![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Food Riots:Updated
Apr. 19th, 2008 05:57 pmHow World Bank policies led to famine in Haiti.
Food Crises threaten 100 million
Brazil Pres Lula da Silva rejects UN's claims that biofuels are harming food production
Apr. 19th, 2008
How World Bank policies led to famine in Haiti.
Food Crises threaten 100 million
Brazil Pres Lula da Silva rejects UN's claims that biofuels are harming food production
No Bases for Empire: International Activists Organize Against US Foreign Bases in Their Backyards
The United States maintains over 700 military bases in dozens of countries across the globe. We speak with two international activists who are in the US for a speaking tour as part of a campaign called “No Bases for Empire.” Jan Tamas, from the Czech Republic, is the founder of the No Bases Initiative, a coalition against the proposed US missile system in Eastern Europe. Olivier Bancoult is with the Chagos Refugee Group. He was expelled from his native Diego Garcia when he was four years old. The US has operated a military base there since British forces expelled native islanders in the early 1970s. [includes rush transcript]
AMY GOODMAN: It sounds like a fast-food franchise—hundreds of locations spanning some 130 countries across the globe—but in fact, it’s perhaps the ultimate face of US hegemony: military bases. There are more than 700 US military bases worldwide, used for launching wars, holding prisoners, testing weapons.
One could be closing down in Ecuador, where lawmakers recently approved a ban on foreign bases. The Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has famously quipped that he’ll let the US military remain if the US agrees to an Ecuadorian military base in Miami.
Well, things are different in Europe, where the Bush administration now appears to have secured plans for its proposed missile system. US missiles would be stationed in Poland along with a radar site in the Czech Republic. Earlier this month, NATO leaders met in Romania and endorsed the missile plans. The Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg said a formal accord will likely come next month.
KAREL SCHWARZENBERG: [translated] I met with the US Secretary of State in friendly talks where we discussed the plan to have a radar facility as part of our NATO defense system. Once we are clear about the contents, we will discuss the possibility of signing the agreement. The first week of May looks like a good time to sign.
AMY GOODMAN: Majorities in both Poland and the Czech Republic oppose the missile plan, which is widely seen as a first-strike threat against Iran.
Two activists are in the United States now, speaking as part of a campaign called “No Bases for Empire.” They’re joining me from Washington, D.C. Jan Tamas is from the Czech Republic. He’s the founder of the No Bases Initiative, a coalition against the proposed US missile system in Eastern Europe. I’m also joined by Olivier Bancoult. He has been expelled from his native Diego Garcia when he was four years old. The US has operated a military base there since British forces expelled native islanders in the early ’70s. Olivier is with the Chagos Refugee Group.
I want to begin with Jan Tamas. Talk about the Czech Republic.
JAN TAMAS: Hello. Hello to you, Amy, and to all the listeners. Well, yes, like you said, the majority of Czech people oppose this project. 70 percent of people have been steadily opposing this for the last two years. And the reason why we oppose it is that we really do fear that this will lead to a new arms race, that this may lead to a new Cold War. And in fact some of the statements by the Russian President Putin proved that that’s actually the case. They do feel threatened by this, and they do say that they will need to take measures to respond to this.
You have to keep in mind that no matter how sophisticated a military system the US is going to implement, the enemy is always going to be able to implement other measures that will overcome it. And so, the US will then have to take other measures to overcome the countermeasures of the enemy. And in this way you begin to have this spiral of armament, and so that’s the new Cold War. Or it could even be a hot war, we don’t know. So we believe that the way to achieve peace in Europe and the world is actually by disarming and not creating new military bases, not by arming.
Read rest here
The United States maintains over 700 military bases in dozens of countries across the globe. We speak with two international activists who are in the US for a speaking tour as part of a campaign called “No Bases for Empire.” Jan Tamas, from the Czech Republic, is the founder of the No Bases Initiative, a coalition against the proposed US missile system in Eastern Europe. Olivier Bancoult is with the Chagos Refugee Group. He was expelled from his native Diego Garcia when he was four years old. The US has operated a military base there since British forces expelled native islanders in the early 1970s. [includes rush transcript]
AMY GOODMAN: It sounds like a fast-food franchise—hundreds of locations spanning some 130 countries across the globe—but in fact, it’s perhaps the ultimate face of US hegemony: military bases. There are more than 700 US military bases worldwide, used for launching wars, holding prisoners, testing weapons.
One could be closing down in Ecuador, where lawmakers recently approved a ban on foreign bases. The Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has famously quipped that he’ll let the US military remain if the US agrees to an Ecuadorian military base in Miami.
Well, things are different in Europe, where the Bush administration now appears to have secured plans for its proposed missile system. US missiles would be stationed in Poland along with a radar site in the Czech Republic. Earlier this month, NATO leaders met in Romania and endorsed the missile plans. The Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg said a formal accord will likely come next month.
KAREL SCHWARZENBERG: [translated] I met with the US Secretary of State in friendly talks where we discussed the plan to have a radar facility as part of our NATO defense system. Once we are clear about the contents, we will discuss the possibility of signing the agreement. The first week of May looks like a good time to sign.
AMY GOODMAN: Majorities in both Poland and the Czech Republic oppose the missile plan, which is widely seen as a first-strike threat against Iran.
Two activists are in the United States now, speaking as part of a campaign called “No Bases for Empire.” They’re joining me from Washington, D.C. Jan Tamas is from the Czech Republic. He’s the founder of the No Bases Initiative, a coalition against the proposed US missile system in Eastern Europe. I’m also joined by Olivier Bancoult. He has been expelled from his native Diego Garcia when he was four years old. The US has operated a military base there since British forces expelled native islanders in the early ’70s. Olivier is with the Chagos Refugee Group.
I want to begin with Jan Tamas. Talk about the Czech Republic.
JAN TAMAS: Hello. Hello to you, Amy, and to all the listeners. Well, yes, like you said, the majority of Czech people oppose this project. 70 percent of people have been steadily opposing this for the last two years. And the reason why we oppose it is that we really do fear that this will lead to a new arms race, that this may lead to a new Cold War. And in fact some of the statements by the Russian President Putin proved that that’s actually the case. They do feel threatened by this, and they do say that they will need to take measures to respond to this.
You have to keep in mind that no matter how sophisticated a military system the US is going to implement, the enemy is always going to be able to implement other measures that will overcome it. And so, the US will then have to take other measures to overcome the countermeasures of the enemy. And in this way you begin to have this spiral of armament, and so that’s the new Cold War. Or it could even be a hot war, we don’t know. So we believe that the way to achieve peace in Europe and the world is actually by disarming and not creating new military bases, not by arming.
Read rest here
To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
...
Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”
Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.
“Good work,” Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force general, consultant and Fox News analyst, wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006. “We will use it.”
Again and again, records show, the administration has enlisted analysts as a rapid reaction force to rebut what it viewed as critical news coverage, some of it by the networks’ own Pentagon correspondents. For example, when news articles revealed that troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues: “I think our analysts — properly armed — can push back in that arena.”
Read the rest here
Via: Daily Kos
My only comment? HEADS. NEED. TO. ROLL.
EDIT. Absolutely kickass commentary from Feministe:
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
...
Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”
Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.
“Good work,” Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force general, consultant and Fox News analyst, wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006. “We will use it.”
Again and again, records show, the administration has enlisted analysts as a rapid reaction force to rebut what it viewed as critical news coverage, some of it by the networks’ own Pentagon correspondents. For example, when news articles revealed that troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues: “I think our analysts — properly armed — can push back in that arena.”
Read the rest here
Via: Daily Kos
My only comment? HEADS. NEED. TO. ROLL.
EDIT. Absolutely kickass commentary from Feministe:
News and Views
Apr. 19th, 2008 06:47 pmSymbols Versus Deeds: Or, Who Gives a Damn About a Lapel Pin?
What is more important, the symbol of a country, or the substance of its meaning? If a leader wears flag pins on his lapel on a daily basis, but then votes to curtail civil liberties, authorizes torture, and acts in such a way as to diminish America's stature in the world and drive America's allies away from her...is he really patriotic? Or what of a leader who declines to wear such a pin on a regular basis, but works every day to protect the Constitution, and to bring honor to America's reputation abroad...is that person unpatriotic?
A flag is not America, nor is it patriotism, any more than a wooden cross is Christianity, or a Star of David is Judaism. These are symbols of deeper meanings. If you honor the symbol, obsess over its constant display, but violate the underlying substantive principles that give that symbol meaning, what is the point of your actions? If I wear a cross on a neckless around my neck, but I go out into the world hating my fellow man, disregarding the poor, and failing to turn the other cheek...have I enhanced the worth of the cross, or decreased it? You cannot increase the potency or value of a symbol by worshipping the symbol while undermining its purpose.
Read rest here
Breaking, from the General Accounting Office:The United States Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
See PDF
No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), called for by an independent commission (2004), and mandated by congressional legislation (2007). Furthermore, Congress created the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) in 2004 specifically to develop comprehensive plans to combat terrorism. However, neither the National Security Council (NSC), NCTC, nor other executive branch departments have developed a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power—diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support—called for by the various national security strategies and Congress [...]
al Qaeda’s central leadership, based in the border area of Pakistan, is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the United States… al Qaeda is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place [...]
al Qaeda is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place, including the identification, training, and positioning of Western operatives for an attack. It stated that al Qaeda is most likely using the FATA to plot terrorist attacks against political, economic, and infrastructure targets in America “designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the population."
So then you're saying that, nearly seven years into the so-called "war on terror," Al Qaeda has regrouped, found safe haven, and is planning attacks on Americans, and we have literally no strategy to combat it?
There's a germ of a news story here. It has almost nothing to do with William Ayers, granted, but surely it's good for the final two minutes of some local broadcast in Fresno.
Read rest here
Connecting the Dots, Feminist Style (Or, what does the technology we consume have to do with the horrific murders, rapes, almost slavery conditions in Juarez, Mexico; The Congo, and some of the women affected by Pornography)
By Anxious Black Woman
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: Rape and Mutilation Warning in this particular post!!!
Well, the Corporate Rapists list convinced me to go the route of purchasing a new MAC, since they have yet to be named as a company doing business with corporations specializing in trading in conflict materials like coltan from the Congo. So, I hope this purchase represents a new commitment in being a political consumer.
...
So, what does it mean to connect the dots with regards to women's positions in the global information age?
1. MAQUILADORAS IN JUAREZ - Not long ago, I read a profound essay by Coco Fusco (digital and performance artist - visit her Virtual Laboratory), "At Your Service: Latin Women in the Global Information Network," included in her book, The Bodies That Were Not Ours (2001). In this essay, she urged that we not get caught up in the optimistic and ecstatic rhetoric extolling the virtues of our fast-paced, hi-tech digital world. For, with all the wonders and excitement of new media toys like powerbooks, wii, blackberrys, the latest cell phone models, etc., somewhere in this hi-tech industry is an underbelly where some subaltern group was being silenced and erased from participating in this hi-tech world of ours. She made a direct connection (like other digital artists, including Praba Pilar and Prema Murthy) between our digitized world and the assembly lines where our computers and TV sets were being assembled in factories like maquiladoras, located in places like Juarez, Mexico's border city, which is a stone's throw away from El Paso, Texas. Juarez is now a city soaked in the blood of young women and girls - many of whom worked in the maquiladoras, many of whom probably did assemble parts of the computers from which we're either writing or reading blogs. Earlier this year, reports still emerged about young girls disappearing from the streets of Juarez, and we are now, I'm sure, beyond the 400 estimated as either having disappeared or found murdered. Many of the girls, who were found, appeared to have been raped and mutilated (many of their nipples bitten off or their vaginas completely torn apart).
Read the rest at: Connecting the Dots, Feminist Style
( Read more... ) <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/15/193346/679/921/496402:>McCain does 180 degree turn on mortage company bailouts</a>
What is more important, the symbol of a country, or the substance of its meaning? If a leader wears flag pins on his lapel on a daily basis, but then votes to curtail civil liberties, authorizes torture, and acts in such a way as to diminish America's stature in the world and drive America's allies away from her...is he really patriotic? Or what of a leader who declines to wear such a pin on a regular basis, but works every day to protect the Constitution, and to bring honor to America's reputation abroad...is that person unpatriotic?
A flag is not America, nor is it patriotism, any more than a wooden cross is Christianity, or a Star of David is Judaism. These are symbols of deeper meanings. If you honor the symbol, obsess over its constant display, but violate the underlying substantive principles that give that symbol meaning, what is the point of your actions? If I wear a cross on a neckless around my neck, but I go out into the world hating my fellow man, disregarding the poor, and failing to turn the other cheek...have I enhanced the worth of the cross, or decreased it? You cannot increase the potency or value of a symbol by worshipping the symbol while undermining its purpose.
Read rest here
Breaking, from the General Accounting Office:The United States Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
See PDF
No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), called for by an independent commission (2004), and mandated by congressional legislation (2007). Furthermore, Congress created the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) in 2004 specifically to develop comprehensive plans to combat terrorism. However, neither the National Security Council (NSC), NCTC, nor other executive branch departments have developed a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power—diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support—called for by the various national security strategies and Congress [...]
al Qaeda’s central leadership, based in the border area of Pakistan, is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the United States… al Qaeda is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place [...]
al Qaeda is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place, including the identification, training, and positioning of Western operatives for an attack. It stated that al Qaeda is most likely using the FATA to plot terrorist attacks against political, economic, and infrastructure targets in America “designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the population."
So then you're saying that, nearly seven years into the so-called "war on terror," Al Qaeda has regrouped, found safe haven, and is planning attacks on Americans, and we have literally no strategy to combat it?
There's a germ of a news story here. It has almost nothing to do with William Ayers, granted, but surely it's good for the final two minutes of some local broadcast in Fresno.
Read rest here
Connecting the Dots, Feminist Style (Or, what does the technology we consume have to do with the horrific murders, rapes, almost slavery conditions in Juarez, Mexico; The Congo, and some of the women affected by Pornography)
By Anxious Black Woman
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: Rape and Mutilation Warning in this particular post!!!
Well, the Corporate Rapists list convinced me to go the route of purchasing a new MAC, since they have yet to be named as a company doing business with corporations specializing in trading in conflict materials like coltan from the Congo. So, I hope this purchase represents a new commitment in being a political consumer.
...
So, what does it mean to connect the dots with regards to women's positions in the global information age?
1. MAQUILADORAS IN JUAREZ - Not long ago, I read a profound essay by Coco Fusco (digital and performance artist - visit her Virtual Laboratory), "At Your Service: Latin Women in the Global Information Network," included in her book, The Bodies That Were Not Ours (2001). In this essay, she urged that we not get caught up in the optimistic and ecstatic rhetoric extolling the virtues of our fast-paced, hi-tech digital world. For, with all the wonders and excitement of new media toys like powerbooks, wii, blackberrys, the latest cell phone models, etc., somewhere in this hi-tech industry is an underbelly where some subaltern group was being silenced and erased from participating in this hi-tech world of ours. She made a direct connection (like other digital artists, including Praba Pilar and Prema Murthy) between our digitized world and the assembly lines where our computers and TV sets were being assembled in factories like maquiladoras, located in places like Juarez, Mexico's border city, which is a stone's throw away from El Paso, Texas. Juarez is now a city soaked in the blood of young women and girls - many of whom worked in the maquiladoras, many of whom probably did assemble parts of the computers from which we're either writing or reading blogs. Earlier this year, reports still emerged about young girls disappearing from the streets of Juarez, and we are now, I'm sure, beyond the 400 estimated as either having disappeared or found murdered. Many of the girls, who were found, appeared to have been raped and mutilated (many of their nipples bitten off or their vaginas completely torn apart).
Read the rest at: Connecting the Dots, Feminist Style
( Read more... ) <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/15/193346/679/921/496402:>McCain does 180 degree turn on mortage company bailouts</a>
1. Daily Kos commenter mccjmb1 comes up with these.
In 2005
On Wednesday, Reps. David Obey (D-WI) and John Dingell (D-MI) called for an investigation of the Corporation Public Broadcasting. This comes following accusations that the CPB has been largely taken over by conservatives who are influencing programming and hiring decisions. Obey requested that the Inspector General for the CPB, investigate whether the CPB is violating the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that prohibits interference by federal officials over the content and distribution of public programming, and forbids “political or other tests” from being used in CPB hiring decisions.
AND
2. Politicizing Public Broadcasting
Published: May 4, 2005
The last thing Americans need is public broadcasting where the politics of the moment limits the news of the day. Yet that could be where the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is heading if Kenneth Tomlinson, the chairman, keeps pushing for partisan Republicans in the management of public television and radio.
Mr. Tomlinson, a former editor in chief of Reader's Digest, has repeatedly criticized PBS as too liberal over all and has said that his goal is to satisfy a broader constituency. Satisfying more people with public television and radio is a worthy aim, but several recent surveys for public broadcasting have shown that most viewers and listeners admire what's on now. More than half of PBS's viewers say they find its news more "trustworthy" than the commercial stations'. Public television and radio programs like "Frontline," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" and "All Things Considered" have even higher "favorable" ratings.
There was a time when a passionate conservative might have looked at PBS programming and called it too liberal. But those days seem long past. And in any case, as an article in The Times this week showed, Mr. Tomlinson's goal of expanding the audience for PBS does not include bolstering PBS's balance with centrist programming. It involves pushing public broadcasting over the ideological line to the Republican side, with blatantly partisan programming and the hiring of more Republican partisans to control the corporation.
Read rest here
Bitter? OH HELL YES!
EDIT: And an even greater serving of bitterness :The US gov. seems to have used psychological warfare on its own citizens.
Nice. See why we need to haul people into jail?
In 2005
On Wednesday, Reps. David Obey (D-WI) and John Dingell (D-MI) called for an investigation of the Corporation Public Broadcasting. This comes following accusations that the CPB has been largely taken over by conservatives who are influencing programming and hiring decisions. Obey requested that the Inspector General for the CPB, investigate whether the CPB is violating the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that prohibits interference by federal officials over the content and distribution of public programming, and forbids “political or other tests” from being used in CPB hiring decisions.
AND
2. Politicizing Public Broadcasting
Published: May 4, 2005
The last thing Americans need is public broadcasting where the politics of the moment limits the news of the day. Yet that could be where the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is heading if Kenneth Tomlinson, the chairman, keeps pushing for partisan Republicans in the management of public television and radio.
Mr. Tomlinson, a former editor in chief of Reader's Digest, has repeatedly criticized PBS as too liberal over all and has said that his goal is to satisfy a broader constituency. Satisfying more people with public television and radio is a worthy aim, but several recent surveys for public broadcasting have shown that most viewers and listeners admire what's on now. More than half of PBS's viewers say they find its news more "trustworthy" than the commercial stations'. Public television and radio programs like "Frontline," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" and "All Things Considered" have even higher "favorable" ratings.
There was a time when a passionate conservative might have looked at PBS programming and called it too liberal. But those days seem long past. And in any case, as an article in The Times this week showed, Mr. Tomlinson's goal of expanding the audience for PBS does not include bolstering PBS's balance with centrist programming. It involves pushing public broadcasting over the ideological line to the Republican side, with blatantly partisan programming and the hiring of more Republican partisans to control the corporation.
Read rest here
Bitter? OH HELL YES!
EDIT: And an even greater serving of bitterness :The US gov. seems to have used psychological warfare on its own citizens.
Nice. See why we need to haul people into jail?
Van Jones "The Case for Green Jobs: Save the polar bears by saving Pookie"
"The people who most need the jobs should get the jobs that most need to be done"