a "long-term relationship." It had been four-and-a-half years earlier and not coming out of the mouths of Iraqi officials either. Back in April 2003, just after Baghdad fell to American troops, Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt reported on the front page of the New York Times that the Pentagon had launched its invasion the previous month with plans for four "permanent bases" in out of the way parts of Iraq already on the drawing board. Since then, the Pentagon has indeed sunk billions of dollars into building those mega-bases (with a couple of extra ones thrown in) at or near the places mentioned by Shanker and Schmitt. When questioned by reporters at the time about whether such "permanent bases" were in the works, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the U.S. was "unlikely to seek any permanent or long-term' bases in Iraq" - and that was that. The Times' piece essentially went down the mainstream-media memory hole. On this subject, the official position of the Bush administration has never changed. Just last week, for instance, General Lute slipped up, in response to a question at his press gaggle. The exchange went like this: "Q: And permanent bases? "GENERAL LUTE: Likewise. That's another dimension of continuing U.S. support to the government of Iraq, and will certainly be a key item for negotiation next year." White House spokesperson Dana Perino quickly issued a denial, saying: "We do not seek permanent bases in Iraq." Back in 2003, Pentagon officials, already seeking to avoid that potentially explosive "permanent" tag, plucked "enduring" out of the military lexicon and began referring to such bases, charmingly enough, as "enduring camps." And the word remains with us - connected to bases and occupations anywhere. For instance, of a planned expansion of Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, a Col. Jonathan Ives told an AP reporter recently, "We've grown in our commitment to Afghanistan by putting another brigade (of troops) here, and with that we know that we're going to have an enduring presence. So this is going to become a long-term base for us, whether that means five years, 10 years - we don't know." Still, whatever they were called, the bases went up on an impressive scale, massively fortified, sometimes 15-20 square miles in area, housing up to tens of thousands of troops and private contractors, with multiple bus routes, traffic lights, fast-food restaurants, PXs, and other amenities of home, and reeking of the kind of investment that practically shouts out for, minimally, a relationship of a distinctly "enduring" nature. The Facts on Land - and Sea These were part of what should be considered the facts on the ground in Iraq, though, between April 2003 and the present, they were rarely reported on or debated in the mainstream in the U.S. But if you place those mega-bases (not to speak of the more than 100 smaller ones built at one point or another) in the context of early Bush administration plans for the Iraqi military, things quickly begin to make more sense. Remember, Iraq is essentially the hot seat at the center of the Middle East. It had, in the previous two-plus decades fought an eight-year war with neighboring Iran, invaded neighboring Kuwait, and been invaded itself. And yet, the new Coalition Provisional Authority, run by the President's personal envoy, L. Paul Bremer III, promptly disbanded the Iraqi military. This is now accepted as a goof of the first order when it came to sparking an insurgency. But, in terms of Bush administration planning, it was no mistake at all. At the time, the Pentagon made it quite clear that its plan for a future Iraqi military was for a force of 40,000 lightly armed troops - meant to do little more than patrol the country's borders. (Saddam Hussein's army had been something like a 600,000-man force.) It was, in other words, to be a Military Lite - and there was essentially to be no Iraqi air force. In other words, in one of the more heavily armed and tension-ridden regions of the planet, Iraq was to become a Middle Eastern Costa Rica - if, that is, you didn't assume that the U.S. Armed Forces, from those four "enduring camps" somewhere outside Iraq's major cities, including a giant air base at Balad, north of Baghdad, and with the back-up help of U.S. Naval forces in the Persian Gulf, were to serve as the real Iraqi military for the foreseeable future. Again, it's necessary to put these facts on the ground in a larger - in this case, pre-invasion - geopolitical context. From the first Gulf War on, Saudi Arabia, the largest producer of energy on the planet, was being groomed as the American military bastion in the heart of the Middle East. But the Saudis grew uncomfortable - think here, the claims of Osama bin Laden and Co. that U.S. troops were defiling the Kingdom and its holy places - with the Pentagon's elaborate enduring camps on its territory. Something had to give - and it wasn't going to be the American military presence in the Middle East. The answer undoubtedly seemed clear enough to top Bush administration officials. As an anonymous American diplomat told the Sunday Herald of Scotland back in October 2002, "A rehabilitated Iraq is the only sound long-term strategic alternative to Saudi Arabia. It's not just a case of swopping horses in mid-stream, the impending U.S. regime change in Baghdad is a strategic necessity." As those officials imagined it - and as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz predicted - by the fall of 2003, major American military operations in the region would have been re-organized around Iraq, even as American forces there would be drawn down to perhaps 30,000-40,000 troops stationed eternally at those "enduring camps." In addition, a group of Iraqi secular exiles, friendly to the United States, would be in power in Baghdad, backed by the occupation and ready to open up the Iraqi economy, especially its oil industry to Western (particularly American) multinationals. Americans and their allies and private contractors would, quite literally, have free run of the country, the equivalent of nineteenth century colonial extraterritoriality (something "legally" institutionalized in June 2004, thanks to Order 17, issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority, just before it officially turned over "sovereignty" to the Iraqis); and, sooner or later, a Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA would be "negotiated" that would define the rights of American troops garrisoned in that country. At that point, the U.S. would have successfully repositioned itself militarily in relation to the oil heartlands of the planet. It would also have essentially encircled a second member of the "axis of evil," Iran (once you included the numerous new U.S. bases that had been built and were being expanded in occupied Afghanistan as part of the ongoing war against the Taliban). It would be triumphant and dominant and, with its Israeli ally, militarily beyond challenge in the region. The cowing of, collapse of, or destruction of the Syrian and Iranian regimes would surely follow in short order. Of course, much of this never came about as planned. It turned out that, once the Sunni insurgency gained traction, the Bush administration had little choice but to reconstitute a sizeable, if still relatively lightly armed, Iraqi military (as a largely Shiite force) and then, more recently, arm Sunni militias as well, possibly opening the way for future clashes of a major nature. It had to accept a Shiite regime locked inside the highly fortified Green Zone of the Iraqi capital that was religious, sectarian, largely powerless, and allied to some degree with Iran. It had to accept chaos, significant and unexpected casualties, continual urban warfare, and an enormous strain and drain on its armed forces (as well as a black hole of distraction from other global issues). None of this had been predicted, or imagined, by Bush's top officials. On the other hand, the Bush administration has demonstrated significant "endurance" of its own, especially when it came to the linked issues of oil and bases. In a recent report for Harper's Magazine, "The Black Box, Inside Iraq's Oil Machine," Luke Mitchell describes traveling the southern Iraqi oil field of Rumaila with a petroleum engineer working for Foster Wheeler, a Houston engineering firm hired by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "to oversee much of the oilfield reconstruction," and protected by private guards employed by the British security company Erinys. He describes what's left of the Iraqi oil industry after decades of war, sanctions, civil war, sabotage, and black-market theft - a run-down industrial plant with a rusting delivery system that, at a technical level, is now largely in the hands of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, the State Department, and private contractors like KBR, the former division of Halliburton. At the most basic level, he reports that many of "Iraq's native oil professionals," who heroically patched up and held together a broken system in the years after the first Gulf War, have (along with so many other Iraqi professionals) fled the country. He writes: "The Wall Street Journal in 2006 called this flight a 'petroleum exodus' and reported that about a hundred oil workers had been murdered since the war began and that 'of the top hundred of so managers running the Iraqi oil ministry and its branches in 2003, about two-thirds are no longer at their jobs.' Now most of the [oil] engineers in Iraq are from Texas and Oklahoma." Similarly, in Baghdad, the government of Prime Minister Maliki is not expected to handle the crucial energy problems of its country alone. Here's a relevant (if well-buried) passage from a recent New York Times piece on the subject: "Earlier this month, the White House dispatched several senior aides to Baghdad to work with the Iraqis on specific legislative areas. They include the under secretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs, Reuben Jeffery III, who is working on the budget and oil law" This is what passes for "sovereignty" in present-day Iraq. In this context, the following line of text about agreed-upon subjects for negotiation in last week's Bush/Maliki "declaration" caused eyebrows to be raised (at least abroad): "Facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq." As the British Guardian put the matter: "The promise was immediately seen as a potential bonanza for American oil companies." A BBC report commented, "Correspondents say US investors benefiting from preferential treatment could earn huge profits from Iraq's vast oil reserves, causing widespread resentment among Iraqis." (American coverage regularly ignores or plays down the oil aspect of the Bush administration's Iraq policies, even though that country has the third largest reserves on the planet.) Bases, Bases Everywhere Among the most tenacious and enduring Bush administration facts on the ground are those giant bases, still largely ignored - with honorable exceptions - by the mainstream media. Thom Shanker and Cara Buckley of the New York Times, to give but one example, managed to write that paper's major piece about the joint "declaration" without mentioning the word "base," no less "permanent," and only Gen. Lute's slip made the permanence of bases a minor note in other mainstream reports. And yet it's not just that the building of bases did go on - and on a remarkable scale - but that it continues today. Whatever the descriptive labels, the Pentagon, throughout this whole period, has continued to create, base by base, the sort of "facts" that any negotiations, no matter who engages in them, will need to take into account. And the ramping up of the already gigantic "mega-bases" in Iraq proceeds apace. Recent reports indicate that the Pentagon will call on Congress to pony up another billion dollars soon enough for further upgrades and "improvements." We also know that frantic construction has been under way on three new bases of varying sizes. The most obvious of these - though it's seldom thought of this way - is the gigantic new U.S. Embassy, possibly the largest in the world, being built on an almost Vatican-sized plot of land inside Baghdad's Green Zone. It is meant to be a citadel, a hardened universe of its own, in, but not of, the Iraqi capital. In recent months, it has also turned into a construction nightmare, soaking up another $144 million in American taxpayer monies, bringing its price tag to three-quarters of a billion dollars and still climbing. It is to house 1,000 or so "diplomats," with perhaps a few thousand extra security guards and hired hands of every sort. When, in the future, you read in the papers about administration plans to withdraw American forces to bases "outside of Iraqi urban areas," note that there will continue to be a major base in the heart of the Iraqi capital for who knows how long to come. As the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler put it, the 21-building compound "is viewed by some officials as a key element of building a sustainable, long-term diplomatic presence in Baghdad." Presence, yes, but diplomatic? In the meantime, a relatively small base, "Combat Outpost Shocker," provocatively placed within a few kilometers of the Iranian border, has been rushed to completion this fall on a mere $5 million construction contract. And only in the last weeks, reports have emerged on the latest U.S. base under construction, uniquely being built on a key oil-exporting platform in the waters off the southern Iraqi port of Basra and meant for the U.S. Navy and allies. Such a base gives meaning to this passage in the Bush/Maliki declaration: "Providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace." As the British Telegraph described this multi-million dollar project: "The US-led coalition is building a permanent security base on Iraq's oil pumping platforms in the Gulf to act as the nerve centre' of efforts to protect the country's most vital strategic asset." Chip Cummins of the Wall Street Journal summed up the project this way in a piece headlined, "U.S. Digs In to Guard Iraq Oil Exports - Long-Term Presence Planned at Persian Gulf Terminals Viewed as Vulnerable": "[T]he new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn't shrinking anytime soon: American officials are girding for an open-ended commitment to protect the country's oil industry." Though you'd never know it from mainstream reporting, the single enduring fact of the Iraq War may be this constant building and upgrading of U.S. bases. Since the Times revealed those base-building plans back in the spring of 2003, Iraq has essentially been a vast construction site for the Pentagon. The American media did, in the end, come to focus on the civilian "reconstruction" of Iraq which, from the rebuilding of electricity-production facilities to the construction of a new police academy has proved a catastrophic mixture of crony capitalism, graft, corruption, theft, inefficiency, and sabotage. But there has been next to no focus on the construction success story of the Iraq War and occupation: those bases. In this way, whatever the disasters of its misbegotten war, the Bush administration has, in a sense, itself "endured" in Iraq. Now, with only a year left, its officials clearly hope to write that endurance and those "enduring camps" into the genetic code of both countries - an "enduring relationship" meant to outlast January 2009 and to outflank any future administration. In fact, by some official projections, the bases are meant to be occupied for up to 50 to 60 years without ever becoming "permanent." You can, of course, claim that the Iraqis "asked for" this new, "enduring relationship," as the declaration so politely suggests. It is certainly true that, as part of the bargain, the Bush administration is offering to defend its "boys" to the hilt against almost any conceivable eventuality, including the sort of internal coup that it has, these last years, been rumored to have considered launching itself. In an attempt to make an end-run around Congress, administration officials continue to present what is to be negotiated as merely a typical SOFA-style agreement. "There are about a hundred countries around the world with which we have [such] bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements," Gen. Lute said reassuringly, indicating that this matter would be handled by the executive branch without significant input from Congress. The guarantees the Bush administration seems ready to offer the Maliki government, however, clearly rise to treaty level and, if we had even a faintly assertive Congress, would surely require the advice and consent of the Senate. Iraqi officials have already made clear that such an agreement will have to pass through their parliament in a country where the idea of "enduring" U.S. bases in an "enduring" relationship is bound to be exceedingly unpopular. Still, a formula for the future is obviously being put in place and, after more than four years of frenzied construction, the housing for it, so to speak, is more than ready. As the Washington Post described the plan, "Iraqi officials said that under the proposed formula, Iraq would get full responsibility for internal security and U.S. troops would relocate to bases outside the cities. Iraqi officials foresee a long-term presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops" No matter what comes out of the mouths of Iraqi officials, though, what's "enduring" in all this is deeply Pentagonish and has emerged from the Bush administration's earliest dreams about reshaping the Middle East and achieving global domination of an unprecedented sort. It's a case, as the old Joni Mitchell song put it, of going "round and round and round in the circle game." [Note: Spencer Ackerman has been offering especially good coverage of developments surrounding the recent Bush/Maliki declaration at TPM Muckraker. I'd also like to offer one of my periodic statements of thanks to Iraq-oriented sites that give me daily aid and succor in gathering crucial material and analysis, especially Juan Cole's invaluable Informed Comment, Antiwar.com, and Paul Woodward's The War in Context.] -------- Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com, is the co-founder of the American Empire Project. His book, The End of Victory Culture (University of Massachusetts Press), has recently been thoroughly updated in a newly issued edition that deals with victory culture's crash-and-burn sequel in Iraq. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Friday: Naomi Klein in Portland by Michael Munk Mon, Dec 3, 2007

Naomi Klein December 7, 2007 7:00pm First Unitarian Church 1011 SW 12th Avenue Portland, OR (503) 228-6389 Free. Seating is limited to first come, first served. This event is sponsored by Powell's. visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Oregon's Jackson Co in the news (but not the Big O?) by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 29, 2007

Public Libraries for Profit By Akito Yoshikane In These Times Tuesday 27 November 2007 In late October, Jackson County, Ore., re-opened the doors to 15 of its public libraries after a lack of funds had forced them shut on April 6 - the largest library closure in U.S. history. However, as patrons returned to the bookshelves in the southern Oregon county, they learned that their libraries are now under private, for-profit management. Oregon suffered a $150 million budget shortfall - and Jackson County a $23 million loss - in fiscal year 2007, after the federal government failed to renew a $400 million annual subsidy designed to help rural communities suffering from the decline in timber-logging revenue. Though Congress eventually extended the funding by one year, Jackson County commissioners, strapped for cash, voted to outsource library services to the Maryland-based Library Systems & Services (LSSI), which specializes in library management. Founded in 1981, the company initially operated federal libraries during President Reagan's era of privatizing government services and contracts. LSSI now privately manages more than 50 public libraries nationwide. Companies like LSSI focus on counties that are desperate to keep their public agencies afloat but lack sufficient funds to do so. In the case of Jackson County, officials offered LSSI a five-year contract worth $3 million annually, with an additional $1.3 million reserved for building maintenance. The deal cuts in almost half what the county previously spent. Public libraries in Dallas, Riverside, Calif., and Finney County, Kan. have also hired LSSI staff. But the trend of farming out public libraries to a private, profit-oriented business has raised concerns. For one, private companies are not subject to the same oversight as are public institutions. More importantly, libraries have long been considered democratic bodies built on the cornerstone of information diversity, transparency and intellectual freedom. "Libraries tend to reflect the communities they serve," says Loriene Roy, president of the American Library Association (ALA). "[They] respond to community needs and they do so within their budget, but they are not set up to make profit. A company coming in that doesn't exist within the community that is profit-making, you can see that there is a different attitude and there is concern about that." Under public management, transparency tends to be clear. As much as 80 percent of public library funding can come from local tax support, making libraries accountable to a board of trustees with representatives from the community. While municipalities have for years contracted "non-library services," such as janitorial duties or photocopying, the outsourcing of "core" library services - cataloging and use of automated systems and material acquisition - has increased. This prompted the ALA to create an Outsourcing Task Force and conduct a study on privatization in 1999. Two years later, the ALA council adopted a stance opposing outsourcing, stating that libraries are "not a simple commodity" but "are an essential public good" that should be "directly accountable to the public they serve." LSSI makes its money from the difference between the budget and what it spends - or does not spend. It typically downsizes staff, centralizes accounting and human resource services, and buys books in bulk, all while passing down administrative costs - sometimes as high as 15 percent - to patrons as general handling fees. (The company does not disclose its earnings.) "They operate entirely with our tax dollars but they have no transparency," says Buck Eichler, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 503 in Jackson County, whose organization represented the public library employees. "They're completely secretive about their books. We no longer know where our tax dollars are going." Although the total cost of running the libraries was cut, so, too, were library hours. Now, most libraries in Jackson County are open at half the normal operating times and are closed on Sundays, totaling only 24 hours a week, down from the 40-plus hours before the April shutdown. The exceptions are the libraries in Ashland and Talent, which will stay open for 40 hours and 36 hours a week, respectively, after local residents recently voted in favor of a levy on monthly utility surcharges in order to pay for the extra hours. While counties still own the buildings and retain control of library policies, LSSI is in charge of hiring employees, which has caused mixed reactions. "I don't have any problems with it at all," says Kim Wolfe, manager of the Medford branch. "I think it's a personal decision for each individual. The community is thrilled to have the libraries opening again. They're thanking us and they're glad they can come in and use our services." SEIU's Eichler, however, has said some workers have refused to go back to work under a private employer. "We don't want to sacrifice living wages at the expense of workers," says Eichler. LSSI brought back about 60 of the 88 people who were laid off, according to one library staffer. But now that they are no longer union employees, they've been subject to contractual changes in rights, benefits and disclosure information. Although salaries are comparable to what they were before, employees in the Jackson County Libraries are now no longer part of Oregon's pension system, which has been replaced with a 401(k) program. Medical benefits have also been cut, and salary levels have been "adjusted depending on market conditions," says Anne Billeter, a former Jackson County library manager. "I'm not saying that LSSI has a goal of union-busting, but it is certainly the net effect," says Eichler. Some areas have seen a backlash. In Bedford, Texas, after a community-wide petition campaign to oppose library outsourcing gathered 1,700 signatures in four days, city council members voted 4-3 to reject privatization in August. "If our library dies, this community dies," said Mark Gimenez, a local resident who attended the board meeting. But not every public library is celebrating victories. In Jackson-Madison County, Tenn., even after a community group lobbied against privatization, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled in April that the county board has a legal right to outsource. Thomas Hennen Jr., director of the Waukesha County Federated Library System in Wisconsin, says, "It is the urgent duty of public librarians to put the 'good' back into the 'public good' of the public library movement." Cheers, Mike check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

Oregon war casualties now 584 by Michael Munk Wed, Nov 28, 2007

Note that official numbers ignore casualties not discovered until after they left Iraq.(see below) US military occupation forces in Iraq suffered at least 55 combat casualties in the week ending Nov. 27, as the official total reached at least 62,044.* The total includes 31,744 killed or wounded by what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 30,300 (a figure now almost two months old) dead and injured from "non-hostile" causes.** US media divert attention from the actual cost in American life and limb by routinely reporting only the total killed (3,878 as of Nov.27) and rarely mentioning the 28,582 wounded in combat. To further minimize public perception of the cost, they cover for the Pentagon by ignoring the 30,300 (as of Oct. 1)** military victims of accidents and illness that caused death or were serious enough to require medical evacuation, although the 3,878 reported deaths include 716 (up one last week) who died from those same causes, including 130 suicides. USA Today reported Nov 23 that at least 20,000 US troops suffered brain trauma in Iraq but are not counted as "wounded in action." The reason they are excluded from official Pentagon figures is that "Soldiers and Marines whose wounds were discovered after they left Iraq are not added to the official casualty list, says Army Col. Robert Labutta, a neurologist and brain injury consultant for the Pentagon. This total includes 527 Iraq combat casualties with homes of record in Oregon as of Nov. 24. Another 57 Oregonians are combat casualties in the Afgan occupation. These figures include deaths but not injuries from "non-hostile" causes.Reported monthly by the Pentagon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/STATE_OEF_OIF.pdf ** The number of wounded is updated weekly (usually Tuesdays) by the Pentagon at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf. The dead are reported by Iraq Coalition Casualties http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ ** The number of injured is updated monthly by the Pentagon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/gwot_reason.pdf visit my website www.michaelmunk.com Cheers, Mike check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

Sunday Dec 2: Two Book Fairs by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 27, 2007

The annual Radical Book Fair sponsored by Portland Wobblies takes place 11AM- 5PM at Liberty Hall, 311 N. Ivy (near Emanuel Hospital).Lots of good stuff, including my Portland Red Guide, should be there. The annual Oregon Historical Society's "Holiday Cheer and Authors' Party" happens the same day from Noon to 4PM at OHS, 1200 SW Park Ave. The authors of many books on Portland and NW history will be signing copies including John Trombold's "Reading Portland: The City in Prose" (OHS Press,2007) and me and my "The Portland Red Guide: Sites & Stories of Our Radical Past" (Ooligan Press, 2007). visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Monday: City Club reads the Red Guide by Michael Munk Fri, Nov 23, 2007

7PM, Nov. 26 at 901 SW Washington St. It's open to the public, but City Club asks that attendees RSVP as = below: Portland City Club=20 Citizens Read=20 Buy your copy of this book from City Club and 10 percent of your = purchase benefits City Club of Portland! Copies available during regular = business hours at City Club office (901 S.W. Washington St.) Portland's radical past is November's Book Group selection =20 =20 What gets remembered and preserved as history? What is omitted? = How does our community's history inform our daily experiences? Michael = Munk's The Portland Red Guide: Sites and Stories From Our Radical Past = addresses these questions by illuminating stories of those who fought = for the freedoms many of us take for granted. Munk details Portland's radical legacy in a travel guide format, = complete with walking maps of points of interest. Learn about the = Portland Police Bureau's "Red Squad," the wildcat strikes of the = Industrial Workers of the World, Portland State University during the = 1960s and a cast of forgotten radicals, revolutionaries and oddballs. City Club's Citizens Read book group will read The Portland Red = Guide as its November selection; Munk will facilitate the discussion. = The book group will meet at 7 PM on Monday, November 26 at City Club = Commons (901 SW Washington). RSVP to Kim Adams McCool at (503)228-7231 = x103 or e-mail: kim@pdxcityclub.org. =20 =20 =20

What foreign fighters? by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 22, 2007

To the Editor, The Oregonian Re: your Nov. 22 hede "Most foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia, Libya" Having been under the impression that, except for token contingents of the "Coalition of the Willing," almost all foreign fighters in Iraq are from the U.S. itself, I was alarmed that you were reporting a new invasion. But I was soon relieved that the hede referred only to a tiny handful of some 700 foreigners the U.S. military claims have come to Iraq mainly from Saudi Arabia and Libya to help the Iraqis resist the occupation. Michael Munk visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

What foreign fighters? by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 22, 2007

To the Editor, The Oregonian Re: your Nov. 22 hede "Most foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia, Libya" Having been under the impression that, except for token contingents of the "Coalition of the Willing," almost all foreign fighters in Iraq are from the U.S. itself, I was alarmed that you were reporting a new invasion. But I was soon relieved that the hede referred only to a tiny handful of some 700 foreigners the U.S. military claims have come to Iraq mainly from Saudi Arabia and Libya to help the Iraqis resist the occupation. Michael Munk visit my website www.michaelmunk.com

Lions for Lambs still showing in Portland by Michael Munk Wed, Nov 21, 2007

This Thanksgiving weekend, its showing at the Broadway Metro 4, as well as Lloyd Mall 8 and Century Eastport 16 as well as several suburban theaters. In Defense of Robert Redford's 'Lions for Lambs' By Adam Howard, AlterNet. November 20, 2007. Lions for Lambs is stiff, preachy and probably too earnest for its own good, but it still deserves to be seen. Why? Because even though it's an old-fashioned movie with a time-worn plot line and features veteran stars like Robert Redford, Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep, it's an attempt to do something more than just entertain you for 90 minutes, and for that it should be applauded. If you're aware of United Artists' Lions for Lambs by now, it's probably more because of its almost immediate designation as a critical and commercial disaster. Nowadays if a film doesn't have almost immediate, colossal box office success, it's often treated as a bastard child by both the industry and the public at large. What's worse is that because the film dares to delve into our foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the corruption of our nation's media and the plight of our young enlistees, Lions for Lambs' poor performance has been cited as yet more proof that American audiences have no interest in political films anymore. First, this September, there was In The Valley of Elah, a drama about Iraq war vets and their families, which starred Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon. It received raves and is still considered an Oscar contender if for nothing else but "best actor" for Jones. But it was probably just released too early, before audiences were over tripe like The Game Plan and ready for weightier fare. It's grossed only $6 million. In the following month came Rendition, which boasted heartthrobs Jake Gyllenhaal and Reese Witherspoon but also mediocre reviews and a fairly vague and incomprehensible ad campaign. It also tanked with a total gross of $9 million. Despite the presence of megastars like Robert Redford, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise it's hard to understand why Hollywood would have thought Lions for Lambs would have performed any differently. It's made only $12 million in two weeks, the worst numbers of Tom Cruise's career when inflation is taken into account. It may have been better to release it like most smaller scale, more challenging films are nowadays, a few major cities first, then expansion to the masses. But for whatever reason, it was released in thousands of theaters to compete with the infinitely more mainstream entertainment like American Gangster ($101 million in three weeks) and Bee Movie ($94 million in three weeks). Lions for Lambs is already a flop and has already been derided by critics as "dull" (L.A. Times), "clunky" (New York Magazine) and "wince"-inducing (New Yorker). But someone really ought to stand up for its redeeming qualities as well admit as its clearly apparent faults. Lions for Lambs contains three interwoven narratives all taking place roughly within an hour or so. The first features a very strong Meryl Streep as a once principled progressive journalist who's now morphed into a somewhat less principled, but skeptical shill for a network modeled after CNN being given an exclusive interview by a neocon Republican senator, Jasper Irving, played by Tom Cruise with his usual mixture of smarm and charm. The story he's feeding her is about a small combat operation he's spearheaded in Afghanistan, which leads us to story No. 2, which provides the only real action in the traditional sense of the word and features two young soldiers played by Derek Luke (of Antowne Fisher) and Michael Peña (who you may recognize from Crash) involved in Sen. Irving's mission. The last story thread of Lions for Lambs features the film's director, Robert Redford, as the two soldiers' former college professor at an unnamed California university, who uses their decision to enlist in the Marines to set an example for one of his stereotypically apathetic young male students. The soldiers' efforts to pull off Sen. Irving's mission periodically interrupts what are essentially scenes of two people talking in a room. Cruise and Streep in his office. Redford and student (played by Andrew Garfield) in his. This is the film's most obvious problem. It's not cinematic enough. The film would make a dynamite play because the performances are fantastic and the dialogue first-rate if somewhat theatrical. But it's hard to justify shelling out $10 for what amounts to political debate. Then again, the debates are terrific. Take Cruise and Streep's scenes together. Cruise's senator is earnest and smooth, and he makes the neoconservative ideology seem almost sensible. He acknowledges mistakes but also perfectly captures the right-wing propensity to want to ignore the past and whitewash the future. Meanwhile Streep's character is full of contradictions as well. Highly suspicious of Cruise's motives and objectives, she is dealing with the guilt of having helped sell these wars at the outset, and so by the end of their confrontation, we come to feel that she is just as dirty as Cruise's senator. Redford has long established his progressive reputation, particularly with his environmental activism, and he brings his iconic stature to a role that could easily become fairly cliched, that of the idealistic, liberal professor. His dialogue is not remotely subtle and rarely deep but it also happens to be very right and delivered with such honesty and conviction that you'll likely be muttering in agreement with him as he does. "They bank on your apathy, they bank on your willful ignorance," Redford tells his student, "... How can you enjoy the good life when Rome is burning?" Therein lies the film's recurring theme, which is that those of us on the sidelines, whatever our political persuasion or professional position, need to get involved and to care about what's happening to our country. Redford's character is seen pleading in a flashback with Luke and Peña's characters, trying to talk them out of enlisting, but he later applauds them for what they did, even though he disagrees with the war's rationale. What angers Redford's character, and I presume Redford the actor-director as well, is how young men like these two, often minorities, are sent off to war by unapologetic, insincere politicians like the character Cruise plays. Redford gets his movie title from a quote by a World War I German general who would say of his opposition, "Never have I seen such lions led by such lambs." It is a bitter irony that the two most noble characters in the film, the students played by Luke and Peña, opt to get involved but make a poor choice when they do. The film's message is one we've heard before and one many people in the audience won't need convincing to agree with, but that doesn't make it any less important, compelling or moving -- which this film ultimately is. No, it doesn't have a nude, computer-animated Angelina Jolie like Beowulf. But it what it does possess is a heartfelt attempt to awake Americans from their slumber and to shake things up. It took real guts for Redford to make such an unabashedly liberal movie that would almost surely invite a torrent of criticism for being uncommercial and too political. That's enough to make this movie worthy of attention and re-examination. check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

DeFazio & Wu hit Blumenauer's stand against the war by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 20, 2007

Today's Big O report on Oregon (& SW WA) congressional delegation's views of Congress and the wars http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1195530953295100.xml&coll=7 finds that-- except for the Bush favorite Baird and the lone Republican Walden-- expressed varying degress of opposition. And it contains this outrageous item: "Blumenauer was one of 15 House members who voted against a Pentagon spending bill to protest the war. Within hours of the vote fellow Democrats Reps. Peter De Fazio and David Wu criticized Blumenauer--with Wu calling Blumenauer's portrayal of the bill as funding the war an "outrageous lie.". Those guys need to hear from us. check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

DeFazio & Wu hit Blumenauer's stand against the war by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 20, 2007

Today's Big O report on Oregon (& SW WA) congressional delegation's views of Congress and the wars http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1195530953295100.xml&coll=7 finds that-- except for the Bush favorite Baird and the lone Republican Walden-- expressed varying degress of opposition. And it contains this outrageous item: "Blumenauer was one of 15 House members who voted against a Pentagon spending bill to protest the war. Within hours of the vote fellow Democrats Reps. Peter De Fazio and David Wu criticized Blumenauer--with Wu calling Blumenauer's portrayal of the bill as funding the war an "outrageous lie.". Those guys need to hear from us. check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

Oregon combat casualties rise to 583 by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 20, 2007

US military occupation forces in Iraq suffered at least 60 combat casulties in the six days ending Nov. 20, as total casualties reached at least 61,989*.The total includes 31,690 killed or wounded by what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 30,299 (as of Oct. 1) dead and injured from "non-hostile" causes.** US media divert attention from the actual cost in American life and limb by routinely reporting only the total killed (3,875 as of Nov.20) and rarely mentioning the 28,530 wounded in combat. To further minimize public perception of the cost, they cover for the Pentagon by ignoring the 30,299 (as of Oct. 1)** military victims of accidents and illness that caused death or were serious enough to require medical evacuation, although the 3,875 reported deaths include 715 (up three since Nov.14)who died from those same causes, including 130 suicides. *This total includes 526 (up two since Nov. 10) Iraq combat casualties with homes of record in Oregon as of Nov.17. Another 57 Oregonians are combat casualties in the Afgan occupation. These figures include deaths but not injuries from "non-hostile" causes.Reported monthly by the Penatgon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/STATE_OEF_OIF.pdf ** The number of wounded is updated weekly (usually Tuesdays) by the Pentagon at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf. The dead are from Iraq Coalition Casualties http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ ** The number of injured is updated monthly by the Pentagon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/gwot_reason.pdf check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

Oregon combat casualties rise to 583 by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 20, 2007

US military occupation forces in Iraq suffered at least 60 combat casulties in the six days ending Nov. 20, as total casualties reached at least 61,989*.The total includes 31,690 killed or wounded by what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 30,299 (as of Oct. 1) dead and injured from "non-hostile" causes.** US media divert attention from the actual cost in American life and limb by routinely reporting only the total killed (3,875 as of Nov.20) and rarely mentioning the 28,530 wounded in combat. To further minimize public perception of the cost, they cover for the Pentagon by ignoring the 30,299 (as of Oct. 1)** military victims of accidents and illness that caused death or were serious enough to require medical evacuation, although the 3,875 reported deaths include 715 (up three since Nov.14)who died from those same causes, including 130 suicides. *This total includes 526 (up two since Nov. 10) Iraq combat casualties with homes of record in Oregon as of Nov.17. Another 57 Oregonians are combat casualties in the Afgan occupation. These figures include deaths but not injuries from "non-hostile" causes.Reported monthly by the Penatgon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/STATE_OEF_OIF.pdf ** The number of wounded is updated weekly (usually Tuesdays) by the Pentagon at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf. The dead are from Iraq Coalition Casualties http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ ** The number of injured is updated monthly by the Pentagon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/gwot_reason.pdf check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

The NY Times needs to leave Portland alone by Michael Munk Thu, Nov 15, 2007

An additional but little noticed benefit for all those NYTimes readers rushing to Portland: Your car's sun visors will last longer. MEDIA STALKING The Oregonian: November 11, 2007 David Sarasohn Usually, around here, when people complain about media persecu tion, we're who they're complaining about, and we just try to respond in soothing, indoor voices. But last week, we discovered ourselves relentlessly encircled by newspaper coverage, unable to do the simplest things outside the media spotlight, and we have to raise our voice in our own defense: The New York Times needs to leave Portland alone. We're starting to feel like the sixth borough of New York City, as if our light rail is just another line on their subway. As these things always go, it started pleasantly enough. Sept. 26, the cover story in the Times' weekly Dining section declared Portland "a full-fledged dining destination," although Portland seemed to reach that level mostly because of chefs (and diners) moving in from elsewhere, such as New York. Still, it was flattering, and we enjoyed our close-up, and waved to friends and family in faraway places. Then last week -- just like in the movies we rent when we're home alone Saturday nights -- admiration took a dark turn to obsession. Last Sunday, Portland was the feature story in the Times' national real estate section. Apparently, lots of people are moving here from other places, because "Portland has maintained a small-town feel in an urban atmosphere." It was a story that could have been written any time in the past 20 years, and frequently has been, but we waved again. Then Monday, the Times' news section offered a long feature story on Portland's bicycle culture and the increasing number of bicyling-related companies "in a city often uncomfortable with corporate gloss." (Probably part of our "small-town feel.") Portlanders were beginning to wonder if the Times had ever been to, say, Sacramento, which is a very nice place. Wednesday, the Times' Dining section looked at considerable length at Michael Hebberoy and the collapse of his Portland restaurant empire, where "bankers, farmers and tattooed baristas shared platters of whatever was fresh from the market." (Sounds just like Portland, or at least the Times' Portland.) This was a year-old story, but it was nice to see so many Portland people in the Times again, although our arms were getting tired from waving. By now, Portlanders were thinking that at least it was better to be an obsession of The New York Times than, say, of Bill O'Reilly, which would be weird. Thursday, there was a Times editorial, mourning the defeat of Measure 50 in Oregon. OK, we probably had that coming. But then Friday, the Times' Escapes section, focusing on vacation homes -- every newspaper should have a section that makes most of its readers feel poor -- profiled a Portland architect's Hood River hideaway, "a model of compact green construction." By this weekend, Portlanders were afraid to carry out even the simplest acts of their lives, fearing that some reporter for a Times section would be lurking over their hedges. It was unsettling to have The New York Times expending more space on Portland than on the Bronx. It was even more of a leap to see Portland through a New York prism, as a city of cheerful residents who bicycle, eat surprisingly well and can afford houses. It seems that to Manhattan, Portland looks something like 1950s Holland. Or maybe an unusually pro-American Third World country, with better plumbing. Cities, of course, are supposed to cherish this kind of national publicity -- although this experience was like getting a year's worth of magazines delivered in one week. But Portland and Oregon have always insisted that part of their identity was being a secret, and suddenly we couldn't get more attention if we were dating Brad Pitt. (Sorry, this is The New York Times. Let's say, "dating Condoleezza Rice.") Apparently, last week, Portland was all the news that's fit to print. And it's not that we're not flattered. But before we suddenly get breakout coverage on the National Weather page -- telling the world that Portland's weather is green, good for bicycling and surprisingly affordable -- it may be time to plead that the Tom McCall formula applies even to national newspapers of record: Come to visit, but please don't stay. David Sarasohn, associate editor, can be reached at 503-221-8523 or davidsarasohn@news.oregonian.com. check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

The courage of Berkeley Lent by Michael Munk Wed, Nov 14, 2007

To: Cc: Subject: The courage of Berkeley Lent Missing from your fine appreciation of the late Judge Berkeley Lent (" Berkeley L:ent: lawyer, legislator,judge," Nov. 14) is his courageous record during the McCarthy era, when too many attorneys were reluctant to represent people accused of Communist connections. But during the House Un American Actitivities Committee hearings intended to silence Portland radicals in 1954*, Judge Lent defended two of its targets--Sign Painters Union president Sam Markson and laid-off railroad laborer David Gregg. And when HUAC later tried to jail four of the local witnesses--the "Portland Four"-- for contempt of congress, Judge Lent defended businessman Thomas Moore. The Oregonians who stood up to the witch hunters and those who represented them deserve out thanks. Michael Munk *See pp. 156-158 of the Portland Red Guide for more details. check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

Meet Norman Solomon this Saturday! by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 12, 2007

The Portland Alliance and KBOO proudly present Norman Solomon touring with his new book /Made Love, Got War (Close Encounters With America's Warfare State) - /a personal account of the author's four decades of trying to stop his country's march to one war after another. Join friends for a reception to meet Norman, hear him speak, and see clips from the movie based on his last book, War Made Easy. Saturday November 17 9pm Haven Coffee House, SE 35th Place and Division Sliding Scale $5-$25 A benefit for The Portland Alliance and KBOO (no one turned away). And don't miss the new film based on Norman's last book. WAR MADE EASY, How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death, narrated by Sean Penn. Opens November 16 at The Clinton Street Theater. Jennifer Polis Editorial Coordinator The Portland Alliance "Distressing Portland's Elite Since 1981" -- Ms Beech's email address has changed from .com to .net. Please correct your address book to her new email: msbeech@easystreet.net 6 New Albums! 4 of Italy and 2 of the Queen Charlotte Islands are now up. Check them out at http://sndybeech.shutterfly.com Once there you can click any album, then click "view as slideshow" you can pause or slow the show or even advance all shots manually _______________________ Some are guilty, all are responsible Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, 1907-1972

Kulongoski fronts for for-profit utilities by Michael Munk Wed, Nov 7, 2007

Note that Gov. Kulongoski is fronting for the for-profits PGE and PP by opposing a limit on their subsides from the customers of public utitlities. The solution is to follow Washington's lead and enable more publicly owned utilities in Oregon. BPA deal could trim utility bills 7 percent Electricity - Most Oregonians would again benefit from cheap hydropower after a court ruling led to a 13 percent increase in May Tuesday, November 06, 2007TED SICKINGER The Oregonian Staff Most Oregonians would see lower electricity bills next October under a tentative deal that reallocates the benefits of the cheap hydropower sold in the region by the Bonneville Power Administration. Advocates for public utilities and their counterparts at private utilities have reached a preliminary agreement that would reinstate BPA payments to private utilities, which were suspended last May, at about 65 percent of their previous level, according to several parties close to the talks. If the payments flowed to all ratepayers in equal proportions -- though that's by no means assured -- that could mean a rate reduction of about 7 percent for customers of Portland General Electric and Pacific Power. If that were the case, average residential customers of PGE would see their bills drop by about $6.50 a month. Ratepayers were hit with an increase of some 13 percent in late May after a federal court ruled that the BPA had ignored the prescribed formulas for calculating the payments and overpaid private utilities. Public utilities, which dominate in Washington, originally filed suit against the power marketing agency because they believed the "overpayments" were driving up their rates. Their customers also could see a rate reduction, though details remain to be worked out. Advocates on both sides of the agreement declined to confirm specifics, as they are still shopping the deal with various stakeholders. But Scott Corwin, executive director of the Public Power Council, said he hoped "to have something for the broader community to review in the next couple days." The BPA sells low-cost electricity generated at 31 hydroelectric dams and a nuclear plant in the Columbia River basin, primarily to consumer-owned utilities that were given preferential rights to the power when the agency was established in 1937. Since 1980, however, the agency has been required to address the disparity between its own cheap rates and those offered to residential customers by private utilities, such as PGE, that have higher costs than the BPA. It does that through a system of monetary payments known as the residential exchange. BPA's suspension of the payments in May led to an outcry from Oregon's ratepayer advocates, congressional delegates and the governor. Public utilities, meanwhile, were thrilled with the court outcome. Many hoped for a substantial rate reduction and refund of past overpayments. Since then, BPA has urged negotiators from public and private utilities to continue a series of closed-door meetings, ostensibly to negotiate a resumption of the payments at a new level. Before BPA suspended the residential exchange, it was making payments to private utilities of about $28 million a month, or about $330 million a year. Under the deal being discussed, BPA would resume making payments next October of between $200 million and $225 million a year. The payments would reportedly be fixed for 20 years, with no escalation. That provision could meet opposition from Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, who has strongly opposed the idea of capping the payments, because the cheap power produced by the federal system is getting more valuable as the price of power from other sources rises. Freezing the payments, the governor said earlier this year, "would have the effect of decreasing the relative share of the monetary benefits . . . to Oregon ratepayers over the long term. Such an outcome would be unfair and is unacceptable to me." Marc Hellman, an administrator at the Oregon Public Utility Commission, said the numbers being discussed aren't as large as the PUC had proposed and the PUC was chagrined by the proposal to cap the payments. But he added that there may not be an alternative. "This is a top-down process," Hellman said. "There may not be much Oregon can do." Public utility customers also may balk at a deal fixing the payments at more than $200 million -- either because they consider it too high or because the agreement does not expressly mandate specific refunds of what they contend were overpayments of up to $1.5 billion between 2002 and 2006. Ultimately, it's the BPA that needs to come up with a final number in a formal rate case that starts in December. While federal court told the agency that it couldn't simply enter a settlement on the number, the agency apparently has enough discretion in tweaking the financial assumptions in its rate case to come up with whatever residential exchange benefit is acceptable to all its customer groups. What BPA Chief Executive Steve Wright has been looking for is guidance from utilities on a politically palatable, and thus legally sustainable, level of benefits. "There has been good progress made to date," BPA spokesman Scott Simms said Monday. "But ultimately the parties need to decide whether they can come to agreement." Ted Sickinger: 503-221-8505, tedsickinger@news.oregonian.com check out my website www.michaelmunk.com check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

Oregon combat casualties rise to 580 by Michael Munk Tue, Nov 6, 2007

US military occupation forces in Iraq suffered at least 178 combat casulties in the six days ending Nov. 6, as total casualties reached at least 61,596*.The total includes 31,596 killed or wounded by what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 30,294 (as of Oct. 1) dead and injured from "non-hostile" causes.** US media divert attention from the actual cost in American life and limb by routinely reporting only the total killed (3,855 as of Nov. 6) and rarely mentioning the 28,451 wounded in combat. To further minimize public perception of the cost, they cover for the Pentagon by ignoring the 30,294 (as of Oct. 1)** military victims of accidents and illness serious enough to require medical evacuation, although the 3,855 reported deaths include 710 (up one since Oct. 31)who died from those same causes, including 130 suicides. *This total includes 523 Iraq combat casualties as of Nov.1 with homes of record in Oregon. Another 57 Oregonians are combat casualties in the Afgan occupation. These figures include deaths but not injuries from "non-hostile" causes.Reported monthly by the Penatgon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/STATE_OEF_OIF.pdf ** The number of wounded is updated weekly (usually Tuesdays) by the Pentagon at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf. The dead are from Iraq Coalition Casualties http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ ** The number of injured is updated monthly by the Pentagon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/gwot_reason.pdf Cheers, Mike check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

Message to Mayor Potter by Michael Munk Mon, Nov 5, 2007

I asked the Mayor whether he would join SLC's Mayor in this pledge. October 27, 2007 City & County Building Salt Lake City, Utah Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson: I have drawn my line as a matter of simple personal morality: I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has voted to fund the atrocities in Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who will not commit to remove all US troops, as soon as possible, from Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has supported legislation that takes us one step closer to attacking Iran. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has not fought to stop the kidnapping, disappearances, and torture being carried on in our name. If we expect our nation's elected officials to take us seriously, let us send a powerful message they cannot misunderstand. Let them know we really do have our moral breaking point. Let them know we have drawn a bright line. Let them know they cannot take our support for granted - that, regardless of their party and regardless of other political considerations, they will not have our support if they cannot provide, and have not provided,principled leadership. The people of this nation may have been far too quiet for five years, but let us pledge that we won't let it go on one more day - that we will do all we can to put an end to the illegalities, the moral degradation, and the disintegration of our nation's reputation in the world. check out my website www.michaelmunk.com

Nov. 7: Ooligan Press Open House by Michael Munk Wed, Oct 31, 2007

Book Publishing Program at PSU Hosts Open House Date: Wednesday, November 7, 2007 Place: Native American Community Center Portland State University 710 SW Jackson Street Portland, OR 97201 Time: Noon - 6 pm Ooligan Press is the publisher of my Portland Red Guide How is a book made? Who decides on the design? How can I get published? The Event: The public is invited to get the answers to these and other questions about book publishing at an Open House November 7th sponsored by Portland State University's Ooligan Press. Writers are encouraged to bring book ideas to the "Pitch Your Book," desk open all afternoon. There will be visual displays on all aspects of the publishing process and opportunities to talk with teachers, authors, students, and alumni. The event features presentations on book design, children's books, working with editors, marketing a book, how the book publishing industry works, and in particular what Ooligan Press looks for when acquiring manuscripts from authors as well as community organizations. Working with the community is important to the press, and book partners to date have included the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, the Croatian Government, PSU's Geography Department, and the Arlington Club. Background on Ooligan Press: It is part of the only publishing program in the country with a Master's Degree that includes a student-run press. The 6-year old program currently has a list of 12 books with 6 more to be published this year. With guidance from 11 teachers who are all experienced publishing professionals, students gain hands-on experience in running the Press, from acquiring manuscripts and editing to book design and marketing. Graduates have started their own publishing companies and literary agencies; teach in the program; and work as book editors and designers. Members of The Friends of Ooligan Press (FOOP) will be on hand and books will be for sale. The Open House is free and open to the public. Schedule updates will be posted on events at www.ooligan.pdx.edu. Schedule of Open House Presentations Noon Book Surgery John Henley, book buyer & Linny Stovall Noon - 12:30 Publishing with University & Community Partners Terra Chapek, student 12:30 - 1:15 So You Want to Get Published? Dennis Stovall, Coordinator of Publishing Curriculum 1:15 - 2:00 The Naked Children's Book: From Words to Pictures to Books Michelle McMann, author and Ooligan teacher 1:15: - 1:45 Pitch Your Book Megan Wellman & Kylin Larsson, students 1:45 - 2:15 Reading Geronimo Tagatac, author of The Weight of the Sun 2:00 - 2:30 Robin Cody, author of Ricochet River Confessions of an Author Who LIKES His Publisher 2:30 - 3:00 Book Surgery John Henley, book buyer & Linny Stovall 3:00 - 4:00 When You Care Enough to Send the Very Worst: Hate Mail from concept to publication Ink & Paper Group, owned by Oolilgan alumni 4:00 - 4:30 Classroom Editing Karen Kirtley, editor and Ooligan teacher 5:00 - 5:45 So You Want to Get Published? Dennis Stovall, Coordinator of Publishing Curriculum More Info at: Contact: Linny Stovall 503-245-5280 Ooligan Press 503-725-9748 www.ooligan.pdx.edu

It's about oil--except in the MSM by Michael Munk Fri, Oct 12, 2007

This worthy article reflects what is received wisdom in the rest of the world. It also suggests that when Clinton talks those "vital US interests"--code words for what will compel any new president to stay in Iraq-- this is what she's talking about. Buit you have to go to the London Review of Books for it: the NYTimes even censored Greenspan's quote(see below) http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/holt01_.html It's the Oil London Review of Books Oct. 18, 2007 Jim Holt writes for the New York Times Magazine and the New Yorker. So how come he didn't publish this in the US? Iraq is 'unwinnable', a 'quagmire', a 'fiasco': so goes the received opinion. But there is good reason to think that, from the Bush-Cheney perspective, it is none of these things. Indeed, the US may be 'stuck' precisely where Bush et al want it to be, which is why there is no 'exit strategy'. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world's oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world's oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today's prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion. Who will get Iraq's oil? One of the Bush administration's 'benchmarks' for the Iraqi government is the passage of a law to distribute oil revenues. The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq's 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest - including all yet to be discovered oil - under foreign corporate control for 30 years. 'The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy,' the analyst Antonia Juhasz wrote in the New York Times in March, after the draft law was leaked. 'They could even ride out Iraq's current "instability" by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country.' As negotiations over the oil law stalled in September, the provincial government in Kurdistan simply signed a separate deal with the Dallas-based Hunt Oil Company, headed by a close political ally of President Bush. How will the US maintain hegemony over Iraqi oil? By establishing permanent military bases in Iraq. Five self-sufficient 'super-bases' are in various stages of completion. All are well away from the urban areas where most casualties have occurred. There has been precious little reporting on these bases in the American press, whose dwindling corps of correspondents in Iraq cannot move around freely because of the dangerous conditions. (It takes a brave reporter to leave the Green Zone without a military escort.) In February last year, the Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks described one such facility, the Balad Air Base, forty miles north of Baghdad. A piece of (well-fortified) American suburbia in the middle of the Iraqi desert, Balad has fast-food joints, a miniature golf course, a football field, a cinema and distinct neighbourhoods - among them, 'KBR-land', named after the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most of the construction work at the base. Although few of the 20,000 American troops stationed there have ever had any contact with an Iraqi, the runway at the base is one of the world's busiest. 'We are behind only Heathrow right now,' an air force commander told Ricks. The Defense Department was initially coy about these bases. In 2003, Donald Rumsfeld said: 'I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting.' But this summer the Bush administration began to talk openly about stationing American troops in Iraq for years, even decades, to come. Several visitors to the White House have told the New York Times that the president himself has become fond of referring to the 'Korea model'. When the House of Representatives voted to bar funding for 'permanent bases' in Iraq, the new term of choice became 'enduring bases', as if three or four decades wasn't effectively an eternity. But will the US be able to maintain an indefinite military presence in Iraq? It will plausibly claim a rationale to stay there for as long as civil conflict simmers, or until every groupuscule that conveniently brands itself as 'al-Qaida' is exterminated. The civil war may gradually lose intensity as Shias, Sunnis and Kurds withdraw into separate enclaves, reducing the surface area for sectarian friction, and as warlords consolidate local authority. De facto partition will be the result. But this partition can never become de jure. (An independent Kurdistan in the north might upset Turkey, an independent Shia region in the east might become a satellite of Iran, and an independent Sunni region in the west might harbour al-Qaida.) Presiding over this Balkanised Iraq will be a weak federal government in Baghdad, propped up and overseen by the Pentagon-scale US embassy that has just been constructed - a green zone within the Green Zone. As for the number of US troops permanently stationed in Iraq, the defence secretary, Robert Gates, told Congress at the end of September that 'in his head' he saw the long-term force as consisting of five combat brigades, a quarter of the current number, which, with support personnel, would mean 35,000 troops at the very minimum, probably accompanied by an equal number of mercenary contractors. (He may have been erring on the side of modesty, since the five super-bases can accommodate between ten and twenty thousand troops each.) These forces will occasionally leave their bases to tamp down civil skirmishes, at a declining cost in casualties. As a senior Bush administration official told the New York Times in June, the long-term bases 'are all places we could fly in and out of without putting Americans on every street corner'. But their main day-to-day function will be to protect the oil infrastructure. This is the 'mess' that Bush-Cheney is going to hand on to the next administration. What if that administration is a Democratic one? Will it dismantle the bases and withdraw US forces entirely? That seems unlikely, considering the many beneficiaries of the continued occupation of Iraq and the exploitation of its oil resources. The three principal Democratic candidates - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards - have already hedged their bets, refusing to promise that, if elected, they would remove American forces from Iraq before 2013, the end of their first term. Among the winners: oil-services companies like Halliburton; the oil companies themselves (the profits will be unimaginable, and even Democrats can be bought); US voters, who will be guaranteed price stability at the gas pump (which sometimes seems to be all they care about); Europe and Japan, which will both benefit from Western control of such a large part of the world's oil reserves, and whose leaders will therefore wink at the permanent occupation; and, oddly enough, Osama bin Laden, who will never again have to worry about US troops profaning the holy places of Mecca and Medina, since the stability of the House of Saud will no longer be paramount among American concerns. Among the losers is Russia, which will no longer be able to lord its own energy resources over Europe. Another big loser is Opec, and especially Saudi Arabia, whose power to keep oil prices high by enforcing production quotas will be seriously compromised. Then there is the case of Iran, which is more complicated. In the short term, Iran has done quite well out of the Iraq war. Iraq's ruling Shia coalition is now dominated by a faction friendly to Tehran, and the US has willy-nilly armed and trained the most pro-Iranian elements in the Iraqi military. As for Iran's nuclear programme, neither air strikes nor negotiations seem likely to derail it at the moment. But the Iranian regime is precarious. Unpopular mullahs hold onto power by financing internal security services and buying off elites with oil money, which accounts for 70 per cent of government revenues. If the price of oil were suddenly to drop to, say, $40 a barrel (from a current price just north of $80), the repressive regime in Tehran would lose its steady income. And that is an outcome the US could easily achieve by opening the Iraqi oil spigot for as long as necessary (perhaps taking down Venezuela's oil-cocky Hugo Chávez into the bargain). And think of the United States vis-à-vis China. As a consequence of our trade deficit, around a trillion dollars' worth of US denominated debt (including $400 billion in US Treasury bonds) is held by China. This gives Beijing enormous leverage over Washington: by offloading big chunks of US debt, China could bring the American economy to its knees. China's own economy is, according to official figures, expanding at something like 10 per cent a year. Even if the actual figure is closer to 4 or 5 per cent, as some believe, China's increasing heft poses a threat to US interests. (One fact: China is acquiring new submarines five times faster than the US.) And the main constraint on China's growth is its access to energy - which, with the US in control of the biggest share of world oil, would largely be at Washington's sufferance. Thus is the Chinese threat neutralised. Many people are still perplexed by exactly what moved Bush-Cheney to invade and occupy Iraq. In the 27 September issue of the New York Review of Books, Thomas Powers, one of the most astute watchers of the intelligence world, admitted to a degree of bafflement. 'What's particularly odd,' he wrote, 'is that there seems to be no sophisticated, professional, insiders' version of the thinking that drove events.' Alan Greenspan, in his just published memoir, is clearer on the matter. 'I am saddened,' he writes, 'that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.' Was the strategy of invading Iraq to take control of its oil resources actually hammered out by Cheney's 2001 energy task force? One can't know for sure, since the deliberations of that task force, made up largely of oil and energy company executives, have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of 'executive privilege'. One can't say for certain that oil supplied the prime motive. But the hypothesis is quite powerful when it comes to explaining what has actually happened in Iraq. The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration's cavalier attitude towards 'nation-building' has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades - a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth. If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East? On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics - dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final 'surge' that has hastened internal migration - could scarcely have been more effective. The costs - a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities (a figure which will probably diminish, and which is in any case comparable to the number of US motorcyclists killed because of repealed helmet laws) - are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and cheap gas for voters. In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success. Still, there is reason to be sceptical of the picture I have drawn: it implies that a secret and highly ambitious plan turned out just the way its devisers foresaw, and that almost never happens.

Dirty bomb set for Portland's Steel Bridge Oct 15 by Michael Munk Wed, Oct 3, 2007

This is what the Big O pooh-poohed yesterday: Questions Raised Over Terror Exercise October 3, 2007 http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6967511,00.html 10:01 AM VIA CLG News By EILEEN SULLIVAN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation is preparing for its biggest terrorism exercise ever next week when three fictional ``dirty bombs'' go off and cripple transportation arteries in two major U.S. cities and Guam, according to a document obtained by The Associated Press. Yet even as this drill begins, details from the previous national exercise held in 2005 have yet to be publicly released - information that's supposed to help officials prepare for the next real attack. House lawmakers were expected to demand answers Wednesday, including why the "after-action" report from 2005 hasn't been made public. Congress has required the exercise since 2000, but has done little in the way of oversight beyond attending the actual events. Next week will be the fourth Top Officials exercise - dubbed TOPOFF. The program costs about $25 million a year and involves the federal government's highest officials, such as top people from the Defense and Homeland Security departments. "The challenge with TOPOFF is not the exercise itself. It's to move as quickly as possible to remedy what perceives to be the problems that are uncovered,'' former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said in an interview with AP this week. Ridge, who launched his own security consulting company on Monday, said he's a big fan of the TOPOFF exercises. But he said "it's not acceptable" that the review from the 2005 exercise is still not released publicly. The House Homeland Security emergency communications, preparedness and response subcommittee was holding a hearing Wednesday on the terrorism exercise program. This year's TOPOFF will build on lessons learned from previous exercises, according to the Homeland Security Department, which runs the program. The agency said the Oct. 15-19 exercise would be "the largest and most comprehensive" to date. According to an internal department briefing of next week's exercise obtained by AP, a dirty bomb will go off at a Cabras power plant in Guam; another dirty bomb will explode on the Steel Bridge in Portland, Ore., impacting major transportation systems, and a third dirty bomb will explode at the intersection of busy routes 101 and 202 near Phoenix. Local hospitals and law enforcement agencies will be involved in the "attacks" by the dirty bombs, which are conventional explosives that include some radioactive material that would cause contamination over a limited area but not create actual nuclear explosions. "Lessons learned from the exercise will provide valuable insights to guide future planning for securing the nation against terrorist attacks, disasters and other emergencies," according to the department's Web site. The after action report from TOPOFF 3, which deals with issues that came up in the 2005 exercise, is supposed to identify areas for improvement. That report is still going through internal reviews. According to a brief summary of the 2005 exercise - marked For Official Use Only, but obtained by AP - problems arose when officials realized the federal government's law for providing assistance does not cover biological incidents. The exercise involved a mustard gas attack from an improvised explosive device in Connecticut and the release of the pneumonic plague in New Jersey. This caused certain federal disaster programs to be unavailable to some residents suffering from the attack, according to the summary. A 2005 Homeland Security inspector general report suggested the department start tracking the lessons learned from these exercises. And a 2006 White House report on Hurricane Katrina criticized the department for not having a system to address and fix the problems discovered in the TOPOFF exercises. "The most recent Top Officials (TOPOFF) exercise in April 2005 revealed the federal government's lack of progress in addressing a number of preparedness deficiencies, many of which had been identified in previous exercises," according to the White House. Previously, a more detailed version of lessons-learned from TOPOFF 2, held in 2003 was not released to states for security reasons.

US Iraq casualties rise to 60,546 by Michael Munk Tue, Oct 2, 2007

Unless you are already on my "military list" to receive these weekly casualty updates, this is the last one I will send to your address. If you want on that list, you can reply to me directly or to my new website at www.michaelmunk.com. You can also use this opportunity to remove your address from all my contact lists. Cheers, Mike US military occupation forces in Iraq suffered at least 92 combat casualties in the week ending Oct. 1, as total casualties reached at least 60,546*.The total includes 31,200 killed or wounded by what the Pentagon classifies as "hostile" causes and 29,346 (not updated since August 31) dead and injured from "non-hostile" causes.** US media divert attention from the actual cost in American life and limb by routinely reporting only the total killed (3,808 as of Oct 1) and rarely mentioning the 28,093 wounded in combat. To further minimize public perception of the cost, they cover for the Pentagon by ignoring the 28,645 (as of August 31)** military victims of as accidents and illness serious enough to require medical evacuation, although the 3,808 reported deaths include 701 (up two last week) who died from those same causes, including 122 suicides (as of Aug 31). Although not defined as "casualties" since they have been discharged from active duty, as of the end of 2006 more than 180,000 U.S. military veterans of Iraq and Afganistan had filed disability claims. The LA Times recently estimated that the number of employes of the US military contractors (182,000--not including all mercenaries) exceeds the number of the US troops in Iraq (160,000). It broke down that number as 118,00 Iraqis and 64,000 foreigners, including 21,000 Americans. Reuters reports that these contractors had suffered 11,502 contractor casualties (933 dead as of June 30; 10,569 wounded as of March 31).About 200 of the dead were Americans. *This total includes 515 Iraq combat casualties as of August 31 with homes of record in Oregon. Another 51 Oregonians are combat casualties in the Afgan occupation. Reported monthly by the Penatgon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/STATE_OEF_OIF.pdf ** The number of wounded is updated weekly by the Pentagon at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf. The dead are from Iraq Coalition Casualties http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ ** The number of injured is updated monthly by the Pentagon at http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/gwot_reason.pdf

Down to 15 of 535 by Michael Munk Sat, Sep 29, 2007

Only Feingold in the senate, and 14 in the House stood up against throwing away more taxpayer dollars into the occupation. The 14 included Oregon's Earl Blumenauer,one Republican,:Ron Paul of Texas, and 12other Democrats: Missouri's William Clay, Minnesota's Keith Ellison, California's Bob Filner, Massachusetts' Barney Frank, New York's Maurice Hinchey, Ohio's Dennis Kucinich, Washington's Jim McDermott, New Jersey's Donald Payne, California's Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson and Lynn Woolsey. Where the hell is the rest of the 72 member "Get Out of Iraq" caucus? By the way, I have a new website at www.michaelmunk.com

CP leader in Salem Oct. 6 by Michael Munk Fri, Sep 28, 2007

The Frederick Douglass School/Willamette Reds will sponsor a talk by community solidarity activist Juanita Rodriguez and Communist Party leader Scott Marshall on Saturday, October 6 in Salem, Oregon. The event will be held at Salem's First Congregational Church, 700 Marion St. NE. We will start at 2:00 pm on Saturday, Oct. 6. The title of the event will be: Who's World Is It? Global and Local Communities In Action. Please attend and please tell others. Scott Marshall is a vice-chair of the Communist Party, USA and chair of its national labor commission. Scott grew up in Alabama and Virginia where he first became active in the movements for civil rights and against the Vietnam War in high school in the mid 1960's. Scott has been a life long trade unionist and was active in rank and file reform movements in the Teamsters, Machinists and Steelworkers unions in the 1970's and '80's. He was co-chair of the Save Our Jobs committee of USWA local 1834 at Pullman Standard in Chicago and active in nationwide organizing against plant closings and layoffs. Scott has worked for the Communist Party since 1987 when he became the district organizer for the party in Illinois. He was elected chair of the labor commission in 1998. His main focus is on labor and anti-globalization issues. Scott is also active in the Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees (SOAR). He is the author of Working Class Strategy in the Era of Capitalist Globalization, a basic text used by Willamette Reds in creating a series of local events. Juanita Rodriguez lives in Corvallis, Oregon and calls herself a "Freelance Community Catalyst". While she has traveled to South America, the Caribbean, and Latin America to learn first hand about the effects of Plan Colombia, the Blockade against Cuba, and NAFTA, her advocacy at home includes everything from representing women escaping domestic violence, to working through the deportation process with a young, undocumented Latino, to getting financial assistance for a Mexican mother to have a necessary operation, and to helping marginalized youth apply for scholarships to study medicine in Cuba. Since 2001 she has been a volunteer representative of a Zapotec women's weaving collective from Oaxaca, Mexico, working together with them to develop fair pricing and a dignified and mutually supportive group that markets their handcrafted goods directly to the consumer. She is a single mother of four, a gardener and an artist. The sponsoring group hopes to have music at the event. There will be snacks and beverages and time to dialogue with the speakers. More information on Willamette Reds may be found at http://willamettereds.blogspot.com. Please call Bob Rossi at 503-838-6676 for additional information.

only 38 out of 535 stand up against Iran war by Michael Munk Thu, Sep 27, 2007

Only 19 Senate Dems --including Wyden and Cantwell-- (plus 2 Reps and one IND) voted against giving defacto authority to the regime in Washington for an attack on Iran. Blumenauer was among the 16 to oppose a similar anti_Iran bill in the House, while DeFazio, Hooley, Wu and Baird joined Walden and 392 others to support it. Only these Senators won't have to hang their heads in shame: Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Dodd (D-CT) Feingold (D-WI) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Sanders (I-VT) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Wyden (D-OR) Not Voting - 2 (not sure whether these two "paired') McCain (R-AZ) Obama (D-IL)

Portland mobilizes Saturday by Michael Munk Thu, Sep 27, 2007

Burma-Shave for Peace! At 7:45AM, this Friday morning, September 27, PPRC volunteers will be out on at SE Hawthorne Boulevard & SE Grand Avenue with banner signs to promote the big Peace Rally and March on Saturday. If you'd like to help hold up one of these GREAT banners, to get the word out to Portland's morning commuters, please call Mikel at 503-331-0236. The big mobilization is set for 11:00AM, Saturday, September 29, gathering at the North Park Blocks at NW Park and Flanders. And there's the feeder march that will gather at 9:30AM at the military recruiting station at NE 14th & Broadway. Help us get the word out! The commercial media have ignored all the press releases ... it's time to BECOME the media! You can also help by coming to the Friday rally and march, this Friday and every Friday, at 5:00PM at Pioneer Courthouse Square. This Friday we'll be hitting the downtown commute arteries with the banners for Saturday's big mobilization. Peace, PPRC General Meeting 503-344-5078

Only Blumenauer stood up for MoveOn by Michael Munk Thu, Sep 27, 2007

It's really getting worse! DeFazio, Hooley, Wu and Baird were among the 341 idiots who voted for the regime in Washington's anti-MoveOn abomination! Only Blumenauer stood with the 79 for sanity. In the Senate, Wyden and Murray were amog the 25 who voted against, Cantwell didn't vote.

Bollinger's bizarre behavior by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 26, 2007

President Lee Bollinger Columbia University bollinger@columbia.edu As a retired academic in your former state of Oregon, I was shocked by your introduction of the Iranian president. You presented yourself as a screaming head on Fox news and embarrased a great University. I suspect that if you were free to follow your personal instincts, you would behaved with more dignity. But, especially after the economic threats made against the University by leaders of the New York legislature, the kindest explanation of your bizarre behavior was your fear of the Likudniks among your contributors. In sorrow, Michael Munk

Sept 27: Rosenberg's son in Portland by Michael Munk Wed, Sep 26, 2007

Robert Meeropol and Lauren Regan speak on McCarthy Era Lessons for Bush's America: From Communists to Environmentalists. September 27, 2007, 7-9 pm First Unitarian Church, 1011 SW 12th Ave., Portland, OR September 28, 2007, 7-9 pm Rogue Valley Unitarian Fellowship, 87 4th St., Ashland, OR September 29, 2007, 7-9 pm The Wesley Center, 1236 Kincaid, Eugene, OR September 30, 2007, 7-9 pm Wyckoff Auditorium, Bannan Building, 901 12th Ave, Seattle University, Seattle, WA The government has finally given up on communists. Now they're after the environmentalists. The Red Scare of the 50s is turning into the Green Scare of today. Don't let Bush, Inc. snatch away your rights, make you point a finger, lock you up, or label you a terrorist. Featuring: Attorney Robert Meeropol, son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg who were wrongfully executed in 1953 for conspiring to steal the secret of the atomic bomb. Attorney Robert Meeropol was six years old when his parents, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, were sent to the electric chair in 1953, executed by the U.S. government after one of the most hotly debated trials in American history. In the wake of 9/11 and the war with Iraq, the Homeland Security Act and the USA PATRIOT Act have given the government unprecedented new powers to investigate citizens' lives in the name of preventing terrorism. In this address, Robert Meeropol--who is also an activist, author, and Executive Director of the Rosenberg Fund for Children--will discuss his parents' case and the many dangerous parallels between 1953 and the Bush administration's post-9/11 America This public forum is a benefit for the Rosenberg Fund for Children, www.rfc.org, a public foundation that provides for the educational and emotional needs of the children of targeted activists in the U.S., and for targeted activist youth. A request for donations will be made at each event. Attorney Lauren Regan Executive Director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center, a non-profit whose goal is to make the progressive social change movement stronger, more informed, and more effective by educating people about their rights, defending activists from corporate and government attacks, and exposing and confronting the persistent erosion of civil liberties and the Bill of Rights. For more information on these events, contact the Civil Liberties Defense Center in Eugene at info@cldc.org or 541-687-9180. Interviews with the press may be arranged at by contacting 541-687-9180.