American troops to remain in Iraq

by John Glaser
appearing in Activist Newsletter, September 9, 2011

The Obama administration has endorsed a plan that would keep 3,000-4,000 American troops in Iraq past the Dec. 31 deadline to withdraw, although the full there will be much larger. Just how large isn’t yet certain, but the numerous agencies and jobs planned for the future of Iraq could mean many thousands more armed men that will not be classified as “troops.”

After months of jostling the Iraqi government into allowing a large U.S. military force to remain after the full withdrawal date specified under the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement between President Bush and the Baghdad government, the Obama administration publicly voiced support for this plan without having received the permission of the Iraqi Prime Minister or Parliament. Some elements of the Obama administration and the Pentagon pushed for tens of thousands more troops to remain.

The few thousand troops would reportedly be left to provide training and support to Iraqi Security Forces as well as “filling in gaps” in Iraqi defense capabilities. An additional force of private military contractors, numbering somewhere between 5,000-7,000, would also remain in order to provide security for an expanded diplomatic and contractor presence.

The reduced level of troops is possible in tandem with the expanded diplomatic mission because the U.S. has been largely successful in its intentions in Iraq, setting in place the intended political, military, and economic elements for Iraq to become a long-term client state instead of a warfront. As the New York Times reported this week, the debate over specific numbers and figures is to some extent unimportant. “The administration has already drawn up plans for an extensive expansion of the American Embassy and its operations, bolstered by thousands of paramilitary security contractors.”

Iraq may rival long-time client, Egypt.
“An Office of Security Cooperation,” reported the Times,

like similar ones in countries like Egypt, would be staffed by civilians and military personnel overseeing the training and equipping of Iraq’s security forces

for an indefinite period.

The State Department is expected to have up to 17,000 employees and contractors for this ongoing diplomatic presence, which has been described as necessary to provide

situational awareness around the country, manage political crises in potential hotspots such as Kirkuk, and provide a platform for delivering economic, development and security assistance.

Cutting through the bureaucratese, this means essentially to maintain Iraq’s client-state status.

Providing housing, workspace, medical facilities, and security for a legion of civilian workers this large requires exorbitant funds, expansive land use, and construction not yet finalized in most areas.

According to the most recent Quarterly Report of the Special Inspector General for Iraq, the Department of State “will assume primary responsibility for a planned $6.8 billion operation” carried out

from 11 locations around Iraq, including three consulates and the world’s largest embassy.

Responsibilities also include carrying out

two of the largest Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programs in the world and to spend the $2.55 billion in Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF).

As detailed in a declassified, partially redacted State Department document, a “fleet of 46 aircraft” will be “based and maintained in Baghdad, Basra, and Erbil” and will include 20 medium lift S-61 helicopters, 18 light lift UH-1N helicopters, three light observation MD-530 helicopters, and five Dash 8 fixed wing aircraft. Flight and landing zones, maintenance hangars, operation buildings, and air traffic control towers, along with maintenance and refueling will all be a part of the contracted construction operations.

Agreements will be negotiated with Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan to secure authorization for continuous Embassy flight plans between the three countries, which all contain a massive presence of U.S. military, diplomatic, and contractor personnel.

The State Department’s $3.7 billion request for Iraq in FY 2012 includes funding for integrated programs of economic management as part of this so-called withdrawal plan. The United States Agency for International Development, alongside the United States Department of Agriculture, will continue to oversee sectors of Iraq’s economy, especially its natural resources, as agreed upon in the secretive Strategic Framework Agreement.

Signs are that the Iraqi government will conform to U.S. wishes on the size, scope, and nature of the continuing American presence in Iraq. Given the political, military, and economic infrastructure set to be implemented by Washington post-2011, it is also likely that Iraq may soon become another prosaic Middle Eastern state under the U.S. domain of influence.

— John Glaser writes for Antiwar.com, where this article appeared Sept. 7.

Two Santa Clauses, or how the Republican Party has conned America for 30 years

by Thom Hartmann
Published on Monday, January 26, 2009,
by CommonDreams.org

Thom Hartmann (thom@thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning New York Times best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk program, The Thom Hartmann Show. His most recent books are Rebooting the American Dream: 11 Ways to Rebuild Our Country and an updated edition of Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became “People”–And How You Can Fight Back. Previous books include: Threshold: The Crisis of Western Culture, The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, We The People: A Call To Take Back America, What Would Jefferson Do?, Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It, and Cracking The Code: The Art and Science of Political Persuasion.

This weekend [as Obama was inaugurated], House Republican leader John Boehner played out the role of Jude Wanniski on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

Odds are you’ve never heard of Jude, but without him Reagan never would have become a “successful” president, Republicans never would have taken control of the House or Senate, Bill Clinton never would have been impeached, and neither George Bush would have been president.

When Barry Goldwater went down to ignominious defeat in 1964, most Republicans felt doomed (among them the then-28-year-old Wanniski). Goldwater himself, although uncomfortable with the rising religious right within his own party and the calls for more intrusion in people’s bedrooms, was a diehard fan of Herbert Hoover’s economic worldview.

In Hoover’s world (and virtually all the Republicans since reconstruction with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt), market fundamentalism was a virtual religion. Economists from Ludwig von Mises to Friedrich Hayek to Milton Friedman had preached that government could only make a mess of things economic, and the world of finance should be left to the Big Boys–the Masters of the Universe, as they sometimes called themselves–who ruled Wall Street and international finance.

Hoover enthusiastically followed the advice of his Treasury Secretary, multimillionaire Andrew Mellon, who said in 1931:

Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down… enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.

Thus, the Republican mantra was:

Lower taxes, reduce the size of government, and balance the budget.

The only problem with this ideology from the Hooverite perspective was that the Democrats always seemed like the bestowers of gifts, while the Republicans were seen by the American people as the stingy Scrooges, bent on making the lives of working people harder all the while making richer the very richest. This, Republican strategists since 1930 knew, was no way to win elections.

Which was why the most successful Republican of the 20th century up to that time, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had been quite happy with a top income tax rate on millionaires of 91%. As he wrote to his brother Edgar Eisenhower in a personal letter on November 8, 1954:

[T]o attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything–even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon ‘moderation’ in government.

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt [you possibly know his background], a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Goldwater, however, rejected the “liberalism” of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and other “moderates” within his own party. Extremism in defense of liberty was no vice, he famously told the 1964 nominating convention, and moderation was no virtue. And it doomed him and his party.

And so after Goldwater’s defeat, the Republicans were again lost in the wilderness just as after Hoover’s disastrous presidency. Even four years later when Richard Nixon beat LBJ in 1968, Nixon wasn’t willing to embrace the economic conservatism of Goldwater and the economic true believers in the Republican Party. And Jerry Ford wasn’t, in their opinions, much better. If Nixon and Ford believed in economic conservatism, they were afraid to practice it for fear of dooming their party to another forty years in the electoral wilderness.

By 1974, Jude Wanniski had had enough. The Democrats got to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks – both programs of the New Deal – as well as when their “big government” projects like roads, bridges, and highways were built giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers. They kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which didn’t seem to have much effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and that made them seem like a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class. Americans loved it. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections.

Everybody understood at the time that economies are driven by demand. People with good jobs have money in their pockets, and want to use it to buy things. The job of the business community is to either determine or drive that demand to their particular goods, and when they’re successful at meeting the demand then factories get built, more people become employed to make more products, and those newly-employed people have a paycheck that further increases demand.

Wanniski decided to turn the classical world of economics – which had operated on this simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years – on its head. In 1974 he invented a new phrase–“supply side economics”–and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn’t because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money. The more things there were, the faster the economy would grow.

At the same time, Arthur Laffer was taking that equation a step further. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up!

Neither concept made any sense – and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies – but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.

Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to suggest that he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, that those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories or import large quantities of cheap stuff from low-labor countries, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow. George Herbert Walker Bush–like most Republicans of the time–was horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting “Voodoo Economics,” said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski’s supply-side and Laffer’s tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that we’d ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression.

But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell supply-side economics. In 1976, he rolled out to the hard-right insiders in the Republican Party his “Two Santa Clauses” theory, which would enable the Republicans to take power in America for the next thirty years.

Democrats, he said, had been able to be “Santa Clauses” by giving people things from the largesse of the federal government. Republicans could do that, too – spending could actually increase. Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people’s taxes! For working people it would only be a small token–a few hundred dollars a year on average–but would be heavily marketed. And for the rich it would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. The rich, in turn, would use that money to import or build more stuff to market, thus increasing supply and stimulating the economy. And that growth in the economy would mean that the people still paying taxes would pay more because they were earning more.

There was no way, Wanniski said, that the Democrats could ever win again. They’d have to be anti-Santas by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections.

When Reagan rolled out Supply Side Economics in the early 80s, dramatically cutting taxes while exploding (mostly military) spending, there was a moment when it seemed to Wanniski and Laffer that all was lost. The budget deficit exploded and the country fell into a deep recession–the worst since the Great Depression–and Republicans nationwide held their collective breath. But David Stockman came up with a great new theory about what was going on – they were “starving the beast” of government by running up such huge deficits that Democrats would never, ever in the future be able to talk again about national health care or improving Social Security–and this so pleased Alan Greenspan, the Fed Chairman, that he opened the spigots of the Fed, dropping interest rates and buying government bonds, producing a nice, healthy goose to the economy. Greenspan further counseled Reagan to dramatically increase taxes on people earning under $37,800 a year by increasing the Social Security (FICA/payroll) tax, and then let the government borrow those newfound hundreds of billions of dollars off-the-books to make the deficit look better than it was.

Reagan, Greenspan, Winniski, and Laffer took the federal budget deficit from under a trillion dollars in 1980 to almost three trillion by 1988, and back then a dollar could buy far more than it buys today. They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in eight years than every president in history, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined. Surely this would both starve the beast and force the Democrats to make the politically suicidal move of becoming deficit hawks.

And that’s just how it turned out. Bill Clinton, who had run on an FDR-like platform of a “new covenant” with the American people that would strengthen the institutions of the New Deal, strengthen labor, and institute a national health care system, found himself in a box. A few weeks before his inauguration, Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin sat him down and told him the facts of life: he was going to have to raise taxes and cut the size of government. Clinton took their advice to heart, raised taxes, balanced the budget, and cut numerous programs, declaring an “end to welfare as we know it” and, in his second inaugural address, an “end to the era of big government.” He was the anti-Santa Claus, and the result was an explosion of Republican wins across the country as Republican politicians campaigned on a platform of supply-side tax cuts and pork-rich spending increases.

Looking at the wreckage of the Democratic Party all around Clinton by 1999, Winniski wrote a gloating memo that said, in part: “We of course should be indebted to Art Laffer for all time for his Curve… But as the primary political theoretician of the supply-side camp, I began arguing for the ‘Two Santa Claus Theory’ in 1974. If the Democrats are going to play Santa Claus by promoting more spending, the Republicans can never beat them by promoting less spending. They have to promise tax cuts…”

Ed Crane, president of the Libertarian CATO Institute, noted in a memo that year:

When Jack Kemp, Newt Gingich, Vin Weber, Connie Mack and the rest discovered Jude Wanniski and Art Laffer, they thought they’d died and gone to heaven. In supply-side economics they found a philosophy that gave them a free pass out of the debate over the proper role of government. Just cut taxes and grow the economy: government will shrink as a percentage of GDP, even if you don’t cut spending. That’s why you rarely, if ever, heard Kemp or Gingrich call for spending cuts, much less the elimination of programs and departments.

George W. Bush embraced the Two Santa Claus Theory with gusto, ramming through huge tax cuts–particularly a cut to a maximum 15 percent income tax rate on people like himself who made their principle income from sitting around the pool waiting for their dividend or capital gains checks to arrive in the mail–and blowing out federal spending. Bush even outspent Reagan, which nobody had ever thought would again be possible.

And it all seemed to be going so well, just as it did in the early 1920s when a series of three consecutive Republican presidents cut income taxes on the uber-rich from over 70 percent to under 30 percent. In 1929, pretty much everybody realized that instead of building factories with all that extra money, the rich had been pouring it into the stock market, inflating a bubble that–like an inexorable law of nature–would have to burst. But the people who remembered that lesson were mostly all dead by 2005, when Jude Wanniski died and George Gilder celebrated the Reagan/Bush supply-side-created bubble economies in a Wall Street Journal eulogy:

…Jude’s charismatic focus on the tax on capital gains redeemed the fiscal policies of four administrations. … [T]he capital-gains tax has come erratically but inexorably down–while the market capitalization of U.S. equities has risen from roughly a third of global market cap to close to half. These many trillions in new entrepreneurial wealth are a true warrant of the worth of his impact. Unbound by zero-sum economics, Jude forged the golden gift of a profound and passionate argument that the establishments of the mold must finally give way to the powers of the mind. He audaciously defied all the Buffetteers of the trade gap, the moldy figs of the Phillips Curve, the chic traders in money and principle, even the stultifying pillows of the Nobel Prize.

In reality, his tax cuts did what they have always done over the past 100 years: They initiated a bubble economy that would let the very rich skim the cream off the top just before the ceiling crashed in on working people.

The Republicans got what they wanted from Wanniski’s work. They held power for thirty years, made themselves trillions of dollars, cut organized labor’s representation in the workplace from around 25 percent when Reagan came into office to around 8 of the non-governmental workforce today, and left such a massive deficit that some misguided “conservative” Democrats are again clamoring to shoot Santa with working-class tax hikes and entitlement program cuts.

And now Boehner, McCain, Brooks, and the whole crowd are again clamoring to be recognized as the ones who will out-Santa Claus the Democrats. You’d think after all the damage they’ve done that David Gregory would have simply laughed Boehner off the program – much as the American people did to the Republicans in the last election–although Gregory is far too much a gentleman for that. Instead, he merely looked incredulous; it was enough.

The Two Santa Claus theory isn’t dead, as we can see from today’s Republican rhetoric. Hopefully, though, reality will continue to sink in with the American people and the massive fraud perpetrated by Wanniski, Reagan, Laffer, Graham, Bush(s), and all their “conservative” enablers will be seen for what it was and is. And the Obama administration can get about the business of repairing the damage and recovering the stolen assets of these cheap hustlers.

Downgrading democracy

by Ilyse Hogue
August 10, 2011

This article appeared in the August 29-September 5, 2011, edition of The Nation.

Most of the endless rehashing of the debt deal has correctly focused on the fact that corporate interests and Tea Party politics have prevailed again, at the expense of the middle class, children in poverty, students and the elderly. But too little attention has been paid to the blow this drawn-out debate has dealt to the foundational principles of our democracy.

A CNN/ORC International poll conducted after the deal shows that a whopping 77 percent of Americans believe that elected officials acted like “spoiled children.” The yawning gap between the mindset of decision-makers in Washington and the daily reality of most Americans is a grave threat to what organizers call “little-d democracy.” This is about neither the Democratic Party nor the procedural machinery by which our nominally democratic government operates. “Little-d democracy” is the basic idea that ordinary Americans, regardless of rank or stature, can have a voice in shaping their destiny.

When all is said and done, the process that created the debt deal may end up being as destructive as the deal’s effects. While the country watched helplessly, each new turn and every talking head in the saga demonstrated that ordinary people had no real part to play. Unless we employed an army of lobbyists or had a key to the Congressional washroom, it seemed, there was no reconciling the debate on the Hill with the needs and desires of those most affected by the final deal.

Some points to consider:

  • For months, poll after poll showed that rank-and-file Americans of all political persuasions believe that revenues (the nice way to say taxes) should be a part of any deal. Seventy-two percent of Americans polled between July 14 and July 17 said taxes should be raised on those making more than $250,000 per year, including 73 percent of independents and a stunning 54 percent of Republicans. Fifty-nine percent wanted taxes raised on oil and gas companies, including 60 percent of independents and 55 percent of Republicans. Yet Republican legislators refused to vote for any deal that included revenues, and the Democratic leadership capitulated, even though the GOP’s position was exactly the opposite of what large majorities wanted.
  • In the week leading up to the vote, more than 600 rallies were held around the country supporting the passage of a clean debt-ceiling bill and protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from cuts. MoveOn.org alone made more than 125,000 calls to Congress to support a clean debt-ceiling raise. Coverage of all of these rallies was minimal at best. There was also one Tea Party rally, which, despite the impressive resources of its corporate backers, was sparsely attended. Yet the talk in Washington almost exclusively centered on what the Tea Party would accept.
  • Respected economists on both sides of the partisan divide agree that cutting spending during a recession is all but certain to make things worse. This consensus was hardly mentioned in the debate and not at all reflected in the outcome.
  • The press skewed coverage away from reporting the facts in favor of presenting both parties’ claims equally, regardless of facts. As a result, most major media reported that both sides were compromising when, in fact, the GOP—the party less representative of the views of most Americans—was winning far more concessions and compromising far less.
  • The president’s simple reminder to the American people that they can and should communicate with those they voted into office set off a firestorm of debate on cable news and other news outlets about whether this was an act designed to anger Republicans and whether it was appropriate for the president to make such an ask. Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC asked Democratic strategist Bill Burton if the president should really be taking his case to the American people and if the crisis would be better solved by leaders meeting behind closed doors.
  • Finally, the construction of a new “Super Congress,” also nicknamed the Gang of Twelve, is yet further separation between the deal-makers and the people whose lives hang in the balance. In 2008 a similar issue arose when it appeared that unelected “superdelegates” might decide the outcome of the Democratic primary. A nationwide frenzy about direct democracy resulted. Contrast that response with the lack of such an outcry over the Super Congress—evidence, perhaps, of a weary citizenry that has given up.

This combination of factors—overlooked citizen action, disregarded public opinion, unheeded expert warnings, uncritical press coverage that ignores the facts and denigrates citizen participation—creates conditions for a broad-scale disengagement from the processes that nominally allow citizens to participate in governance. In fact, when a Washington Post/Pew Research Center poll asked for single-word characterizations of the budget negotiations, “ridiculous” was at the top of the list, along with “disgusting” and “stupid.” Seventy-two percent responded with a negative word, and only 2 percent had positive feelings to offer. This is a far more disturbing trend than what we would have seen if the poll had reflected voter anger and frustration. Anger moves people. Disgust and contempt for government create apathy.

We are coming off a decade of unprecedented organizing opportunity. With the emergence of online engagement and social media, Americans were beginning to feel that they had a way to participate strategically in the conversations in Washington that shape their lives. This president was the first one elected using broad engagement strategies, and his election changed the national psyche by demonstrating to millions of Americans that their participation could pay off and democracy could work. The disappointment about the debt deal is especially acute against the backdrop of the record levels of participation, enthusiasm and hope generated during the 2008 election.

In between, we had the 2010 Citizens United decision, which rebuilt the gates around the Capitol that the online revolution had supposedly crashed. Corporate cash, already omnipresent in lobbying, dominated the airwaves; and thirty-second ads, played over and over again, drowned out the millions of organized voices crying out for change. That led to the 2010 election of radical candidates representing a tiny minority of Americans who were more concerned about the federal deficit than they were about joblessness and the overall economy.

The debt deal’s final resolution of what essentially amounted to a hostage crisis by that minority represents a complete unmooring of official decision-making from the will of the American people. The past few weeks could be the final straw that leads to a collapse of confidence not just in this government but in the American project of self-governance. At a time of so much great need in our country, sending the message that citizen involvement is futile is dangerous not just to the substance of one debate but to the core principles that allow us to call ourselves a democracy. Are we really prepared to risk that?

Hiroshima to Fukushima

by Helen Caldicott,
speech delivered in Albequerque, NM
20 March 2011
available from Alternative Radio

Helen Caldicott, an Australian-born pediatrician, is a world-renowned environmental activist. She was the founding president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, an organization which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. She is the author of Missile Envy, If You Love This Planet, and Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer.

I think what I should do as a doctor and a pediatrician is to walk you through radiation and internal emitters and what it means. It wasn’t developed in New Mexico. The first nuclear fission reaction took place, actually, at the University of Chicago, but the nuclear weapons work was all done first in Los Alamos. Robert Oppenheimer chose a school that was isolated and formulated Los Alamos Labs. I’m not going do uranium mining now, because things are so complex, I have to try and teach you about nuclear power, Fukushima, the medical effects, Chernobyl, and then I’ll go on to the labs and Sandia and Kirtland Air Force Base here in Albuquerque and all the rest.

Basically, there are five sorts of radiation. There are X-rays. Hands up, those whose have never had an X-ray. You’ve never had your teeth X-rayed? You don’t need your teeth X-rayed every year. That’s ridiculous. My ex- husband was a radiologist. They make a lot of money. If you’ve got a very sore tooth, you might need an X-ray to diagnose an abscess or whatever. Never have an unnecessary X-ray. Doctors take too many. CT scans give you a hell of a dose. My daughter, who is a doctor, persuaded me, because I’ve got some heart disease, to have a CT scan recently. And I had it, and then they found some stuff in my liver which they thought might be cancer, so she took me in the next day to have another one. And I got a total of 22 rems, which is a hell of a dose. I was really freaked out. And she said, “Mom, don’t worry. You won’t live long enough to get cancer.” So I was very reassured. That’s daughters for you.

Radiation is basically cumulative: each dose you receive adds to your risk of getting cancer. Never go through those X-ray machines at the airports. That’s absolutely medically contraindicated. In fact, I have whole body searches. And I don’t care what cavities they search, I’m not going to have an X-ray.

The biggest irradiators of the public at this time are the medical profession. Often they don’t really know what they’re doing. The New York Times has just had an excellent series of articles where people have been irradiated incorrectly. The technicians haven’t gradated the machines accurately, and have been actually giving CT scans to neonates. Babies are very, very sensitive to radiation, because as the cells divide, the genes are replicating, and so they tend to mutate. Fetuses are thousands of times more sensitive, and pregnant women are walking through those X-ray machines and their babies. One X-ray to the pregnant abdomen doubles the incidence of leukemia in that child. Similar work was done by a wonderful woman called Dr. Alice Stewart, whom the AEC tried to discredit for years and years, but she was proven to be right.

So be careful and be tough with your doctor. I know that we tend to be godlike, and we’re a bit arrogant and we don’t always communicate with you adequately. But ask why you’re having an X-ray and be tough. If you’ve got pneumonia, you need an X-ray. The risk is minimal, the benefit is great. But each dose you get adds to your risk of getting cancer. And there is no radiation that is safe, despite the fact that people on television all over the world are saying the doses are too low to have any significance. You already get background radiation from the rocks on the Earth, from the sun, from radon. And I can’t remember the figure, but I think it’s about 30% of cancer we already see is induced by background radiation.

When the Earth was very, very hot, no one could survive. As it cooled down radiologically, life forms developed, and then mutations arose from the radiation. And that’s how birds developed wings and fish developed lungs and the like. They’re called that advantageous mutations. It takes billions of years for an advantageous mutation to survive. Almost all other mutations are deleterious, inducing genetic disease, like cystic fibrosis, which is my specialty. One in 25 Caucasians carry that gene. We all carry several hundred genes for diseases in our cells and in our reproductive cells. So any more radiation increases the incidence of those diseases. But it takes up to 20 generations for an abnormal, deleterious mutation to express itself. The National Academy of Sciences produced the BEIR 7 report, “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation,” which said no radiation is safe; every dose you get adds to your risk. We’re seeing a lot of cancers partly because the scientists at Los Alamos and in Nevada absolutely dowsed America with fallout from testing weapons at Nevada. How dare they? I’ve got the maps and the levels of radiation, and they’re really very high.

Why are we seeing an epidemic of cancer? Well, it’s partly because of that, but it’s also partly because we live in a chemical cocktail of 80,000 chemicals in everyday use, most of which have never been tested for carcinogenicity. And the chemical companies have made sure that the regulations say that we have to make sure the chemicals are dangerous. They don’t have to prove that they’re dangerous or safe before they cast them out. So we use in them our sinks and our kitchens and our bathrooms and in our carpets and in our curtains. Many plastic bottles have bisphenol A, which is carcinogenic, so never use a plastic bottle and never drink water out of one. Drink it out of the tap. That’s if you’ve got some water to drink out here.

So X-rays. They’re nonparticulate. So when the technician says, “Breathe in, hold it,” and runs out of the room and hides behind lead glass and it goes click, then you are irradiated, but you don’t become radioactive. It’s like irradiating food: it doesn’t become radioactive; it just passes through. And in that instant genes can be mutated.

The next one is gamma radiation, which is, like X- rays, nonparticulate, being given off by radioactive materials. What they’re doing at Fukushima, because all the monitors that normally monitor radiation are offline because either the tsunami damaged them and destroyed them or they were turned off, they’re running around with Geiger counters. A lot of the isotopes released from Fukushima give out gamma radiation—and I’ll give you an example of a few—but many do not. Because they’re either alpha emitters—an alpha emitter is an atom that emits two protons and two neutrons, and it’s large in mass. You can hold an alpha emitter, like uranium or plutonium, in your hand and it doesn’t penetrate the layers of dead cells in the epidermis to damage living cells. However, if you inhale plutonium into your lung, just a microgram, a millionth of a gram, it just irradiates a tiny volume of cells, because alphas do not travel far, but the dose is so high that almost all the cells in that volume are killed. But because radiation decreases with the square of the distance, on the periphery some cells survive. And the regulatory genes are mutated. Therefore, plutonium is a very potent carcinogen.

They want to set up a plutonium factory up at Los Alamos. And there is plutonium in the ravines up there, that drain into the river. And the Indians who live out there, many are exposed to plutonium. In fact, Glenn Seaborg, who discovered plutonium, said it’s the most dangerous element we know. Actually, there are more dangerous ones, like Americium, which is in all our smoke detectors. But when they injected plutonium into beagle dogs, they didn’t find a dose low enough that didn’t give all the dogs cancer, and that might be 10-9 grams, picograms.

Then there is beta radiation. It is just an electron emitted from the unstable atom. And they all do the same thing. Then there are neutrons, and they developed the neutron bomb, I suppose, up at Los Alamos. That’s the ultimate capitalist weapon. There’s very little blast, so not many buildings are destroyed, but it gives such a blast of neutrons that the brain swells in a fixed box and people develop ataxia, they develop seizures and severe headaches and die within days of acute encephalopathic syndrome. But the buildings actually become radioactive, because if you irradiate calcium and iron and all the rest, they become radioactive. They’re called activation products. So that’s radiation.

How does radiation cause cancer? In every cell of the body there’s a pair of genes—and I’m being simplistic because it’s getting quite complex now, genetics—called regulatory genes that control the rate of cell division. And if one is hit by X-ray—I got that one—or by an alpha particle missed all, it’s random. The gene itself mutates and biochemically the DNA molecule, and you don’t even know it’s been hit by radiation. It sits latently and cryptogenically for any time from 5 to 60 years. That’s the incubation time for cancer. That’s the ace that the nuclear industry had up their sleeve. Because if I sneeze on you, in two days you’re sneezing, you’ve got a cold. The measles, mumps, chicken pox, whooping cough, it’s three weeks’ incubation. But for cancer it’s long, silent, and cryptogenic. And when the cancer arises and you feel a lump in your breast, and then you think, Oh, god, and you go to your doctor and they do a biopsy and it’s cancer, it doesn’t wear a sign saying what it was caused by.

The only way you can work out if irradiated populations have a high incidence in cancer, their normal populations who are not irradiated, is to take the whole group—and that’s what America did with Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the Hibakushas—and compare on them to a nonexposed group. And you have to do autopsies on all of them, because our death certificates are very inaccurate. We get up in the middle of the night, we have woken up, we have to listen to the heart of a dead person and sign the death certificate. And because we’re tired and lazy, we might say they died of pneumonia, but actually they died of an underlying cancer.

The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission studied the Hibakushas for years but they never treated them. And now they’re still dying of cancer. And they didn’t study them for a year, so many people died and were not included in the survey. But five years after the bomb dropped there was an epidemic of leukemia, and 15 years later solid cancers started appearing. And they’re still rising as I speak. Different cancers have different incubation times. Now we’re seeing cancers of the bone marrow and the genitourinary tract. Breast, thyroid, lung were pretty early. Little girls who were irradiated who had no breasts but nubbins of breast tissue later on had a very high incidence of breast cancer. So that’s how we got our data.

But there are literally thousands of studies showing that radiation causes cancer. So it takes a single alpha particle to hit a single gene in a single cell to kill you, okay? That’s what nobody understands who is on television today talking about Fukushima. That’s just simple radiation biology. I learned it in the first year of medical school.

There are cells that are more important than the somatic body cells, and they are the sperm and the eggs. In every sperm and egg there is half the number of genes, so when they unite, you’ve got a normal diploid number of genes. And they carry all the genes. We’re human because we have human genes, although 99.2% of our genes are the same as the chimps’, so I still think we don’t know much about genetics yet at all. Anyway, there are 2,600 genetic diseases now described. Most are recessive. So here’s a quiz. Two parents had blue eyes and they had a brown-eyed baby. Where did the brown eyes come? Y es, the milkman. You’ve got it. And because it takes 20 generations sometimes for recessive genes to get together, like cystic fibrosis, like diabetes, like phenylketonuria, like inborn errors of metabolism, we’ll never see it. But what we do know is that a man called Muller years ago irradiated Drosophila fruit flies, that reproduce very quickly over a year and you get many generations. He irradiated them once and developed genes for a crooked wing and the like. That gene was passed on generation to generation. It was obviously dominant. I saw a family at Children’s Hospital in Boston once, there were two parents. One was an achondroplastic dwarf, very short arms and legs, big heads and normal trunk. Five of the six children were achondroplastic. So it’s a roll of the dice every time, whichever genes you get.

What we’re going to see over time, as radioactive waste accumulates from nuclear power and weapons—there is a huge amount of waste at Hanford, Washington, and Savannah River. It’s almost unbelievable. As it leaks, as it’s leaking now over time, there is no container that can contain radioactive material for greater than 100 years. Plutonium has a half-life of 24,400 years, and it’s around for half a million years, some say a quarter of a million. It doesn’t really matter. We think Jesus was antiquity, and he only lived 2,000 years ago. You only need 5 pounds to make yourself a nuclear weapon, and each reactor makes 500 pounds of plutonium a year. That’s why, as we export nuclear power all over the world, because it’s the latest, we’re exporting nuclear weapons. Proliferation. That’s wicked. So that’s a basic lecture in genetics.

I’m not going to go through the whole of nuclear power. Suffice it to say that nuclear power is supported by a vast industrial infrastructure, which creates huge amounts of CO2 and CFC gas and global warming. I outline that in the first chapter of my book, Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer to Global Warming. But, don’t you know, it’s clean, green, and sustainable. When I debated with generals about nuclear war, really, they hated the Russians and the Communists, but they knew that one nuclear bomb on a city would vaporize hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. So they were honest. But when I debate with the nuclear power people, they are notoriously dishonest. That’s what really upsets me, for if I was dishonest in medicine, I would be deregistered. I would be killing my patients. Science is science is science.

The first thing is, their number one lie, it causes global warming in its own right. All I’m going to do is go along to the nuclear power plant. I won’t talk about mining uranium. In Australia we have 40% of the world’s uranium and we’re being wicked exporting it, because we’re exporting cancer, leukemia, genetic disease, and nuclear weapons. Remember what Einstein said when he discovered E=MC2? He said, “The splitting of the atom changed everything, all reality, save man’s mode of thinking.Thus we drift towards unparalleled catastrophe.” And you see it up there with those blokes at Los Alamos, you see it at Sandia. I addressed thousands of nuclear scientists at Sandia years ago and described bombs dropping and the medical effects of nuclear war. And they lined up in queues to ask me questions and they said, “That was very good.” They said they needed to hear this. They, not me.

A nuclear power plant has typically 100 tons of uranium packed into it in the form of fuel rods, which are like curtain rods, half an inch thick and 12 feet long. They’re made of zirconium, and I’ll get on to that in a minute. So 100 tons of uranium are packed into the reactor core. And between the uranium are rods of boron, which moderates the flux of neutrons, because uranium is always giving out neutrons. And as they’re slowly lifted out, the whole mass, 100 tons, reaches critical mass. It doesn’t explode like a nuclear weapon, but it starts shooting out neutrons everywhere, breaking apart the large uranium atoms, producing 200 new elements, all of which are medically extremely dangerous. Some last seconds and some last millions of years. What happens is, you’re releasing E=MC2. Energy equals the mass of the atom times the speed of light squared. We’ve captured the energy of the stars, which is totally inappropriate for our poor little fallible brains, moral or not.

Tremendous heat is produced when you withdraw the rods, and the heat boils the water. The water turns to steam, and it’s taken to a turbine, which generates electricity. So all a nuclear power plant is designed to do is to boil water. It’s like cutting a pound of butter with a chainsaw. And, as Einstein said, “Nuclear power is a hell of a way to boil water.” I worked with many of the blokes who worked in the Manhattan Project: George Kistiakowsky and Jerry Wiesner and Philip Morrison and many. They were so guilt-ridden about Hiroshima and Nagasaki that they thought if they could harness atoms for peace, they could die in relative peace. Well, they didn’t. They died guilt-ridden. Because they knew damn well the dangers of nuclear power.

Nuclear power plants need a million gallons a minute of cooling water circulating through them to keep them cool, from the sea or from a lake or from a river. This goes back relatively radioactive, not very, but relatively. But what happens is that the algae concentrates Ci tritium or strontium-90, thousands of times and the crustaceans concentrate it thousands of times, then the little fish, then the big fish. And we stand at the apex of the food chain. You can’t taste, smell, or see any of these things, and you don’t know the food is radioactive. So the solution to pollution by dilution when it comes to radiation is fallacious, biologically speaking.

What happens is that this circulation, the electricity to run the pumps, is not provided by the nuclear reactor, it’s provided by external power. And because of the earthquake, the power was lost, not just to the reactors, those six reactors built on an earthquake fault, but to many millions of people in Japan. So the pumps stopped. However, every reactor has big diesel generators as large as a house. And they had been—often they don’t work in an extreme situation, but they got drowned by the tsunami, so they didn’t work. So all the cooling to the reactors stopped. Yes, the boron rods went down as they should and stopped the fission reaction. But these rods are terribly, terribly hot, and so they had batteries which last for 8 hours. But they ran out of batteries. So what happened is that four of the reactors—I think it’s four—got into trouble and lost their cooling water. Two started to melt down.

What does a meltdown mean? Their heat is so intrinsic that if they’re not continually cooled, the zirconium cladding reacts with water to produce hydrogen, which collected in the building above the containment vessel, and it exploded. So I think three reactors had explosions, or four. But the containment vessel was okay, except I think reactor 4 or 3 has a crack in the containment. The water is leaking out, and they won’t be able to fix it.

On the roof of the reactor are the cooling pools. Every year they remove 30 tons of fuel rods, because they’re so full of these fission products they’re inefficient. And they’re so hot that if you stand next to one fuel rod for a couple of seconds, you get such a gamma dose of radiation, you will die within days with your hair falling out, vomiting and bleeding to death. Those men going to those reactors are all going to die. They’re dead men walking. My heart goes out to them. But the people living nearby could be getting large doses, too. The fuel pools were designed not to hold much because they were going to be transferred a waste storage facility. But there are none in the world. Nuclear power has been running since, what, 1954, when Eisenhower opened the first reactor. They’re put on racks. But because they’re running out of room, they’re reracking the rods closer and closer together, which means, in fact, they could reach critical mass themselves and burn and explode.

Two of the reactors lost their cooling water, so the zirconium reacted with air and it burnt. So there have been fires. And as it burns, the fuel rods are exposed, and so they can start melting. A real meltdown happens when the reactor runs out of water—and a couple have—and the zirconium collectors and the pellets of uranium—they’re like pieces of chalk—collect in a mass at the bottom, and they melt their way through the bottom of the reactor into the earth. It’s called the melt-through-to-China syndrome, hence the name of the film that Jane Fonda was in.

So what they’re doing, they’re pouring seawater in. They can’t get into the containment vessel because it’s a fixed system. They’re pouring it over the reactor core to try and cool it. Seawater makes these reactors unusable forevermore. As my son just pointed out to me in Boston, if one of them melts down, that’s the end, and they’ll all go.” I said, “What do you mean, Will?” He said, “No one will be there to fix it. They’ll all go.” That had not occurred to me. The ramifications are so vast.

So a meltdown in a cooling pool. There’s 2 to 20 times more radiation in the cooling pools, of course, than there is in the reactor itself. These reactors are about 40 years old. I know the GE guys who designed them. They resigned in 1976 because they were so dangerous, Bridenbaugh, Hubbard, and Minor. No one took any notice. But in fact, the reactors weren’t too badly damaged in the earthquake. It was actually the tsunami that did most of the damage. But the earthquake destroyed the electricity. They’ve rehooked some electricity up, but it won’t make any difference now. The pumps, apparently, are all damaged. A meltdown in a cooling pool will release 2 to 30 times more radiation than in the core itself. When you fission uranium, it becomes one billion times more radioactive than the original uranium. There is as much long-lived radiation in the core as 1,000 Hiroshima bombs. So the stuff is going up into the air and into the stratosphere. And in the stratosphere the winds go from west to east. And what’s east of Japan? You are. Already it’s spreading. The water in Tokyo apparently has radioactive elements in it, and they’re finding radioactive iodine and other things in the spinach and the like. So it’s already happening.

Now I’m going to tell you about the various isotopes. I’m only going to choose four of 200. You’re all intelligent. Go to the Internet, Google it, look up the periodic table, and look up the radiation that each element gives out—beta, gamma, alpha, and the like—and look at their half-lives. The half-life of a radioactive element is such that radioactive iodine has a half-life of eight days. So in eight days half of the radiation has decayed. In eight more days, half of that has decayed, in eight more days half of that. So it’s six weeks before it becomes relatively benign. What gland does iodine go to? The thyroid. We use it in medicine, actually, to diagnose cancer, radioactive iodine. And if you’ve got cancer and it’s spread, we give you a high dose of radioactive iodine—it’s called a drink—and we hope it migrates to all the metastases of the thyroid so it kills them with high doses of gamma radiation. The patient is radioactive for six weeks afterwards. We used to discharge them from hospital and just send them home, and they’re excreting in their urine, their feces I-131. But now they’re being a little more careful. I-131 I just talked about. Half-life eight days, six weeks it’s around for.

The next one is strontium-90. You all know about that because America and Russia and China dowsed the whole of the northern hemisphere with strontium 90 and the like in the 1950s and 1960s. The two AMSs at the equator don’t tend to mix, so we got irradiated by the British and the French. I led the movement against the French nuclear tests in the Pacific and Australia. And the Australians don’t like the French anyway: they think they’re arrogant, and they have no right to come down and damage our hemisphere, and our water was radioactive. So people stopped buying French perfume, French wine, the postal workers wouldn’t deliver French mail. It was a massive uprising. Seventy-five percent of people rose up spontaneously and said, “Those bloody French.” We took them to the World Court, the International Court of Justice, and they were forced to do tests underground. I’m getting warmed up.

Strontium 90 is a beta and a gamma. It has a half-life of 28 years, it’s around for 600 years. It’s a calcium analog, so it goes—where does it go? It goes to bone. It’s the femur. And it deposits just a little bit, irradiating osteoblasts, which are the bone-forming cells. And one of them can be mutated and used later. The patient develops a really sore lump on their leg. And it’s diagnosed, they’ve got osteogenic sarcoma. It spreads really rapidly to the lung and the like. Teddy Kennedy’s son Edward had one, lost his leg. Or it can cause leukemia, because the white blood cells are formed in the bone marrow, and if they’re irradiated—“leukemia” means white blood—the blood becomes full of immature white blood cells and there is no room for the platelets. So the patient dies either of massive hemorrhage or infection, like AIDS patients die.

Caesium-137 is a potassium analog. Potassium is ubiquitous, in every cell of the body. Its half-life is 30 years, it’s around for 600 years. It’s a beta and a gamma. It causes brain cancers and cancers in many organs. It’s concentrating in food. I want you to look at this map. And this, of course, is Europe and Russia. And here’s Chernobyl, pertinent today. The very dark red areas are areas of exclusion zones, and no one can live there because it’s so radioactive. The wind changed 360 degrees in the first 24 hours after Chernobyl melted. Gorbachev didn’t tell the world until 10 days later. They all obfuscate. The radiation was first picked up in Sweden by some monitors. They got a hell of a dose—Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, right across Europe. This is only caesium-137, but it’s indicative or symptomatic of many other isotopes, about 100 or more, that got out of the reactor, including one-third of the plutonium. So one-third of 500 pounds is what? Nearly 200 pounds. Austria, Italy, Greece. Turkey got a hell of a dose.

Do you get the picture? That’s what’s happening now in Japan. Suddenly I realized, five nights ago, before I came here, I thought, Oh, my God. If those reactors really melt down, that’s sort of the end of the northern hemisphere. In Australia we haven’t got any radioactive stuff, just a little bit from French and British tests. We only sell uranium. We don’t like having nuclear power because it’s too dangerous for us. We just sell it so everyone else can have the benefits. We’re wicked. I think it’s time to start using proper English. It’s time to stop being polite and using euphemisms.

The last but not least that I will describe—and then I’m going to get on to weapons—is plutonium. I’ve told you a little bit about that. Plutonium-239 is made when uranium-238, which is ubiquitous in the reactor, captures a neutron. This is great gear, because that’s what you make bombs from. At the height of its popularity America made 77,000 hydrogen bombs. That’s these bloody labs up here in Sandia and Los Alamos. And do I resent them. How dare they set up the world to be extinguished overnight? And it still holds true, and I’ll tell you why in a minute.

Plutonium has a half-life of 24,400 years. It’s an alpha emitter only. It has to get inside your body. It’s not absorbed too well from the gut, except in neonates, whose gut is immature. And it’s absorbed in chlorinated water better than in ordinary water. But it gets into the lung. It’s an iron analog. Iron is ubiquitous in hemoglobin. So it gets into the lung, and it may cause lung cancer—it does—but macrophage as white blood cells come and pick it up and take it to the mediastinal lymph glands, where it can cause leukemia or lymphomas. It’s stored in the liver, because liver stores iron, where it can cause liver cancer. It goes to the bone, because that’s where the hemoglobin is made, where it can cause bone cancer or leukemia. It crosses the placenta into the developing fetus, where it can kill a cell that’s going to form the right side of the brain or the left arm. And that’s called teratogenesis—damage of a genetically normal fetus. The placenta lets virtually nothing through, but it lets plutonium through because it thinks it’s iron.

It has a predilection for testicles. And every male in the northern hemisphere has a tiny load of plutonium in his testicles. It tends to deposit next to the seminiferous tubules, which are made of the spermatogonia, the precursors of sperm, where it irradiates the cells. And as the genetic mutations are induced, thus they pass on generation to generation. Meanwhile, if the man is cremated, which is contraindicated because it adds to global warming—I’m going to be buried in a cardboard coffin to feed the worms—the plutonium goes up the chimney, so another man can breathe it in. You can see there will be an exponential increase in genetic mutations. And we’re not the only ones who have sperm. All animals have sperm. And all plants have genes and can get cancer and deformities. So that’s plutonium. I said 500 pounds are made every year in the reactor.

Now the bombs. We led the movement, the Physicians for Social Responsibility. And millions of people in America got really alarmed about the medical effects of nuclear war because we taught them what it was.

I’ll just describe. Your city is targeted with at least—well, I would say probably 10 hydrogen bombs. The Russian bombs are really big. Los Alamos is targeted with a lot. New York is targeted with 10 H-bombs—I wrote an article with Bob McNamara about that—Washington probably with many more. You see, there is such a redundancy of nuclear weapons, and they use junior officers to work out the targeting strategy, never a senior officer. It was like pin the tail on the donkey—“Well, we’ll drop it on here.” They target factories, they target—in fact, in my book, The New Nuclear Danger, one general said, “We target whatever the enemy holds most dear.” And he said, “If indeed the enemy holds most dear grandmothers, that’s what we target.” That is obscene. And I’m a grandmother. That’s how they think. They’re killers.

American society is totally geared to killing. You spend a trillion dollars a year on weapons and killing and death. Not life. You don’t even have a free medical care system, and we do in Australia. My friend broke her kneecap, shattered into eight pieces. She went to hospital, best orthopedic surgeon in Sydney, anesthetic, hospital for 10 days. It cost her $700. You are crazy not to have free medical care. And it’s socialism. But guess what? Jesus was a socialist. Jesus said, “It’s more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.” You have been brainwashed and you’ve been socially engineered. You’ve got to not reduce the spending of the Pentagon but stop it. No one is going to attack you. Except the Russians might by accident.

Now, let me tell you, there are about 23,000 hydrogen bombs in the world and atomic. Of that, Russia and America have 97%. So who is the real rogue state? Who is the axis of evil? Russia and America. And it’s all about testosterone. I called my book years ago Missile Envy, à la Freud, and the generals hated it, but they all had a copy on their bookshelves because they knew it to be true. Anyway, we led the freeze movement, and Gorbachev, bless his heart, allowed the Berlin wall to fall. It had nothing to do with Ronald Reagan, whom I met with for an hour and a quarter in the White House and held his hand and established a doctor-patient relationship with him because he got quite anxious. He knew nothing. He said, “People who work for the nuclear weapons freeze are either KGB dupes or Soviet agents.” I said, “But that’s from last month’s Reader’s Digest.” It was verbatim. And his daughter Patti told me that’s the only thing he ever really read. He was a nice old man. He would have been a good chicken farmer. I estimated clinically his IQ to be about 100, because you have to estimate an IQ of the patient to make sure they put their suppository in at 7:00 a.m. and that they take their tablet. You have to work out how intelligent they are. And I came out saying I thought he had impending Alzheimer’s, and he did. So that’s Reagan. He spent more money than all past presidents combined on weapons. And that’s all in national defense.

The Coast Guard can protect you, and you’ve got friendly countries to the north and south. It’s such rhubarb that you’re sold. It’s ridiculous nonsense. Nonsense. And it’s all patriotism. “We’re the greatest country on earth.” No. What about Australia? We’ve got kangaroos, we’ve got koalas. What about that? We’ve got the most poisonous snakes in the world and the most poisonous spiders. And we’re very racist towards the aborigines. But we’re okay. We’re sort of like you guys.

When George the First got in, he was pretty good. He eliminated a lot of nuclear weapons unilaterally to support Gorbachev. And then we got William Jefferson Clinton. He had no spine and no guts. He had no courage to take on the Pentagon. And we handed him nuclear abolition on a silver platter. Everyone in the world wanted it. He had a partner in the Kremlin called Yeltsin who was such a hardened alcoholic, he probably had Korsakoff’s syndrome and Wernicke’s encephalopathy, which you get from drinking too much alcohol. Clinton could have got on Air Force One with a document flown to Yeltsin and said, “Sign here, Boris. We’re going to eliminate nuclear weapons in five years.” He did not. They are all still on hair-trigger alert. We could be blown up tonight, and I’ll tell you how in a minute. That’s his legacy.

Do I resent him for that? I’ve spent my life trying to get rid of these bloody things, and I’ve given up medicine, which is my true love. It’s like being a nun. My vocation is medicine. Yes, I’m practicing global preventive medicine, but it’s boring, and I have to give the same speech again and again. “Come on, children, 1+1=2.”

The other thing is that there is a precedent for abolition. Reagan and Gorbachev met in Reykjavik, Iceland, in 1987. This is a fascinating story. There is a little house—and I was taken to it when I went to Iceland—and they evacuated the area a mile radius around and they had men with machine guns all around. So here’s Reagan and here’s Gorbachev and here’s Shultz in the next room with Shevardnaze, the foreign minister. Reagan came prepared with nothing. The Russians came with a plan to abolish nuclear weapons. Richard Perle, called the Prince of Darkness by the Pentagon, there was no room for him. He was up in the bathroom sitting on the lavatory with a board on the bath writing numbers on bits of lavatory paper because he had no paper. They came totally unprepared. So Gorbachev would suggest something, then Schultz would find out, and he would run up and talk to Perle. Meanwhile, in the basement were the KGB. They were imbibing their vodka, and of them chucked a match into the wastepaper basket. And it caught flames and nearly burnt the house down with Reagan and Gorbachev.

Reagan and Gorbachev agreed to abolish nuclear weapons, but they got stuck on Star Wars. You know, they had this yellow thing over America, boink, boink, and the missiles were diverted. It would never work. It was Reagan’s fantasy and Teller’s idea. Gorbachev was obstinate, because he knew it wouldn’t work, too. So he should have said to Reagan, “Okay, have your Star Wars. And we’ll do it.” So we missed the opportunity. Schultz was devastated. He came out and he said, “We did this, and we did this, and we did this.” And then he said, “And we did this.” It turned Schultz into a statesman. Two mere mortals over a weekend in a little house almost agreed to abolish nuclear weapons between the major superpowers.

America’s got about 2,500 nuclear weapons on hair- trigger alert. So does Russia. We don’t really know the figures. But they’re hydrogen bombs. I’m going to describe one bomb dropping on Albuquerque. Sometimes on NPR, you hear, “Wooooo. This is a test of the emergency broadcasting system.” They would say, “This is not a test. Get to the nearest fallout shelter. You’ve got 5 minutes.” Because once the weapons are launched, they take 30 minutes to go from launch to land. The other country’s satellite picks the attack up, they launch their weapons, and it’s over in one hour. The bomb will land on you at 20 times the speed of sound, so you won’t hear anything. It will explode with the heat inside the center of the sun like is captured in a nuclear power plant. It will dig a hole three-quarters of a mile wide and 800 feet deep, turning you and the buildings and the earth below to radioactive fallout in the mushroom cloud.

Five miles from the epicenter everyone will be turned into gas and vaporized. In Hiroshima a little boy was reaching up to catch a red dragonfly in his hand against the blue of the sky. There was a blinding flash and he disappeared and left his shadow on the concrete pavement. Never before had we been able to leave shadows of human beings. His shadow is in the Hiroshima Museum.

Twenty miles out everyone will be dead or lethally injured. People will be turned into missiles, sucked out of buildings at 100 miles an hour, incurring the most dreadful fractures, head injuries, and the like. There will be third- degree burns. People will be lying in what is left of the streets thinking, Why didn’t I stop this? They’ll all die.

And then a huge firestorm will spontaneously ignite of 3,000 square miles, burning absolutely everything—all buildings, even in the depth of the winter, covered in snow. The Pentagon never takes into account fires from nuclear war. And I just dropped one bomb. And then a huge cloud of toxic black smoke from all the bombs dropped will rise into the stratosphere and surround it with a cloud so thick it will block out the sun for years, causing nuclear winter, an ice age, and the end of life on earth.

If you watch the President as he’s walking, just behind him is an officer with a big suitcase, and that’s called the “football.” In the “football” are the codes for the president to start a nuclear war. What happens is the satellites pick up the attack, they radio it back to, I think, the Air Force base here, they then radio to the White House. The President gets told, and he’s got 3 minutes to decide whether or not to blow up the planet. Actually, the choices he has are, is it countervalue: do you bomb only the cities? Or is it counterforce: do you bottom the missile silos? Or do you do both?

In 1995 America launched a weather satellite from Norway, and the Russians saw it and thought, Oh, my God. So the first time ever, in the history of the nuclear age, Yeltsin opened his football. He had officers standing over his shoulder saying, “Press that button, Mr. President.” Thirty seconds before the end of that 3 minutes elapsed, the missile veered off course, and they knew it wasn’t an attack. That’s why you and I are still here. Those accidents occur not infrequently.

The weapons are all computerized. There are two men in each missile silo. In the Dakotas, you look down when you fly over them, and Colorado you can see them. Eighteen to 21 years old. “Shall I press the button, sir?” Each armed with a pistol, one to shoot the other if one shows signs of deviant behavior. What if the deviant one shoots the other one? The locks to turn the keys are 12 feet apart, but they worked out if you tie a string to one key, one man can turn both locks and start the annihilation. I’ve talked to some of their girlfriends. Some of them take drugs before they go on duty. We are fallible. What if President Obama develops a cerebral tumor and does some crazy things before the diagnosis is made? I’ve had patients, normal businessmen, who overnight had developed acute psychosis. I won’t go into it, but it’s very scary. The Chinese are hacking as I speak, sometimes into the early warning system of the Pentagon. They can hack into anything, these young kids. They’re very smart. And it’s all computerized.

I don’t know how long we’re going to go on. So is it a whimper or a bang? Do we have epidemics of leukemia, cancer, and genetic disease for the rest of time from radioactive waste infiltrating into the water and the food, or do we do it with a bang? And that’s these bloody labs up there.

And am I angry. It’s appropriate to be angry with people who are going to kill us all. They’re killers. And I’m pissed off, because I’m 73, I’ve devoted my life to this. We nearly got rid of the nuclear weapons. And then we got Clinton. How dare he? And I’m going to die knowing I didn’t succeed. And I think in medicine, us doctors, we like to cure our patients. And we’ve got these stupid politicians, all in Congress, who know nothing. They know no science, they’re scientifically illiterate. They’re retards. Some of them are sociopaths with no conscience, like Domenici. And Obama, I’m sorry, I’ve totally lost respect for him. I was hoping and hoping and hoping. He’s so intelligent. Now he is going ahead with nuclear power…

So what are we going to do? Do you know what a revolution is? Do you know what Egypt just did? Do you know what putting your bodies on the line means? Martin Luther King said, “If you haven’t got something worth dying for, you’re not really living.” What did Jesus do? Did he die for the principles he espoused, and did those principles live on 2,000 years? I’ve had eight death threats. I’ve run off the stage when people have threatened. What’s my life compared to evolution? I once said to Carl Sagan, “Are we the only life in the universe?” And he said, “Yes, I think we are.” What a responsibility we’ve got. We can’t be passive anymore. Don’t sit in front of those stupid computers and doing Facebook. They will change nothing. Take over the Congress. You own it. It’s your building, they are your representatives. And they’re out to lunch.

I thought about the farmers. There was a bill before Congress they didn’t like. They took hundreds of cows, pigs, and sheep, put them all over the steps of Congress and they made a filthy mess. They got their bill through. What about Babies Against the Pentagon? Releasing hundreds of naked toddlers into the Senate chamber as they are debating nuclear weapons and nuclear power. And they can clean up the mess, too, what’s more. Because they’re the symbols. But really it’s gone beyond anything we could possibly imagine. And I haven’t even talked about global warming and those bloody coal companies and the oil companies.

Rise up. It’s this country that has to save the earth. You have no right not to do anything.

For information about obtaining CDs, MP3s, or transcripts of this or other programs, please contact:
David Barsamian
Alternative Radio
P.O. Box 551
Boulder, CO 80306-0551
(800) 444-1977
info@alternativeradio.org
www.alternativeradio.org
©2010

Stop coddling the super-rich

by Warren E. Buffett

I have some comments at the end.

Our leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill–the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf–was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income–and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine–most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone–not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77–shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion–a staggering $227.4 million on average–but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million–there were 236,883 such households in 2009–I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more–there were 8,274 in 2009–I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

I would dispute Buffet on a few points:

  1. Continuing that 2% reduction in payroll (FICA) tax is a bad idea, because it underfunds Social Security (and is a barely noticeable reduction in take-home pay anyway);
  2. We should do away with the ceiling on the Social Security tax: all income, no matter how high and no matter the source (including capital gains) should be taxed for Social Security;
  3. Stop funding stupid wars and maintaining military bases all over the world and cut way back on all Pentagon wasteful expenses and contracts for weird weaponry;
  4. Cut back on support for repressive regimes (and that includes Israel with its expanding settlements);
  5. Do away with corporate welfare–including the absurd subsidies for dirty energy.

Buffet didn’t address points 3 through 5, but those would go a long way toward resolving fiscal problems. I agree with Buffet on the rest.

“Lesser of two evils” revisited

Here’s from my friend Fred Nagel

Now is the right time to revisit the “lesser of two evils” theory of governance. As destructive as Obama has been to the interests of working people, the Republicans always appear to be just a little bit worse. And so it goes for the next election cycle, American voters begging for crumbs at the table of those serving the rich.

But when it comes to working people, is having a traitor leading our country actually better than having an avowed enemy? President Clinton, for example, achieved much more for corporate America than Reagan did. He deregulated the accounting, communications, and banking industries while slashing welfare for the poor beyond anything that Reagan had even dreamed of.

Our current president has similar goals. That consummate con man for the cleptocracy, Obama, will end up destroying Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all to please his Wall Street patrons.

Having a Democratic president who is a traitor to the working class means that big corporations can get what they want without provoking much of a fight. A Republican president trying to roll back the last of the New Deal would have had millions in the streets. But Obama, being a Democrat, can sneak it though while blaming the other party. Is it any wonder why he rakes in tens of millions from the financial sector?

Some say that the former President Bush destroyed America. Obama, however, will be much more effective in reducing generations of working people to the status of paupers and beggars.