Bush's Oily Lies

When it comes to energy policy, George W has oil for brains. If he could, he'd lease out the Rose Garden so Exxon Mobil could sink a well there.

Remember the lies the Bushites told while rushing congress and the public into their Iraq war? Now they're using the same tactics to stampede us into an awfully oily energy future. Open up our coastal waters to more floating oil derricks, cries Bush, unleash Big Oil on Alaska's wildlife refuge, and turn our national parks into drilling opportunities! More domestic production is the solution to $4 gasoline, he hollers, blaming those meanies in Congress for standing in the way of beneficent oil companies that want nothing more than to lower our prices. "The need for congressional action is urgent," he wailed.

Big fat fib. First, opening up those public lands and waters would have no effect on gasoline prices. It'd take years to develop any potential that is there, and even then the areas hold only a couple of year's worth of America's oil consumption.

Second, any oil produced is as likely to go to China or India as to us. These are global corporations with no loyalty to American consumers, and they'll sell anything they can extract from our public resources to the highest bidder. Indeed, there's nothing to stop China's oil company from winning these drilling rights and shipping the oil anywhere it wants.

Third, Big Oil doesn't really want more crude. They're reaping huge profits by keeping world supply short and are not even drilling on 68 million acres of public leases they already hold. Make them drill there before we expose even more of our natural resources to their contamination.

Fourth - and most important - we should be investing in a massive conservation push to consume less oil, not trying to squeeze a few drops more out of our already oil-soaked earth.
(c) 2008 Jim Hightower's latest book, "If The Gods Had Meant Us To Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates," is available in a fully revised and updated paperback edition.

Plant A Fall Garden Now!
By Mel Bartholomew

Believe it or not, fall is actually a better time of the year to plant a garden than in the springtime. Why? Because the weather, climate and time available is perfect for gardening. The pleasant early fall weather is so much better than the wet, cold springtime which is probably the worst time of the year to start a garden. But traditionally that's when farmers get out their plows and single row gardeners get out their rototillers.

NOT ENOUGH TIME

Let's first consider the time available. In the springtime there is so much to do after a winter season. The yard needs cleaning up, the lawn needs attention, all of the summer things put in storage need cleaning and setting up - and if you are still an old fashioned, single row gardener - the rototiller, that dreaded machine, needs uncovering and checking out, even a tune up and hopefully you remembered to empty the fuel tank before winter and maybe if all goes well, it might even start up and the tires won't be flat. That's also when you realize you didn't put things away very well. The garden tools are all rusty, some broken and many scattered all over the garage and tool shed - even some left in the garden. Maybe the hose froze and split and you won't find that out until you try to use it the first time.

KIDS AND OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES

The kids are busy with outdoor sports and activities after being cooped up inside all winter. Parents find out quickly that those activities take a lot more back and forth time, watching from the sidelines in the cold chilly spring, increased laundry time, etc., etc.

SLOWER PACE AT THE END OF SUMMER

Compare that with the end of summer. Activities are winding down, your schedule has slowed somewhat and even the weather has had an effect on the pace and intensity of your activities. You find yourself with more leisure time and a sense of not being as rushed in all of your activities.

TOO MUCH ENTHUSIASM IN SPRING

Tie all that in with your attitude about gardening. In the spring, you have been pouring over the seed catalogs so long you can't wait to get outside and start planting. That enthusiasm will lead you down the path of planting too much. It happens every year. Next year is going to be different you swear - but it never is. With traditional gardening, that mistake of planting too much, as well as all at once, repeats itself every year on an unbroken cycle.

CALM, COOL AND COLLECTED GARDENER

But let's consider your situation in late summer. You've had a garden all spring and summer and regardless of how it turned out, you're much more reserved, calm, cool and collected about the garden. You don't have that fire in the belly desire to plant seeds and "till the soil." You already have a garden and despite how it turned out, it has more or less satisfied your desire to cultivate Mother Earth. In addition, you sort of feel you've come to the end, there's not much more to do. You've either given up your single row garden again because of all the weeds - or you've settled back just harvesting what's left. If you are a SFG, you'll be thinking how easy and neat that was and wish you could just plant a little more and continue the garden a little longer.

SUMMER GREEN

In either case there is green all around you from the summer growth so there is not that feeling or necessity to change things as there is in the spring and there is also not that traditional practice of having to plant a garden as soon as winter closes and spring arrives.

FALL WEATHER IS PERFECT

With that casual attitude, removal of the "have to do something syndrome," along with more time available, you'll find yourself actually enjoying the planning and preparation of a fall garden. But what about the weather you ask? Actually it's perfect for both the gardener AND the plants. Think of the plants. In the spring, it's cold, rainy, windy, dark, all of the elements that keep a gardener indoors looking out the window and the seeds shivering in the still frozen soil.

TIME TO SPROUT

How long does it take for those seeds to sprout ? Check the table of temperature versus seed sprouting time in the SFG Book on page 157. At 40 degrees F, carrots take 50 days to sprout. 50 DAYS ! Wow that is almost 2 MONTHS, of course the soil warms gradually so they finally do sprout sooner but think of all the bad things that can happen to those seeds in that time period.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE

Now look at the time to sprout in the late summer when the soil temperature might be around 70 degrees. Carrots take 6 days ! What a difference - the same is true of every other type of seed. Beets - 40 days versus 6 days. Onions: 30 days versus 4 days. Peas: 40 days versus 7 days. Spinach: 25 days versus 5 days.

A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE

Did you know all that? Most gardeners don't. That's why I put those two germination charts in the book. It makes a huge difference in the success of a gardener if they know just a few facts. So we can now see why late summer is so much better to plant seeds than spring. The same will apply for transplants, both from a standpoint of sprouting and growing your own transplants like cabbage, parsley and lettuce as well as buying and planting nursery stock.

STRONGER STARTS IN THE FALL

Everything will start off faster, stronger and better in late summer than in the spring. Fall gives us warmer temperatures, less wind, more light, while spring brings us a constant threat of frost, sleet or snow. In the south we call those conditions unseasonable weather, sort of like in Southern California we always said, "it's not rain, it's liquid sunshine." No one likes to admit to bad weather in his or her part of the country.

TROUBLES IN LATE SPRINGTIME

Then the weather gets hotter and the plants start maturing rapidly, most of the spring crop goes either to seed or gets wasted as they mature almost instantly in the hot early summer months. You can't keep up with the harvest, especially if you over planted in an old-fashioned single row garden.

PLEASANT FALL WEATHER

A fall garden is exactly the opposite. You prepare and plant your garden in the comfort of the warm weather, the seeds sprout quickly and as the weather cools down they mature slowly from very strong plants. Fall is a more leisurely time with better weather and it is much more pleasant to be outside tending your fall garden. Many of the crops can be carried right into the cold winter with just a little protection. Check out page 95 of the SFG book to see what to plant in the fall and when in your part of the country.

DO A TRIAL IN THE FALL

Even if you are expanding your SFG or perhaps just want to try out SFG on a small scale before you switch from your big single row garden, fall is also the absolutely best time to do it. Build just a few 4' x 4' boxes and see how it goes. It's much easier to start small, not many materials to buy, build or mix. With the success you'll have with your fall garden, see chapter 16 of the SFG book on page 235 for end of the season activities, it'll be very easy to start up in the spring. And then gradually expand even more until you get just the right size. Not so big you don't enjoy taking care of it, yet big enough to grow all the things you want in the quantities you will actually use. Remember SFG is so different from single row gardening; we plant the amount we want to actually harvest - not the length of the row or amount of seeds in a packet.

A NEW IDEA TO MANY

Controlled planting is what we call it. Compare it to going to the auto-mat restaurant in New York City where you put in your coin and get one serving of something versus standing before a huge buffet table holding a gigantic plate and told to take all you want. Do you think you will take too much and there will be waste in the end ? Either theirs or yours. With the auto-mat, you can always go get another portion of that same dish if you want it and with SFG you can always plant another square foot of the same crop either now or later to give a staggered harvest or even a different variety to give a varied choice of harvest.

TIRED OF WEEDS ?

Now I know by fall, single row gardeners are tired of gardening because it has all been Weeds, Weeds, Weeds. But the Square Foot Gardener is thinking, this was so easy and so much fun I wish it would never end.

FALL IS BEST

So in summary, we have better conditions of all factors for both the gardener and the plants. Both will be happier because they will be much more successful in the fall. Now the scene gets even better as fall progresses and the weather cools down. The plants had a vigorous healthy start and are of sturdy stock - yet as the light shortens and the temperatures cool - they are not in a rush to mature and go to seed. This stretches out the harvest into a very usable compatible event. There is no demanding pick it now or it will all go bad. The harvest seems to patiently sit quietly and wait with no pressure on the gardener. Even further down the road, since the fall crop is made up of cold hardy varieties, they will last long into the cold weather.

HARVEST WHEN THE SNOW FLIES

Pull back the clear plastic cover, open the
deer netting and the harvest is ready just for you.

Drying Food Part #4
Drying Herbs
By Judy Troftgruben

Folklore often depicts the magical powers of herbs. But good cooks the world over have discovered another kind of power in the subtle flavors and aromas of herbs. If you grow and dry your own herbs, you will always have a fresh, inexpensive supply close at hand for making delicious foods.

Herbs do not add calories or nutritional value to foods, but they do add flavor. So if you want to cut down on calories, you can use herbs and spices to give zest to familiar, low-calorie foods. For someone on a salt-free diet, herbs can enhance the flavor of otherwise tasteless foods. A pinch of rosemary, for example, dropped into the water that potatoes or rice are boiled in will give a delightful taste to these vegetables.

SELECTION

You can grow and dry a wide variety of herbs. Some that are especially popular are thyme, tarragon, rosemary, mint, sage, sweet basil, bay leaf, parsley, marjoram, savory, oregano, chervil, chives, and dill. The foliage of these plants is attractive, and they give off a soft, pleasant fragrance. If you plant your herb garden near the kitchen, you can enjoy the plants and harvest the leaves easily as they reach the peak of quality. Young, tender leaves are more flavorful and aromatic than older leaves.

PREPARATION

Cut the stalks when the leaves are mature or the plants have just started to bloom. Use only the tender, leafy tops and flower clusters. Discard the leaves below 6 inches from the top of the stalk. They are not as pungent as the top leaves. Remove any dead or discolored leaves. Rinse with cold water to wash off dust and dirt. Blot off excess moisture with paper towelling. When drying dill, harvest the plant as soon as the seeds are ripe.

DRYING METHODS

Air

For air drying, tie six to eight stems together in a small bunch. Then tie a large brown paper bag around the bunch to protect the herbs from the light. Be sure the leaves do not touch the sides; otherwise, they may stick to the bag and not dry properly. Make several holes in the bag for ventilation. Hang it in a warm, dry, airy room or attic. Herbs will dry in 1 to 2 weeks.

If you like, you can remove the leaves from the stems before drying. Place the leaves on a tray in a warm, dry, airy place away from direct sunlight For best results, use a doth-covered rack or an open mesh screen. Turn or stir the leaves occasionally to assure even drying. Herbs should not be sun dried because light destroys the natural aroma. A poor-quality product will result if the herbs are exposed to direct sunlight.

Oven

For oven drying, place clean, fresh leaves in a single layer on racks. There should be at least 1 inches around the racks and between them so that the air can circulate freely. You can use blocks of wood to separate the trays. Set the oven on the very lowest setting and dry the herbs slowly. Keep the oven door propped open slightly for ventilation and to control the heat. Drying will be complete in 2 to 4 hours.

Microwave Oven

If you have a microwave oven, you can use it for drying herbs. Place the herbs between paper towels and set them on the rack. Close the door and turn the oven on a medium setting for 2 to 3 minutes. Then check for dryness; the leaves should feel brittle and should crumble easily. If they are not done, turn the oven on for 30 seconds longer. Although this process actually cooks the herbs, the end product is just about the same.

STORING

When the leaves are dry, shake them from the stems and discard the stems. Crush the leaves if desired. But keep in mind that whole herbs retain their flavor longer than crushed or ground herbs. Store dried herbs in small airtight containers away from the light. Containers such as metal cans or tinted glass that exclude light are best.

If stored in a cool, dry, dark place, whole dried herbs retain their flavor and aroma up to one year. A warm storage area may hasten the loss of flavor. A damp environment encourages caking, color change, and infestation. Close the containers tightly after each use so that the volatile oils are not lost.

Do not use old herbs. If you aren't sure an herb is fresh, rub a bit of it between your palms and breathe in the aroma. If there is little or no aroma, replace the herb with a fresh supply.

USING

To release the full flavor, cut or chop the dried leaves into fine bits before adding to food. Or crush the leaves by rubbing them between your palms or by grinding them with a mortar and pestle. For the best results, add herbs to the liquid in the recipe.

Keep seasoning blends subtle. When combining herbs, use one having a pronounced flavor with two to four others having a less pronounced flavor. All of the herbs in the following famous combinations can be grown and dried at home:

bouquet garni, bunches of herbs and sometimes spices tied together or put into a cheesecloth bag. The usual combination is celery leaves, onion, parsley, and thyme. The combination varies for different dishes.
fines herbes, a mixture of three or more herbs. Combinations used are (1) chervil, chives, and parsley; or (2) basil, sage, and savory.

The amount to use depends on your taste preferences, the piquancy of each herb, and the effect it has on different foods. If you do not have a recipe, start with 1/4 teaspoon of herb per pound of meat or pint of sauce, and increase as desired. If the recipe calls for fresh herbs, you can substitute dried herbs. Use a fourth of the recommended amount, for example, 1/4 teaspoon of dried herb instead of I teaspoon of fresh. Avoid using the same herbs in several dishes to be served at the same meal.

The flavor of an herb will be at its best if you add it to the recipe at the proper time. Add herbs as follows:

to soups and stews during the last half hour of cooking. The delicate flavor and aroma of herbs can be lost by overcooking.
to uncooked foods such as tomato juice cocktail 3 to 4 hours before serving, or even overnight, to release the full flavor of the herb.
to quickly cooked dishes or sauces as soon as you begin cooking the food. To draw out more flavor, barely moisten herbs with a little lemon juice, water, cooking oil, or other liquid suitable for the food you are preparing, and let stand for 10 minutes or more before using.

Herbs may be used to flavor vinegar, mustard, and butter. Choose your favorite herbs to add variety to these everyday ingredients, following the recommended steps.

Use whole spices and herbs for beverages and pickles. Leaving whole spices in pickles can cause unsightly darkening. Tie herbs and whole spices in a small square of cheesecloth so that they can be removed easily before serving. This will also prevent seasoning specks in the finished product. The same method can be used when whole spices and herbs are added to other foods.

 

Use in tomato and egg dishes, stews, vegetables, meats, soups, and salads. Add a touch to hamburgers, noodles, and salad dressings.	Drop a few leaves into stewing chicken, fish chowder, tomato soup, and corn chowder. Remove the leaves before serving.	Essential in poultry seasoning. Use with onion for stuffing pork, duck, and goose. Rub powdered feaves on pork loin and ham.
Add a pinch to poulfry, meats, egg dishes, poultry stuffings, soups, potato salad, creamed potatoes, and green beans.	Use as a substitute for onion. Sprinkle as a garnish over vegetables, baked potatoes, meats, and soups.	Attractive as a garnish with soups, vegetable safads, meats, and poultry. Good as a seasoning with almost any vegetable or meat dish.
Delicious in pizzas or other Italian dishes, chili, meat loaf, veal dressings, and bean, tomato, or lentil soups. Gives a flair to sour cream served over sliced tomatoes.	Blend with parsley and butter, and spread on chicken breasts and thighs when roasting. Add tparingly to creamed soups, poultry, stews, and sauces.	Usually blended with other herbs. Leaves can be used with meat, poultry stuffing, gravies, soups, egg ond cheese dishes, vegetables, and seafood.

 

(c) 1984/2008 Judy Troftgruben, Extension Specialist, Foods and Nutrition and revised by Mary Keith, Assistant Professor, Foods and Nutrition, and Extension Specialist, Foods, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Acts Of War
By Scott Ritter

The war between the United States and Iran is on. American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities which result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed. This wanton violation of a nation's sovereignty would not be tolerated if the tables were turned and Americans were being subjected to Iranian-funded covert actions which took the lives of Americans, on American soil, and destroyed American property and livelihood. Many Americans remain unaware of what is transpiring abroad in their name. Many of those who are cognizant of these activities are supportive of them, an outgrowth of misguided sentiment which holds Iran accountable for a list of grievances used by the U.S. government to justify the ongoing global war on terror. Iran, we are told, is not just a nation pursuing nuclear weapons, but is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world today.

Much of the information behind this is being promulgated by Israel, which has a vested interest in seeing Iran neutralized as a potential threat. But Israel is joined by another source, even more puzzling in terms of its broad-based acceptance in the world of American journalism: the Mujahadeen-e Khalk, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group sworn to overthrow the theocracy in Tehran. The CIA today provides material support to the actions of the MEK inside Iran. The recent spate of explosions in Iran, including a particularly devastating "accident" involving a military convoy transporting ammunition in downtown Tehran, appears to be linked to an MEK operation; its agents working inside munitions manufacturing plants deliberately are committing acts of sabotage which lead to such explosions. If CIA money and planning support are behind these actions, the agency's backing constitutes nothing less than an act of war on the part of the United States against Iran.

The MEK traces its roots back to the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeg. Formed among students and intellectuals, the MEK emerged in the 1960s as a serious threat to the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. Facing brutal repression from the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK, the MEK became expert at blending into Iranian society, forming a cellular organizational structure which made it virtually impossible to eradicate. The MEK membership also became adept at gaining access to positions of sensitivity and authority. When the Shah was overthrown in 1978, the MEK played a major role and for a while worked hand in glove with the Islamic Revolution in crafting a post-Shah Iran. In 1979 the MEK had a central role in orchestrating the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and holding 55 Americans hostage for 444 days.

However, relations between the MEK and the Islamic regime in Tehran soured, and after the MEK staged a bloody coup attempt in 1981, all ties were severed and the two sides engaged in a violent civil war. Revolutionary Guard members who were active at that time have acknowledged how difficult it was to fight the MEK. In the end, massive acts of arbitrary arrest, torture and executions were required to break the back of mainstream MEK activity in Iran, although even the Revolutionary Guard today admits the MEK remains active and is virtually impossible to completely eradicate.

It is this stubborn ability to survive and operate inside Iran, at a time when no other intelligence service can establish and maintain a meaningful agent network there, which makes the MEK such an asset to nations such as the United States and Israel. The MEK is able to provide some useful intelligence; however, its overall value as an intelligence resource is negatively impacted by the fact that it is the sole source of human intelligence in Iran. As such, the group has taken to exaggerating and fabricating reports to serve its own political agenda. In this way, there is little to differentiate the MEK from another Middle Eastern expatriate opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, which infamously supplied inaccurate intelligence to the United States and other governments and helped influence the U.S. decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Today, the MEK sees itself in a similar role, providing sole-sourced intelligence to the United States and Israel in an effort to facilitate American military operations against Iran and, eventually, to overthrow the Islamic regime in Tehran.

The current situation concerning the MEK would be laughable if it were not for the violent reality of that organization's activities. Upon its arrival in Iraq in 1986, the group was placed under the control of Saddam Hussein's Mukhabarat, or intelligence service. The MEK was a heavily militarized organization and in 1988 participated in division-size military operations against Iran. The organization represents no state and can be found on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations, yet since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 the MEK has been under the protection of the U.S. military. Its fighters are even given "protected status" under the Geneva conventions. The MEK says that its members in Iraq are refugees, not terrorists. And yet one would be hard-pressed to find why the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees should confer refugee status on an active paramilitary organization that uses "refugee camps" inside Iraq as its bases.

The MEK is behind much of the intelligence being used by the International Atomic Energy Agency in building its case that Iran may be pursuing (or did in fact pursue in the past) a nuclear weapons program. The complexity of the MEK-CIA relationship was recently underscored by the agency's acquisition of a laptop computer allegedly containing numerous secret documents pertaining to an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Much has been made about this computer and its contents. The United States has led the charge against Iran within international diplomatic circles, citing the laptop information as the primary source proving Iran's ongoing involvement in clandestine nuclear weapons activity. Of course, the information on the computer, being derived from questionable sources (i.e., the MEK and the CIA, both sworn enemies of Iran) is controversial and its veracity is questioned by many, including me.

Now, I have a simple solution to the issue of the laptop computer: Give it the UNSCOM treatment. Assemble a team of CIA, FBI and Defense Department forensic computer analysts and probe the computer, byte by byte. Construct a chronological record of how and when the data on the computer were assembled. Check the "logic" of the data, making sure everything fits together in a manner consistent with the computer's stated function and use. Tell us when the computer was turned on and logged into and how it was used. Then, with this complex usage template constructed, overlay the various themes which have been derived from the computer's contents, pertaining to projects, studies and other activities of interest. One should be able to rapidly ascertain whether or not the computer is truly a key piece of intelligence pertaining to Iran's nuclear programs.

The fact that this computer is acknowledged as coming from the MEK and the fact that a proper forensic investigation would probably demonstrate the fabricated nature of the data contained are why the U.S. government will never agree to such an investigation being done. A prosecutor, when making a case of criminal action, must lay out evidence in a simple, direct manner, allowing not only the judge and jury to see it but also the accused. If the evidence is as strong as the prosecutor maintains, it is usually bad news for the defendant. However, if the defendant is able to demonstrate inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the data being presented, then the prosecution is the one in trouble. And if the defense is able to demonstrate that the entire case is built upon fabricated evidence, the case is generally thrown out. This, in short, is what should be done with the IAEA's ongoing probe into allegations that Iran has pursued nuclear weapons. The evidence used by the IAEA is unable to withstand even the most rudimentary cross-examination. It is speculative at best, and most probably fabricated. Iran has done the right thing in refusing to legitimize this illegitimate source of information.

A key question that must be asked is why, then, does the IAEA continue to permit Olli Heinonen, the agency's Finnish deputy director for safeguards and the IAEA official responsible for the ongoing technical inspections in Iran, to wage his one-man campaign on behalf of the United States, Britain and (indirectly) Israel regarding allegations derived from sources of such questionable veracity (the MEK-supplied laptop computer)? Moreover, why is such an official given free rein to discuss such sensitive data with the press, or with politically motivated outside agencies, in a manner which results in questionable allegations appearing in the public arena as unquestioned fact? Under normal circumstances, leaks of the sort which have occurred regarding the ongoing investigation into Iran's alleged past studies on nuclear weapons would be subjected to a thorough investigation to determine the source and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to end them. And yet, in Vienna, Heinonen's repeated transgressions are treated as a giant "non-event," the 800-pound gorilla in the room that everyone pretends isn't really there.

Heinonen has become the pro-war yin to the anti-confrontation yang of his boss, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Every time ElBaradei releases the results of the IAEA probe of Iran, pointing out that the IAEA can find no evidence of any past or present nuclear weapons program, and that there is a full understanding of Iran's controversial centrifuge-based enrichment program, Heinonen throws a monkey wrench into the works. Well-publicized briefings are given to IAEA-based diplomats. Mysteriously, leaks from undisclosed sources occur. Heinonen's Finnish nationality serves as a flimsy cover for neutrality which long ago disappeared. He is no longer serving in the role as unbiased inspector, but rather a front for the active pursuit of an American- and Israeli-inspired disinformation campaign designed to keep alive the flimsy allegations of a nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to justify the continued warlike stance taken by the U.S. and Israel against Iran.

The fact that the IAEA is being used as a front to pursue this blatantly anti-Iranian propaganda is a disservice to an organization with a mission of vital world importance. The interjection of not only the unverified (and unverifiable) MEK laptop computer data, side by side with a newly placed emphasis on a document relating to the forming of uranium metal into hemispheres of the kind useful in a nuclear weapon, is an amateurish manipulation of data to achieve a preordained outcome. Calling the Iranian possession of the aforementioned document "alarming," Heinonen (and the media) skipped past the history of the document, which of course has been well explained by Iran previously as something the Pakistani nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan inserted on his own volition to a delivery of documentation pertaining to centrifuges. Far from being a "top-secret" document protected by Iran's security services, it was discarded in a file of old material that Iran provided to the IAEA inspectors. When the IAEA found the document, Iran allowed it to be fully examined by the inspectors, and answered every question posed by the IAEA about how the document came to be in Iran. For Heinonen to call the document "alarming," at this late stage in the game, is not only irresponsible but factually inaccurate, given the definition of the word. The Iranian document in question is neither a cause for alarm, seeing as it is not a source for any "sudden fear brought on by the sense of danger," nor does it provide any "warning of existing or approaching danger," unless one is speaking of the danger of military action on the part of the United States derived from Heinonen's unfortunate actions and choice of words.

Olli Heinonen might as well become a salaried member of the Bush administration, since he is operating in lock step with the U.S. government's objective of painting Iran as a threat worthy of military action. Shortly after Heinonen's alarmist briefing in March 2008, the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, emerged to announce, "As today's briefing showed us, there are strong reasons to suspect that Iran was working covertly and deceitfully, at least until recently, to build a bomb." Heinonen's briefing provided nothing of the sort, being derived from an irrelevant document and a laptop computer of questionable provenance. But that did not matter to Schulte, who noted that "Iran has refused to explain or even acknowledge past work on weaponization." Schulte did not bother to note that it would be difficult for Iran to explain or acknowledge that which it has not done. "This is particularly troubling," Schulte went on, "when combined with Iran's determined effort to master the technology to enrich uranium." Why is this so troubling? Because, as Schulte noted, "Uranium enrichment is not necessary for Iran's civil program but it is necessary to produce the fissile material that could be weaponized into a bomb."

This, of course, is the crux of the issue: Iran's ongoing enrichment program. Not because it is illegal; Iran is permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Not again because Iran's centrifuge program is operating in an undeclared, unmonitored fashion; the IAEA had stated it has a full understanding of the scope and work of the Iranian centrifuge enrichment program and that all associated nuclear material is accounted for and safeguarded. The problem has never been, and will never be, Iran's enrichment program. The problem is American policy objectives of regime change in Iran, pushed by a combination of American desires for global hegemony and an activist Israeli agenda which seeks regional security, in perpetuity, through military and economic supremacy. The specter of nuclear enrichment is simply a vehicle for facilitating the larger policy objectives. Olli Heinonen, and those who support and sustain his work, must be aware of the larger geopolitical context of his actions, which makes them all the more puzzling and contemptible.

A major culprit in this entire sordid affair is the mainstream media. Displaying an almost uncanny inability to connect the dots, the editors who run America's largest newspapers, and the producers who put together America's biggest television news programs, have collectively facilitated the most simplistic, inane and factually unfounded story lines coming out of the Bush White House. The most recent fairy tale was one of "diplomacy," on the part of one William Burns, the No. 3 diplomat in the State Department.

I have studied the minutes of meetings involving John McCloy, an American official who served numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, in the decades following the end of the Second World War. His diplomacy with the Soviets, conducted with senior Soviet negotiator Valerein Zorin and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev himself, was real, genuine, direct and designed to resolve differences. The transcripts of the diplomacy conducted between Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho to bring an end to the Vietnam conflict is likewise a study in the give and take required to achieve the status of real diplomacy.

Sending a relatively obscure official like Burns to "observe" a meeting between the European Union and Iran, with instructions not to interact, not to initiate, not to discuss, cannot under any circumstances be construed as diplomacy. Any student of diplomatic history could tell you this. And yet the esteemed editors and news producers used the term diplomacy, without challenge or clarification, to describe Burns' mission to Geneva on July 19. The decision to send him there was hailed as a "significant concession" on the part of the Bush administration, a step away from war and an indication of a new desire within the White House to resolve the Iranian impasse through diplomacy. How this was going to happen with a diplomat hobbled and muzzled to the degree Burns was apparently skipped the attention of these writers and their bosses. Diplomacy, America was told, was the new policy option of choice for the Bush administration.

Of course, the Geneva talks produced nothing. The United States had made sure Europe, through its foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, had no maneuvering room when it came to the core issue of uranium enrichment: Iran must suspend all enrichment before any movement could be made on any other issue. Furthermore, the American-backed program of investigation concerning the MEK-supplied laptop computer further poisoned the diplomatic waters. Iran, predictably, refused to suspend its enrichment program, and rejected the Heinonen-led investigation into nuclear weaponization, refusing to cooperate further with the IAEA on that matter, noting that it fell outside the scope of the IAEA's mandate in Iran.

Condoleezza Rice was quick to respond. After a debriefing from Burns, who flew to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, where Rice was holding closed-door meetings with the foreign ministers of six Arab nations on the issue of Iran, Rice told the media that Iran "was not serious" about resolving the standoff. Having played the diplomacy card, Rice moved on with the real agenda: If Iran did not fully cooperate with the international community (i.e., suspend its enrichment program), then it would face a new round of economic sanctions and undisclosed punitive measures, both unilaterally on the part of the United States and Europe, as well as in the form of even broader sanctions from the United Nations Security Council (although it is doubtful that Russia and China would go along with such a plan).

The issue of unilateral U.S. sanctions is most worrisome. Both the House of Representatives, through HR 362, and the Senate, through SR 580, are preparing legislation which would call for an air, ground and sea blockade of Iran. Back in October 1962, President Kennedy, when considering the imposition of a naval blockade against Cuba in response to the presence of Soviet missiles in that nation, opined that "a blockade is a major military operation, too. It's an act of war." Which, of course, it is. The false diplomacy waged by the White House in Geneva simply pre-empted any congressional call for a diplomatic outreach. Now the president can move on with the mission of facilitating a larger war with Iran by legitimizing yet another act of aggression. One day, in the not-so-distant future, Americans will awake to the reality that American military forces are engaged in a shooting war with Iran. Many will scratch their heads and wonder, "How did that happen?" The answer is simple: We all let it happen. We are at war with Iran right now. We just don't have the moral courage to admit it.
(c) 2008 Scott Ritter a former Marine Corps intelligence officer, was a chief inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books; "Target Iran," with a new afterword by the author, was recently released in paperback by Nation Books.

Black Milk Blues

Thus all we can do is to keep looking, working, trying to clear a little more space for the light, to let it shine on our passions and our confusions, our anger and our hopes, informing and refining them, so that we can see each other better, for a moment - until death shutters all seeing forever.
(c) 2008 Chris Floyd

Bush Dissenter: 'Don't Start a War With Iran'

Fallon emphasized the need for coherence in setting foreign policy. "A priority for me is to set a national strategy for the world and then work down to the [Middle East] region," he said. On stability and security in the Mideast, "we'd like to remove friction [that] would lead to conflict."
(c) 2008 Spencer Ackermen writes for the Washington Independent

Fannie and Freddie

Turn her into the wind, drop the mainsail, and batten down the hatches, it's gonna be a big blow.
(c) 2008 Mike Folkerth is not your run-of-the-mill author of economics. Nor does he write in boring lecture style. Not even close. The former real estate broker, developer, private real estate fund manager, auctioneer, Alaskan bush pilot, restaurateur, U.S. Navy veteran, heavy equipment operator, taxi cab driver, fishing guide, horse packer...(I won't go on, it's embarrassing) writes from experience and plain common sense. He is the author of "The Biggest Lie Ever Believed."

The Quotable Quote...

Grow Your Own

By Allison Arieff

"Edible landscape" seems to be going head to head with "staycation" as the most popular catch phrase of Summer 2008. Lawns may not be disappearing before our very eyes, but citizens are definitely swapping out blades of grass for bushels of beans in increasing numbers.

Take me for instance, a bona fide city dweller: As a follow up to my column in March on the reclamation of urban and suburban land for agricultural use, I've spent the last several weeks putting theory into practice, literally getting my hands dirty (and whatever other cliché I can unearth) in the interest of urban agriculture.

My backyard, before and after.

Two months ago, I learned about My Farm, run by mortgage-broker-turned-farmer Trevor Paque. My Farm is essentially an urban take on community-sponsored agriculture (CSAs). With CSAs, individuals essentially invest in rural farms to help support their operations and are given a weekly box of fresh produce in return. With My Farm (and similar operations found in cities including New York and Portland, Ore.), you can grow food in your own backyard with the assistance of urban farmers like Paque. In one day, he created our 120-square-foot backyard farm - landscaping with found materials from the yard, installing a drip-irrigation system and planting heirloom seeds. Now he comes once a week to harvest a box of organic and ridiculously local produce for us - plus an additional box, which he sells to another family in our neighborhood.

This costs us about $100 a month, and has allowed us to replace our water-dependent grass patch with an edible landscape. After just three months in business, Paque has a waiting list of over 200 people and is scrambling to keep up with demand.

Urban agriculture has been around since at least the 18th century, but it's an idea whose time has truly come - now - in the United States. The reasons range from the fact that our hands are always found glued to computer keys and not even occasionally in the dirt, to the scary existence of industrially grown tomatoes that may (or may not) cause salmonella, to the fact that a drive to the market can now cost more than the food you purchase there.

Though some may see this as a "lazy locavore" trend - wherein couch potato clients, glass of biodynamic Syrah in hand, observe the hard labor of city farmers while lounging with their laptops - the urban agriculture movement seems to me to be slowly transcending its elitist associations. It is truly growing into something that is wholly about collaboration, community and connection to food, to neighbors, to land.

That's certainly been my experience both in my yard, as neighbors and friends come by to help harvest (and to eat), and in my city. Earlier this month, my family spent a Saturday at San Francisco's Civic Center Plaza, helping to plant a 10,000-square-foot Victory Garden sponsored by Slow Food Nation, a nonprofit organization that will be celebrating American food through art, music, lectures, tastings, school programs and the like over Labor Day Weekend. More than 250 volunteers and nearly a dozen Bay Area gardening organizations dedicated their time to plant the first edible garden in front of San Francisco's City Hall since 1943. Designed by John Bela of the arts collective REBAR and curated by the artist/gardener/activist Amy Francheschini of Victory Gardens 2008+, this public installation aims to demonstrate the potential of a truly local agriculture practice while producing high-quality food for those in need.

This day was social networking of the best sort. Participants got some dirt under their fingernails, ran into old friends, ate an organic lunch and left weary but happy. It was as much about community creation as food cultivation. I hope to see this sort of urban (and suburban) intervention replicated across the country. (It will be a shame if the city of San Francisco can't find a way to either keep the garden here or find a suitable space to relocate it.)

This isn't just a California thing, nor does it require vast amounts of open space. At PS1 in Long Island City, N.Y., the architecture firm WORK AC eschewed that art institution's traditionalUrban Beach concept for an Urban Farm.

Planters are part of WORK AC's Urban Farm project.

"This came out a desire to combine urbanism with ecology," explains Work Architecture Company principal Dan Wood, who with his partner, Amale Andraos, and their architecture students at Princeton have concluded that the urban farm is really the holy grail of making things sustainable. WORK AC's take is particularly urban, featuring things like a mobile phone charging station, speakers that emit farm-animal sounds and "Gaia" soil made from recycled Styrofoam and pectin gel. Food harvested from the project is used at PS1's café, thus reducing food miles to a whopping 300 feet.

When I spoke with Wood and Andraos recently, it was evident that this project is the result of an intricate network of people and places. They spoke excitedly of the great advice they'd received, for example, from Michael Grady Robertson of the 50-acre Queens County Farm Museum (which I bet you didn't know existed) in New York and from their solar panel installer, who'd honed his craft in Alaska. Andraos stressed that they really wanted this typically rural thing to offer to city dwellers all the things that attract them about city living: social interaction, play, excitement, fun.

If all of this has helped plant a seed of inspiration, why not enter Readymade's Second Annual Garden Challenge. The DIY bible Readymade, which inspires its readership toward the execution (or at least vicarious realization) of creative ideas on small budgets, invites readers to submit ideas for transforming their own outdoor spaces in innovative ways. (E-mail ideas to shana@readymademag.com by Aug. 1.) I've no doubt they'll be hearing from hordes of less-than-lazy locavores.
(c) 2008 Allison Arieff

The End Of The SUV

So now I suppose we just sit back and watch the slow and uncomfortable fade, enjoy the clunky death throes of the giant and wonderfully pointless beasts that helped define an era. Oh you big, sweet, dumb dinosaurs. You'll always have a special place in our hearts. And, you know, in our juvenile rap videos. Farewell.
(c) 2008 Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate and in the Datebook section of the San Francisco Chronicle. To get on the e-mail list for this column, please click here and remove one article of clothing!

The Dead Letter Office...

Heil Bush

The Washington Post Editorial Page's Latest Rule Of Law Sermon
By Glenn Greenwald

Jackson Diehl, Deputy Editor of the The Washington Post's Editorial Page, has an Op-Ed today that contains a stirring defense today of "the rule of law." Diehl righteously complains the "president is already in danger of making 'legal nihilism' the byword for his administration." It might be considered quite surprising that an Editorial Page that has long cheered on many of the Bush administration's most extreme acts of lawlessness is suddenly complaining about the President's "legal nihilism," except that Diehl's sermon isn't directed towards the American President, but rather towards Russia's. Acording to Dihel, Russia is demonstrating a very upsetting disregard both for domestic and international law.

That an establishment organ like The Washington Post Editorial Page continues to think it can credibly lecture the world on the rule of law and the need to abide by international norms is a potent reflection of how deluded our political class has become. Given what our political establishment has sanctioned over the last seven years, it so obviously has -- to use the phrase coined by the ex-blogger Billmon -- "forfeited its ability to chastise the human rights abuses of others without triggering a global laughing fit." That goes double for our ability to chastise other political cultures for their disregard of the rule of law, particularly basic precepts of international law.

Yet here is Diehl, bitterly complaining with a straight face, that "the law still doesn't seem to matter" to the Russian Government in either the domestic or international realm. He identifies several examples where he claims the Russian Government has intervened in disputes between Russian and foreign corporations in order to force the latter to turn over their assets to the Russian Government, and this is what Diehl says about Russia's outrageous disregard for international law:

So much, then, for domestic reform. What about international law? . . . . More serious is the predicament of Georgia, the former Soviet republic that has embraced democracy and sought NATO membership. Since shortly before Medvedev took office, Russian warplanes have been systematically violating Georgian airspace, shooting down Georgian drone aircraft on several occasions. In breach of a U.N.-sponsored agreement, Moscow has dispatched security forces to the separatist region of Abkhazia and granted legal recognition to its self-declared government. U.S. and European officials believe a concerted effort is underway to provoke the Georgian government into an armed confrontation.

Diehl is writing on the same Editorial Page which, for the last five years, has boisterously cheered on the American invasion and occupation of Iraq -- one of the most egregious violations of international law of the last decade, at least. It's the same Editorial Page that has repeatedly urged that lawbreaking telecoms should be relieved of the obligation to go to court and should be immunized from any consequences, decreeing that they were "acting as patriotic corporate citizens" when breaking our privacy laws for years. It's an Editorial Page that never ceases its support for those who threaten Iran with a military attack -- threats which (not that anyone really cares) happen to be violations of the conventions of international law which the Post depicts itself as upholding (UN Charter: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force . . . "). M

And just two days ago, the Post's Editorial Page explicitly advocated that new so-called "specialized national security courts" be created in the U.S. to empower the President to imprison people -- even for life -- without having to charge them with any crime, including in those circumstances where (due to a lack of evidence) no such charges could possibly be brought against such individuals:

The president must have the legal flexibility to detain those against whom there is credible, actionable intelligence but not enough evidence to bring charges."

This is who, on a weekly basis, singles out other Governments for lectures on the sanctity of the rule of law, human rights, and the need to abide by international conventions. It's certainly possible to argue that we shouldn't be constrained by petty and bothersome things like international law and even domestic law when it comes to having the President protect us all. That, more or less, has been the animating principle which our political establishment (and certainly the Post Editorial Page) has embraced to justify the conduct of our own Government during the last seven years.

But you can't simultaneously espouse that view for yourself and then expect that your sermons to the rest of the world about the sanctity of international conventions and the rule of law will be treated with anything other than scornful indifference. Yet somehow, people like Jackson Diehl -- Fred Hiatt's deputy -- continue to believe they're in a position to condemn other countries' disregard for such principles.

What we've done over the last seven years -- at least much of it -- isn't a secret. It's worthwhile to state frequently in clear, dispassionate terms what our country has done. Our Government has kidnapped people off the street and from their homes and sent them to places like Syria to be tortured for months (including completely innocent people) and then invoked National Security claims to bar them from holding our Government accountable in a court of law. We've disappeared others into secret prisons beyond even the reach of the Red Cross, or encaged them in a lawless black hole on a Cuban island. We've tortured them, sometimes to death, even with the knowledge that many were innocent. We attacked and completely demolished another country that couldn't attack us even if it wanted to. And our President openly declared that he has the power to break our laws, spy on U.S. citizens with no warrants, and indefinitely imprison even our own citizens with no process of any kind. Those are all just facts that aren't really subject to dispute or debate.

Worst of all, having done all of that -- not for weeks or months following the 9/11 attacks, but for years, still -- we've collectively decided, without much turmoil or debate, that it should all be forgiven, that none of it should be punished or even investigated, that it's best just to keep these crimes concealed and, when accidentally disclosed, to immunize the criminals. And all of that is being done right out in the open, so that our formal human rights reports are self-evident, almost laughable, farces, and even countries like Zimbabwe, when their governments want to engage in tyrannical acts, can and do rationally point to the U.S. as the leading example which they're following.

Whether this country or that one is "worse" than the U.S. in these areas is irrelevant to the point (though, on that topic, one might compare Diehl's complaints about Russia's interference in oil disputes to the Bush administration's "War on Terror" conduct). Regardless of who is "worse," it is truly baffling that our political establishment still thinks it can anoint itself arbiters on the rule of law and human rights.

How can a member of an Editorial Page which has endorsed some of the most grotesque abuses and violations of law within their own country -- and which continues to believe that those responsible should be protected and immunized -- possibly continue to parade around as some sort of crusaders for those principles when it comes to others? Who is the target audience that they think they are successfully fooling with that charade? What mental process allows a person like Jackson Diehl or Fred Hiatt to declare that their own Government is exempt from the rule of law and the most basic international norms yet still believe they are in a position to condemn other governments for insufficient regard for the rule of law and human rights?

UPDATE: In comments, El Cid provides one of the best definitions of what makes one a "Leftist" when it comes to our foreign policy debates:

One of the things which apparently marks you as part of the whacked out fringe crazy extreme left in this country is that you seem to think there might ought be consistency between (a) what the U.S. foreign policy establishment demands of other, typically weaker nations; (b) what the U.S. foreign policy establishment feels free to do with regard to and even in those other nations; and (c) what the U.S. does at home. That really is the hallmark of what the political establishment dismisses and derides as "leftism."

On a different though related note, this is what Verizon did today: Now that Congress has given immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the government spy on Americans in suspected terrorism cases, a Maine legislator is asking Verizon anew if it turned over any customer records to the federal government.

As it has in the past when faced with such queries, Verizon Communications Inc. says it is not commenting on matters involving national security. . . .

The law in effect nullified a lawsuit by Maine which sought to know what kind of phone customer information was turned over to the National Security Agency as part of its anti-terror efforts. That and several other similar cases brought by consumers, privacy advocates and others had been consolidated before Congress granted immunity. . . . "Possibly tens of thousands of Mainers have had their private phone records leaked to the federal government without their knowledge or say-so, and now none of them may ever know," he said.

Telecoms have done the same to the U.S. Congress as well, by outright refusing to respond to inquiries from Congressional committees concerning their conduct in enabling spying on their customers. It isn't only the President who shields himself from accountability and the rule of law with heavy-handed invocations of "National Security." In the U.S., private corporations now do the same (though the distinction between the telecom industry and the Executive branch increasingly exists only in theory). These corporations now brazenly cite National Security concerns as a ground for telling legislative bodies that they can't be investigated. They know infinitely more than even the Congress about what our Government is doing and are accountable to nobody even when they break the law. But what's happening to the rule of law in Russia is terribly upsetting.
(c) 2008 Glenn Greenwald. was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.

Who's Paying For The Conventions?
By Amy Goodman

The election season is heating up, with back-to-back conventions approaching-the Democrats in Denver followed by the Republicans in St. Paul, Minn. The conventions have become elaborate, expensive marketing events, where the party's "presumptive" nominee has a coronation with much fanfare, confetti and wall-to-wall media coverage. What people don't know is the extent to which major corporations fund the conventions, pouring tens of millions of dollars into a little-known loophole in the campaign-finance system.

Stephen Weissman of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute explains the unconventional funding:

"It's totally prohibited to give unlimited contributions to political parties. It's totally prohibited for a corporation or a union to just go right into its treasury and give money to political parties. Yet, under an exemption that was created by the Federal Election Commission, which essentially is made up of representatives of the two major parties, all of this money can be given if it's given through a host committee under the pretense that it's merely to promote the convention city."

According to CFI's new report, "Analysis of Convention Donors," since the last presidential election, the corporations funding the conventions have spent more than $1.1 billion lobbying the federal government. Add to it the millions they pour into the conventions. Says Weissman: "In return for this money, the parties, through the host committees, offer access to top politicians, to the president, the future president, vice president, cabinet officials, senators, congressmen. They promise these companies who are giving that they will be able to not only get close to these people by hosting receptions, by access to VIP areas, but they'll actually have meetings with them."

Disclosure of what corporations are giving is not required until 60 days after each convention, which is essentially Election Day, so there is no time to challenge a candidate on particular corporate donors. Weissman reports that most of the corporations that are giving to the convention "host committees" also have serious business before the federal government. Take AT&T, for example. Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com recently pointed out that the Democratic conventioneers and registered media in attendance will receive a tote bag prominently emblazoned with the AT&T logo. It's a perfect metaphor for a much larger gift, the one Democrats and Republicans just gave AT&T and other telecoms: retroactive immunity for spying on U.S. citizens. While Sens. Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd fought the bill, Sen. Barack Obama, until recently a staunch opponent of telecom immunity, reversed his position and supported it, reneging on a pledge to filibuster. Perfect timing.

The conventions are also training grounds for the next generation of elected officials. Many state legislators attend the conventions as delegates, where they marinate in the ways of big-money politics. From the corporate parties to the hospitality suites, they learn that there is nothing to be gained by challenging the status quo.

Obama has sworn off special-interest and lobbying money for his campaign, and he made historic strides in using the Internet to marshal millions of small donors and amass a campaign war chest with $72 million in cash on hand at the end of June. Yet the Denver convention is looking more and more like business as usual. Weissman writes in his report, "Lavish conventions with million-dollar podiums, fancy skyboxes and Broadway production teams are not necessary to the democratic process."

What is necessary, Weissman says, is stripping soft money out of the convention process: "Congress should pass a law that says no more soft money for these conventions, no corporate treasury, union treasury, no unlimited individual money. Instead, the parties-let's discard this host-committee fiction-can go out there and ask people to help the convention, but with the same limits where they're asking people to help them normally."

"Deep Throat" is said to have told Bob Woodward during Watergate to "follow the money." It looks as if this summer you need only go to the Democratic and Republican national conventions. It's time to close this loophole.
2008 Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 650 stations in North America.

The Cartoon Corner...

This edition we're proud to showcase the cartoons of
~~~ Vic Harville ~~~