Friday, July 04, 2008


The government no longer refuses to license new solar power plants. My question is: which members of Congress voted to not license them in the first place and now have opposed lifting the ban? Second question: How much have those members of Congress received as "campaign contributions" from the oil companies? Your paper would render a great public service by publicizing the anwers to those two questions.

In the 1960's our nation was heavily involved in the "space race" and in particular the effort to go to the moon. We succeeded in the latter because a great deal of money and effort were put into the program. At the present time our need is to find an energy source that does not involve fossil fuels and costs no more than oil and coal do now. What fraction of Gross National Product is being spent in this efflort? And what fraction of GNP in the 1960's was spent for the space race?

The present expenditure is very small in comparison, and those same members of Congress consistently vote to keep it so small that it cannot soon succeed, and thus guarantee at least another hundred years of high profits for the oil companies.

Sunday, June 29, 2008


In 1961 John Kennedy announced: "We will go to the moon." Eight years later, we DID go to the moon, because during those years a great deal of money and effort were devoted to this purpose.

(1) What per cent of GNP was spent per year for the Space Initiative in that period?

(2) What per cent of GNP is being spent during 2008 to develop an energy source that does not involve folssil fuels and does not cause environmental damage, either in its production or in its use?

By comparing the answers to (1) and (2) we see that a very small amount is being spent in our present program. The reason is that the oil companies pay large sums in "campaign contributions" to certain members of Congress, in return for those legislators making sure that the amount of money spent will be too small to accomplish anything, and thus guarantee at least another 100 years of high profits for the oil companies.

Sunday, April 13, 2008


It is commonly believed that the U. S. has 140,000 soldiers in Iraq because of the war there. It would be more accurate to say that the war was contrived in order to give us an excuse to send the troops.

Those who really manage the U. S. government are determined that our country must be the dominant power in the Middle East. Therefore, when Iran threw out its corrupt Shah, our C.I.A. took over its government and restored the Shah to power, besides incidentally securing the profits American oil companies were making from Iran's oil.

The greatest fear of the U. S. ruling clique is that the Saudi regime might be overthrown and a popular government installed that would nationalize their oil. If that should happen, the American forces, conveniently ready next door in Iraq, can quickly move in and take over the country, as we tell the world we are protecting our faithful Saudi allies from their insurgents.

And the American oil companies will continue to receive their large share of Saudi oil profits. To achieve all this, the U. S. rulers feel that 4,000 dead young Americans is not too high a price.

--- Andrew Linn

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Wasteful Military Expenditures

The lead editorial in the New York Times for April, 2008 explains how Congress approves spending vast sums to buy weapon systems from military contractors; the final bill is usually far higher than was agreed on, and quite often the weapons don't work as promised. But the contractors to not hesitate to pocket their enormous profits and pay generous "campaign contributions" to the obliging congressmen who put over the deal. Everybody has reason to be pleased except the U. S. taxpayers who provided the hundreds of billion dollars.

Finally, the principal argument to justify all this is "Do you know how many jobs would be lost if this contract is cancelled?" And if a member of Congress should object the response is "Do you know how many jobs would be lost in your district? We will tell all those voters that you voted to put them out of a job." Therefore, the appropriations are almost never denied.

Andrew Linn

Thursday, March 27, 2008


The presidential candidates are arguing about a "precipitous withdrawal" from Iraq.
I agree that we should not withdraw precipitately, because the Iraqi people would feel that the U.S., after doing so much harm to them and their country, was walking away and making no effort to clean up the mess we have created.

Instead, the U.S. should start, now, to do things for those people such as seeeing up water and electrical systems, and health services. Any such measure should be in conjunction with Iraqi individuals and groups. It should be made clear that once an electrical system, for instance, is operating, the U.S. will turn over more and more of the management and labor to Iraqis, and meanwhile reduce our partication.

Bringing home our soldiers and weapons should begin as various projects for the improvement of Iraqi living conditions become operative.

Some people will say that it is a waste of money for us to do these things for the Iraqis ---- that our money should be used only for the benefit of the U.S. But we must realize that it WILL BE to the benefit of the U.S. to improve their lives --- It is the only way to combat the insurgency.
--- Andrew Linn

Sunday, March 09, 2008


Peace in the Middle East is the last thing the imperialist U. S. government wants.

If real peace were to begin there would be a great demand, from U. S. citizens as well as from other countries, for American troops to be brought home and our military installations in that area closed down. If the various nations develop friendly, cooperativwe relationships for their mutul benefit (including something like the European Union), the result would be stability and prosperity that does not depend on U. S. dominance and control.

What the managers of the U. S. empire fear most is that really independent countries will nationalize their oil, and exclude the foreign corporations that derive so much profit from it.

It is for this reason that the U . S. contrived to fight a war in Iraq that required having more than 100,000 soldiers there. (It is commonly believed that the troops are there because of the war. In fact, the opposite is true -- the war was arranged in order to have an excuse to send troops to the Middle East.)

Those troops are available, at a moment's notice, to take over Saudi Arabia when a revolution finally throws out the Saudi family and nationalizes their oil. Of course this will be
announced as our generous effort to "protect" the Arabian peoople from the revolutionaries.

--- Julien Sorel