Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter Posted May 05, 2003

APPLETON — More than 18 percent of foreign-born Fox Valley area residents live in poverty, which is more than three times the 5.5 percent rate of poverty for the overall population, census figure show.

“People move up north for a better chance,” said Federico Sotillo, a native of Venezuela who lives in Green Bay. “Because too many people are coming, the job situation gets harder. The competition gets harder.”

Figures from the 2000 census released recently, and reviewed by The Post-Crescent in Appleton, indicate that 18.4 percent of the approximately 19,444 foreign-born residents in the five-county area live in poverty. Nationwide, the immigrant poverty rate is 15.4 percent.

The counties the newspaper looked at were Brown, Calumet, Outagamie, Winnebago and Waupaca.

The federal poverty threshold varies depending on the size of the family. In 1999, the threshold was $16,895 for a family of four with two kids. The median family income in Wisconsin that year was $52,911.

The census numbers also showed:

nThe area’s most recent immigrants struggle much more than those who arrived in the country before 1980. More than four times as many of the newer arrivals are poor.

nThe largest percentage of poor immigrants (25.6 percent) are among those who arrived between 1995 and 2000.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Monday, May 05, 2003 By: Matthew Riemer

US YellowTimes.org columnist Matthew Riemer writes: The Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq marks the fiftieth anniversary of US interventionism in the Middle East, which began with the CIA's overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. These two events, both noteworthy in their own right, form the perfect pair of bookends for a large shelf of Washington's Middle East exploits ... from the bombing of Libya in 1986 to the first Gulf War in 1991 to involvement in Lebanon in the early '80s.

The '53 coup is significant because it was the first successful overthrow of a foreign government by the CIA. Its success showed just how much influence Washington could have in Eurasia, especially in regions on the doorstep of the Soviet Union. In short, it was a remarkable projection of power.

The most recent military action in the Middle East ... "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as its been dubbed by the US ... represents a fundamental shift in how Washington chooses to achieve its policy goals ... now with increased unilateralism and nationalism. The policy of preemptive warfare has been both articulated and executed by the Bush administration in Iraq.

• One of the most interesting observations regarding these two events though reveals a strange inverse relationship they seem to have, which possibly comments on broader policy intentions.

In both cases, the United States is carrying out "regime change."

And in both cases, policy makers are concerned with how the oil industry is going to be run (nationalization/privatization). However, in the former case, the CIA removed an appointed leader and replaced him with a dictator who would then rule for 26 (1953-1979) more years. In the latter case, the opposite occurred as the US removed a dictator who ruled for 26 (1976-2003) years and has replaced him with a US civil administration, which will presumably attempt to foster some kind of democratic institutions.

This illustrates that the chief US interest in both cases was resource security and regional hegemony/strategic positioning and not the freeing of people from the yoke of dictatorship. In Iran, the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Company by the Majlis threatened British and American oil interests by shutting foreign investors out of Iran's lucrative industry, which at the time, the BBC writes, "[was] the UK's largest single investment overseas." It also further distanced the US and weakened its influence in a crucial Cold War state. So in this situation, it's dictatorship over democracy.

In 2003, the United States could no longer let Saddam Hussein ... a man who threatened US interests and complicated Washington's plans just by his presence ... rule Iraq, which had become the epicenter of the world's most vital region and home to the second largest proven oil reserves. In this example, it's democracy over dictatorship.

When "democracy" (or, at least, non-dictatorship) happens to be Washington's goal (even rhetorically) it can make for a great sell, as was surely seen over the past several weeks. On the other hand, just because "dictatorship" can't be as readily sold to the public doesn't mean interventions that empower despotic regimes are off-limits.

Forays like the CIA's in Iran aren't only for days gone by. In fact, the current situation in Venezuela resembles Iran fifty years ago quite uncannily: upstart leader connected to nationalization of the oil industry from a country with regional strategic importance is overthrown by a plutocratic/military class in the interests of corporations and foreign capital. And even though President Hugo Chavez was able to return to power, the pattern of regime change aimed at governments who resist globalization and the infiltration of their countries by foreign capital continued.

So, in Venezuela, like Iran, it's dictatorship over democracy.

So democracy is only Washington's preferred political system when it happens to be one of convenience (coincides with policy). Such is the case with Iraq in 2003 because Washington's goals ... to a degree ... overlap with a democratic Iraq. But if Iraqi democracy produces the world's next Hugo Chavez, policy makers will very quickly have little use for such a system.

YellowTimes.org director Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. He lives in the United States where you may email him at mriemer@YellowTimes.org

<a href=www.zwire.com>Echoes Sentinel By VINCENT PATERNO , Editor 04/24/2003

LONG HILL TWP. - A rally to support American troops in the Middle East will be held from 1 to 2 p.m. Sunday, April 27 in front of the township library on Central Avenue, Stirling.

The event's organizer, Nila Chejlyk of Valley Road, Stirling, said it is being held for area residents "to show appreciation for our military" after it and coalition forces ousted Saddam Hussein and his supporters from power in Iraq and is now aiding the Iraqis' transition to a democratic society.

Several guest speakers are planned, she said. One of them will be Dawn Wolfe, the Board of Adjustment and Planning Board secretary, whose son, Justin M. Kuhns, is an Air Force staff sergeant serving in Iraq. Mayor Suzanne Dapkins will also speak, Chejlyk said.

"This is just our way to show our armed forces how much we love them," she said.

Frelinghuysen Invited

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-11, has been invited, Chejlyk said, and patriotic music will be played. Boy Scout troops from the area have been invited to attend, she added.

About 1,200 small American flags are to be given out, she said, adding, "Hopefully there will be 1,200 attending." Any surplus may be held over and distributed at the township's Memorial Day parade Monday, May 26, she noted.

Chejlyk said James Angelo of American Legion Post 484 in Stirling is assisting with the rally. She added it has been promoted by Curtis Sliwa on his WABC radio program, and is also featured on several township Web sites, including the Rescue Squad.

Chejlyk, who said her parents were born in Ukraine, was herself born in Venezuela, where her parents emigrated after World War II. However, when she was nine months old the family relocated to the U.S.

<a href=www.falkland-malvinas.com>Mercosur Monday, 05 May

A reshuffle in the Uruguayan cabinet in the international relations area is expected in the coming weeks according ours sources in Montevideo.

Minister D. Opertti Minister of Foreign Affairs Didier Opperti an expert in International Private Law apparently will be leaving for an international post in the Organization of American States and will be replaced by Raul Lago, a former Ambassador in Venezuela and currently Chief cabinet minister.

Mr. Lagos post will be filled by Carlos Ramela advisor to President Jorge Batlle who steered the Peace Commission tasked with finding a human and political solution to the tens of disappeared dissidents during military rule in Uruguay (1973/84), a bitter and controversial legacy that still divides Uruguayan society.

Mr. Opertti with a renowned international reputation and who presided over the United Nations General Assembly has been preparing to leave his post for some time.

However press reports indicate that some recent foreign affairs very personal actions of President Batlle have surprised Mr. Opperti, who has a more diplomatic approach.

During a press conference at the end of April after meeting President Bush in the White House, Mr. Batlle in response to a specific question regarding the shooting of three Cuban suspects Mr. Batlle said that “Mr. Castro is an assassin”. Mr. Batlle further openly supported President Bush for actions in Iraq and criticized the United Nations lack of initiative when the official Uruguayan position originally was giving more time to the arms inspectors before appealing to military response.

Uruguay has been at loggerheads with Cuban president Fidel Castro since it began co-sponsoring before the United Nations Human Rights Committee a proposal to send a human rights independent observer to the island. Mr. Castro insists in calling Mr. Batlle a “traitor” and a US “boot licker”.

President Batlle has also been indirectly critical of Mercosur by insisting in giving priority to trade and political relations with United States, an issue that caused concern in the new Brazilian government of President Lula da Silva and in Argentina.

Furthermore president Batlle has publicly and repeatedly forecasted that his good friend Carlos Menem will be the next Argentine president and also publicly counseled Paraguayan elected president Nicanor Duarte on how to proceed with the formation of his administration.

During meeting with President Bush, Secretary of State Collin Powell and Advisor Condoleeza Rice, that extended for double the time scheduled, Mr. Batlle thanked the Bush administration for its financial support last August during a crucial moment for the Uruguayan banking system and for speeding the opening of the US market to Uruguayan beef, one of the country’s main exports.

< Mr. Opperti belongs to one of the two main groups of the ruling Colorado party.

Printed on Monday, May 05, 2003 @ 00:15:32 CDT   ( ) By Matthew Riemer <a href=yellowtimes.org>YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) – The Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq marks the fiftieth anniversary of U.S. interventionism in the Middle East, which began with the CIA's overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. These two events, both noteworthy in their own right, form the perfect pair of bookends for a large shelf of Washington's Middle East exploits -- from the bombing of Libya in 1986 to the first Gulf War in 1991 to involvement in Lebanon in the early '80s.

The '53 coup is significant because it was the first successful overthrow of a foreign government by the CIA. Its success showed just how much influence Washington could have in Eurasia, especially in regions on the doorstep of the Soviet Union. In short, it was a remarkable projection of power. The most recent military action in the Middle East, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as it's been dubbed by the U.S., represents a fundamental shift in how Washington chooses to achieve its policy goals -- now with increased unilateralism and nationalism. The policy of preemptive warfare has been both articulated and executed by the Bush administration in Iraq.

One of the most interesting observations regarding these two events though reveals a strange inverse relationship they seem to have, which possibly comments on broader policy intentions.

In both cases, the United States is carrying out "regime change." And in both cases, policy makers are concerned with how the oil industry is going to be run (nationalization/privatization). However, in the former case, the CIA removed an appointed leader and replaced him with a dictator who would then rule for 26 (1953-1979) more years. In the latter case, the opposite occurred as the U.S. removed a dictator who ruled for 26 (1976-2003) years and has replaced him with a U.S. civil administration, which will presumably attempt to foster some kind of democratic institutions.

This illustrates that the chief U.S. interest in both cases was resource security and regional hegemony/strategic positioning and not the freeing of people from the yoke of dictatorship. In Iran, the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Company by the Majlis threatened British and American oil interests by shutting foreign investors out of Iran's lucrative industry, which at the time, the BBC writes, "[was] the UK's largest single investment overseas." It also further distanced the U.S. and weakened its influence in a crucial Cold War state. So in this situation, it's dictatorship over democracy.

In 2003, the United States could no longer let Saddam Hussein -- a man who threatened U.S. interests and complicated Washington's plans just by his presence -- rule Iraq, which had become the epicenter of the world's most vital region and home to the second largest proven oil reserves. In this example, it's democracy over dictatorship.

When "democracy" (or, at least, non-dictatorship) happens to be Washington's goal (even rhetorically), it can make for a great sell, as was surely seen over the past several weeks. On the other hand, just because "dictatorship" can't be as readily sold to the public doesn't mean interventions that empower despotic regimes are off-limits. Forays like the CIA's in Iran aren't only for days gone by. In fact, the current situation in Venezuela resembles Iran fifty years ago quite uncannily: upstart leader connected to nationalization of the oil industry from a country with regional strategic importance is overthrown by a plutocratic/military class in the interests of corporations and foreign capital. And even though President Hugo Chavez was able to return to power, the pattern of regime change aimed at governments who resist globalization and the infiltration of their countries by foreign capital continued. So, in Venezuela, like Iran, it's dictatorship over democracy.

So democracy is only Washington's preferred political system when it happens to be one of convenience (coincides with policy). Such is the case with Iraq in 2003 because Washington's goals, to a degree, overlap with a democratic Iraq. But if Iraqi democracy produces the world's next Hugo Chavez, policy makers will very quickly have little use for such a system.

[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.]

Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org

YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.