Coming
in September
From AK Press
Featuring Essays by:
Edward Said, Robert Fisk, Michael Neumann, Shahid Alam, Alexander
Cockburn, Uri Avnery, Bill and Kathy Christison and More
Today's
Stories
August 13, 2003
Joanne Mariner
A Wall of Separation Through the
Heart
August 12, 2003
William Blum
Myth
and Denial in the War on Terrorism
Ron Jacobs
Revisionist History: the Bush Administration, Civil Rights and
Iraq
Josh Frank
Dean's Constitutional Hang-Up
Wayne Madsen
What's a Fifth Columnist? Well, Someone Like Hitchens
Ray McGovern
Relax,
It Was All a Pack of Lies
Wendy Brinker
Hubris in the White House
Website of the Day
Black
Mustache
Recent
Stories
August
11, 2003
Douglas
Valentine
Homeland Security for Whom?
Mickey
Z.
Bush's Progress
Bill
Glahn
RIAA Watch: Meet the New Bitch, Same
as the Old
Elaine
Cassel
Indicting DNA
Dr. Mohammad
Omar Farooq
Civil Liberties and Uncivil Super-Patriotism
Uri
Avnery
Who Will Save Abu Mazen?
Website
of the Day
RIAA Subpoena Clearinghouse
August
9 / 10, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
California's Glorious Recall!
Saul
Landau
Bush and King Henry
Gary
Leupp
On Terrorism, Methodism, "Wahhabism"
and the Censored 9/11 Report
Paul de
Rooij
The Parade of the Body Bags
Michael
Egan
History and the Tragedy of American Diplomacy
Rob Eshelman
A Home of Our Own
Daoud
Kuttab
Life as an ID Card
Philip
Agee
Terror and Civil Society: Instruments of US Policy in Cuba
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Marc Racicot: Bush's Main Man
Walt Brasch
Schwarzenegger, "Hollyweird"
and the Rigtheous Right
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush, Bribery and Berlusconi
Josh Frank
Mean, Mean Howard Dean
Elaine
Cassel
Will the Death Penalty Ever Die?
Sean Carter
Total Recall
Poets'
Basement
Hamod, Engel, Albert
August
8, 2003
John
Chuckman
What the US Says Goes
Roberto
Barreto
Defend the Vieques 12!
Bruce Gagnon
Iraq War Emboldens Bush Space Plans
Elaine
Cassel
The Reign of John Ashcroft
Dave
Lindorff
Snoops Night Out
Website
of the Day
Zero Boy
August
7, 2003
M.
Shahid Alam
It the US a "Terrorist Magnet?"
Toni
Solo
Neo-liberal Nicaragua: a New Banana
Republic
Adam Lebowitz
Hiroshima Commemorated: the View from Japan
Hanan
Ashrawi
When the Bully Whines
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
Conscience Takes a Holiday
Jason
Leopold
Wolfowitz Lets Slip: Iraq Not Behind 9/11; No Ties to Al-Qaeda
Mike Kimaid
What's the Score?
Elaine
Cassel
The Smell of VICTORY: Ashcroft's Latest Stinkbomb
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
August 6, 2003
Steve
Higgs
Going to Jail for the Cause: It's Not
Easy Confronting King Coal
David
Krieger
Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Robert
Fisk
The Ghosts of Uday and Qusay
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush's War on the National Forests
Elaine
Cassel
No Fly Lists
Stan
Goff
Military Equipment and Pneumonia
Hugh Sansom
An Open Letter to Nicholas Kristof on the Nuking of Japan
August
5, 2003
Uri
Avnery
The Prisoner of Ramallah: Arafat at
74
Forrest
Hylton
Terrorism and Political Trials: the
View from Bolivia
Ray
McGovern
"We Cook Estimates to Go"
David
Morse
Poindexter's Gambit
Edward
Said
Orientallism: 25 Years Later
George
W. Bush
My Darn Good Resumé
Hammond
Guthrie
It's Incremental, Watson!
Website
of the Day
National Prayer Day
August 4, 2003
Bruce
K. Gagnon
Another Peace Activist Detained by
Airport Cops: My Story
David
Lindorff
Fear-Mongering About Social Security
Mark
Zepezauer
George F. Will: Descent into Self-Parody
James
Plummer
Tracking You Through the Mail
Mickey
Z.
Marriage Insecurity from Sharon to Bush
Bruce
Jackson
News that Isn't News: How the NYT's
Pimps for the White House
August
2 / 3, 2003
Tamara
R. Piety
Nike's Full Court Press Breaks Down
Francis
Boyle
My Alma Mater, the University of Chicago, is a Moral Cesspool
David
Vest
Sons of Paleface: Pictures from Death's Other Side
Neve Gordon
Nightlife in Jerusalem
Uri
Avnery
Their Master's Voice:
Bush, Blair and Intelligence Snafus
Robert
Fisk
Paternalistic Democracy for Iraq
Jerry
Kroth
Israel, Yellowcake and the Media
Noah Leavitt
What's Driving the Liberian Bloodbath: Is the US Obligated to
Intervene?
Saul
Landau
The Film Industry: Business and Ideology
Ron Jacobs
One Big Prison Yard: the Meaning of George Jackson
Thomas
Croft
In the Deep, Deep Rough: Reflections on Augusta
Amadi Ajamu
Def Sham: Russell Simmons New Black Leader?
Poets'
Basement
Vega, Witherup, Albert and Fleming
August
1, 2003
Joanne
Mariner
Stopping Prison Rape
Alex Coolman
Who Moved My Soap: Trivializing
Prison Rape
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Stan Goff
Injury and Decorum: The Missing Wounded in Iraq
Wayne
Madsen
Europe Unplugs from the Matrix
Robert
Fisk
Wolfowitz the Censor
Elaine
Cassel
Ashcroft Loses Big in Puerto Rico
Website
of the Day
Stop Prisoner Rape
July
31, 2003
Ray
McGovern
The Prostitution of Intelligence
Brian
Cloughley
Wolfowitz's Operative Statement
Sheldon
Hull
The RIAA's Jihad:
The Devil's Music (Industry)
Elaine
Cassel
The Next Time You Crack a Lawyer Joke, Think of These Attorneys
Sheldon
Rampton
and John Stauber
True Lies: Propaganda and Bush's
Wars
Hammond
Guthrie
Speculation Blues
Website
of the Day
Army of One?
Congratulations
to CounterPuncher Gilad Atzmon! BBC Names EXILE Top Jazz CD
July
30, 2003
David
Lindorff
Poindexter the Terror Bookie
Marjorie
Cohn
Why Iraq and Afghanistan? It's About
the Oil
Elaine
Cassel
How Ashcroft Coerces Guilty Pleas
in Terror Cases
Zvi
Bar'el
The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War
Lisa Walsh
Thomas
Killing Mustafa Hussein: Death of a Child, Birth of a Legend?
Sean
Carter
Pat Robertson's Prayer Jihad: God, Sodomy and the Supremes
ND Jayaprakash
India and Ariel Sharon
Steve
Perry
Bush's Top 40 Lies
Standard
Schaefer
Correction about Bloomberg and Outscourcing
Website
of the Day
Bring Them Home Now!
Hot Stories
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Elaine
Cassel
Civil Liberties
Watch
Michel
Guerrin
Embedded Photographer Says: "I
Saw Marines Kill Civilians"
Uzma
Aslam Khan
The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War:
What America Says Does Not Go
Paul de Rooij
Arrogant
Propaganda
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
August
13, 2003
DARPA and the War
Economy
Experimental
Casinos
By STANDARD SCHAEFER
When the recent furor around the Defense Department's
attempt to open a futures trading exchange that would allow speculators
to place bets on terrorist events erupted, the main complaint
was a moral, even aesthetic one. Hillary Clinton, John McCain
and others felt the idea of profiting on the potential death
of anyone was repulsive. And it is. However, there are already
exchanges where speculators place bets daily precisely on life
and death. They are called the stock markets. Every day people
are buying shares of defense contractors, weapons makers, funeral
parlors and tobacco companies-not to mention the HMOs that relentlessly
lobby to stave off universal Medicare thereby sacrificing the
lives of 18,000 Americans every year who die due to a lack of
health insurance coverage. There is even evidence that someone
may have known in advance what was going to happen September
11, 2001 because of the high volume of short sale transactions
that had occurred prior to the attack.
So the idea that such an exchange could
be used to by dark forces to make money seems misplaced. The
larger irony is that these "moral" objections reveal
a startling complacency if not a nearly religious faith in market
forces themselves. Almost no one raised questions about the science
behind the idea of a market to predict disaster. The DARPA controversy
provides an excellent opportunity to discuss what the religious
admiration for free, self-regulating "market forces"
has spawned in so-called intellectual circles. More importantly,
a close look at the underlying assumptions of these types of
economic models reveals ideological blind spots that have permitted
what is going on in the economy from being understood.
Essentially, the theorists and apologists
of unrestrained capitalism, the notions of which have saturated
our government, have produced a series of policies. These intellectual
derivatives go by many names: "public choice theory,"
"rational choice theory," the Law and Economics movement.
The basic gist of each is to prove beforehand that government
involvement in social problems or economic ones is guaranteed
to make matters worse and that market solutions are always best.
The DARPA trading exchange program, however, did not develop
from any market, but out of government sponsorship. This is one
of the fundamental contradictions of all these policies and theories:
they rely on government sponsorship. Governments set the rules
in which market work. More importantly, the DARPA program is
a reminder of the degree to which one branch of the government
has come to dominate all others, but because of these ideological
blind spots, almost no one is talking about the degree to which
Defense Department spending-whether on research, weapons, or
sheer fraud-has contributed to what may be an irreversible decline
of the US economy, one that has created thorough deindustrialization,
the rise of an unemployable workforce, the migration of technological
know-how out of the US, and the continued dominance of special
interests-not to mention the abysmal record of failed reforms
attempted by its adherents within the Defense Department itself.
For that reason, it seems appropriate
to review briefly how the idea that markets could solve social
problems-which is at the heart of the proposed DARPA program-began
to pick up momentum during the "stagflation" period
around 1973. LBJ's "Great Society" had been under funded
due to the cost of the Vietnam War, but his attempt to solve
social ills by addressing root causes was viewed as an ideological
failure and his interventionist populism was discredited.
The economic doldrums that resulted from
the war, but were misattributed to domestic policy helped enable
the formerly marginal economists of the Chicago School gain prominence.
Their scions perpetuated such notions as the following: if there
was a problem with pollution, then companies, once given economic
incentive, would compete to solve these problems at lower cost
than government bureaucracy. It became fashionable to propose
market-like solutions to judicial issues, prison overcrowding,
and healthcare. Reagan's sentimental attachment to economists
like Milton Friedman, whose role in the demise of Chile had otherwise
discredited him, played a role in continuing the trend, unleashing
such well-documented disasters as energy deregulation. More importantly,
the trend toward militarism flourished under Reagan even as his
other economic policies served to perpetuate the CEO mentality
of government with their alleged fiscal responsibility. This
allowed the so-called reforms of Robert McNamara, Secretary of
Defense during Vietnam and former CEO of Ford Motors to become
further institutionalized. Rather than introducing a true corporate
efficiency model, the DoD became a subsidy maximizing entity
that gradually rendered the civilian economy a war economy with
Soviet-style central planning-not anything like the market-dominant
capitalism Americans have been lead to believe in.
Huge research grants were given to all
branches of universities, but in economics and social sciences,
the grants were given primarily to those who conclusions served
the status quo. The terror futures exchange program is the direct
result of funding that went into research that set out to prove
the predictive qualities of markets. To be fair, it should be
pointed out that markets occasionally do possess the predictive
qualities attributed to them, though not very astonishing ones.
The stock market collapse of 2000 arguably 'predicted' the economic
downturn of the last three years. And there were some free-market
mathematically fixated minds at Stanford University who used
"Saddam Securities" (oil contracts and financial indicators)
in February of 2003 to 'predict' a very high likelihood that
the US would be invading Iraq. While this had already seemed
highly likely to the "focus groups" (Bush's name for
protestors) who were protesting around the world, it was a valid
study, all too valid, following a long line of econometric nonsense
produced by brilliant, academic "quants" who are trained
to analyze markets, who have "proven" that markets
can aggregate information and reveal biases through price imbalances.
But, they have achieved this largely by bracketing out all the
historical notions of political economy so that concepts like
justice-which were of great interest to pioneers in the field
like John Stuart Mill-have disappeared almost entirely, rendering
the field a methodological justification of status quo.
Worse yet, in believing itself a science,
academic economics has managed to overlook the degree to which
it has failed to understand how the US economy actually works:
massive amounts of centralized governmental control and a perpetual
war economy that has undermined the civilian economy. In 2004
alone, the United States will pay $282 billion in interest on
past wars and $459 billion in current military expenses.
To put that in perspective, the Center for Defense Information
once estimated that one billion dollars spent on weapons manufacturing
created 25,000 jobs. The same billion spent on healthcare would
create 50,000 jobs. But jobs are not what interests most academic
or Wall Street economists. They care about GDP, a spurious indicator
of economic growth.
Faced with recent GDP figures showing
the economy growing at an anemic 2.4%, many economists acknowledge
that the figures would have been worse had the US not been spurred
by the largest advance in military spending since the Korean
War. But many of them remain shocked by the phenomenon of "jobless
recoveries." They do not fully understand that these missing
jobs are not the result of market forces (the necessary cost
cutting of recessionary times) so much as the direct result of
nearly sixty straight years of military spending. They fail to
realize that what is spent on weapons has little economic use
in the civilian sector. The capital allotted to those kinds of
manufacturing does not reproduce itself to the same degree that
civilian spending does. It doesn't lead to robust manufacturing
cycles or produce the economic "multiplier effect"
in the same magnitudes that civilian industries do. This is acknowledged
by conservative Hoover Institute scholars like Robert Higgs in
the book he edited called ARMS,
POLITICS, AND THE ECONOMY in which he relies on public
choice theory to show that military buildup has produced virtually
no economics benefits outside of those of special interests like
military contractors. Curiously, however, he restricts his harshest
judgment to the libertarian concerns about a garrison state and
the effect on taxes, a rather short-sighted concern. Higgs, like
many other economists, does not apply intellectual rigor to an
analysis of the long-term effects on the economy. There is very
little quantification of such concerns due to the fact that the
DoD keep notoriously inaccurate books or that contractors refuse
plant inspections. The best estimates of these economic trade
offs have been left to war resistance groups, peace activists,
and government watch dogs-most of which are unlikely to be taken
seriously in Washington DC, where defense spending funds re-elections.
The leading critic of the military-industrial
complex is Seymour Melman, Professor Emeritus of Industrial Engineering
at Columbia University. In his landmark book PENTAGON
CAPITALISM and its sequel THE
PERMANENT WAR ECONOMY, he has spelled out how the Pentagon
undermines the civilian economy by directing funds away from
social programs and fundamentally altering the way the nation
as a whole conducts business. Apart from the legendary budgetary
waste, these levels of military spending serve to increase the
military's prominence within the general economy in the following
three ways, which I have attempted to update.
First, it grants the leaders of the Pentagon
Capitalism system enormous amounts of control in determining
which sectors of the economy receive investment capital. Right
now, for instance, Department of Defense (through DARPA and the
National Science Foundation) is increasing control over a new
branch of the economy: biotechnology. The DoD's plan to genetically
alter soldiers has not only already directed funds to this area,
it has created speculation in the private sector about the future
of the biotech sector. Speculators know that these kinds of subsidies
tend to create on-going commitments and usually limit downside
risk.
Pentagon Capitalism also controls the
means of production and determines the training of the personnel
needed to maintain them. The budget size alone gives Pentagon
elites financial control, but the technical demands and specifications
of military contracts lead manufactures to configure their machinery
in particular ways. They determine what kinds of microchips will
become dominant. They determine what skills personnel will be
taught to provide these products, what language they will program
in, often limiting the range of engineering talents these workers
will develop. In addition, the very structure of the system is
geared toward maximizing subsidies in order to perpetuate the
power grab rather than increasing fiscal efficiency as is the
traditional norm in civilian firms.
Lastly, Pentagon Capitalism grants the
elite managers control of research and development thus extending
its influence to the universities and other scientific institutions.
The recent trend toward weaponizing space, for example, has allowed
the DoD to increasingly handle how NASA and the National Science
Foundation conducts their business, essentially rendering them
weapons laboratories. In the case of economics and the social
sciences, the Department of Defense gains control of the ideology
of these areas of research by funding it. While DARPA in particular
has been presented as one of the least political government subsidy
programs, the Terrorism Casino case reveals that those ideas
that enhance the mystifying notion of free-market capitalism
received favoritism, especially since their ideology distracts
from the truth Americans fear the most: their economy is centrally
planned, financed, and dependent on Soviet-style state-organized
management.
This last point is threatening to the
junk science sired by so-called free-market intellectuals: they've
ceased to be scientists and become the main apologists for American
Imperialism, even as they continue to allow themselves to be
subsidized by Federal Research dollars in complete contradiction
to the ideology they promote.
For confirmation of Seymour Melman's
theory, he himself points to the increasing number of empty manufacturing
plants and the decrease in manufacturing jobs, among many other
signs. But, today a quick look at the Defense Transformation
Act for the Twentieth Century reveals the institutionalized drive
for increasing control over the US economy. That bill combines
an agenda of union busting with reduced congressional oversight
to effectively allow the Defense Department to supplant the Atomic
Energy Commission, the EPA, the State Department and so forth-as
if it hasn't done so already.
Nevertheless, the argument is made, even
by admirable minds such as Noam Chomsky, that research and development
subsidies have lead to the technological advances that have transformed
the economy into a high tech miracle, one in which workers are
free from the drudgery of manufacturing jobs and elevated to
the busy bees of a service economy.
The story often goes about like this.
The Cold War was a blessing in disguise, and although it led
to more government intervention in the economy, it did so through
releasing the power of competition. When the Soviet satellite
"Sputnik" was launched, the US's response was a massive
research and design campaign in the name of national security.
Along with increased funding for the National Science Foundation
and NASA, DARPA was born. Small by Washington standards, DARPA
quickly developed funding contracts with over 300 corporations
and universities. In its first 30 years, it funded projects that
lead to supercomputers, high-end semiconductors, new types of
software, advanced aeronautics, satellite and radio technology,
lasers, packet-switching technology, internet protocol and even
medical diagnostic equipment. It also created a research consortium
called Sematech which helped the U.S. semiconductor industry
compete against the more advanced Japanese, in part by advocating
high tariffs. As C. Gordon Bell, currently of Microsoft, said
at the time, "They are the sole drive of computer technology.
That's it. Period."
Silicon Valley venture capitalists-who
are not known as supporters of big government-believe that DARPA
was extremely effective. They credit it with funding such winning
pre-venture capital investments as the UNIX computer operating
system work done by Sun Microsystems founder Bill Joy. The success
of DARPA-in contrast to other subsidizing government agencies-was
explained as a result of its secrecy. Classified research kept
Congress largely out of the loop, required no P.R. staff, and
also had a built-in customer in the Pentagon, one that held a
long-run interest in the usefulness of what it funded. DARPA
also tended to support small programs albeit several of them
creating what market-lovers might call a diverse, balanced portfolio,
rather than wasteful mega projects.
As result, some conservatives have argued
that programs like DARPA were a kind of godsend for the US economy,
something akin to Japan's Ministry of International Trade and
Industry, the agency that organizes the industrial programs that
are credited with making Japan so competitive. They also argue
that "national security" was the only way the US could
create this state-sponsored economic planning since the laissez-faire
crowd would never have otherwise allowed it to happen.
Because this funding originated from
tax revenue, it was the public-at-large that was taking on the
huge risks and costs to develop this technology-way more than
any private firm would be willing to lose. But lose, DARPA did.
All kinds of folly were funded and abandoned such as synthfuel,
an effort to create gasoline from coal. But the waste subsidized
universities and big business. IBM, for example, in the 1950s
was making more than half of its revenue from the Defense Department.
Even when successful, the projects produced technology that was
simply handed over to the private sector and particularly to
the largest companies who could afford to implement it.
That is where the DARPA love fest begins
to breaks down. The US semi-conductor industry was protected
from competition through substantial tariffs. The most recent
recession has shown that the US economy's most reliable exports
are not technology goods, but soybeans and scrap metal. The US
currently has a trade deficit in high tech goods: $17.47 billion
in 2002. Including 2001, the U.S. is running a record $54 billion
high-tech trade deficit. This year is running around 16 billion
so far. Needless to say, if this is a "post-industrial society,"
it doesn't seem to live up to the hype.
Manufacturing currently only employs
about 14 million workers out of a workforce of 146.5 million.
Services ranging from financial management to overnight delivery,
retailing, and healthcare account for about 64% of the total
US output. Not only are manufacturing jobs being exported to
poorer countries, but more and more high tech jobs, including
the most cutting edge research and design work are being outsourced.
Companies that have moved substantial amounts of R&D to China
include all-American names such Black & Decker, Lear, Lucent,
GE, IBM, Motorola, Intel and Microsoft.
The notion that military spending can
successfully offset this transfer is difficult to defend. Since
most economists do not acknowledge Pentagon Capitalism, they
have not turned their immense analytical resources on to this
issue. They've produced virtually no up-to-date figures about
how much transfer of knowledge occurs from the military sector
to the civilian tech sector as a result of Pentagon Capitalism,
although one older, informal estimate places it at about 5%.
Part of the reason the percentage is likely so low is that the
bulk of the military equipment in service today is made of older,
proprietary technology, not cutting edge products on universal
platforms.
When the military does catch up technology-wise,
it is in the area of telecommunications-and then they buy existing
technology. The DoD is the largest customer for information technology
infrastructure--with the world's largest an annual IT budget,
now exceeding $30 billion-which shows that the high tech industry
remains dependent on military spending even though these subsidies
fail to offset export deficits.
The military-industrial complex now runs
not on high tech prowess but on rhetoric such as that of John
Osterholz, director of architecture and interoperability for
the Department of Defense. Explaining recently the need for the
military to upgrade its IT to Internet Protocol version 6, he
said "Al-Qaeda maintains a low profile and is highly distributedUntil
recently, we had no capability to operate similarly, and we understand
it is an important capability. They were Net-Centric, we were
not. Their command and control capability requires us to have
a similar capabilityOur soldiers need better information in order
to make better decisions who to help and who to kill," continued
Osterholz. "The lack of security and flexibility in the
current IPv4 protocol is a drag on our wing. This isn't about
do you trust the Internet for your kid's homework, it's do you
trust your kid's life. If we fail, people die." This is
a rather humiliating admission: the US cannot keep up technologically
with a group of bandits on a substantially smaller budget. More
significantly, it shows that to the Pentagon's old argument that
America needs overkill fire power an argument for overkill tech
subsidizing has been added.
However, Rumsfeld's DoD refuses to acknowledge
anything except the "national security" angle to its
policies. Donald Rumsfeld is currently urging President Bush
to veto the Defense Authorization Act if it includes a "Buy
American" clause. The trouble? It increases the amount of
U.S. content required in major Pentagon purchases from 50 percent
to 65 percent. It requires defense contractors to start using
American-made machine tools, dies and industrial molds and insist
that eight new products, ranging from ordnance fuses to tires
be made entirely in America. In other words, it would protect
US jobs and would even bolster, however slightly, the manufacturing
sector. One is tempted to see Rumsfeld's position as traitorous,
except that it is entirely consistent with the generally short-sighted
focus of the DoD: to extend the immediate zone of control for
military elites. Furthermore, it is consistent with CEO approach:
it saves his department money.
It is also consistent with free-trade,
laissez faire ideology: the government refuses to take responsibility
for its role in deindustrializing the economy nor will it accept
that it could improve the situation. Now, it will improve the
situation more effectively if rotates out of a war economy and
into a genuine state economy-one in which the government is actively
involved in protecting American jobs, keeping technology know-how
at home, and subsidizing those industries that improve and sustain
quality of life for the most people.
Standard Schaefer is a free-lance journalist. His email is ssschaefer@earthlink.net
Weekend
Edition Features for August 9 / 10, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
California's Glorious Recall!
Saul
Landau
Bush and King Henry
Gary
Leupp
On Terrorism, Methodism, "Wahhabism"
and the Censored 9/11 Report
Paul de
Rooij
The Parade of the Body Bags
Michael
Egan
History and the Tragedy of American Diplomacy
Rob Eshelman
A Home of Our Own
Daoud
Kuttab
Life as an ID Card
Philip
Agee
Terror and Civil Society: Instruments of US Policy in Cuba
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Marc Racicot: Bush's Main Man
Walt Brasch
Schwarzenegger, "Hollyweird"
and the Rigtheous Right
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush, Bribery and Berlusconi
Josh Frank
Mean, Mean Howard Dean
Elaine
Cassel
Will the Death Penalty Ever Die?
Sean Carter
Total Recall
Poets'
Basement
Hamod, Engel, Albert
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|