Rageh Inside Iran

"Does the Dalai Lama still matter?"

Hot on the heels of the Dalai Lama's Congressional Gold Medal, Time magazine asked the above question of His Holiness. In the article the writer says:

Given the changes that are unfolding in Tibet now, it's worth wondering whether the Dalai Lama really matters any more. Beijing announced earlier this year that it will have the final say on the naming of his reincarnation, and the idea of an atheist, authoritarian government holding final say in a religious matter elicited condemnation in the West. Meetings in July between his representatives and Chinese authorities aimed at improving dialogue between the two sides produced no concrete results. State-run Chinese news organs have given heavy play in recent days to stories claiming that the Dalai Lama is a supporter of the Japanese doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo and a betrayer of Buddhism. (source)

It is interesting to observe how the piece attacks the Dalai Lama (because that godless bastard has it coming!) and also raises its eyebrow toward Bush. The author glances at Bush, then at China then back to Bush again, and wonders why he would gamble with China as a business partner and regional carrot who acts as a counterweight to America's "big stick" for a meeting with a jolly little monk who doesn't even matter. As for Bush's motivations, I will leave that up to you. The article's intentions, however, are unambiguous.

The modernization of Tibet does not excuse the occupation of the country. And despite the Chinese government's best efforts to minimize the Dalai Lama's influence in Tibet the people still revere him, teaching their children about his involvement in their decades-long struggle and hiding illegal pictures of their spiritual leader in their homes. What is at work in the words of this writer is corporate-friendly gobbledegook. The government might be endangering international business making the Dalai Lama the business community's enemy of the day.

What the Dalai Lama represents, and the reason why he is still relevant, is the ability for the Tibetan people to consolidate their collective power and withstand the authority of China through nonviolent resistance and public demonstrations. China should fear the Dalai Lama, but Time shouldn't de-emphasize the liberating effects of compassion to maximize their bottom line.

Note to Obama and Edwards: Step-Up on Iran

Note to Obama and Edwards: Step-Up on Iran
by Mike Gravel

I’m glad to see John Edwards and Barack Obama have finally begun to upbraid Hillary Clinton for going along with Bush’s impending attack on Iran. We presidential candidates must keep raising this story because the mainstream media is not doing its job, once again. Two weeks ago, Seymour Hersh exposed the Pentagon’s plans to attack Iran, but the MSM failed to follow up with a sustained inquiry. We presidential candidates must pick up the slack and constantly alert the American public that Bush, Clinton and the go-along Congressional Dems are leading us into another disastrous war.

Despite what Hillary claims, Congress gave Bush the green light to attack Iran when they labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) a terrorist organization. Bush can now attack the IRG as a counter-terrorism measure. All he needs is a “Gulf of Tonkin incident” in Iraq that can be tied to the IRG, and he will begin bombing IRG facilities in Iran. Of course Bush will disregard Hillary’s resolution demanding he check with Congress before attacking Iran. No president since James Polk has felt the need to check with Congress before “defending” American troops.

What makes Hillary believe a congressional resolution will prevent Bush from doing anything? A war on Iran has been a neocon dream for decades and Bush sees himself as a modern-day messiah ridding the world of evil-doers. Throughout his presidency, Bush has consistently disregarded checks and balances. He defied a Supreme Court decision banning torture simply by ordering his Justice Department to secretly issue a go-ahead. (The MSM also dropped this story.)

After Bush launches the planned strikes on the IRG, Iran will hit our naval forces in the Persian Gulf and our troops in Iraq. Within an afternoon, we will be at war. Bush might later ask our rubberstamp Congress for a show of support. But by then any opposition will be moot. The Iranian navy will cut the oil supply of the European economies and a worldwide depression will hit American markets. Other regional powers, including Saudi Arabia and Israel, might be drawn into the war. Within weeks tens of thousands will be dead and that’s only the beginning.

We presidential candidates must do our best to avoid this tragedy by bringing it up constantly. And it’s not enough for my fellow candidates just to challenge Bush and Hillary out on the stump. They must join me in challenging her directly during the debates.

If we immediately and consistently inform the American public what their government is up to, I believe we have a shot at stopping this war. Without any sort of public outcry, we are most certainly heading for disaster.

–Senator Mike Gravel

George Galloway debates Christopher Hitchens about Iraq War

Spoiler Alert: Hitchens loses.

Part 1



Part 2

Neocons finally tell the truth

For months, perhaps even longer, the far right has been heralding the current economic "boom," and for once they're telling the truth. Unfortunately, you and I will never see the results. Only the caviar caste of society will pocket the benefits of our labor. Try to bypass these assholes as much as you can. Don't buy new products whenever possible. Shop at secondhand stores, trade goods and services with friends, family members and acquaintances, and, for the more radical, resist paying income taxes. Capitalism has been called the "socialism of the rich," it's time to stop paying for the biggest welfare parasites in the country and learn to sustain ourselves.

---

US Income Gap Widens, Richest Share Hits Record
by Karey Wutkowski

Washington - The gap between America’s richest and poorest is at its widest in at least 25 years, with the wealthiest taking home a record share of the nation’s income that exceeds even the previous high in 2000.

According to recent data from the Internal Revenue Service, the richest 1 percent of Americans earned 21.2 percent of all U.S. income earned in 2005. That is a significant increase from 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of the nation’s income.

The previous high over the past 25 years, when such data were compiled, was in 2000 when a bull market brought the figure up to 20.81 percent.

The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, said the wealthy benefited in 2005 from a healthy, growing economy and higher-than-average price inflation.

The IRS data included all of the 132.6 million tax returns filed in 2005 with a positive adjusted gross income, or AGI, also including people who did not earn enough to owe taxes.

AGI is a figure used to calculate an individual’s income tax liability and includes all gross income adjusted by certain allowed deductions, such as moving expenses, health savings account deductions, alimony paid and retirement contributions.

In 2005, 90.6 million people who filed tax returns paid taxes into the Treasury, and 42 million with a positive AGI used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to reduce their federal income tax liability to zero.

Democratic U.S. presidential candidates have raised the widening income gap as a campaign issue, proposing to raise taxes on wealthier Americans to pay for programs that would benefit lower-income families.

To make the top 1 percent of wealthiest Americans in 2005, a taxpayer had to earn at least $364,657. That figure is an increase from 2004, when the cut-off point stood at $328,049.

In 2005, the top 50 percent of American earners brought in 87.17 percent of the nation’s income, also an all-time high for the data available.

The previous high for that figure was also in 2000, when the richest 50 percent of Americans earned 87.01 percent of the income.

© 2007 Reuters

---

Income inequality worst since 1920s, according to IRS data
Nick Juliano

Half of US senators are millionaires

The superrich are gobbling up an ever larger piece of the economic pie, and the poor are seeing their share of earnings shrink: new IRS data shows the top 1 percent of Americans are claiming a larger share of national income than at any time since before the Great Depression.

The top percentile of wealthy Americans earned 21.2 percent of all income in 2005, up from 19 percent in 2004, according to new Internal Revenue Service data published in the Wall Street Journal Friday.

Americans in the bottom 50 percent of wage earners saw their share of income shrink to 12.8 percent in 2005, down from 13.4 percent.

"Scholars attribute rising inequality to several factors," the Journal reports, "including technological change that favors those with more skills, and globalization and advances in communications that enlarge the rewards available to 'superstar' performers whether in business, sports or entertainment."

The data could cause problems to President Bush and Republican presidential candidates, who have played up low unemployment and a strong economy since 2003, crediting Bush's tax cuts for contributing to both. In an interview with the Journal, Bush downplayed the significance of the income gap, saying more education is the answer to narrowing it.

"First of all, our society has had income inequality for a long time. Secondly, skills gaps yield income gaps," Bush told the Journal. "And what needs to be done about the inequality of income is to make sure people have got good education, starting with young kids. That's why No Child Left Behind is such an important component of making sure that America is competitive in the 21st century."

The Journal notes that many Americans fear the economy is entering a recession, and the IRS data show income for the median earner fell 2 percent between 2000 and 2005 to $30,881. Earnings for the top 1 percent grew to $364,657 -- a 3 percent uptick.

Scholarly research suggests that top earners did not have such a large share of total income since the 1920s, the Journal reported.

The Journal reports that a recent stock boom likely contributed to higher earnings among those in the top income bracket, with hedge fund managers and Wall Street attorneys seeing their incomes skyrocket in recent years.

Another prominent pool or wealthy Americans gathers regularly on Capitol Hill to write the nation's laws. The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending and politicians' wealth, says more than a third of Congress members are millionaires, with at least half the Senate falling into the millionaires club.

Forbes reported that last year's incoming class of new Senators did "little to shake the Senate's image as a millionaires club," with half of the newly elected members having seven- eight- or nine-figure personal fortunes.

Freshman Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) is worth between $64 million and $236 million, and newly elected Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) fortune is between $13 million and $29 million. R

Roll Call estimates Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) is the chamber's richest member with an estimated net worth of $750 million; another Democrat, Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl, is among the chamber's richest with between $220 million and $234 million in personal assets.

---

MEDIAN NET WORTH BY RACE, 2004

Friday Flashback: David Bowie & Cher - "Young Americans (Medley)"

Why Myanmar matters

Emma Goldman, America's preeminent anarchist, believed the less organized a movement is the more violent it becomes. In Burma, the monks looked back at nonviolent movements from South Africa, India and Serbia to learn how they succeeded. The monks split into waves the first taking to the street and demonstrating, expecting to either be murdered or beaten and arrested, then sending out the second wave and then the third and so on and so forth. Also, by the Buddhist monks flipping their bowls over, one of the few possessions they have, they disconnect a military regime which gains its authenticity from identifying itself with the monks, who are considered sacred in Burma. This is why the Saffron Revolution matters. America needs this kind of organization, right now there is a lot of talk but little action. The internet is a terrific tool for talk, however, with shrinking numbers in the streets, I feel it is detracting from people's feeling of helplessness. Are blogs like mine doing more harm than good by allowing people to vent from their armchairs and not from the pavement? It is time to learn from Myanmar and organize.

For this news special, Al Jazeera’s Tony Birtley went undercover in Myanmar to report exclusively on the people’s protests and resulting bloody crackdown by Myanmar’s military government.