Tag Archives: war

Income Tax: Where It Is Actually Spent–WAR

Now that Income Tax Season is over, I thought I’d post the War Resisters League Pie Chart of how our taxes are really spent:

Where Your Income Tax Money Really Goes FY 2008

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,387 billion
MILITARY: 51% and $1,228 billion
NON-MILITARY: 49% and $1,159 billion

FY2008 federal piechart

HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED

Current military” includes Dept. of Defense ($585 billion), the military portion from other departments ($122 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($20 billion). “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*

The Government Deception

The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (top).

the government's deceptive pie chart

Source:Washington Post , Feb. 6, 2007,
from Office of Management and Budget

These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 17, 2007, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.

MORE WAR MONEY

Cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
(billions of dollars)

spending on war

U.S. Gov’t Accounting Office report, “Global War on Terrorism,” 7/18/06, www.gao.gov/new.items/d06885t.pdf (thru 2006); 2007 & 2008 numbers from current U.S. Budget; *Our FY2008 projected supplemental funding is based on estimates in the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments report by Steven Kosiak, 2/6/07, www.csbaonline.org, and because of the Administration’s past underprojections

Current Military
$727 billion:

• Military Personnel $136 billion
• Operation & Maint. $249 billion
• Procurement $111 billion
• Research & Dev. $70 billion
• Construction $10 billion
• Family Housing $4 billion
• DoD misc. $6 billion
• Retired Pay $52 billion
• DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
• NASA (50%) $9 billion
• International Security $10 billion
• Homeland Secur. (military) $31 billion
• Exec. Office of President $1 billion
• other military (non-DoD) $1 billion
• plus … anticipated supplemental war spending requests of $20 billion in addition to $141 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan wars already incorporated into figures above

Past Military,
$461 billion:

• Veterans’ Benefits $85 billion
• Interest on national debt $376 billion (80% est. to be created by military spending)

Human Resources
$748 billion:

• Health/Human Services
• Soc. Sec. Administration
• Education Dept.
• Food/Nutrition programs
• Housing & Urban Dev.
• Labor Dept.
• other human resources.

General Government
$295 billion:

• Interest on debt (20%)
• Treasury • Government personnel • Justice Dept.
• State Dept.
• Homeland Security (17%)
• International Affairs
• NASA (50%)
• Judicial
• Legislative
• other general govt.

Physical Resources
$116 billion
:
• Agriculture
• Interior
• Transportation
• Homeland Security (17%)
• HUD
• Commerce
• Energy (non-military)
• Environmental Protection
• Nat. Science Fdtn.
• Army Corps Engineers
• Fed. Comm. Commission
• other physical resources

Going beyond NCLB’s Section 9528: The Army’s Adventure Van

A colleague of mine with United for Peace and Justice’s Anti-Recrutiment Committee, sent the item below to me. Military recruiters are going way beyond the provision in the NCLB to get into schools and entice our youth. Read on: recruiting kids in schools

A ninth grader in a suburban Washington DC classroom is delighted to be excused from Algebra class to spend a half hour shooting a life-like 9 MM pistol and lobbing explosive ordinance from an M1A2 Abrams tank simulator. At the same time 3,000 miles away in La Habra, California, a 15 year-old girl is released from English class to squeeze off rounds from a very real looking M-16 rifle. The kids thoroughly enjoy the experience, especially the part about getting out of class.

The two students have experienced the Army’s Adventure Van, a 60-foot, 30-ton 18-wheeler with several interactive exhibits that bring an adrenaline rush and glorify weaponry and combat. http://www.usarec.army.mil/MSBn/Pages/adventure.htm The Army’s 19 vans frequent various community events and two thousand schools a year, generating more than 63,000 recruiter leads. In addition to the Adventure Van, the Army has three other 18-wheelers for recruiting purposes. The Aviation Recruiting Van contains an AH 64 Helicopter flight simulator and an interactive air warrior and weapons display. The American Soldier Adventure Van has an interactive air/land warrior display and a future warrior display. The Army Marksmanship Trainer has an interactive rifle range.

 

In addition to the fleet of 18-wheelers, the Army has four RockWalls, the popular rock climbing wall for youth. The Army also brings machine gun toting humvees, tanks and other military vehicles on high school campuses to enhance their recruiting efforts. Both the Army and Air Force have their own recruiting motorcycles.

The interactive theatrical weapons simulators provide a mesmerizing experience for many teens, captivated by the awesome accuracy and power of the Army’s killing machines. The banter between adolescent and Army recruiter is empowering for the Maryland teenager as he holds an absolutely frightening replica of the cold, metallic 8.5 pound M-16-A-2. “This is awesome!” The recruiter explains, “The weapon is a 5.56 mm caliber, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed rifle, with a rotating bolt. It is constructed of steel, aluminum and composite plastics.”

Firing the simulator produces a minor kick to the weapon and a small red dot is projected on a bull’s eye target about 20 feet away. The shooter is accurate from left to right on the target, but he’s hitting it a few inches below bull’s eye. His recruiter explains that soldiers shooting the M-16-A-2 must aim high in order to place shots on the desired target, especially at close range. “Cool!” is the reply.

Despite protests by parents and civic groups across the country, the Army defends its right to enter high school campuses with their high-tech mobile cinemas. Kelly Rowe, public affairs officer for the Baltimore Recruiting Battalion, compared the Army Adventure Van to efforts by colleges to recruit students. “I don’t think it’s any different from an athlete who gets 10 letters saying, ‘Come play for us,’ ” Rowe said.

Of course, these military vehicles go beyond the access required by Section 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act, which states that military recruiters are to have the same access as college and career recruiters.

The Air Force and the Navy also have fleets of trucks and vans that visit high schools. The Air Force has a Raptor Trailer, with a miniature replica of the Air Force’s newest fighter aircraft and two video game stations that put children behind the joystick piloting an F-22 fighter that’s coming to the aid of a friendly F-4 under attack by hostile MiG-29s. Five Navy Exhibit Centers include a “Nuclear Power Van,” and an “America’s Sea Power Van.”

Some school districts, like the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Montgomery County, Maryland Public Schools have policies that forbid military vehicles on public school campuses.

If you see a military vehicle at your high school, let your local school officials know of your concerns. These vehicles don’t belong in our schools. Stop it.

Ban Military Recruiting Vehicles From Our High Schools!

 

“Operation Bite”

I have been hearing frequently more recently about the U.S.’s “Operation Bite” against Iran, scheduled for TODAY.  I have been participating in actions over the last week and a half to make noise about this.  Here is a photo of my friends holding a banner we made that made its debut yesterday, first in front of Channel 2 in Salt Lake City, where for an instant you could see the banner in the window behind the anchors on the 5pm news (they quickly shot away from that and moved the anchors), and then at the sidewalk vigil:


The issue is Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and the recent expediency in which they are developing them.  I have been scouring the news this morning in the limited time I have to see any indication of military aggression on the part of the U.S. against Iran and so far haven’t seen anything about the bombing campaign I had been reading about.

I keep reading and re-reading about the nuclear weapons issue with Iran and how the U.N. Security Council is discussion imposing stricter sanctions against Iran for developing nuclear weapons.

But the U.S. is planning to use nuclear weapons on Iran because of their development of nuclear weapons.  Why is that o.k.?  It is no secret that the U.S. is developing tests for the development of new nuclear weapons and new replacement warheads itself.  Why is that o.k.?  Why isn’t the U.N. Security Council making noise about that?  It doesn’t make sense.

Here are some news items collected over the last week:


Opinion/Commentary

Who will bite first, the U.S. or Iran?

Crossfire War – Pentagon Operation Bite – Iran’s Nuclear Program

News

Iranian president announces release of British naval personnel
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/04/africa/web0404-iran2.php

ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html

Britain Adopts Conciliatory Tone with Iran
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/world/middleeast/01iran.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Power Struggle in Iran Over Hostages
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1596694.ece

Gulf Allies Reject Role in any Attack on Iran
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/nationworld/ci_5548268

Iran: Decision to withhold information due to fear of U.S., Israeli attack
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/844232.html  

US Ready to Strike Iran on Good Friday
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879220977&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Any Casus Belli Will Do
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=10749

U.S. Ready to Strike Iran in Early April
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070330/62861432.html

Iranian Official: Sailors May be Tried
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070331/D8O76O400.html

Experts: US operation in Iran supposes usage of nuclear weapons
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=5248

Fate of Five Detained Iranians Unknown
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/30/192/

Iran Changed Coordinates of British Boats Say s British Ambassador
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Changed_Coordinates_Of_British_Boats_Says_British_Ambassador_999.html

Easter Surprise: Attack on Iran , New 9/11… or Worse
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/28/150/

USS Nimitz Scheduled to Depart for Persian Gulf
http://www.10news.com/news/11422067/detail.html

Russian Intelligence Sees U.S. Military Buildup on Iran Border
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

Iraqi Gen: Brits Entered Iranian Waters
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B651827DC-B0C5-4F39-9C20-7060760139CF%7D)&language=EN

Carrier Stennis Joins Eisenhower for Exercises in Persian Gulf
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=121837&ran=241052

Iran: El-Baradei Says Attack on Country Would be Catastrophic
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/01/20E65B32-383F-4778-A13D-1D438C4E2F34.html

 
For detailed analysis:

What do British sailors, fake water boundaries, a botched US raid in Iraq and a UK political scandal have in common? By Heather Wokusch
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/page.php?a=32938

Beyond Munich: The UN Security Council Helps Disarm a Prospective Further Victim of U.S. Aggression By Edward S. Herman and David Peterson
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=5248

The War on Iran
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070401&articleId=5247

Iran: Washington’s Next Nuclear Target? By John Hallam
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/705/36618

War Without Win: A White Paper on Iran by William John Cox
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_william__070320_war_without_win_3a__a_.htm

The Redirection by Seymour M. Hersh
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh%3F%25E2%2580%259D

Heads Up on Anti-Iran Propaganda by George Cheney
http://www.catalystmagazine.net/shorts–occasionals/politics-shorts/heads-up-on-anti-iran-propaganda.html

Regime Change is the Reason, Disarmament the Excuse (interview with former weapons inspector Scott Ritter)
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/horton.php?articleid=10595

What’s it Like Waiting Around to be Bombed?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_russ_wel_070328_what_s_it_like_waiti.htm

Keeping All Options on the Table: A Roadmap to Negotiation or War?
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4043

The View From Tehran
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/02/21/letter_from_iran/



 

 

Coverage of BYU Protests Yesterday

Here is coverage of protests by BYU students yesterday regarding Dick Cheney’s visit as speaker for the Aprl 26 Commencement exercises:

Y. rally quite tame: Demos object to Cheney speech; other students protest the protest

By Tad Walch
Deseret Morning News

      PROVO — The only thing burned Wednesday at a midday campus protest at Brigham Young University was the students’ skin.

Students stage a sit-in Wednesday to protest Vice President Dick Cheney being the commencement speaker at BYU. (Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News)

Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News
Students stage a sit-in Wednesday to protest Vice President Dick Cheney being the commencement speaker at BYU.

      Student Democrats at the private, religious school left the burning-in-effigy of oppressive leaders to Cal-Berkeley and other public universities.
      Still, they considered the relatively tame sit-in a success because more than 300 students, faculty and staff demonstrated their concern about the choice of Vice President Dick Cheney as BYU’s commencement speaker on April 26.
      There were a couple of highlights. One woman wore a paper sack over her head. Another poured water over a second hooded student’s face to symbolize torture tactics supported by Cheney.
      “This is much larger than anyone expected,” said Byron Daynes, a political science professor who spent last year at the University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service. “As a William J. Clinton Fellow, I’m delighted.”
      So was German professor Rob McFarland, who like many of an estimated 50 faculty who joined the demonstration, hoped the protesters would behave themselves so the administration would OK future rallies at a school where they are scarce.
      “It’s very kind of BYU to provide this kind of venue where without vandalism and slander we can share ideas,” said McFarland, who earned a degree at Berkeley.
      The group did not call for BYU to pull Cheney’s invitation, although some demonstrators would like to see that happen.
      “I object to his speaking at commencement,” neuroscience major Heather Marsh said. “Generally commencement is for role models. I don’t think he is someone we should emulate. By protesting, we’re sending a message we don’t like the current trend, and that gives the government a chance to respond. That’s how a democracy works.”
      Most objected to the vice president’s policy on torture and what they said was his war profiteering through Halliburton. They also wanted to make it clear that BYU is not exclusively conservative.
The White House offered Cheney as a commencement speaker to BYU this spring because President Bush couldn’t accept the university’s invitation last year. The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints then extended the invitation to Cheney in their roles as the leaders of BYU’s board of trustees.
      “The church is neutral but says to be politically active,” McFarland said. “They invited a political speaker, and I think it was a good idea for BYU. They’ve handled it well by making it a catalyst for discussions.”
      The dialogue will continue Monday with a panel discussion sponsored by BYU’s Kennedy Center for International Studies. Four panelists will discuss “Vice President Cheney and the Global War on Terror” in the Varsity Theater at 2 p.m.
      Wednesday’s sit-in was organized by Diane Bailey, president of the BYU College Democrats student club. Bailey obtained permission for the public forum from the dean of Student Life, Vern Heperi, and she kept a tight rein on her charges, telling them to sit inside the orange-tape circle and talk quietly.
      Bailey also asked Heperi for help policing the event.
      “I told the dean I wanted help to make sure causes against our church did not hijack our event,” she said.
      That led to a couple of scenes where administrators pointed out questionable signs to Bailey. She asked four protesters to put away their signs.
      One of them, BYU graduate Tom Doggett, created a placard with pictures of four men — Cheney, LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley, deceased former LDS President Spencer W. Kimball and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the church’s Quorum of the Twelve. Church members revere President Hinckley as a prophet and consider Elder Nelson one of 12 living apostles.

Matt Blood, right, holds a sign in favor of Vice President Dick Cheney. BYU's GOP club held a rally in response to Democrats'. (Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News)

Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News
Matt Blood, right, holds a sign in favor of Vice President Dick Cheney. BYU’s GOP club held a rally in response to Democrats’.

      The sign mimicked the “Sesame Street” song, “One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn’t belong.”
      “I love the prophet and apostles,” said Doggett, who complied with Bailey’s request by folding the sign four ways and then refused to show it to photographers. “I’d rather have them come speak at commencement.”
      While the message didn’t attack the church, some might take it that way, Bailey said.
      “If you put up pictures of the prophet or First Presidency at a protest like this, the automatic assumption for some is that it’s an attack,” Bailey said. Bailey has applied for permission to conduct another demonstration on the day Cheney speaks.
      Several Democrats expressed frustration with the College Republicans student club because it held a simultaneous “pro-BYU” party about 100 yards away. Most of that smaller group’s signs proclaimed the GOP club supported BYU and the church’s First Presidency.
      “The implication is we don’t (support BYU),” complained German professor Alan Keele. “That’s a Karl Rove tactic — to take our message and twist it into something it’s not.”
      While far fewer people stood inside the blue-tape circle at the Republican rally, club president David Lassen said the group gave away 600 cookies to passing students and about 400 BYU-blue armbands signifying support for Cheney.
      The club also gathered thank-you notes for Cheney that Lassen hopes to deliver to the vice president.
      The lack of sustained turnout was no surprise to Adam Stoddard, a political science major from Bountiful. “This campus is conservative but apolitical, not motivated to come out and hold a sign,” he said. The Democrats handed out BYU-white armbands. At the height of the sit-in, the club presidency counted 270 protesters. Several more came and went as the two-hour rally continued, putting total participation over the 300 mark.
      The group ended the sit-in with a spontaneous, hearty rendition of the national anthem.


E-mail: twalch@desnews.com

BYU protests

ALAN CHOATE AND NATHAN JOHNSON – Daily Herald   

Brigham Young University students had three camps to choose from Wednesday in the debate over Vice President Dick Cheney’s scheduled graduation speech later this month.

THEY COULD HAVE JOINED the BYU College Democrats next to the Joseph F. Smith Building to criticize the decision to invite Cheney.

They could have gone one quad over to where the College Republicans were urging people to respect the school’s choices and honor the vice president.

Or, they could have joined the thousands of students who simply walked by one or both demonstrations as they went about their day.

In all, several hundred students expressed an opinion one way or another, and the discussion is going to continue: BYU Democrats President Diane Bailey said there will be another demonstration on April 26, the day Cheney’s speech takes place.

“We’re here to promote political dialogue,” she said. “We are so pleased with how many people came out, with how mature and responsible the dialogue was and how we focused on the policies and not on ad hominem attacks.”

For the most part, the protest was a quiet, seated affair, with Cheney critics holding up signs pointing to problems with the Bush administration’s policies and decisions.

The College Democrats passed out fliers listing reasons why Cheney isn’t a good choice as a commencement speaker.

The grievances included complaints that “Cheney’s controversial actions do not represent a model our students should follow,” criticisms of the Iraq war (such as the war being preemptive and the “misleading use of weak intelligence to elicit fear”), and ties to Halliburton and no-bid wartime contracts awarded to that firm. Cheney is Halliburton’s former CEO.

In the Marigold Quad, meanwhile, the BYU College Republicans organized a counter-demonstration meant to show support for the school and the vice president’s visit.

Students there handed out blue armbands, circulated a letter thanking Cheney for agreeing to speak and offered cookies, brownies and lemonade. People came and went, with between 50 and 75 supporters gathered at any given time.

It was much more informal than the anti-Cheney protest, more like a backyard barbecue than a demonstration — albeit a barbecue where a number of the attendees were journalists with cameras and microphones.

Supporters stayed away from political and policy statements, emphasizing instead Cheney’s long public service record and the distinction of having a vice president — any vice president — come to the school.

“We’re not just supporting Dick Cheney,” said student Amanda Malaman, who was handing out armbands. “We’re supporting the decision BYU has made.”

“We wanted to focus on showing respect for the office,” said David Lassen, chairman of the BYU College Republicans.

Lassen said he knew that viewpoint needed to be expressed when news of the anti-Cheney protests hit national news outlets.

“We decided that we definitely needed to have something to show what the majority of BYU students believe,” he said. “We wanted to show that BYU for the most part is still a group of conservative people who, though we have a healthy diversity, support the vice president coming.”

At one point, several pro-Cheney students decided to march with their signs to the anti-Cheney rally. They stopped and came back, though, after Lassen and others warned them that provoking a confrontation could get the pro-Cheney rally shut down.

BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said that, overall, the protest was handled very well. Jenkins credited student organizers for handling any problems.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A1.

Students Stomp BYU Campus Regarding Cheney Visit

Yes Or No? BYU Students Sound Off On Cheney Visit

By Doug Ware – KUTV.com

(KUTV) PROVO – Is it appropriate for Vice President Dick Cheney to deliver the graduation speech at BYU later this month — given his involvement in world politics and the controversial war in Iraq? Hundreds of students voiced their opinions on Wednesday, during two separate protests which were fully approved by school administrators.

Hundreds of Republican and Democratic students from on-campus clubs began dueling protests at 11:00 a.m. Those in favor of the vice president’s visit gathered at the Marigold Quad.

“We are just showing our support for BYU,” said Cali Nicoll, who supports Cheney’s visit. “We’re just really excited that Vice President Cheney is taking the time to come and speak to us at graduation.”

“Someone with that much experience… I don’t care what side of the aisle he sits on. Everyone can learn from him,” said Matt Waldrip, of the BYU College Republicans.

“I respect the institution, though I don’t respect his policies,” said Bob Rees, who says he is excited for the vice president’s appearance.

Across campus, students who oppose Cheney’s scheduled commencement speech, protested at the Joseph Smith Building Quad. Both sides were color-coded. Supporters wore blue and those opposed wore white.

Some students opposed to the visit held signs that read, “America, one nation under surveillance” and “Faithful mormons against Cheney.”

“Dick Cheney doesn’t speak for me,” said one protester. “We don’t think Dick Cheney is a very good speaker to represent the graduating class because he stands for war and lies, corruption. BYU is about truth and honor and peace.”

“We don’t support what he has done in his position,” said another demonstrator.

“[BYU has] set a precedent of inviting church leaders to speak at commencement because that’s what this university is about,” said one woman who opposes the vice president’s scheduled speech. “And I feel that having a politically-charged figure, despite his office, is inappropriate.”

Some students who oppose Cheney’s visit believe that if the university invites him to speak, it should be in the form of a discussion forum rather than a commencement speech.

Last week, BYU administrators approved students’ request to stage protests on-campus regarding the vice president’s upcoming visit. However, both sides must follow strict protesting guidelines laid out by the university.

Wednesday’s protests were peaceful and campus police were not needed to control the crowd.

Vice President Cheney is scheduled to speak at BYU’s graduation ceremony on April 26, 2007.

MORE:
 Slideshow: Protests at BYU
See Also: BYU gets Vice Pres. Cheney to speak at graduation
See Also: BYU says ‘OK’ to anti-Cheney protest
See Also: Some BYU students want Cheney’s speech canceled

BYU Campus Protests Dick Cheney Speech


By DEBBIE HUMMEL
Associated Press Writer

PROVO, Utah — Some students and faculty on one of the nation’s most conservative campuses want Brigham Young University to withdraw an invitation for Vice President Dick Cheney to speak at commencement later this month.

Critics at the school question whether Cheney sets a good example for graduates, citing his promotion of faulty intelligence before the Iraq war and his role in the CIA leak scandal.

The private university, which is owned by the Mormon church, has “a heavy emphasis on personal honesty and integrity in all we do,” said Warner Woodworth, a professor at BYU’s business school.

“Cheney just doesn’t measure up,” he said.

Woodworth is helping organize an online petition asking that the school rescind its invitation to the vice president. In its first week, the petition collected more than 2,300 signatures, mostly from people describing themselves as students, alumni or members of the church.

The display of dissent is rare for a university that has been voted the nation’s most “stone-cold sober” school nine years in a row in the annual Princeton Review of party schools.

Students at BYU adhere to a strict honor code that forbids everything from drinking coffee to wearing shorts or short skirts. The school’s 30,000 students seldom even stray from campus sidewalks, leaving its lawns pristine.

“Cougars don’t cut corners,” is how one saying describes students, most of whom belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But student Diane Bailey, who is leading a protest Wednesday against Cheney’s visit, said students are not “robotic conservatives.”

Bailey and others are upset by Cheney’s role in promoting faulty intelligence that led the U.S. into the Iraq war. They also cite his proximity to the CIA leak scandal in which his chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Cheney’s BYU speech is the first of two commencement addresses he is scheduled to give this spring. The other will be May 26 at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

Both are institutions where Cheney could have expected to receive a warm reception, Woodworth said.

Utah has consistently supported the administration, delivering President Bush his largest margin of victory in any state in 2000 and 2004. In Utah County, home to BYU, about 85 percent of voters chose the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004.

Richard Davis, a political-science professor and adviser for the college Democrats, said the uproar over Cheney’s visit is evidence of a rift within the school and church that belies the faith’s larger claim of being politically neutral.

“He should be invited to come. He should speak. But let’s not send the signal that we’re abandoning our political neutrality,” Davis said. “There is no political gospel in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

The church has a policy of political neutrality and issues an annual statement declaring that both major political parties include ideals that Mormons could embrace.

“It’s one thing to invite some milquetoast Republican. But Dick Cheney?” Davis said. The protest reflects lack of support for Cheney, as well as “the larger issue of diversity and more liberal people within the BYU community and within the LDS church.”

Historically dissent has not been well received at the school. Last year, a BYU professor wrote a newspaper opinion piece opposing the church’s call for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. In response, the school announced it would not renew Jeffrey Nielsen’s contract.

Cheney’s office said his commencement speech would not have a political theme.

The school approved a permit for the college Democrats’ Wednesday protest and is working on finding a protest site for the day of Cheney’s speech.

“We recognize that members of our campus community are entitled to their opinions,” said university spokeswoman Carri Jenkins. “Political neutrality does not mean there cannot be any political discussion.”

No Drive Day

I’ve been participating in No Drive Day for three weeks now (I actually have been doing “no drive days” for several years now, just not as part of a project).  It’s difficult with the way our current mass transportation system is set up, but not impossible.  Instead of 20  minutes to get to work in the morning, it takes a little less than one hour.  This is because of the distance we live from where we work causing is to take one bus, the train, and either walking or bicycling the rest of the way (although the latter distance affords the option of taking another bus, we choose to walk or bike).  Fortunately we are able to get bus passes through our work that are good for a year and cost a total of $50.

Yesterday we took our bicycles with us.  It’s a little cumbersome that way because of having to hoist the bikes onto the bike rack in front of the bus and then up into the train.  Taking your bicycle is risky because on the bus and on either end of the train (the only place bikes are permitted on the trains) there can only be two bikes at a time.  If your bus or train comes and their are bikes on there already, you are SOL – if you abide by the rules.  Fortunately our schedule gets us just ahead of the rush hour in the a.m. and after the rush  hour in the p.m.  But any other time it’s likely we would have to wait longer because of the bike situation, since there are more and more folks using their bikes.

My advice to UTA is to design train cars and buses to hold more bicycles.  I’ve seen it in other cities, so I know it can be done).

We will be expanding our “No Drive Day” to two days per week soon.  We just have to decide which day since many days we have to stay uptown for meetings and other events and mass transit becomes non-existent to our area after certain times of the evening.

Sean Penn is Pissed

I’ve posted Sean Penn’s Open Letter to the President over on One Utah. It’s very fiesty with no words minced!

No Drive Tuesdays

Today I participated in the first “No Drive Tuesday“, An anti-war protest. It is a challenge for me to get to work not driving a car in this valley, but I did it – and didn’t miss any time doing so. I plan to participate every week.

This is an ongoing non-violent action aimed at showing
our resistance and willingness to sacrifice for peace. The sacrifice we make and the
sacrifice we ask of you is to not drive on Tuesdays from now until troops are withdrawn.

No Drive Tuesdays is as action conceived of and undertaken by local Salt Lake activists
who are dismayed at our government’s willingness to sacrifice so many things: the lives
of our troops, the lives of Iraqis, our American values against torture and imperialism,
and yet they have not been gutsy enough to ask even the smallest sacrifice of ordinary
citizens.

The No Drive Tuesday group does not believe oil is the sole factor involved in this
unjust war, but it plays an undeniably large role. Please join them for no drive
Tuesdays as a way to show our leaders our commitment to Peace and Justice.

Contact No Drive Tuesday for more information.

Mesopotamia Wetlands: Victim of War

“War is never an isolated act.”

(Clausewitz, 1831)

The effects of war are far more widespread than the average person considers.

warbler

Eden in the Line of Fire

By María Amparo Lasso *

Ninety-three percent of the wetlands have disappeared in Mesopotamia, the great oasis of the Middle East. Now, war threatens to destroy what little remains.

A recurring nightmare is troubling environmentalists worldwide: the firepower being used in the second Gulf War devastates what little is left of the wetlands of Mesopotamia, a place that many believe was the setting of the Bible’s Garden of Eden.

War is not a simple concept. War not only kills people, it is having devastating effects on our earth. The immediate death and destruction resulting from war often becomes forgotten as cities and territories are rebuilt. But the longterm consequences are even more frightening.

 

Home to millions of birds, the marshes of what is modern-day Iraq are among the most important in the Middle East. As a regional oasis, these marshlands for centuries provided fertile land and clean water for millions of people.

“I hope the images of the environmental catastrophe of the first Gulf War are not repeated in 2003,” ornithologist Mike Evans told Tierramérica, recalling how he saw thousands of aquatic birds die after Iraqi troops set fire to more than 600 oil wells as they withdrew from Kuwait in 1991.

A photo of a little grebe bird blackened by petroleum was seen by people around the world at the time, and became a symbol of the worst oil spill in history.

Such oil disasters might not happen this time around, but it is still relatively early in the war.

The marshlands of Mesopotamia (Al Ahwar, in Arabic), where civilizations of the Babylonians and Sumerians flourished, are today extremely fragile — and they are in the line of fire (see infograph).

The ecosystem forms part of the Tigris and Euphrates river basin, which gives sustenance to Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran.

But the heart of the wetlands lies in southern Iraq, along the border with Iran and near big cities like Basra, which is currently suffering a profound humanitarian crisis, following the overwhelming attack launched by the United States and Great Britain Mar 20.

There, too, the first oil well fires of this war burned. Around a dozen total, but now apparently they have been brought under control.

The more than 1,600 oil wells in Iraq represent a time bomb for the marshes, as well as the potential contamination of the ecosystem by the use of conventional weapons as well as weapons of mass destruction, the passage of hundreds of war vehicles through the surrounding desert and the mass mobilization of refugees.

But the bulk of the damage has already been done. Thrashed by the impact of human activities over the years, just seven percent of the original extension of the marshlands remain, around 20,000 square km.

When Hassan Partow visited the area in 2002, along the Iran-Iraq border, he was heartbroken. Where recently one of the most impressive natural spectacles had been recorded — millions of exotic migratory birds filling the skies — he found a desert landscape, one that had been depopulated and was now highly militarized.

Partow is a member of a team of specialists from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) which in the days after the beginning of the U.S.-led attacks issued a new alert about the tragic disappearance of 93 percent of Mesopotamia’s wetlands since 1970.

“It is incredible to think that an ecosystem that took millennia to be formed could be destroyed in so few years,” Partow told Tierramérica.

This fast pace of destruction has one main cause: the ambitious ongoing water and drainage projects of Iraq and its neighbors that share the river basin, particularly Turkey, which has built 30 dams.

But the series of armed conflicts in the area (the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988 and the 1991 Gulf War) also played a part. Explosive mines were placed throughout the watershed, which sustains a half-million Ma’dan, the original inhabitants of the marshlands, and the habitat of numerous plant and animal species, particularly birds, some of which have already become extinct.

UNEP says that if urgent action is not taken, the wetlands of Mesopotamia could disappear completely within five years.

“Water is more important than oil.”

Wetlands destruction “is the most serious environmental problem in the area today, both in terms of biology and in the population’s access to safe water. In the Middle East, water is more important than oil,” Jonathan Lash, president of the Washington-based World Resources Institute (WRI), said in a conversation with Tierramérica.

Until recently, the marshes sustained the region’s multi-million-dollar freshwater shellfish industry and supplied 60 percent of the Iraqi freshwater fish market.

The thousands of ducks and geese that filled local markets — a crucial source of protein for Iraqis since the post-Gulf War embargo began — also came from those marshlands.

The wetlands also purified the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates, which flow into the Persian Gulf, a body of water that is renewed by currents from the Indian Ocean only every three to five years.

The destruction of the marshes, say experts, may also affect the region’s climate, with grave consequences for the habitat of nearly 400 bird species.

Although no species has been declared globally extinct, at least three of incomparable beauty, have disappeared from Iraq: the sacred ibis, the African anhinga and the goliath heron.

Ornithologist Evans, of the Britain-based non-governmental BirdLife International, says experts are worried about several species, particularly the aquatic birds, “because they are more vulnerable to chemical and oil spills than land birds.”

At least eight percent of Iraq should be declared a protected area for birds, says BirdLife International.

Wetlands devastation has also hurt the arable lands of southern Iraq. The idyllic oasis inhabited by the Ma’dan during the past 5,000 years has collapsed. Left landless and caught in the crossfire, the descendants of the Sumerians have had to move elsewhere. Of the 95,000 refugees displaced from their homes from 1991 to 1993, 40,000 were Ma’dan.

Today, many live in misery in encampments in Iran or in Iraq’s cities.

With or without the direct effects of the current war, a flow of water from reservoirs in Iran and Iraq would be needed in the short term to restore the wetlands, says UNEP’s Partow.

However, only an integrated management plan that involves Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria could prevent the extinction of the area’s marshes, he adds.

Efforts of the past decades were in vain. Iraq has failed to sign important international agreements like the 1971 Convention on Wetlands (signed in Ramsar, Iran) and the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. Baghdad has also refused field studies of the area, meaning that the existing research is based largely on satellite images.

“In 1994, when we drew up f the first report on wetlands, we tried to involve Iraqi scientists, but it was not possible. We must re-establish dialogue to achieve the equitable use of the river basin,” Jean-Yves Pirot, head of the wetlands and water resources division of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, told Tierramérica.

UNEP will head up environmental assessments in post-war Iraq. But nobody dares hope that the environmental question will be at the center of the post-war debate.

“I know people at USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) and the State Department who are concerned about these issues, but whether they will be given top priority, that is something I can’t predict,” said WRI president Lash.

* María Amparo Lasso is editorial director of Tierramérica.

You can view a satellite image of these wetlands through the Visible Earth Project of NASA.

Why Won’t the Dems Up the Ante?

The U.S. House on Friday will be voting on a “non-binding” resolution opposing the surge of additional troops to Iraq.

Well big whoopin’ deal.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the Democratic resolution was the first step in a longer campaign to end U.S. participation in the nearly four-year-old conflict.

Skip that “step” already. You don’t need a “non-binding” resolution to take action. Just DO it! Cut off the money. Vote NO to sending more troops. Get Bush and company out of office!

And while our representatives are pussy-footing around the real actions to be taken, the Bushites are beating the war drums to attack Iran through their war talk.

Congress still has no spine. If they are ever to stop the madmen in their tracks, they must stop spending time and taxpayer dollars to develop resolutions that basically mean nada. By the time they get around to doing anything, there will be yet another war involving U.S. troops.

Green Party State of the Union Response – Nan Garrett

This is my green sister, Nan Garrett, who was going to run for President in 2008 but had to choose between her job and campaigning. Survival won.

Here is her Green Party respsonse to the State of the Union: