“The Lonely Families” - a thirty minute documentary on “Puratha Vannars” an oppressed community in Tamil Nadu was released on February 1, in a function felicitated by Arch Bishop (Madras - Mylapore Diocese) AN Chinnappa, Fr. Vincent Chinnadurai, Editor B. Lenin and Writer Azagia Periyavan in Chennai.
Written and directed by Thirumani, an independent film - maker who has 8 titles to his credit, the documentary narrates the degrading proverbs referring to the community and the plight they suffer at the hands of the dominant castes. Highlighting the community’s tradition bound expertise in martial arts and folk medicine, the film narrates in the words of individuals from the community, the negligence they face from the authorities in addressing their basic rights instituted in the constitu... (continue reading)
“The Lonely Families” - a thirty minute documentary on “Puratha Vannars” an oppressed community in Tamil Nadu was released on February 1, in a function felicitated by Arch Bishop (Madras - Mylapore Diocese) AN Chinnappa, Fr. Vincent Chinnadurai, Editor B. Lenin and Writer Azagia Periyavan in Chennai.
Written and directed by Thirumani, an independent film - maker who has 8 titles to his credit, the documentary narrates the degrading proverbs referring to the community and the plight they suffer at the hands of the dominant castes. Highlighting the community’s tradition bound expertise in martial arts and folk medicine, the film narrates in the words of individuals from the community, the negligence they face from the authorities in addressing their basic rights instituted in the constitution.
The community which should have been included under the Scheduled Castes, has been erroneously included under the OBCs and as a consequence bear the loss of the rights due to them, at the same time suffering discrimination at the local level. The piercing commentaries of the interviewees make the film watch with attention.
Snippets from the documentary:
Click here to view the embedded video.
Share and Save
(show less)
From Libcom
The fascist anti-immigration demo called for Saturday noon at Propylea in Athens was thwarted by a massive counter-demo of anarchists and antifascists.
The racist demo against immigration had been called by the Secret Services controlled pro-junta weekly paper Stohos, various ultra-Orthodox christian groups as well as a melange of other fascist groups and parties. A week after another fascist march, that time in commemoration of some greek soldiers killed during a short-lived melee between greek and turkish naval forces in 1996, this time the fascist scum had decided to desecrate the most central academic asylum grounds of Athens: Propylea, the place where all protest marches start, a high symbol of left-wing and anarchist struggles. The provocation was too much to be left ... (continue reading)
From Libcom
The fascist anti-immigration demo called for Saturday noon at Propylea in Athens was thwarted by a massive counter-demo of anarchists and antifascists.
The racist demo against immigration had been called by the Secret Services controlled pro-junta weekly paper Stohos, various ultra-Orthodox christian groups as well as a melange of other fascist groups and parties. A week after another fascist march, that time in commemoration of some greek soldiers killed during a short-lived melee between greek and turkish naval forces in 1996, this time the fascist scum had decided to desecrate the most central academic asylum grounds of Athens: Propylea, the place where all protest marches start, a high symbol of left-wing and anarchist struggles. The provocation was too much to be left unanswered and as early as Friday afternoon anarchist and other antifascist comrades moved to occupy the Rectorial Headquarters of Athens University which preside behind the Propylea. In its announcement the assembly formed in the building declared:
( click title for more )(show less)
By Alan Hart* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz
At a town hall meeting in Tampa, Florida on 28 January, President Obama explained what in his view had to happen if there is to be a two-state solution which would see Israel and the Palestinians living side by side in peace and security. He said, "Both sides are going to have to make concessions".
My own view is that Israel's still on-going colonization of the occupied West Bank has destroyed the prospect of a two-state solution on any basis the Palestinians could accept. But for the sake of discussion I'll pretend that is not necessarily so.
Israel is not required to make concessions. Israel is required to accept and implement UN Security Council resolutions which call for an end to its occupation and, more generally, to cease regarding i... (continue reading)
By Alan Hart* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz
At a town hall meeting in Tampa, Florida on 28 January, President Obama explained what in his view had to happen if there is to be a two-state solution which would see Israel and the Palestinians living side by side in peace and security. He said, "Both sides are going to have to make concessions".
My own view is that Israel's still on-going colonization of the occupied West Bank has destroyed the prospect of a two-state solution on any basis the Palestinians could accept. But for the sake of discussion I'll pretend that is not necessarily so.
Israel is not required to make concessions. Israel is required to accept and implement UN Security Council resolutions which call for an end to its occupation and, more generally, to cease regarding itself as being above and beyond international law.
The Palestinians made the concession necessary from their side long ago.
There were three related reasons why Yasser Arafat and his mainstream PLO leadership colleagues decided that they had got to compromise with Israel if their people were ever to obtain a minimum but just about acceptable amount of justice.
The first was the reality of the existence of the nuclear-armed Zionist state – not a legitimate existence (as the true story of its creation proves) but a fact of life.
The second was the knowledge that the Arab regimes were never going to fight Israel to liberate Palestine, and, would collude with Zionism-and-America to prevent the PLO becoming an effective resistance movement in terms of guerrilla activities.
The third was the realisation that all the major powers of the world were committed to Israel's existence inside its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war.
It took the pragmatic Arafat six long years, from 1973 to 1979, to sell the idea of compromise with Israel first to his Fatah leadership colleagues and then to the Palestine National Council (PNC), the highest decision-making body on the Palestinian side. And it was a mission that Arafat knew from the start could cost him his credibility with his own people and perhaps even his life. Why? Because he was asking them to accept what most thought was "unthinkable" – recognizing and thus legitimizing Israel's existence inside its pre-1967 borders in return for only 22% of all the land the Palestinians were claiming.
In fact the full extent of the concessions Arafat persuaded his leadership colleagues to accept and be prepared to make went even further than that. Though they could not say so in public until they had something concrete to show for their policy of politics and compromise, they accepted, and Israel was informed, that the Palestinian right of return would have to be limited to the territory of the Palestinian mini-state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem its capital or the whole of Jerusalem an open, undivided city and the capital of two states.
At the end of 1979, shortly after Arafat had persuaded the PNC to endorse his policy of politics and compromise with Israel, I had the first of many meetings with him. His comment on the PNC vote – 296 for his policy and only four against – was this: "How far we have travelled in six years. No more this silly talk of driving the Jews into the sea. (A statement Arafat and his Fatah colleagues never made). Now we are prepared to live side by side with them in a mini-state of our own. It is a miracle."
It was the miracle of Arafat's leadership. What he needed thereafter was an Israeli partner for peace. At a point it seemed that Israeli Prime Minister Rabin might be the partner, but he was assassinated by a Zionist zealot. The assassin was not de-ranged. He knew exactly what he was doing. Killing the peace process Arafat's policy of politics and compromise had set in motion.
There are no more concessions the Palestinians can make for peace. President Obama's statement that they must is absurd and obscene. Unclear is whether he was speaking out of ignorance of real history or from Zionism's script.
* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor
Please, Mr. President, Stop Talking Nonsense is a post from: Sabbah Report. Get Daily Newsletter, follow on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook.
(show less)
Illustration bh Carlos Latuff
By William A. Cook* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz
Five decades ago, the "Pied Piper of Tucson," a psychopathic killer, roamed the streets of this Southwest city seeking, seducing and killing teen-aged girls. Strangely, teenagers throughout the Tucson area that knew of his lawless and abnormal behavior kept silent, saying nothing to parents or police. More strange still, this short and stocky Pied Piper stuffed his boots with paper to appear taller, strutted cockily about mimicking teen talk and charismatically charming his prey. Parents and police had only one word to explain the silence, "inexplicable." Joyce Carol Oates wrote "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been" about this mass murderer, though the story focused not on the psychopath but on the t... (continue reading)
Illustration bh Carlos Latuff
By William A. Cook* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz
Five decades ago, the "Pied Piper of Tucson," a psychopathic killer, roamed the streets of this Southwest city seeking, seducing and killing teen-aged girls. Strangely, teenagers throughout the Tucson area that knew of his lawless and abnormal behavior kept silent, saying nothing to parents or police. More strange still, this short and stocky Pied Piper stuffed his boots with paper to appear taller, strutted cockily about mimicking teen talk and charismatically charming his prey. Parents and police had only one word to explain the silence, "inexplicable." Joyce Carol Oates wrote "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been" about this mass murderer, though the story focused not on the psychopath but on the teenagers who aided and abetted his crimes. Paralleling their complicity was the awareness by parents and authorities of the victims' fascination and attraction to the mystery of death and romance bound together in the mesmerizing tales that lured them into the psychopath's lair. Fascinating how potential victims can find attraction in the fate that stalks them by seeing no evil, hearing no evil yet walking hand in hand with the evil.
"Where are you going, where have you been" might well be an epitaph for the United States, as its latest victim, the Obama administration, courts the crimes of the Bush administration in its continuation of torture, rendition, illegal wire-tapping, hiring of terrorists (euphemized as mercenaries) as military support, use of white phosphorus, DIME, depleted uranium, drone aircraft to kill the innocent, invasion of countries at will in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and unconditional support for the terrorist state of Israel that ignores the American peoples' cry for change against on-going illegal crimes that flaunt international law and show case that disdain in its ruthless siege of Gaza.
For as far back as the Pied Piper stalked the streets of Tucson, a series of Israeli administrations have spurned the international community, illegally stealing land, mercilessly killing Palestinians, invading neighboring states, confiscating and occupying their land, laying claim to their water, claiming immunity from international law and literally compelling the successive administrations in the United States to acquiesce to their crimes. How like the citizens of Tucson, to ignore the reality that seduced their children because their silence was "inexplicable."
How long can the American people ignore the reality of America? We accept the lies that entice, the lies of the supposed "friend" in the mid-east, the only democracy, the one who has been with us all these years, 'our' westernized neighbor that thinks and behaves like we do, a veritable "Pied Piper" courting America, luring America, seducing America, a sick romance built on victimization that requires constant attention to alleviate the fear of annihilation by the enemies that surround it.
Even now the seducing continues. The generosity, the kindness and compassion of Israel in its state of the art medical field station brought to Haiti is promoted to emphasize its on-going concern for universal care, care delivered thousands of miles from home; yet no mention is made of the calculated decimation of the Gazan population that has been under siege for three years deprived of medicines, operating hospitals, sufficient water and food, with waste running in the streets because sewage plants have been destroyed, a place only yards away from Israel. Gaza is a human made disaster; Haiti was leveled by Nature's force. Nature's power is indifferent to the consequences of its force, so too it seems is the Zionist government of Israel.
Oates' story compels the reader to explore the mystery that allows for silence in the wake of perversion, a complicity of indifference to another's pain and suffering lest we become immersed in its brutality, lest by investing in openness to the reality that exists, by speaking out against the amoral and abnormal behavior, by condemning the acts and the silence, we put ourselves at risk and become the victim. How long can we ignore the malignity that invades our consciousness, how long can we turn our backs on the brazen complicity of our representatives as they bow and scrape before their masters of deceit, how long can we close our eyes to the reality of the abominations executed in our name?
It is, after all, America that has invaded Iraq illegally and caused thereby the deaths of upwards of a million and a half people; it is America that feeds the Israeli war machine the illegal weapons and stock piles them awaiting the next invasion against the defenseless people of Gaza; it is America that has abandoned rule by law to mimic the extrajudicial executions of the Zionist powers, to imprison people without charge, to hold them indefinitely for years at a time, to torture them against international law; it is America that allows and defends Israel's illegal use of collective punishment against the Gazan people making it in all these instances complicit in war crimes condemned by the United Nations and the International Courts. This from a country founded on rule by law and human rights.
Where is America going? Perhaps we know because we know where it has been; it lives in a world that Tadeausz Borowski understood: "The world is ruled by neither justice nor morality; crime is not punished nor virtue rewarded, one is forgotten as quickly as the other. The world is ruled by power and power is obtained with money. To work is senseless, because money cannot be obtained through work but through exploitation of others. And if we cannot exploit as much as we wish, at least let us work as little as we can. Moral duty? We believe neither in the morality of men, not in the morality of systems." This hideous and degrading picture of the human animal Borowski painted at Auschwitz. Humankind without benevolence, without compassion, lacking empathy, lacking mercy: inexorable, ruthless, and malevolent, a savage, brutal animal devoid of morals, oblivious to justice.
* William A. Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California and author of The Rape Of Palestine: Hope Destroyed, Justice Denied, Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy and The Chronicles Of Nefaria. He can be reached at: wcook@laverne.edu.
www.drwilliamacook.com
Rethinking "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been" is a post from: Sabbah Report. Get Daily Newsletter, follow on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook.
(show less)
By Rolfe Winkler, a former hedge fund analyst
Alexi Giannoulias — the whippersnapper IL State Treasurer and basketball buddy of the President — won the Democratic primary for Senate Tuesday night. Given Giannoulias’ troubling background, including ties to a bank that received a warning from FDIC just a week ago, how much political capital will Obama now want to spend defending his old Senate seat?
The Giannoulias story is classic Chicago. He was elected Treasurer at 29 with no substantial experience that would qualify him for the job. All he’d ever done was work as a loan officer and VP at Giannoulias family-owned Broadway Bank of Chicago.
How did he get elected Treasurer? Because Obama endorsed him. Why did Obama endorse him? Because the Giannoulias family had been big financial suppo... (continue reading)
By Rolfe Winkler, a former hedge fund analyst
Alexi Giannoulias — the whippersnapper IL State Treasurer and basketball buddy of the President — won the Democratic primary for Senate Tuesday night. Given Giannoulias’ troubling background, including ties to a bank that received a warning from FDIC just a week ago, how much political capital will Obama now want to spend defending his old Senate seat?
The Giannoulias story is classic Chicago. He was elected Treasurer at 29 with no substantial experience that would qualify him for the job. All he’d ever done was work as a loan officer and VP at Giannoulias family-owned Broadway Bank of Chicago.
How did he get elected Treasurer? Because Obama endorsed him. Why did Obama endorse him? Because the Giannoulias family had been big financial supporters for Obama’s Senate campaign (Alexi continued his financial support for Presidential candidate Obama).
Broadway Bank has long been under the microscope, in particular for lending to known mafiosos. The bank also lent to convicted influence-peddler Tony Rezko….points emphasized by Giannoulias’ opponent in the Democratic primary, David Hoffman.
The latest twist in the story came a week ago, when FDIC issued a consent order to Broadway Bank instructing it to raise capital and cease unsafe and unsound lending practices. These are detailed in the order, but Crain’s Chicago Business has a helpful summary:
Under the terms of the consent order, Broadway must add at least $19 million to its reserves for losses from mounting delinquent loans. Subtracting that $19 million from the bank’s capital as of Sept. 30, it must raise $50 million or more within 90 days to achieve the capital ratios the order requires.
Among the ways to restore the bank’s fiscal health, the order lists “the direct contribution of cash by the directors and/or shareholders of the bank.” The Giannoulias family owns 100% of the bank’s shares.
Neither Mr. Giannoulias nor his older brother Demetris, CEO of Broadway, have commented to date on the family’s willingness to put their own money into the bank to save it.
The story notes that Broadway was one of the most profitable and fastest growing banks in Chicago during the 2000s. How did they do it?
Established three decades ago as a lender to small businesses in Chicago, many of them Greek-owned, Broadway evolved into an aggressive commercial real estate lender, making development loans all over the U.S. and funded mainly by high-rate brokered deposits.
When the real estate markets tanked, Broadway saw its loan quality deteriorate rapidly.
Brokered deposits to fund speculative lending…a shady tactic that has led to many a bank blow-up ever since the S&L crisis.
When the consent order was released, AP asked Giannounlias about it. Considering he’d been a loan officer and VP at the bank, it was highly sensible to ask him about the bank’s lending. But he refused to provide details, saying such questions could wait till after the primary.
Illinois is a very blue state, but has had Republican senators before, most recently Peter Fitzgerald. The big question is how much political capital Obama will spend campaigning for Giannoulias. He’ll have to endorse him since he is the party’s candidate. But will he campaign heavily for him despite Giannoulias questionable background and qualifications?
Rolfe Winkler is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed here are his own.
(show less)
By Ira GluntsIs it possible that Rahm Emanuel will lead a team of high octane Democratic party pro-Israel political operatives to run the campaign for the former Prime Minister and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak in the next Israeli election? This scenario may not be as far-fetched as many may assume. Consider that Bill Clinton, after many acrimonious encounters with the intransigent then Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu sent his own crack political operatives to assist Netanyahu’s opponent in 1999. Strategist James Carville, pollster Stanley Greenberg and TV advertising man Robert Shrum helped run Ehud Barak’s campaign for Prime Minister. Clinton thought Barak would be able to deliver a peace settlement with the Palestinians. Barak became the Israeli head of state, although he did... (continue reading)
By Ira GluntsIs it possible that Rahm Emanuel will lead a team of high octane Democratic party pro-Israel political operatives to run the campaign for the former Prime Minister and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak in the next Israeli election? This scenario may not be as far-fetched as many may assume. Consider that Bill Clinton, after many acrimonious encounters with the intransigent then Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu sent his own crack political operatives to assist Netanyahu’s opponent in 1999. Strategist James Carville, pollster Stanley Greenberg and TV advertising man Robert Shrum helped run Ehud Barak’s campaign for Prime Minister. Clinton thought Barak would be able to deliver a peace settlement with the Palestinians. Barak became the Israeli head of state, although he did nothing to promote peace in the region. However, Barak did provide a more congenial ally for the American president. It has been reported that he charmed Clinton who found it difficult to even refuse the Israeli’s most eccentric whim. Other than Barak’s stellar personality, the pro-Israel lobby may have been a contributing factor to Clinton’s unusual solicitousness.President Barack Obama has a marked penchant for following the failed initiatives of previous American presidents, including appointing former Clinton officials to high profile positions. Think of the military build-up in Afghanistan and the bank bailouts. As for returning officials, you can start with Robert Rubin, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross and, of course, Rahm Emanuel.When Ehud Barak, in a recent major speech to a large audience in Herzylia, Israel said that Israel must make peace with the Palestinians or it will become an apartheid state, the international media and many who are critical of the occupation praised his comments and lauded Barak as a peacemaker. Barak is not a force for peace and Israel has already imposed apartheid in the West Bank. Still, Barak is a smart, ambitious politician, who knows how to play music which will enchant a foreign audience and his song in Herzylia was apparently a hit. He also wants to be Prime Minister again.The remarks made by Ehud Barak were surely not intended for domestic consumption since the very utterance of the term “apartheid” in relationship to Israeli policy automatically elicits charges of anti-Semitism among Israelis. But as former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert demonstrated, among the international community, warnings about apartheid can burnish the image of even a failed Prime Minister who has been forced out of office amid a serious corruption scandal.President Obama may want to consider reprising Bill Clinton’s Israeli election gambit since Netanyahu humiliated him by ignoring his call for a settlement freeze and then forcing the novice head of state to declare that he and not Netanyahu was at fault for the failure to restart the Middle East peace process.Barak is more of a team player than Netanyahu, and appeals to many Americans and Israelis who see Netanyahu’s belligerence as an embarrassment. And also, by the time the next Israeli election comes around, Obama may want to rid himself of Emanuel, his chief-of-staff, who has already offended many progressive Democrats by design, as well as others by the force of his personality. I am sure that Emanuel, who volunteered in the Israeli army during the first Iraq war and whose father is Israeli, would jump at the chance to contribute something worthwhile to Obama, to his second homeland and to the “peace process.”If Barak was elected Prime Minister and the peace process was restarted, President Obama could get the credit for the resumption of the talks. However, any negotiations that Barak would lead would be characterized by unfair demands that would attempt to severely limit Palestinian sovereignty. They would be doomed to end in failure as were those at Camp David.No matter. Restarting the talks will make Obama look like a savvy and successful diplomat. The fact that they will not lead anywhere also insures that Obama will not have to confront his pro-Israel supporters in the U.S. Obama could look like a peacemaker while preserving the status quo. Isn’t that what the current U.S. administration is all about, good appearance and no action?The whole thing is a dirty business that is probably very well suited to an operator of Emanuel’s experience, temperament and background.The sad thing is that in the end the Palestinians continue to get screwed.- Ira Glunts first visited the Middle East in 1972, where he taught English and physical education in a small rural community in Israel. He was a volunteer in the Israeli Defense Forces in 1992. He is a Jewish American who lives in Madison, New York. He owns and operates a used and rare book business and is a part-time reference librarian. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Contact him at glunts@morrisville.edu.(show less)
Agence France Presse reports that thousands of Afghans are fleeing an anticipated NATO/Afghan (mainly British) campaign against the Taliban stronghold of Marja, a city of 80,000, south of the capital of Lashkar Gah in Helmand Province. Marja is in the midst of a major poppy-growing region and so a center of narco-terrorism (the poppies are used to make heroin, and it is estimated that 40% of the drug trade goes to insurgents fighting the Karzai government).
The 5,000-man strike force will be British troops in the majority, and the rest will be Afghan or American. Although the campaign is called Operation Mushtarak, the Dari Persian word for "joint," it seems obvious that Afghan Army troops are a small part of the force. Unlike past such campaigns, the invasion force will be garrison... (continue reading)
Agence France Presse reports that thousands of Afghans are fleeing an anticipated NATO/Afghan (mainly British) campaign against the Taliban stronghold of Marja, a city of 80,000, south of the capital of Lashkar Gah in Helmand Province. Marja is in the midst of a major poppy-growing region and so a center of narco-terrorism (the poppies are used to make heroin, and it is estimated that 40% of the drug trade goes to insurgents fighting the Karzai government).
The 5,000-man strike force will be British troops in the majority, and the rest will be Afghan or American. Although the campaign is called Operation Mushtarak, the Dari Persian word for "joint," it seems obvious that Afghan Army troops are a small part of the force. Unlike past such campaigns, the invasion force will be garrisoned in Marja rather than withdrawing, so as to allow the troops to keep the Taliban out and to win over local hearts and minds.
Perhaps in preparation for the campaign against Marja, in the past couple of days NATO and Afghan troops attacked insurgents in the Baba-ji district of Lashkar Gah, killing some 19 and taking control of it. Afghan troops will be garrisoned in Baba-ji to consolidate Kabul's control.
NATO and the Afghan army have waged similar campaigns in Qandahar and its environs. NATO is now racing to train enough Afghan troops to stay in the major southern city and keep it out of the hands of the Taliban.
In other news, several hundred demonstrators in Kapisa Province, northeast of Kabul, staged an anti-American demonstration in which they blocked the road to Kabul on Saturday. The crowd was protesting the US military's arrest of Col. Ataullah Kohistani, security chief of the province. Protesters insist that only the Kabul government has the right to arrest Afghan officials, not foreign troops.
El Foro Social Mundial en movimiento 6 Feb 2010Boaventura de Sousa Santos Traducido para Rebelión por Antoni Jesús Aguiló y revisado por Àlex Tarradellas
Barack Obama's Bush-like "surge" in Afghanistan has not even reached its full strength yet, but it is already driving tens of thousands of Afghan civilians from their homes, as they flee an upcoming massive attack in Helmand province.
The attack -- which the Americans have been trumpeting far in advance -- is designed, we're told, to "protect" the people of the key town of Marjah from the twin scourges of Taliban nogoodniks and drug traffickers. Yet the primary effect of the much-publicized preparations has been to send the residents of the town running for their lives to escape becoming part of the "collateral damage" that always attends these protective, humanitarian endeavors.
Indeed, the real aim of the advance publicity for the attack seems to be forcing mass numbers of civilians... (continue reading)
Barack Obama's Bush-like "surge" in Afghanistan has not even reached its full strength yet, but it is already driving tens of thousands of Afghan civilians from their homes, as they flee an upcoming massive attack in Helmand province.
The attack -- which the Americans have been trumpeting far in advance -- is designed, we're told, to "protect" the people of the key town of Marjah from the twin scourges of Taliban nogoodniks and drug traffickers. Yet the primary effect of the much-publicized preparations has been to send the residents of the town running for their lives to escape becoming part of the "collateral damage" that always attends these protective, humanitarian endeavors.
Indeed, the real aim of the advance publicity for the attack seems to be forcing mass numbers of civilians to hit the road -- which will then allow the American and British attackers to claim that anyone left behind is an enemy. This in turn will free up the attackers to use heavy weaponry in a "free-fire" zone to clear out the "diehards."
This is, of course, the same strategy used in the savage destruction of Fallujah in Iraq. The city was marked for death after an angry mob mutilated four American mercenaries -- following a series of civilian killings by occupation forces in the preceding weeks: provocations that have been conveniently airbrushed from history (just like the U.S. massacre of Somalis that preceded the infamous "Black Hawk Down" incident). An initial attack on Fallujah failed in the spring of 2004, largely due to political heat from the vast civilian suffering that was being reported from the city, chiefly from its medical centers.
But in the following months, the noose was tightened around Fallujah's neck. Tens of thousands fled the city to escape the coming second attack, which was well-publicized in advance. Story after story -- or rather, puff piece after puff piece -- about the preparations streamed from the embedded mainstream media reporters. The ostensible aim of the attack was to "eliminate" groups of "diehard terrorists" using Fallujah as a base. But of course, the months of PR about the looming operation meant that the putative targets had plenty of time to slip away. And they did.
Even so, as soon as George W. Bush's re-election was in the bag, the attack was launched. This time, the US brass were careful to eliminate the main source of bad press in the first attack: hospitals were a prime target. As I noted at the time:
One of the first moves in this magnificent feat was the destruction and capture of medical centers. Twenty doctors – and their patients, including women and children – were killed in an airstrike on one major clinic, the UN Information Service reports, while the city's main hospital was seized in the early hours of the ground assault. Why? Because these places of healing could be used as "propaganda centers," the Pentagon's "information warfare" specialists told the NY Times. Unlike the first attack on Fallujah last spring, there was to be no unseemly footage of gutted children bleeding to death on hospital beds. This time – except for NBC's brief, heavily-edited, quickly-buried clip of the usual lone "bad apple" shooting a wounded Iraqi prisoner – the visuals were rigorously scrubbed.
So while Americans saw stories of rugged "Marlboro Men" winning the day against Satan, they were spared shots of engineers cutting off water and electricity to the city – a flagrant war crime under the Geneva Conventions, as CounterPunch notes, but standard practice throughout the occupation. Nor did pictures of attack helicopters gunning down civilians trying to escape across the Euphrates River – including a family of five – make the TV news, despite the eyewitness account of an AP journalist. Nor were tender American sensibilities subjected to the sight of phosphorous shells bathing enemy fighters – and nearby civilians – with unquenchable chemical fire, literally melting their skin, as the Washington Post reports. Nor did they see the fetus being blown out of the body of Artica Salim when her home was bombed during the "softening-up attacks" that raged relentlessly – and unnoticed – in the closing days of George W. Bush's presidential campaign, the Scotland Sunday Herald reports.
And now Marjah is being readied for the Fallujah option. (For as we all know, your real tough hombres never take any option off the table.) As the Guardian reports:
Ten of thousands of Afghan civilians are abandoning an area of central Helmland where UK and US forces are set to launch one of the biggest operations of the year. The evacuation of most civilians from the town of Marjah and surrounding areas will give commanders greater leeway to use mortars-and-air-to ground missiles which have enraged Afghans in the past when responsible for civilian deaths. ...
US generals have unusually made no secret of their plan for a major onslaught against the town close to Helmand's besieged provincial capital, Lashkar Gah. Larry Nicholson, commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force which will spearhead the fight, has said he is "not looking for a fair fight." ...
A spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force, as the Nato troops are known, said that the main reason for publicity for the operation was to encourage insurgents to leave, but if civilians were also encouraged to evacuate that would be "helpful".
Yes, it's always helpful to do some pre-winnowing of a densely populated area before you destroy it with mortars and air-to-ground missiles. But of course, while thousands of civilians flee, thousands more have "remained because they could not afford to leave," the Guardian reports. How many of these will be re-classifed as "enemy fighters" when their corpses are found in the ruins?
The Afghans themselves know the score:
A Marjah resident, an elder reached by phone, who was not prepared to give his name, said he had evacuated his family a week ago because he feared "the worst attack ever".
"Always when they storm a village the foreign troops never care about civilian casualties at all. And at the end of the day they report the deaths of women and children as the deaths of Taliban," he said.
Slaughter, ruin, fear and exile: yeah, it's the Good War, all right! "The war we should be fighting," as our tough-guy libs kept telling us when putting their always serious, always "nuanced" objections to the Iraq "fiasco" in proper context. Well, they have it now, the war they always wanted. And who knows? Maybe soon they can have their own Fallujah! Won't that be a great apotheosis of Progressivism? (show less)
Warning! This is a thought experiment and not a serious political program. Imagine returning to the conditions and living standard we had in the 1970's. What would have to be re-established? Or, looking at the question another way, what have we lost and what needs restoring? Back then young workers could look forward to a life-long, well-paying, union job in manufacturing or resource industries. Thanks to corporate mercantilism, oops, I mean Free Trade and NAFTA, hundreds of thousands of these jobs disappeared never to return. Most consumer items were produced in Canada and were of relatively high quality. Today they are crap and imported from China. Thousands of decent jobs have also been sub-contracted out or corporatized, if of the government sector. These are now low wag... (continue reading)
Warning! This is a thought experiment and not a serious political program. Imagine returning to the conditions and living standard we had in the 1970's. What would have to be re-established? Or, looking at the question another way, what have we lost and what needs restoring? Back then young workers could look forward to a life-long, well-paying, union job in manufacturing or resource industries. Thanks to corporate mercantilism, oops, I mean Free Trade and NAFTA, hundreds of thousands of these jobs disappeared never to return. Most consumer items were produced in Canada and were of relatively high quality. Today they are crap and imported from China. Thousands of decent jobs have also been sub-contracted out or corporatized, if of the government sector. These are now low wage and often "on contract" (not stable employment) Hundreds of millions in tax payer dollars now goes to foreign multi-nationals rather than staying in the community and being thus recycled within it. The resulting lower wages means lower tax intake, which means higher taxation for all workers. A multitude of hospitals, schools and post offices, built at public expense, have been closed, resulting in the destruction of community and job loss. Hundreds of billions of dollars of public facilities and property, built at public expense, have been handed over to corporations, often foreign, which means a net drain of wealth out of the country. Massive cuts to government services, leading to poorer service or fees where none exited before. Replacement of income and corporate tax by a regressive tax on goods. Cuts to welfare payments and a severe reduction in UI coverage, leading to a rapid increase in poverty. Deregulation of airlines leading to bad service, lower working conditions and pay. Curtailing of government-sponsored affordable housing and coop housing. Pushed housing costs out of range for most Canadians and led to homelessness. The loss of a multitude of Canadian companies. Bought up by US interests and many cannibalized. More unemployment, more wealth literally "heading south." Huge factory farms which are terrible polluters and use huge quantities of anti-biotics have destroyed the family farm and the relatively healthy products it used to produce.
In order to restore all that was taken away from us we would have to: Scrap NAFTA and free trade. Not move back to a tariff, but institute "free rider" charges. Reinvest in manufacturing encourage unionization Re-nationalize all corporatized public property. Restore UI to 90% of the work force and welfare payments brought up to changes in the cost of living since 1980. Reparations payments to all victims of these cuts. Insititute a massive program of low-cost housing and coops. Re-establish public employment for all corporatized former government employees. Abolish sub contracting. Reparations for everyone who suffered financially from these programs. Restore funding of all public institutions to previous levels. Make off-shoring illegal and confiscate any wealth that has been placed in off-shore accounts. Raise corporate and upper-end income tax to 1970 levels. Abolish GST and replace with a tax on luxuries. Nationalize and re-regulate air lines. Ban factory "farming" and severely restrict the use of anti-biotics. Ban caging of chickens and other cruel treatment of farm animals. Give financial encouragement to the restoration of true farming. Just to restore life the way it was, would require truly massive changes. In fact, it is hard to believe any present government or party having the cojones to even suggest a partial restoration. Let's face it, restoration would require a revolution. This is one of the reasons all these cut-backs, deregulations, corporatizations etc., were proposed in the first place. This way they could destroy "socialism" by which these fanatics really meant social democracy, forever. They would destroy so many of the gains of the previous two generations that it would take a revolution to restore them. The idea being, that people would not want a revolution. This is how they planned to box us in, creating what their guru Thatcher called a TINA situation (There Is No Alternative, as totalitarian a slogan as one could ever have.) The only thing is, this petard might blow up in their face. If it takes a revolution to restore social democracy, people might well say, "Why go half way. Why not eliminate the corporatist system entirely, so it can never threaten us again?" (show less)
22 JANUARY 2010 – More Raw Log Exports Are the Last Thing Needed Say Steelworkers
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BURNABY, BC - British Columbians should strongly reject calls for increased raw-log exports, say United Steelworkers. The union was responding to reports from this week’s Truck Loggers Association convention in Victoria that the TLA supports even more log exports. “Log exports helped create the crisis in the first place,” counters Steelworkers Wood Council chair Bob Matters.
USW released a chart (click to view and download PDF) indicating that over 70 wood-processing facilities have permanently closed in BC since 2000, including 33 in the Coastal region. “These mills were significantly impacted by log exports; some closed as a direct result,” notes Matters. “When we lose manufacturing p... (continue reading)
22 JANUARY 2010 – More Raw Log Exports Are the Last Thing Needed Say Steelworkers
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BURNABY, BC - British Columbians should strongly reject calls for increased raw-log exports, say United Steelworkers. The union was responding to reports from this week’s Truck Loggers Association convention in Victoria that the TLA supports even more log exports. “Log exports helped create the crisis in the first place,” counters Steelworkers Wood Council chair Bob Matters.
USW released a chart (click to view and download PDF) indicating that over 70 wood-processing facilities have permanently closed in BC since 2000, including 33 in the Coastal region. “These mills were significantly impacted by log exports; some closed as a direct result,” notes Matters. “When we lose manufacturing plants, we lose jobs.” He especially wants to rebut claims that we need to export more raw logs because we don’t lack processing capacity.
“Exports caused closures,” he says. As exports increase, it’s harder for domestic mills to get timber. “Exports drove up the domestic price. More logs go south or to Asia, to mills that can pay a premium for a small amount of high-quality wood. Domestic mills don’t have that luxury. They’re competing with firms that need only a small amount of wood from BC – but they buy all their logs here, competing with the higher export price.”
British Columbians have now a choice, adds Matters: “stop the exports or completely lose our domestic industry. If we put what we call an ‘equivalency tax’ on exports – equal to the difference between the domestic and export prices for similar logs -- exports would dry up. That would drive down the price of domestic logs. Big exporters like TimberWest and Island Timberlands would howl but domestic sawmills and value-added manufacturers would say ‘opportunity’. They’d buy up more logs and create more jobs – maybe invest in BC, something the industry hasn’t done for almost a decade. The big exporters would have to either sell at the domestic price or leave their trees standing.”
“Exports have also killed investment,” Matters adds. Recent Industry Canada statistics show declining corporate investment in the Canadian wood manufacturing industry. Between 1999 and 2008 investment actually fell by about 0.1 percent per year, 12 percent in 2008. Investment fell every year from 2005 onward, largely due to log exports, the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreement and a rising Canadian dollar. From about $1.3 billion in 2005, machinery and equipment spending in Canada’s wood manufacturing plants fell to under $1billion in 2008. Employment has fallen dramatically, as well.
“By undermining profitability in the sawmilling and wood-manufacturing sectors, log exports have helped kill investment and jobs,” says Matters. “If you’re thinking of log exports as our saviour, better think again,” Matters warns.
- 30 -
Contact: Bob Matters 604.683.1117 Email: bmatters@usw.ca
Companies speed up logging on Island
Activists blame end of moratorium; forest firms credit better markets
By Judith Lavoie, Times Colonist January 10, 2010
"It would be strange if there was no relationship between the breakneck speed of logging and the expiration of log-export conditions," said Ken Wu of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee.
But Western Forest Products says there's no connection with the Jan. 31 end of a three-year restriction on raw-log exports from private forest land.
Company spokesman Gary Ley attributes the increase in logging to a combination of weather, low log inventory and a better market.
"Some areas are inaccessible [in winter] so we move to lower, more accessible ground," he said, adding log inventories are down because logging rates were low last year. "The market was steadier through Christmas, so there's quite a demand for the logs we can get out of the south Island."
Ley said after the moratorium ends, Western might export some logs from the 28,000 hectares of private forest lands removed from Vancouver Island tree-farm licences in 2007, but only if it makes business sense and keeps people working.
TimberWest is also putting on a push, partially because of increased demand from Asia. The rise in logging activity is probably being noticed because harvest levels were exceptionally low for the last two years, said spokeswoman Sue Handel, noting three-quarters of logs harvested by TimberWest on Vancouver Island go to mills in Nanaimo, while 25 per cent are exported to Asia
PERSONAL: HERE AT MOLLY'S BLOG: Well time ticks on, and so do things here at Molly's Blog. I'm presently in the process of listing the links for the CNT-AIT in Spain, and I've found that there are a heck of a lot more than I expected. As I have made plain before on this blog I am more in sympathy with the CGT in Spain than I am with the CNT, but the CNT is still a repository of classical anarcho-syndicalism that deserves respect. Hence the listing of it and others in the AIT that are in sympathy with their point of view. Also, however, people who adhere to the point of view exemplified by the CNT are a signpost that says that certain compromises are "beyond the pale". as such they have great value. For now I am still in Andalucia in terms of the CNT listings. There is much more to come. PU... (continue reading)
PERSONAL: HERE AT MOLLY'S BLOG: Well time ticks on, and so do things here at Molly's Blog. I'm presently in the process of listing the links for the CNT-AIT in Spain, and I've found that there are a heck of a lot more than I expected. As I have made plain before on this blog I am more in sympathy with the CGT in Spain than I am with the CNT, but the CNT is still a repository of classical anarcho-syndicalism that deserves respect. Hence the listing of it and others in the AIT that are in sympathy with their point of view. Also, however, people who adhere to the point of view exemplified by the CNT are a signpost that says that certain compromises are "beyond the pale". as such they have great value. For now I am still in Andalucia in terms of the CNT listings. There is much more to come. PURPOSE I am also, of course, promoting this blog as much as I can. In the course of this I run into some very weird aggressive responses. In particular I run into these when I post to certain blog aggregator sites where it is "assumed" that the posts will be about nothing of any importance whatsoever. In such situations, because I post for a "purpose" I am assumed to be a "spammer". Molly's Blog does indeed have items that are totally my own opinion. It also has items that are unique translations from either French or Spanish to English. Supposedly this is spam. More importantly this blog aims to be an "aggregator" for news, anarchist, labour,Canadian, whatever. Not everything published here is even something I agree with. I merely think it is important.I contrast this to what seems to be "important" on this aggregators. A recent list of the top items:1)My Awesome Girlfriend Made Me My own Companion Cube"2)Best Seat Belt Ever-Embrace Life3)Blizzard +Ingenuity=wm4)If The World Was Inverted By Altitude5)Amazing Video Of White Blood Cell Literally Chasing Down And Devouring A BacteriumWell, I don't hold anything against someone who may find these items of interest. What I object to is when I get ragged for items that might actually have some importance, especially when the aggression is disguised under the terms that only original posts are allowed. YES, Molly's Blog reprints the posts of others. That is part of its purpose, and I even often reprint posts that I am not in agreement with.It all comes down to "purpose". Quite frankly I can't see any purpose to being on the internet merely to show the temporary and usually very boring emotions of one's very boring everyday life. No doubt this is a very large portion of what the internet is. Some people get so entranced by this that they sign on to blog aggregators merely to express their (usually aggressive opinions) by comment after comment. Others do this in certain websites. It's all very good, but what is the purpose of it ? Quite frankly I find an honest disagreement with an honest, shall we say "conservative", much more enlightening that the sort of 13 year old comment I often get on the blog aggregators. Also, quite frankly, I would rather argue with a legitimate conservative than some of the "anarchists" I have argued with before on this blog.All that's neither here nor there. It's the way I feel today from what I have seen today.MORE ON PURPOSETo a large extent I see what has often been preferred as opposition to Molly's Blog on the blog aggregators as an "dance-macabre", an attempt to give meaning by opposition to meaning in an individual life. It may "feel" good, but, in the end it is unsatisfying because it is obviously untrue. I don't speak of any opposition to the opinions on Molly's Blog but rather to the attempt to circumvent them.by various tricks of rhetoric.What can I say ? I have a purpose to what I present here. If i didn't I wouldn't bother. This purpose is beyond me. If any purpose is to be real it has to be beyond the individual proponents of it. Other than that it is simply self interest. Perhaps this belongs in 'Molly's Anarchism' more than it belongs here. Still...I cannot help speaking out against irrelevance and trvia. Trivia is what post of my opponents think the internet should be.Whatever, I will continue on despite the criticisms. Such is Molly`s promise to her readers.(show less)
By Jeff Gates* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz
During the 1960 Christmas season, Americans flocked to the theaters to see Exodus, a 3-1/2 hour epic film featuring handsome freedom fighters and a riveting romance amidst the heroic triumph of Jewish Destiny over Arab Evil Doers. Set against a Yuletide backdrop of Biblical prophecy, moviegoers marveled as exiled Jews returned to their fabled promised land, a staple of popular culture to which Americans are first exposed as children in "Sunday school."
Many moviegoers failed to realize that Exodus was not fact but fiction. Even now, few Americans realize the storyline was adapted for the screen from a 1958 novel by Leon Uris. The biggest bestseller since Gone with the Wind-a novel set during the Civil War of the 1860s-the filmadaptation wa... (continue reading)
By Jeff Gates* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz
During the 1960 Christmas season, Americans flocked to the theaters to see Exodus, a 3-1/2 hour epic film featuring handsome freedom fighters and a riveting romance amidst the heroic triumph of Jewish Destiny over Arab Evil Doers. Set against a Yuletide backdrop of Biblical prophecy, moviegoers marveled as exiled Jews returned to their fabled promised land, a staple of popular culture to which Americans are first exposed as children in "Sunday school."
Many moviegoers failed to realize that Exodus was not fact but fiction. Even now, few Americans realize the storyline was adapted for the screen from a 1958 novel by Leon Uris. The biggest bestseller since Gone with the Wind-a novel set during the Civil War of the 1860s-the filmadaptation was directed by Hollywood icon Otto Preminger. The blockbuster's stars included a young Paul Newman with his leading lady a blond Eva Marie Saint.
The cast included character actor Lee J. Cobb and Peter Lawford, married to Pat Kennedy, a sister of John F. Kennedy who was elected president the same year. By then, Lawford was a famous member of pop culture's high profile "Rat Pack" that included singer Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis, Jr. and Joey Bishop. Italian crooner Sal Mineo, then a teen heartthrob, received an Academy Award nomination for his portrayal of a Jewish émigré.
An Oscar should have been awarded to Israel and its supporters for portraying this extremist enclave as a legitimate nation-state when, in reality, its founding traces to an alluring storyline. Forty-five years after the release of Exodus, American naiveté was again targeted by Jewish storytellers to induce the U.S. to war in the Middle East-only this time for real.
Then as now, Americans are easily swayed by sympathetic portrayals of an enclave granted nation-state recognition by President Harry Truman, a Christian-Zionist. The Missouri Democrat had famously read the Bible cover-to-cover five times by age 15. Truman was a True Believer in the same way that fundamentalist Christians believe-truly believe-that their Messiah will not return until the "Israelites" recover their ancestral home.
Preying on similar beliefs, Republican George W. Bush, another Christian-Zionist president, was induced with phony intelligence to wage war in Iraq. The false intelligence was traceable to Israelis, pro-Israelis or assets developed for that purpose. That invasion had long been a priority goal of those who believe-truly believe-in their right to an expansionist Greater Israel.
Yet as Shlomo Sand chronicles in The Invention of the Jewish People (2009), the historical evidence is scant either for an exile or an "exodus." As with the movie, the return of a "Jewish People" to a Jewish homeland is "a conscious ideological composition" meant "to claim a higher cultural lineage" than what can be supported by the facts.
In lieu of the novel-writing skills of Leon Uris, the Zionist narrative featured Biblical archeologists such as William F. Albright who, in the 1920s, traveled to the Holy Land to excavate artifacts that would, as Sand puts it: "reaffirm the Old Testament and thereby the New."
By interpreting his finds in Christian-Zionist terms, Albright and his colleagues not only unearthed Biblical "facts" that shaped the Sunday school curriculum, they also helped pre-stage the perceived legitimacy of a Jewish people returning from exile to a Jewish homeland. As Sand points out, if there was no exodus, how can there be a return? If there is no "Jewish People," how can there be a homeland?
Yet these widely held beliefs remain the premise underlying Israel's expansionist agenda and its rationale for heaping six decades of abuse on Palestinians who have lived there for centuries.
Political Expedience or Biblical Prophecy?
White House counsel Clark Clifford cautioned Truman that his reelection was unlikely absent the funding that Jewish-Americans-with Israel's recognition-were eager to provide. In early May 1948, General George C. Marshall, Truman's Secretary of State, argued vigorously against recognition. Strong objections were also heard from the diplomatic corps, the fledgling Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Marshall, the top-ranked U.S. military officer in WWII, was outraged that Clifford put domestic political expedience ahead of U.S. foreign policy interests. Marshall told Truman that he would vote against him if he extended sovereign status to an enclave of Zionist terrorists, religious fanatics and what Albert Einstein and Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt called "Jewish fascists." Marshall insisted that State Department personnel never again speak to Clifford.
In March 1948, a Joint Chiefs paper titled "Force Requirements for Palestine" predicted the "Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the U.S.] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives." Those objectives included an expansionist agenda for Greater Israel that envisioned the taking of Arab land, ensuring armed clashes in which the U.S. was destined to become embroiled.
The Joint Chiefs listed Zionist objectives as:
- Initial Jewish sovereignty over a portion of Palestine,
- Acceptance by the great powers of the right to unlimited immigration,
- The extension of Jewish sovereignty over all of Palestine,
- The expansion of "Eretz (Greater) Israel" into Transjordan and portions of Lebanon and Syria, and
- The establishment of Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.
Akin to the fictional portrayal in Exodus, those Zionists lobbying Truman assured him they would remain within the initial boundaries. We now know that was a lie. They also promised that the Zionist state would not become what it quickly became: a theocratic and racist enclave-albeit widely marketed by pro-Israeli media as the "only democracy in the Middle East."
To remove all doubt as to the extremist goals of the Zionist project, the Joint Chiefs assessment added ominously:
"All stages of this program are equally sacred to the fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders. The program is openly admitted by some leaders, and has been privately admitted to United States officials by responsible leaders of the presently dominant Jewish group–the Jewish Agency."
Deceit from the Outset
A beguiling combination of Hollywood fiction, manipulated beliefs and outright lies remain at the core of this entangled alliance and the U.S.-Israeli "special relationship." The deceit deployed to advance the hegemonic goals of the Zionist project remains obscured by an undisclosed media bias reinforced by a widespread pro-Israeli influence in popular culture. As with the 1960 film, the ongoing manipulation of thought and emotion lies at the core of this duplicity a half-century later.
In The Persuasion Explosion (1985), author Art Stevens reports that Exodus was a public relations ploy launched by Edward Gottlieb who sought a novelist to improve Israel's image in the U.S. The name Uris originates with Yerushalmi, meaning "man of Jerusalem." The film rights to Exodus were sold in advance of the book's publication. Translated into dozens of languages, this masterpiece of mental and emotional manipulation quickly became a global phenomenon as its created favorable impressions of Israel.
The rewards are real for those who offer aid and comfort to this trans-generational deceit. When Truman's campaign train traversed the nation as part of a 1948 whistle-stop tour, grateful Jewish nationalists refueled his campaign coffers with a reported $400,000 in cash ($3.6 million in 2010 dollars). Those funds helped transform his anticipated loss into a victory with support from pro-Israeli editorial boards that-after recognition-boosted Truman's sagging popularity.
The Creation of Reliable Assets
Clark Clifford was rewarded with his career goal when he emerged as a top-paid Washington lawyer. After proving himself a pliable personality, he remained a reliable asset. During the G.H.W. Bush presidency, his combination of political prominence and perceived credibility provided cover for a massive bank fraud involving the Bank of Credit and Commerce International aided by Roger Altman, his Ashkenazi law partner.
In 2009, Hollywood released an action thriller (The International) starring Clive Owen and a similar storyline involving the International Bank of Business and Credit. Neither Clifford nor Altman had experience in banking when their law firm enabled what prosecutors charged was a global criminal operation.
Media reports described the BCCI scheme as the largest bank fraud in history. This $20 billion transnational operation even featured the requisite Hollywood component: Clifford's protégé was married to Lynda Carter, the star of Wonder Woman, a 1970s fantasy-adventure television series.
The real fantasy in this long-running geopolitical fraud lies in why U.S. lawmakers continue to befriend and defend a "nation" that has for so long-and so consistently-deceived and betrayed its most loyal ally. As a badly miscast Eva Marie Saint asked in her most memorable line in Exodus: "When will it ever end?"
The greatest wonder will be if, based on facts confirming the depth and duration of this duplicity, those lawmakers urging continued support for Israel are not charged with treason. [See: "How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy" http://criminalstate.com/2009/07/how-the-israel-lobby-took-control-of-us-foreign-policy/]
To restore its national security, the U.S. must shake off its entangled alliance with this extremist enclave. "Shaking off" is the literal translation of "intifada." Those who know the true facts behind this trans-generational deception are quickly reaching the conclusion that the recognition of this enclave as a legitimate state was key to this ongoing fraud. Others may be waiting for the movie, American Intifada.
* Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, merchant banker, educator and consultant to governments worldwide; served for seven years as counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. He is the author of Guilt by Association, Democracy At Risk and The Ownership Solution. See his website Criminal State
Source: Opinion Maker
Time for an American Intifada? is a post from: Sabbah Report. Get Daily Newsletter, follow on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook.
(show less)
West Bank, February 7, 2010 (Pal Telegraph) - Israeli occupation forces kidnapped 70 Palestinian workers overnight in the west bank near Bait Aor Al-Tahta village, in west of Ramallah. The workers were hidden in a van as they were not given permissions to work inside 1948 occupied lands.
The workers were hiding in a van launched from Jerusalem towards the1948 occupied lands. Shaher Sad, the secretary general of the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions, condemned the performance of the Israeli occupation forces of pursuit and kidnapping the Palestinian workers overnight.
These workers were on their way to work inside the1948 occupied lands as there are no work chances inside the West Bank.
The Palestinian workers are humiliated every day by the Israeli soldiers at the checkpoints ... (continue reading)
West Bank, February 7, 2010 (Pal Telegraph) - Israeli occupation forces kidnapped 70 Palestinian workers overnight in the west bank near Bait Aor Al-Tahta village, in west of Ramallah. The workers were hidden in a van as they were not given permissions to work inside 1948 occupied lands.
The workers were hiding in a van launched from Jerusalem towards the1948 occupied lands. Shaher Sad, the secretary general of the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions, condemned the performance of the Israeli occupation forces of pursuit and kidnapping the Palestinian workers overnight.
These workers were on their way to work inside the1948 occupied lands as there are no work chances inside the West Bank.
The Palestinian workers are humiliated every day by the Israeli soldiers at the checkpoints and barriers. Last month number of the Palestinian workers were beaten and kidnapped in Jerusalem.
(show less)
Greetings to everyone,
34 years. It doesn’t even sound like a real number to me. Not when one really thinks about being in a jail cell for that long. All these years and I swear, I still think sometimes I’ll wake up from this nightmare in my own bed, in my own home, with my family in the next room. I would never have imagined such a thing. Surely the only place people are unjustly imprisoned for 34 years is in far away lands, books or fairy tales.
It’s been that long since I woke up when I needed to, worked where I wanted to, loved who I was supposed to love, or did what I was compelled to do. It’s been that long-long enough to see my children have grandchildren. Long enough to have many of my friends and loved ones die in the course of a normal life, while I was here unable... (continue reading)
Greetings to everyone,
34 years. It doesn’t even sound like a real number to me. Not when one really thinks about being in a jail cell for that long. All these years and I swear, I still think sometimes I’ll wake up from this nightmare in my own bed, in my own home, with my family in the next room. I would never have imagined such a thing. Surely the only place people are unjustly imprisoned for 34 years is in far away lands, books or fairy tales.
It’s been that long since I woke up when I needed to, worked where I wanted to, loved who I was supposed to love, or did what I was compelled to do. It’s been that long-long enough to see my children have grandchildren. Long enough to have many of my friends and loved ones die in the course of a normal life, while I was here unable to know them in their final days.
So often in my daily life, the thought creeps in – ”I don’t deserve this.” It lingers like acid in my mouth. But I have to push those types of thoughts away. I made a commitment long ago, many of us did. Some didn’t live up to their commitments, and some of us didn’t have a choice. Joe Stuntz didn’t have a choice. Neither did Buddy Lamont. I never thought my commitment would mean sacrificing like this, but I was willing to do so nonetheless. And really, if necessary, I’d do it all over again, because it was the right thing to do. We didn’t go to ceremony and say “I’ll fight for the people as long as it doesn’t cost too much.” We prayed, and we gave. Like I say, some of us didn’t have a choice. Our only other option was to run away, and we couldn’t even do that. Back then, we had no where left to run to.
I have cried so many tears over these three plus decades. Like the many families directly affected by this whole series of events, my family’s tears have not been in short supply. Our tears have joined all the tears from over 500 years of oppression. Together our tears come together and form a giant river of suffering and I hope, cleansing. Injustice is never final, I keep telling myself. I pray this is true for all of us.
To those who know I am innocent, thank you for your faith. And I hope you continue working for my release. That is, to work towards truth and justice. To those who think me guilty, I ask you to believe in and work for the rule of law. Even the law says I should be free by now, regardless of guilt. What has happened to me isn’t justice, it isn’t the law, it isn’t fair, it isn’t right. This has been a long battle in an even longer war. But we have to remain vigilant, as we have a righteous cause. After all this time, I can only ask this: Don’t give up. Not ever. Stay in this fight with me. Suffer with me. Grieve with me. Endure with me. Believe with me. Outlast with me. And one day, celebrate freedom with me. Hoka hey!
In the Spirit of Crazy Horse,
Leonard Peltier
Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee
PO Box 7488
Fargo, ND 58106
Phone: 701/235-2206
Fax: 701/235-5045
E-mail: contact@whoisleonardpeltier.info
Filed under: Civil Rights, Corrupt Politics, Human Rights (show less)
Vicenza, Italy: 50 activists enter site, chain themselves to cranes to stop military base
By Kyle | DMZ Hawaii
Fifty women and men of Vicenza entered today in the construction site of the new US military base at Dal Molin and chained themselves to the cranes and the working machineries used to build the foundations of the military installation, and that every day are damaging the “vicentina” groundwater. Recent surveys have produced evidence of unjustified increase of water level in some residential areas.
"Today we want set legality as first priority – they declared passing the fence of the site – the construction site must stop in order to defend health, safety and history of the “vicentina” community: groundwater resources and archeological findings must be preserved. Since the early... (continue reading)
Vicenza, Italy: 50 activists enter site, chain themselves to cranes to stop military base
By Kyle | DMZ Hawaii
Fifty women and men of Vicenza entered today in the construction site of the new US military base at Dal Molin and chained themselves to the cranes and the working machineries used to build the foundations of the military installation, and that every day are damaging the “vicentina” groundwater. Recent surveys have produced evidence of unjustified increase of water level in some residential areas.
"Today we want set legality as first priority – they declared passing the fence of the site – the construction site must stop in order to defend health, safety and history of the “vicentina” community: groundwater resources and archeological findings must be preserved. Since the early days of this story we stated that this territory has a priceless value for the local community; but, at the same time, it’s particulary fragile, delicate, because under the green carpet it preserves one of the essential elements of life, water." Read more.
( click title for more )(show less)
The official US unemployment rate fell to 9.7 percent in January, despite 20,000 jobs lost, according to the Labor Department. Revised figures show a sharp increase in the number of jobs wiped out sin...
Stand with the people of
Haiti! What the U.S. government isn't telling
you
We at the ANSWER Coalition extend our heartfelt solidarity to
all of our Haitian sisters and brothers, as well as to all those who have friends and
family there, as Haiti copes with the destruction and grief of the massive 7.0 magnitude
earthquake that struck yesterday.
All of us are joining in the
outpouring of solidarity from people all over the hemisphere and world who are sending
humanitarian aid and assistance to the people of Haiti.
At such a
moment, it is also important to put this catastrophe into a political and social
context. Without this context, it is... (continue reading)
Stand with the people of
Haiti! What the U.S. government isn't telling
you
We at the ANSWER Coalition extend our heartfelt solidarity to
all of our Haitian sisters and brothers, as well as to all those who have friends and
family there, as Haiti copes with the destruction and grief of the massive 7.0 magnitude
earthquake that struck yesterday.
All of us are joining in the
outpouring of solidarity from people all over the hemisphere and world who are sending
humanitarian aid and assistance to the people of Haiti.
At such a
moment, it is also important to put this catastrophe into a political and social
context. Without this context, it is impossible to understand both the monumental
problems facing Haiti and, most importantly, the solutions that can allow Haiti to
survive and thrive. Hillary Clinton said today, "It is biblical, the tragedy
that continues to daunt Haiti and the Haitian people." This hypocritical
statement that blames Haiti's suffering exclusively on an "act of
God" masks the role of U.S. and French imperialism in the
region.
In this statement, we have included some background
information about Haiti that helps establish the real
context:
Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive stated today that
as many as 100,000 Haitians may be dead. International media is reporting bodies being
piled along streets surrounded by the rubble from thousands of collapsed buildings.
Estimates of the economic damage are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Haiti’s
large shantytown population was particularly hard hit by the tragedy.
As CNN, ABC and every other major corporate media outlet will be
quick to point out, Haiti is the poorest country in the entire Western hemisphere. But
not a single word is uttered as to why Haiti is poor. Poverty, unlike earthquakes, is no
natural disaster.
The answer lies in more than two centuries of U.S.
hostility to the island nation, whose hard-won independence from the French was only the
beginning of its struggle for liberation.
In 1804, what had begun as
a slave uprising more than a decade earlier culminated in freedom from the grips of
French colonialism, making Haiti the first Latin American colony to win its independence
and the world's first Black republic. Prior to the victory of the Haitian
people, George Washington and then-Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson had supported
France out of fear that Haiti would inspire uprisings among the U.S. slave population.
The U.S. slave-owning aristocracy was horrified at Haiti’s newly earned freedom.
U.S. interference became an integral part of Haitian history,
culminating in a direct military occupation from 1915 to 1934. Through economic and
military intervention, Haiti was subjugated as U.S. capital developed a railroad and
acquired plantations. In a gesture of colonial arrogance, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was
the assistant secretary of the Navy at the time, drafted a constitution for Haiti which,
among other things, allowed foreigners to own land. U.S. officials would later find an
accommodation with the dictator François “Papa Doc” Duvalier, and then his son
Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, as Haiti suffered under their brutal repressive
policies.
In the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. policy toward Haiti sought
the reorganization of the Haitian economy to better serve the interests of foreign
capital. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was instrumental in
shifting Haitian agriculture away from grain production, paving the way for dependence
on food imports. Ruined Haitian farmers flocked to the cities in search of a livelihood,
resulting in the swelling of the precarious shantytowns found in Port-au-Prince and
other urban centers.
Who has benefited from these policies? U.S.
food producers profited from increased exports to Haitian markets. Foreign corporations
that had set up shop in Haitian cities benefitted from the super-exploitation of cheap
labor flowing from the countryside. But for the people of Haiti, there was only greater
misery and destitution.
Washington orchestrated the overthrow of the
democratically elected Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide—not once, but twice, in
1991 and 2004. Haiti has been under a U.S.-backed U.N. occupation for nearly six years.
Aristide did not earn the animosity of U.S. leaders for his moderate reforms; he earned
it when he garnered support among Haiti's poor, which crystallized into a mass
popular movement. Two hundred years on, U.S. officials are still horrified by the
prospect of a truly independent Haiti.
The unstable, makeshift
dwellings imposed upon Haitians by Washington’s neoliberal policies have now, for many,
been turned into graves. Those same policies are to blame for the lack of hospitals,
ambulances, fire trucks, rescue equipment, food and medicine. The blow dealt by such a
natural disaster to an economy made so fragile from decades of plundering will greatly
magnify the suffering of the Haitian people.
Natural disasters are
inevitable, but resource allocation and planning can play a decisive role in mitigating
their impact and dealing with the aftermath. Haiti and neighboring Cuba, who are no
strangers to violent tropical storms, were both hit hard in 2008 by a series of
hurricanes—which, unlike earthquakes, are predictable. While more than 800 lives were
lost in Haiti, less than 10 people died in Cuba. Unlike Haiti, Cuba had a coordinated
evacuation plan and post-hurricane rescue efforts that were centrally planned by the
Cuban government. This was only possible because Cuban society is not organized
according to the needs of foreign capital, but rather according to the needs of the
Cuban people.
In a televised speech earlier today, President Obama
has announced that USAID and the Departments of State and Defense will be working to
support the rescue and relief efforts in Haiti in the coming days. Ironically, these are
the same government entities responsible for the implementation of the economic and
military policies that reduced Haiti to ruins even before the earthquake
hit.
The ANSWER Coalition has called for a mass
national march and rally in Washington, D.C., on March 20 to oppose the wars and
occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. We will also demand an end the foreign
occupation of Haiti and reparations to Haiti for the vast wealth that has been looted
from the country by foreign imperialist
countries.
Help build the March 20
March on Washington!
Endorse March
20
Organize
Transportation
Volunteer
Download
literature
Find out about transportation from around the
country
Naomi Klein Issues Haiti Disaster Capitalism Alert: Stop Them Before They
Shock Again 14 Jan 2010mail@democracynow.org (Democracy Now!) Journalist and author Naomi
Klein spoke in New York last night and addressed the crisis in Haiti: “We have to be
absolutely clear that this tragedy—which is part natural, part unnatural—must, under no
circumstances, be used to, one, further indebt Haiti and, two, to push through unpopular
corporatist policies in the interest of our corporations. This is not conspiracy theory.
They have done it again and again.” [includes rush transcript]
US Policy in Haiti Over Decades "Lays the Foundation for Why Impact of
Natural Disaster Is So Severe" 14 Jan 2010mail@democracynow.org (Democracy Now!) We discuss the situation in
Haiti following Tuesday’s massive earthquake, as well as the history of Haiti, with two
guests who have spent a lot of time there: Bill Quigley, the legal director at the
Center for Constitutional Rights, and Brian Concannon, director of the Institute for
Justice & Democracy in Haiti. [includes rush transcript]
AfterDowningStreet.org
After Downing Street is a nonpartisan coalition working to expose the lies that create and sustain wars and occupations and to hold accountable those responsible. We have speakers available. If you register on this site, you will have the option to receive occasional Email updates from us. Please read our policy regarding posting comments on this site. Would you like to see ADS news every time you go to Google.com? Use this widget or this widget to put ADS news on any website. We're on Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, and have an RSS feed.
Why We Can't Afford to Let Obama Give Bush's War Criminals a Free Pass
Punishing the guilty for deeds they committed in the past is the only way to show the world that we are truly on a new path.
By Charlotte Dennett | Alternet
In a week when one-year report cards on the Obama administration were piling up and not all the grades were good, Americans searching for the real change we heard so much about on Obama's campaign trail were hit with some news that would send his grades plummeting. Late last Friday, we learned that Obama's Department of Justice plans to go easy on John Yoo and Jay Bybee -- the two assistant attorney generals under Bush who penned the infamous torture memos. For those who have been working long and hard in the accountability movement to make sure no one -- not e... (continue reading)
Why We Can't Afford to Let Obama Give Bush's War Criminals a Free Pass
Punishing the guilty for deeds they committed in the past is the only way to show the world that we are truly on a new path.
By Charlotte Dennett | Alternet
In a week when one-year report cards on the Obama administration were piling up and not all the grades were good, Americans searching for the real change we heard so much about on Obama's campaign trail were hit with some news that would send his grades plummeting. Late last Friday, we learned that Obama's Department of Justice plans to go easy on John Yoo and Jay Bybee -- the two assistant attorney generals under Bush who penned the infamous torture memos. For those who have been working long and hard in the accountability movement to make sure no one -- not even presidents or their top advisors -- is above the law, this was a serious setback.
As part of that movement, I was appalled. Not just because I want to see those who committed crimes in office punished rather than excused. Not just because I want to see the Obama White House restore accountability to government rather than cover up crimes committed by the former administration. And not just because Yoo and Bybee memo'd-up legal opinions stating that torture techniques as egregious and illegal as waterboarding were acceptable. No, there is a deeper question in play here: Why were they really asked to render these opinions in the first place?
That's a question I had to grapple with while writing The People v. Bush, a book that shows how U.S. citizens might prosecute George W. Bush and his advisors for crimes committed in office. When President Obama ordered the release of more "torture memos" by Yoo and Bybee to the public in April 2009, I watched--with a mixture of horror and fascination--the repercussions unfold. First, came words of outrage from the CIA and leaders of the Republican Party about Obama "endangering America's national security." This was followed by indecision and capitulation to the right on the part of the Democratic Party leadership. And through it all, in what I call "the week from holy hell,' came brave calls for the lawyers' prosecution by bloggers, journalists, and even, tentatively, the New York Times. But no one was putting Yoo and Bybee's memos in their proper context, a context that would explain their actions and leave no doubt as to their culpability. Read more.
( click title for more )(show less)
Visit John on Facebook and follow him on Twitter.
The Courage of our Convictions
By MN State Senator John Marty | FireDogLake
Fellow progressives, my name is John Marty; I am entering my 24th year in the Minnesota Senate, where I have fought for social and economic justice since day one.
In the Senate, I’ve championed LGBT rights (I am chief author of marriage equality legislation), I’ve fought for government ethics reform, I’ve designed and authored single-payer healthcare (www.mnhealthplan.org), I’ve taken on powerful interest groups to protect our environment, and I’ve championed legislation to get living wage jobs and move our economy forward. We now have over 70 co-authors on my single payer legislation — over a third of the legislature!
I am a Democratic candidate for Governor... (continue reading)
Visit John on Facebook and follow him on Twitter.
The Courage of our Convictions
By MN State Senator John Marty | FireDogLake
Fellow progressives, my name is John Marty; I am entering my 24th year in the Minnesota Senate, where I have fought for social and economic justice since day one.
In the Senate, I’ve championed LGBT rights (I am chief author of marriage equality legislation), I’ve fought for government ethics reform, I’ve designed and authored single-payer healthcare (www.mnhealthplan.org), I’ve taken on powerful interest groups to protect our environment, and I’ve championed legislation to get living wage jobs and move our economy forward. We now have over 70 co-authors on my single payer legislation — over a third of the legislature!
I am a Democratic candidate for Governor in 2010 running on true progressive principles, like Senator Paul Wellstone, principles that I hold with deep conviction. In 1994, I was the DFL nominee for governor, but like many other progressives running that year, the Gingrich Revolution and his "Contract ON America." made our attempts unsuccessful."
Never wavering from my progressive principles, we’ve established viability with a team of supporters focused on reclaiming the governorship. With our election, we can have a national impact across this country.
Imagine a governor with the courage to break the insurance industry’s grip on our health care system, passing single payer. Imagine making healthcare a right, not a privilege.
Just imagine what the national implications would be! Imagine the precedent we would set for Democratic Party candidates throughout this country to have a genuine, principled progressive as governor of a state.
Imagine a governor who puts LGBT marriage equality, ethics reform, living wages for workers, and environmental protection, front and center on the state’s agenda.
Over next several months, I will reach out here and on other blogs across the country to keep you updated about our campaign. Please take a minute to read this recent column I wrote about the need for political courage. Feel free to share it with friends.
Thank you and I look forward to reading your comments below.
Sincerely,
John
John Marty
The Courage of our Convictions
By Sen. John Marty
If 21st Century Progressives led the 19th Century Abolition Movement, we’d still have slavery, but we’d have limited it to 40 hour work weeks, and we’d be so proud of the progress we’d made.
In earlier eras of U.S. history, progressives believed they could fight injustice and move society forward, and they did so. Today however, many progressives have lost faith in their ability to affect significant change. Many are content simply to tinker with problems, whether the issue is getting living wages for work, ending poverty, or removing toxins from our food supply.
( click title for more )(show less)
Progressives and the Democratic Party, Part 3 6 Feb 2010Chip
Jeff Cohen: The struggle within the Democratic Party, starting from the Viet Nam War. Jeff Cohen is a media critic and lecturer, founding director of the Park Center for Independent Media at Ithaca College, where he is an associate professor of journalism. Cohen founded the media watch group FAIR in 1986.
In Part 1, "Progressives and the Democratic Party," Jeff Cohen says that swing voters are not ideological; if Obama doesn't deliver real change they will vote against him.
In Part 2, Jeff Cohn discusses the corporate plans to take Democrats to the right and Republicans to the far right. See them both beneath the fold; click "Read more."
( click title for more )
The Boiling Frogs Presents Coleen Rowley
Coleen Rowley shares with us her views on the latest spectacle surrounding the Christmas Day foiled terrorist attempt, and how it reflects on policies that were implemented after 9/11. She provides us with insight into the pretend investigations carried out by the 9/11 Commission, and how they conducted many of their interviews of FBI witnesses and experts inside the FBI HQ and offices. Ms. Rowley talks about the absence of real investigations and accountability in almost any government related wrong doing and issues, our shameful treatment of inmates in Guantanamo detention center, the alarming desensitization of our people bolstered by the culprit mainstream media, and much more.
Rowley, a FBI special agent for almost 24 years, was legal cou... (continue reading)
The Boiling Frogs Presents Coleen Rowley
Coleen Rowley shares with us her views on the latest spectacle surrounding the Christmas Day foiled terrorist attempt, and how it reflects on policies that were implemented after 9/11. She provides us with insight into the pretend investigations carried out by the 9/11 Commission, and how they conducted many of their interviews of FBI witnesses and experts inside the FBI HQ and offices. Ms. Rowley talks about the absence of real investigations and accountability in almost any government related wrong doing and issues, our shameful treatment of inmates in Guantanamo detention center, the alarming desensitization of our people bolstered by the culprit mainstream media, and much more.
Rowley, a FBI special agent for almost 24 years, was legal counsel to the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis from 1990 to 2003. She came to national attention in June 2002, when she testified before Congress about serious lapses before 9/11 that helped account for the failure to prevent the attacks. She now writes and speaks on ethical decision-making and on balancing civil liberties with the need for effective investigation. Interview with Coleen Rowley [73:05m] | Link to Podcast
( click title for more )(show less)
Sen. Kaufman Introduces Bill to Hold American Contractors Overseas Accountable Under U.S. Law 6 Feb 2010davidswanson Kaufman says bill will emphasize America’s “commitment to justice and the rule of law”
Source.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) introduced legislation today to ensure accountability under U.S. law for American contractors and employees working abroad. The Civilian Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (CEJA) will close a gap in current law to make certain that American government employees and contractors are not immune from prosecution for crimes committed overseas.
( click title for more )
Vicenza, Italy: 50 activists enter site, chain themselves to cranes to stop military base
By Kyle | DMZ Hawaii
Fifty women and men of Vicenza entered today in the construction site of the new US military base at Dal Molin and chained themselves to the cranes and the working machineries used to build the foundations of the military installation, and that every day are damaging the “vicentina” groundwater. Recent surveys have produced evidence of unjustified increase of water level in some residential areas.
"Today we want set legality as first priority – they declared passing the fence of the site – the construction site must stop in order to defend health, safety and history of the “vicentina” community: groundwater resources and archeological findings must be preserved. Since the early... (continue reading)
Vicenza, Italy: 50 activists enter site, chain themselves to cranes to stop military base
By Kyle | DMZ Hawaii
Fifty women and men of Vicenza entered today in the construction site of the new US military base at Dal Molin and chained themselves to the cranes and the working machineries used to build the foundations of the military installation, and that every day are damaging the “vicentina” groundwater. Recent surveys have produced evidence of unjustified increase of water level in some residential areas.
"Today we want set legality as first priority – they declared passing the fence of the site – the construction site must stop in order to defend health, safety and history of the “vicentina” community: groundwater resources and archeological findings must be preserved. Since the early days of this story we stated that this territory has a priceless value for the local community; but, at the same time, it’s particulary fragile, delicate, because under the green carpet it preserves one of the essential elements of life, water." Read more.
( click title for more )(show less)
Guam may host Army fast ships
By Gaynor Dumat-ol Daleno | Pacific Daily News
Guam is one of several areas being considered as a station for up to a dozen high-speed catamaran-style military ships each capable of transporting more than 300 people per ship, according to an Army Environmental Command announcement.
Hawaii, San Diego and Seattle are also being considered, according to the command’s announcement, which was issued as an advertisement in the Pacific Daily News to solicit public comments.
A cooperative effort between the Navy and the Army, the Joint High Speed Vehicles, or JHSVs will be used for fast intra-theater transportation of troops, vehicles and equipment, according to an earlier Defense Department announcement of the program on defenselink.mil.
“JHSVs will be capable of... (continue reading)
Guam may host Army fast ships
By Gaynor Dumat-ol Daleno | Pacific Daily News
Guam is one of several areas being considered as a station for up to a dozen high-speed catamaran-style military ships each capable of transporting more than 300 people per ship, according to an Army Environmental Command announcement.
Hawaii, San Diego and Seattle are also being considered, according to the command’s announcement, which was issued as an advertisement in the Pacific Daily News to solicit public comments.
A cooperative effort between the Navy and the Army, the Joint High Speed Vehicles, or JHSVs will be used for fast intra-theater transportation of troops, vehicles and equipment, according to an earlier Defense Department announcement of the program on defenselink.mil.
“JHSVs will be capable of transporting 700 short tons (within) 1,200 nautical miles at an average speed of 35 knots, and can operate in shallow-draft ports and waterways, interfacing with roll-on/roll-off discharge facilities, and on/off-loading a combat-loaded Abrams Main Battle Tan k,” according to the Defense Department.
These ships all give commanders the ability to roll on a company with full gear and equipment, or roll on a full infantry battalion if used only as a troop transport, haul it intra-theater distances, then move their shallow draft safely into austere ports to roll them off, according www.defenseindustrydaily.com.
Initial uses of the high-speed vessels have led to a $1.6 billion program called the Joint High Speed Vessel, which could involve up to 10 ships, according to defenseinustrydaily.com.
The Army Environmental Command notice for public comment says up to 12 Joint High Speed Vessels will be stationed. Read more, submit comments.
( click title for more )(show less)
PBS' Bill Moyers Journal: Dr. Margaret Flowers on Single Payer, Medicare for All
BILL MOYERS: Make me an offer I can't refuse. That's what President Obama said, when he talks about health care reform during his State of the Union last week.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I'm eager to see it.
BILL MOYERS: Dr. Margaret Flowers took him at his word.
MALE VOICE: Can I help you?
DR. MARGARET FLOWERS: Well, last night the President gave his State of the Union address, and I'm a physician. I'm the Congressional Fellow with Physicians for National Health Program.
BILL MOYERS: T... (continue reading)
PBS' Bill Moyers Journal: Dr. Margaret Flowers on Single Payer, Medicare for All
BILL MOYERS: Make me an offer I can't refuse. That's what President Obama said, when he talks about health care reform during his State of the Union last week.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I'm eager to see it.
BILL MOYERS: Dr. Margaret Flowers took him at his word.
MALE VOICE: Can I help you?
DR. MARGARET FLOWERS: Well, last night the President gave his State of the Union address, and I'm a physician. I'm the Congressional Fellow with Physicians for National Health Program.
BILL MOYERS: The very next day she was outside the White House with a letter urging the President to revive the idea of single-payer healthcare. Medicare for all.
MALE VOICE: We can't accept anything, so you'll have to send it through the mail.
BILL MOYERS: The Secret Service turned Dr. Flowers away, but she didn't give up. She tried again the next day in Baltimore, where once again, President Obama made his offer to hear ideas on health reform and once again, she tried to deliver her letter.
DR. MARGARET FLOWERS: Is there somebody here who's in charge that can have somebody who's a representative of the President, come and take this?
BILL MOYERS: This time, she and her colleague, Dr. Carol Paris, refused to move when security told them to, because Dr. Flowers said, "We didn't want to continue to be excluded, marginalized and ignored."
They were arrested.
DR. MARGARET FLOWERS: And we haven't been heard. They continue to exclude us. Read transcript, watch video.
( click title for more )(show less)
Remember when Mearsheimer and Walt were called deluded anti-Semites? A choice tidbit from Mehdi Hasan’s blog on the New Statesman’s website re: Tony Blair’s testimony in the Iraq War Inquiry:
The most unforgivable, outrageous and bizarre moment of the day occurred when Blair, for some inexplicable reason, volunteered the following revelation about his all-important meeting with George W Bush in Crawford, Texas, back in April 2002:
"As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of ... (continue reading)
Remember when Mearsheimer and Walt were called deluded anti-Semites? A choice tidbit from Mehdi Hasan’s blog on the New Statesman’s website re: Tony Blair’s testimony in the Iraq War Inquiry:
The most unforgivable, outrageous and bizarre moment of the day occurred when Blair, for some inexplicable reason, volunteered the following revelation about his all-important meeting with George W Bush in Crawford, Texas, back in April 2002:
"As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this."
Maybe Israel should just formally take over Blair’s role as envoy in the Quartet?
Related posts:Blair, the west’s Mideast envoy, get $1 million from chief party to dispute (guess who?)Israel planning a ‘mass expansion’ of settlements in the West Bank. Your response Sec. Clinton?Further Evidence that Israel’s ‘Strategic Relief’ Fueled Iraq War Planning
(show less)
Last month Commentary published a piece called "Why Jews Hate Palin" that I greatly appreciated. Written by Jennifer Rubin, the piece directly addressed sociological issues that I often raise about my tribe: we’re incredibly privileged, and not very humble, and our political values tend to be circumscribed geographically and class-wise. Rubin was even more unsparing than I am, for she described Jews as rich elitists, stuffy snobs: "those for whom an Ivy League education is the essential calling card for leadership," as she wrote with good acid.
Rubin’s a neocon (I’m guessing; she writes for Commentariat) and so she presumably sees a political value in offering this criticism. I see one, too: Rubin’s assertions help dislodge the Jewish vanity that we are outsiders. No: we’re winners; a... (continue reading)
Last month Commentary published a piece called "Why Jews Hate Palin" that I greatly appreciated. Written by Jennifer Rubin, the piece directly addressed sociological issues that I often raise about my tribe: we’re incredibly privileged, and not very humble, and our political values tend to be circumscribed geographically and class-wise. Rubin was even more unsparing than I am, for she described Jews as rich elitists, stuffy snobs: "those for whom an Ivy League education is the essential calling card for leadership," as she wrote with good acid.
Rubin’s a neocon (I’m guessing; she writes for Commentariat) and so she presumably sees a political value in offering this criticism. I see one, too: Rubin’s assertions help dislodge the Jewish vanity that we are outsiders. No: we’re winners; and we should acknowledge our incredible luck, and show greater respect for those with different socio-cultural attributes. I will be hitting these points often in weeks to come, even though they are uncomfortable-making, because I heard so many Palestinians making these points in the Middle East, more crudely, even anti-Semitically, and I think the answer to intellectual crudeness on important questions is to try and be honest and precise.
Here are the key moments in Rubin’s analysis:
As [Matthew] Continetti observes with savage irony, “The American meritocratic elite places a high priority on verbal felicity and the attitudes, practices and jargon that one picks up during graduate seminars in nonprofit management, government accounting and the semiotics of Percy Shelley’s ‘To a Skylark.’” Given that Jews are overrepresented in these sorts of professions, it is not surprising that they would be among those most put off by Palin…
Palin’s intellectual unfitness in the eyes of Jews was exaggerated during the course of the campaign…
But in affluent communities with large Jewish populations, Down-syndrome children are now largely absent due to the widespread use of diagnostic testing and “genetics counseling.” Trig was not a selling point with many Jewish women who couldn’t imagine making a similar choice—indeed, many have, in fact, made the opposite one….
Palin and her husband had labored at jobs most professional and upper-middle-class Jews would never dream of holding—waitressing, picking “strawberries in the mud and mosquitoes . . . for five cents flat,” sweeping parking lots, and many “messy, obscure seafood jobs, including long shifts on a stinky shore-based crab-processing vessel.” Her populist appeal and identification with working-class voters are rooted in a life experience that is removed by one or two generations from the lives of most American Jews….
In a real sense, by the way she lives and the style she has adopted, Sarah Palin is the precise reverse image of an American Jewish professional woman. The two are polar opposites. The repulsion is almost magnetic in nature….
Palin’s anti-elitism and her embrace of social conservatism, which are now integral to her persona, will in all likelihood continue to make her unpopular with the great majority of Jews. She is not about to change her appearance, her stance on abortion, or her disdain for media elites. And Jews are not about to cast aside their preference for those leaders whom they perceive as intellectually worthy—and socially compatible.
Related posts:‘Commentary’ prints a sparkling gem of ’50s anti-Semitism, absent the usual moralizing‘Commentary’ accuses ‘J Street’ of trying to ‘insinuate’ itself between American Jews and foreign policymakingMedical Statistics Weigh Against Internet Rumor That Palin’s Fifth Child Isn’t Hers
(show less)
I grew up in a liberal Jewish academic community. Everyone was smart, everyone did well. My parents’ friends are in their late 70s/80s now and all have two houses and good lifestyles. Yet they regard themselves as Jewish outsiders– an understanding cemented by their youthful experience of anti-Semitism.
The other day I went to see a childhood friend at his parents’ place in the city. His mom was there. They have a beautiful view of the Hudson, and a grand, sprawling pre-war apartment. For a while we chatted about the various movie productions that have rented out the place to film quintessential scenes of New York privilege.
There were hundreds of books in the apartment and when I pointed out some that I have, too, we switched to a more serious conversation, about the price of leftwing ... (continue reading)
I grew up in a liberal Jewish academic community. Everyone was smart, everyone did well. My parents’ friends are in their late 70s/80s now and all have two houses and good lifestyles. Yet they regard themselves as Jewish outsiders– an understanding cemented by their youthful experience of anti-Semitism.
The other day I went to see a childhood friend at his parents’ place in the city. His mom was there. They have a beautiful view of the Hudson, and a grand, sprawling pre-war apartment. For a while we chatted about the various movie productions that have rented out the place to film quintessential scenes of New York privilege.
There were hundreds of books in the apartment and when I pointed out some that I have, too, we switched to a more serious conversation, about the price of leftwing commitment. Being on the left, we know a number of political Jews who broke from the bourgeois path in the 1960s during the upheaval over Vietnam, and went on to lead more turbulent lives. We talked about people who had joined the SDS and the Weather underground, the ones who dropped out of Ivy League schools, who didn’t become professionals.
I told about my neighbor growing up in Baltimore. He got into the SDS at Harvard, and ended up dropping out and picking sugar cane for years in Cuba. Now he writes mysteries.
My friend’s mother sighed over the wreckage of the 60s. She said that it was a shame that these people had sacrificed their careers. She knew a boy who was the most promising medical student at a big school; but he was radicalized by Vietnam, and wanted to be a nurse. The dean implored him to stay, but he left. That was the last she heard of him. He could have had such a fine career.
As she said it, I thought, Yes, look what a fine career yields: this beautiful apartment with a view of the Hudson.
I argued with her; I said a lot of these people made choices that they don’t regret. They were young; they responded to real conditions with radical ideas and then commitment. Vietnam was a horrific chapter of history. I wonder what I’d have done. I met Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn in Cairo. They seemed pretty happy. Ayers is a jokey guy who likes writing and storytelling.
At dinner I told my wife about the conversation. I found it hard to sort out. I was focused on the sociology of it, the Jewishness. I am always perplexed that Jews can think of themselves as outsiders when we have been so amply rewarded and are part of the Establishment.
My wife responded to the story more in the spirit of JD Salinger. She said that privileged people often blind themselves to varieties of experience and regard the loss of status as a kind of death. But a lot of those people who went off the path of success and profession have had engaged, i.e., happy, lives. A lot of them have had a lot more fun than my friend’s mom, with her stable existence. My wife doesn’t think that they necessarily regret their choices.
Last summer a friend snap-tested me and my wife, What are the four things that you enjoy most? My wife didn’t have to think about it, I took a little longer: Writing, marriage, the woods, travel. I’ve gotten those things. Status and money have very little to do with the capacity to take interest in life. They may even stand in the way.
Related posts:How Zalmay Khalilzad Left Off RadicalismWhat Madoff reveals about the new Jewish statusMy problem with Jewish elite status: Howard Fineman says that McCain served in ‘army’
(show less)
Last night NBC Nightly News did a moving report on one of the black students who helped desegregate Little Rock Central H.S. more than 50 years ago. Her daughter is now a parks officer who conducts tours of the site. Very inspiring. The mother was such an impressive person, so genteel and articulate; I wondered how much I would have been affected by racism in 1957 to regard her as lesser, and how wrong I would have been.
All I could think about was Palestinians and Jews.
There were a lot of white people screaming in the background of the film clips. The Israelis of that situation. Would someone just interview these white people? Would someone go find them and ask them why they believed what they did, and by what process they changed, if they changed? Do they have regrets? I’m more inte... (continue reading)
Last night NBC Nightly News did a moving report on one of the black students who helped desegregate Little Rock Central H.S. more than 50 years ago. Her daughter is now a parks officer who conducts tours of the site. Very inspiring. The mother was such an impressive person, so genteel and articulate; I wondered how much I would have been affected by racism in 1957 to regard her as lesser, and how wrong I would have been.
All I could think about was Palestinians and Jews.
There were a lot of white people screaming in the background of the film clips. The Israelis of that situation. Would someone just interview these white people? Would someone go find them and ask them why they believed what they did, and by what process they changed, if they changed? Do they have regrets? I’m more interested in that part. I want to help liberate the Jews from anti-Arab racism.
Related posts:this item feels Jim Crow… South Africa… Raj… very yesterdayHas the bubble burst on the Israel lobby?: Does the response to Freeman reflect the same ‘cultural watershed’ as Jon Stewart’s interview with Jim Cramer?Terry Gross walks on by torment of ‘Munich’ in Bana interview
(show less)
Here’s a weird story. And I think we have the internet to thank for discovering the weirdness. Last night the New York Times printed an AP story about the United Nations’ followup to the Goldstone report, titled "UN Chief Praises Israel Probe of Its Gaza Actions."
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says in a 72-page report Thursday night to the General Assembly that ”Israel followed up on every allegation.”
It turns out the Secretary-General never said that. Israel said it.
In today’s briefing at the UN, the UN made the point that Ban Ki-moon said no such thing. It explained that the 72-page report was mostly Israel’s report. It included just three pages from the Sec’y Gen’l.
The Spokesperson noted that in the document submitted by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly on the Go... (continue reading)
Here’s a weird story. And I think we have the internet to thank for discovering the weirdness. Last night the New York Times printed an AP story about the United Nations’ followup to the Goldstone report, titled "UN Chief Praises Israel Probe of Its Gaza Actions."
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says in a 72-page report Thursday night to the General Assembly that ”Israel followed up on every allegation.”
It turns out the Secretary-General never said that. Israel said it.
In today’s briefing at the UN, the UN made the point that Ban Ki-moon said no such thing. It explained that the 72-page report was mostly Israel’s report. It included just three pages from the Sec’y Gen’l.
The Spokesperson noted that in the document submitted by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly on the Goldstone report, only the first three pages are written by the Secretary-General and the Secretariat.
The remainder of the document consists of annexes containing information provided, respectively, by the Government of Israel, the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine and the Permanent Mission of Switzerland.
Confused? Here is the 72-page UN report released yesterday. The Secy Gen’l’s judgment at the start is noncommital:
It is my sincere hope that General Assembly resolution 64/10 has served to encourage investigations by the Government of Israel and the Palestinian side that are independent, credible and in conformity with international standards. I note from the materials received that the processes initiated by the Government of Israel and the Government of Switzerland are ongoing… As such, no determination can be made on the implementation of the resolution by the parties concerned.
The long Israeli response follows (and is not clearly identified). In paragraph 185, Israel pats itself on the back:
Because Israel followed up on every allegation, regardless of whether the source was neutral, hostile, or friendly, it launched investigations into 150 separate incidents, including 36 criminal investigations opened thus far.
AP seems to have revised its coverage. But as Mark Twain said, a lie goes around the world in the time it takes the truth to tie its shoes.
This discovery was published at reddit, which says that the mistake demonstrates pro-Israel bias in the press. It was brought to my attention by a reader. Note that I also published the mistake!
Related posts:Ban’s collapse on Goldstone ’shocks and appalls’ representative for Palestinian victimsUN calls on Israel to express ‘public regret’ over Gaza school attack‘Times’ shows pro-Israel bias in report on Gaza whitewash
(show less)
One of my goals these days is to support the New Israel Fund in its fight to promote democracy and human rights in Israel. I do so because even though it tends to overlook apartheid conditions in the West Bank, NIF has done great things: it has supported the demonstrations at Sheikh Jarrah against ethnic cleansing, and it has supported the heroic soldiers’ group Breaking the Silence.
But there are clear differences between progressive Zionists like NIF and my crowd of non-, anti-, post-Zionists. The other night in New York NIF held an event called "a provocative discussion of the competing rights — and wrongs — in today’s Israel" at Bnai Jeshurun, a forward-thinking synagogue on the Upper West Side. It sure provoked me. There was hardly a word about the Occupation or Gaza. Naomi Chazan... (continue reading)
One of my goals these days is to support the New Israel Fund in its fight to promote democracy and human rights in Israel. I do so because even though it tends to overlook apartheid conditions in the West Bank, NIF has done great things: it has supported the demonstrations at Sheikh Jarrah against ethnic cleansing, and it has supported the heroic soldiers’ group Breaking the Silence.
But there are clear differences between progressive Zionists like NIF and my crowd of non-, anti-, post-Zionists. The other night in New York NIF held an event called "a provocative discussion of the competing rights — and wrongs — in today’s Israel" at Bnai Jeshurun, a forward-thinking synagogue on the Upper West Side. It sure provoked me. There was hardly a word about the Occupation or Gaza. Naomi Chazan of NIF said she is trying to "repossess Zionism" from the settlers and reinvigorate the brand. (I think she might start with the Studebaker.)
I watched the webcast– NIF says it will stick up a video of the event soon– and I was particularly taken aback by comments from the moderator, Jane Eisner, the editor of the Jewish Forward.
First, when talking about the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel, Eisner expressed the concern that the “growing Islamization of violence among some of these citizens” means that “Arabs citizens" might be "fighting against the state from within." Later she connected this concern with the idea that "most of the Arab world doesn’t want Israel to exist."
Panelist Avraham Burg chided Eisner. He told her not to talk about "the Arab world," a generality that takes in 22 societies. Talk about what is happening to Palestinians right in Israel.
Second, Eisner expressed the fear that soldiers’ testimonies about killing civilians in Gaza– published by Breaking the Silence, which gets money from the New Israel Fund– will be used by Israel’s enemies. My notes are somewhat fragmentary; but some of her comments: "What happens when we air our dirty laundry?… They [Breaking the Silence] believe that they are protecting democracy by exposing these abuses… Others are worried about the ramifications." Then she went on to worry about those ramifications. The testimonies may be "embarrassing" to Israel, and might serve those who wish to see Israel eliminated. She said the desire to expose "our faults" must be balanced by the need of "protecting the state."
When other panelists didn’t take up the point, Eisner said, "I just want to challenge you on this." She then said that journalists face these issues all the time. "We draw the line every day, every week." Any organization has a responsibility to think about words because words have "so much power…"
The clear thrust of Eisner’s comments was that Breaking the Silence should, as the saying goes, STFU.
Eisner is a longtime American journalist, editor, teacher of journalism. I wonder whether she can produce any situation akin to the Breaking the Silence testimonies: a situation in which American soldiers were ordered to shoot civilians if they saw one untoward move–and then did kill many many civilians–and some soldiers then came forward, and the press rightly suppressed their stories so as not to aid the enemies of the United States or embarrass the U.S. Of course, maybe she’s not speaking about the U.S., but Israel– "our dirty laundry… our faults."
The event was a progressive Jewish event. But with progressives like this, why do we need neoconservatives? I have always said that neoconservatism came out of Jewish life and drew on parochial/hawkish feelings inside the Jewish community that defy the usual categories of liberal, conservative, Democrat, etc; and Eisner’s fear-based concerns about the future of the Jewish state and how we have to respond demonstrate just what I mean about that process.
Also, I don’t know what Eisner means by the Islamicization of violence inside Israel. More neoconservative echoes.
Related posts:Breaking the Silence kinda breaks the silenceCorrection Re ‘Breaking the Silence’Jewish Administrator at Penn Tours Hebron, Now Hosts ‘Breaking the Silence’
(show less)
Just as Norman Finkelstein predicted he would, UN Sec’y-Gen’l Ban Ki-moon has folded on Goldstone: "The U.N. chief says Israel is thoroughly investigating allegations it deliberately targeted civilians during last year’s Gaza offensive."
Here is word from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), questioning the Israeli investigation:
PCHR notes that the investigations carried out by Israeli authorities do not, in any way, fulfill the demands of customary international law, the Goldstone Report, or UN General Assembly Resolution A/Res/64/10. Like numerous other national and international human rights organizations, PCHR believes that the Israeli system – as it relates to Palestinian victims of Israeli violations – does not meet the necessary international standards with respect t... (continue reading)
Just as Norman Finkelstein predicted he would, UN Sec’y-Gen’l Ban Ki-moon has folded on Goldstone: "The U.N. chief says Israel is thoroughly investigating allegations it deliberately targeted civilians during last year’s Gaza offensive."
Here is word from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), questioning the Israeli investigation:
PCHR notes that the investigations carried out by Israeli authorities do not, in any way, fulfill the demands of customary international law, the Goldstone Report, or UN General Assembly Resolution A/Res/64/10. Like numerous other national and international human rights organizations, PCHR believes that the Israeli system – as it relates to Palestinian victims of Israeli violations – does not meet the necessary international standards with respect to the effective administration of justice. The hierarchical nature of the military, the ineffective manner in which investigations are conducted, the lack of civilian oversight – as epitomized by the wide margin of discretion awarded by the Israeli Supreme Court – and the ineffectiveness of such oversight when it does occur, all combine to fundamentally frustrate the pursuit of justice.
PCHR emphasize that military investigations (often referred to as operational probes, or command investigations), which form the vast majority of investigations opened to-date, are inappropriate and legally inadequate; they cannot conduct the required investigations of senior military and civilian personnel. As representatives of the victims, PCHR has first-hand experience of the Israeli investigations conducted and has represented a significant number of the witnesses who were asked to testify: PCHR considers the Israeli investigation mechanism entirely inadequate with respect to the demands of international law. PCHR emphasize that only 150 investigations have been opened, of which only 36 were criminal investigations; 7 of these criminal investigations have already been closed for ‘lack of evidence’. PCHR alone submitted 450 criminal cases. Only two officers and one soldier have been found to have made mistakes and, in general, the finding of all investigations thus far conducted is that Israel acted ‘in accordance with the law’. It is evident that accountability cannot be pursued through the Israeli legal system. This conclusion is in line with PCHR’s long-standing experience as well as that of Israeli and international human rights organizations.
PCHR further expresses its surprise at UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon’s response to these investigations. Ban reportedly stated that “no determination can be made on the implementation of the resolution by the parties concerned”; despite the fact that Resolution A/Res/61/10 explicitly called for the Secretary-General to “report on the implementation of the present resolution”. Mr. Ban did not express any concern regarding the evident problems arising from the lack of an independent, credible, impartial civilian investigation committee and over the lack of progress to-date. As representatives of the victims of the atrocities committed during the Israeli attacks on Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009, PCHR is shocked and appalled by this lack of responsibility. The Secretary General has the duty to ensure, through UN mechanisms, accountability for perpetrators of war crimes and redress for their victims. If he has any doubt regarding the credibility of the methods or results of the investigations – which he should, due to the fact that Israel did not establish an independent, civilian investigation committee with powers of criminal prosecution – these should be communicated in his report to the General Assembly, which should then refer the issue to the Security Council. .
Related posts:Palestinian human rights group says 313 children were killed in ‘Cast Lead’Let Goldstone testify in Congress before you rush to judgmentGoldstone attacks House resolution on his report as ’sweeping and unfair… devoid of truth’
(show less)
Today in Haaretz: "[Elie] Wiesel blasted Judge Richard Goldstone, saying his report on the Israeli offensive in Gaza was ‘a crime against the Jewish people.’"
A few days ago in Haaretz: "Professor Alan Dershowitz slammed jurist Richard Goldstone, the architect of a UN report which accuses Israel of Gaza war crimes, saying he is a traitor to the Jewish people, Army Radio reported Sunday."
Here is where we stand today:
Im Tirtzu, a right-wing on-campus Zionist advocacy group, supported among others by the Reverend John Hagee, claimed in Maariv last week that "92 percent of [the] negative references to the IDF in the Goldstone report originating with Israeli sources came from organizations sponsored by NIF [New Israeli Fund]. The fund’s grantees include Adalah, Breaking the Silence, B’Ts... (continue reading)
Today in Haaretz: "[Elie] Wiesel blasted Judge Richard Goldstone, saying his report on the Israeli offensive in Gaza was ‘a crime against the Jewish people.’"
A few days ago in Haaretz: "Professor Alan Dershowitz slammed jurist Richard Goldstone, the architect of a UN report which accuses Israel of Gaza war crimes, saying he is a traitor to the Jewish people, Army Radio reported Sunday."
Here is where we stand today:
Im Tirtzu, a right-wing on-campus Zionist advocacy group, supported among others by the Reverend John Hagee, claimed in Maariv last week that "92 percent of [the] negative references to the IDF in the Goldstone report originating with Israeli sources came from organizations sponsored by NIF [New Israeli Fund]. The fund’s grantees include Adalah, Breaking the Silence, B’Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Yesh Din and the Israeli branch of Physicians for Human Rights."
Hence, according to Weisel, who the Norwegian Nobel Committee called a "messenger to mankind" when awarding him the Peace Prize in 1986 for his Holocaust writings,and Im Tirtzu, a panoply of Israeli human rights organizations have been the source for "a crime against the Jewish people." Are we to conclude that all of the above mentioned Israeli human rights organizations are anti-Semitic? Human Rights organizations, including Israeli ones, are now the criminals, whereas the IDF and the Jewish people are the victims. So speaketh Elie Wiesel, with more to follow surely.
Related posts:One Holocaust survivor is going to Gaza, another isn’t11 Palestinian human rights orgs call for investigation of Palestinian violations alleged by GoldstoneIt’s OK for Americans to fund settlements, but aid human-rights groups? No way
(show less)
We keep posting about Israel’s crackdown on dissident groups that question militant and racist policies. It has threatened to cut off foreign funds to B’Tselem, for instance, the human-rights organization. And there is a smear campaign against the New Israel Fund, in what the fund calls "a coordinated attempt to de-legitimize civil society, repress the activities of the human rights community and weaken Israeli democracy." New Israel Fund has given grants to B’Tselem, too.
It’s happening in Canada, too. A Canadian official is reportedly "repudiating" the country’s grant to B’Tselem. CBC News in Canada reports that "Rights and Democracy," a Canadian federal agency with an $11 million budget that is supposed to "encourage democracy and monitor human rights around the world," is turning t... (continue reading)
We keep posting about Israel’s crackdown on dissident groups that question militant and racist policies. It has threatened to cut off foreign funds to B’Tselem, for instance, the human-rights organization. And there is a smear campaign against the New Israel Fund, in what the fund calls "a coordinated attempt to de-legitimize civil society, repress the activities of the human rights community and weaken Israeli democracy." New Israel Fund has given grants to B’Tselem, too.
It’s happening in Canada, too. A Canadian official is reportedly "repudiating" the country’s grant to B’Tselem. CBC News in Canada reports that "Rights and Democracy," a Canadian federal agency with an $11 million budget that is supposed to "encourage democracy and monitor human rights around the world," is turning the screws:
Aurel Braun, a university professor and the new chairman of the Rights and Democracy board, said he wants to bring accountability to the agency.
He also said he thinks two of the organizations that got grants — Al Haq and Al Mezan — have links to terrorism. The third group, B’Tselem, which is Israeli, is biased and undeserving of funding, Braun said.
The Star reports: "45 of 47 staff at the agency demanded the resignation of Braun…"
Related posts:Desperation: Canadian newspaper likens Naomi Klein to…. GoebbelsCanadian students launch campaign to divest from the occupationAt last, Arab pressure on Obama to cut off US funding for West Bank colonies
(show less)
Netanyahu speaks to the Herzliya Conference in Jerusalem (Thanks to Ben White):
You are dealing with our people’s fate because it is clear today that the fate of the Jewish people is the fate of the Jewish state. There is no demographic or practical existence for the Jewish people without a Jewish state. This doesn’t mean that the Jewish state does not face tremendous challenges, but our existence, our future, is here. The greatest change that came with the establishment of the Jewish state was that Jews became more than just a collection of individuals, communities and fragments of communities. They became a sovereign collective in their own territory. Our ability as a collective to determine our own destiny is what grants us the tools to shape our future – no longer as a ruled p... (continue reading)
Netanyahu speaks to the Herzliya Conference in Jerusalem (Thanks to Ben White):
You are dealing with our people’s fate because it is clear today that the fate of the Jewish people is the fate of the Jewish state. There is no demographic or practical existence for the Jewish people without a Jewish state. This doesn’t mean that the Jewish state does not face tremendous challenges, but our existence, our future, is here. The greatest change that came with the establishment of the Jewish state was that Jews became more than just a collection of individuals, communities and fragments of communities. They became a sovereign collective in their own territory. Our ability as a collective to determine our own destiny is what grants us the tools to shape our future – no longer as a ruled people, defeated and persecuted, but as a proud people with a magnificent country and one which always aspires to serve as “a light unto the nations.”
In order to continue ruling our own destiny, we must establish our collective ability in three main fields – in security, the economy and education. I do not intend to expand on the security field today, other than to say that we must continue nurturing and strengthening our military force. The weak do not survive in the geographically difficult space we live in, nor is peace made with the weak.
Related posts:NYT refers to ‘Palestinians and other opponents’ of the wall as if UN and ICJ are chopped liver‘Guardian’ sees Diaspora Jewish leadership beginning to express criticism of Israel‘Guardian’ sees Diaspora Jewish leadership beginning to express criticism of Israel
(show less)
Barack Obama's Bush-like "surge" in Afghanistan has not even reached its full strength yet, but it is already driving tens of thousands of Afghan civilians from their homes, as they flee an upcoming massive attack in Helmand province.
The attack -- which the Americans have been trumpeting far in advance -- is designed, we're told, to "protect" the people of the key town of Marjah from the twin scourges of Taliban nogoodniks and drug traffickers. Yet the primary effect of the much-publicized preparations has been to send the residents of the town running for their lives to escape becoming part of the "collateral damage" that always attends these protective, humanitarian endeavors.
Indeed, the real aim of the advance publicity for the attack seems to be forcing mass numbers of civilia... (continue reading)
Barack Obama's Bush-like "surge" in Afghanistan has not even reached its full strength yet, but it is already driving tens of thousands of Afghan civilians from their homes, as they flee an upcoming massive attack in Helmand province.
The attack -- which the Americans have been trumpeting far in advance -- is designed, we're told, to "protect" the people of the key town of Marjah from the twin scourges of Taliban nogoodniks and drug traffickers. Yet the primary effect of the much-publicized preparations has been to send the residents of the town running for their lives to escape becoming part of the "collateral damage" that always attends these protective, humanitarian endeavors.
Indeed, the real aim of the advance publicity for the attack seems to be forcing mass numbers of civilians to hit the road -- which will then allow the American and British attackers to claim that anyone left behind is an enemy. This in turn will free up the attackers to use heavy weaponry in a "free-fire" zone to clear out the "diehards."
This is, of course, the same strategy used in the savage destruction of Fallujah in Iraq. The city was marked for death after an angry mob mutilated four American mercenaries -- following a series of civilian killings by occupation forces in the preceding weeks: provocations that have been conveniently airbrushed from history (just like the U.S. massacre of Somalis that preceded the infamous "Black Hawk Down" incident). An initial attack on Fallujah failed in the spring of 2004, largely due to political heat from the vast civilian suffering that was being reported from the city, chiefly from its medical centers.
But in the following months, the noose was tightened around Fallujah's neck. Tens of thousands fled the city to escape the coming second attack, which was well-publicized in advance. Story after story -- or rather, puff piece after puff piece -- about the preparations streamed from the embedded mainstream media reporters. The ostensible aim of the attack was to "eliminate" groups of "diehard terrorists" using Fallujah as a base. But of course, the months of PR about the looming operation meant that the putative targets had plenty of time to slip away. And they did.
Even so, as soon as George W. Bush's re-election was in the bag, the attack was launched. This time, the US brass were careful to eliminate the main source of bad press in the first attack: hospitals were a prime target. As I noted at the time:
One of the first moves in this magnificent feat was the destruction and capture of medical centers. Twenty doctors – and their patients, including women and children – were killed in an airstrike on one major clinic, the UN Information Service reports, while the city's main hospital was seized in the early hours of the ground assault. Why? Because these places of healing could be used as "propaganda centers," the Pentagon's "information warfare" specialists told the NY Times. Unlike the first attack on Fallujah last spring, there was to be no unseemly footage of gutted children bleeding to death on hospital beds. This time – except for NBC's brief, heavily-edited, quickly-buried clip of the usual lone "bad apple" shooting a wounded Iraqi prisoner – the visuals were rigorously scrubbed.
So while Americans saw stories of rugged "Marlboro Men" winning the day against Satan, they were spared shots of engineers cutting off water and electricity to the city – a flagrant war crime under the Geneva Conventions, as CounterPunch notes, but standard practice throughout the occupation. Nor did pictures of attack helicopters gunning down civilians trying to escape across the Euphrates River – including a family of five – make the TV news, despite the eyewitness account of an AP journalist. Nor were tender American sensibilities subjected to the sight of phosphorous shells bathing enemy fighters – and nearby civilians – with unquenchable chemical fire, literally melting their skin, as the Washington Post reports. Nor did they see the fetus being blown out of the body of Artica Salim when her home was bombed during the "softening-up attacks" that raged relentlessly – and unnoticed – in the closing days of George W. Bush's presidential campaign, the Scotland Sunday Herald reports.
And now Marjah is being readied for the Fallujah option. (For as we all know, your real tough hombres never take any option off the table.) As the Guardian reports:
Ten of thousands of Afghan civilians are abandoning an area of central Helmland where UK and US forces are set to launch one of the biggest operations of the year. The evacuation of most civilians from the town of Marjah and surrounding areas will give commanders greater leeway to use mortars-and-air-to ground missiles which have enraged Afghans in the past when responsible for civilian deaths. ...
US generals have unusually made no secret of their plan for a major onslaught against the town close to Helmand's besieged provincial capital, Lashkar Gah. Larry Nicholson, commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force which will spearhead the fight, has said he is "not looking for a fair fight." ...
A spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force, as the Nato troops are known, said that the main reason for publicity for the operation was to encourage insurgents to leave, but if civilians were also encouraged to evacuate that would be "helpful".
Yes, it's always helpful to do some pre-winnowing of a densely populated area before you destroy it with mortars and air-to-ground missiles. But of course, while thousands of civilians flee, thousands more have "remained because they could not afford to leave," the Guardian reports. How many of these will be re-classifed as "enemy fighters" when their corpses are found in the ruins?
The Afghans themselves know the score:
A Marjah resident, an elder reached by phone, who was not prepared to give his name, said he had evacuated his family a week ago because he feared "the worst attack ever".
"Always when they storm a village the foreign troops never care about civilian casualties at all. And at the end of the day they report the deaths of women and children as the deaths of Taliban," he said.
Slaughter, ruin, fear and exile: yeah, it's the Good War, all right! "The war we should be fighting," as our tough-guy libs kept telling us when putting their always serious, always "nuanced" objections to the Iraq "fiasco" in proper context. Well, they have it now, the war they always wanted. And who knows? Maybe soon they can have their own Fallujah! Won't that be a great apotheosis of Progressivism? (show less)
Here's the way the game works. First you get the outright lie, then later, in dribs and drabs, you get a few, grudging crumbs of the truth.
For example, first you get: "No, there are no Blackwater operatives in Pakistan. None. That's just a conspiracy theory, terrorist propaganda. These kinds of lies just make it harder for us to do good in the region." Then later: "Well, yes, we do have Blackwater operatives in Pakistan. But, uh, we don't actually cut their checks directly in the Pentagon."
Or what about this more recent example? First: "The United States has no troops in Pakistan. None. We are not going to send troops to Pakistan. That's just wild talk, a conspiracy theory. And it makes it harder for us to do good in the region."
Then later: "Well, yes, we do have a few troops in... (continue reading)
Here's the way the game works. First you get the outright lie, then later, in dribs and drabs, you get a few, grudging crumbs of the truth.
For example, first you get: "No, there are no Blackwater operatives in Pakistan. None. That's just a conspiracy theory, terrorist propaganda. These kinds of lies just make it harder for us to do good in the region." Then later: "Well, yes, we do have Blackwater operatives in Pakistan. But, uh, we don't actually cut their checks directly in the Pentagon."
Or what about this more recent example? First: "The United States has no troops in Pakistan. None. We are not going to send troops to Pakistan. That's just wild talk, a conspiracy theory. And it makes it harder for us to do good in the region."
Then later: "Well, yes, we do have a few troops in Pakistan. All right, a couple hundred. But that's it. We promise. And they're just training their counterparts in Pakistan's military. Oh yeah, and also working alongside paramilitary militias in the frontier regions. And maybe, you know, following up on some of our drone strikes. That is, our alleged drone strikes, because we are not, as you know, officially admitting that we are carrying out an ever-accelerating campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan, although if we were, these strikes would be very surgical, and the hundreds of people who might have been killed in just the past few months by these strikes, if they happened, would have all been vicious savage murdering 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! terrorists. But other than these 200 troops we have in Pakistan now, we have no troops in Pakistan. Never have. Except, of course, for the 12 American troops who have been killed in, well, battle, in, er, Pakistan since 2001. But that's it. Look me in the eye; would I lie to you?"
Yes, yet another aspect of what must be the most unsecret secret war in history has been rumbled. American troops are on the ground in Pakistan – and getting killed there. As the world now knows, three American soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing (which also killed six Pakistanis, as if anyone cares) in a remote frontier province in Pakistan this week. The bombing took place in an area that had supposedly been cleared in the savage, swoopstake "counterinsurgency" operations launched by Pakistan at America's insistence. (Operations which, we were told at the time, had no American involvement whatsoever.)
Yet as the Pakistani paper The News points out, this massive "clearing" operation – which cleared more than a million people from their homes as they fled the fighting – could not stop the insurgents from placing a huge 70kg bomb "in an area that had reportedly been 'cleared' and moreover plant it on such a high-profile target that should have been guarded as closely as possible given that 'foreign visitors' were on their way. Nobody noticed a 70kg bomb being buried in the road?"
All this might suggest to a cynic that our much-ballyhooed "counterinsurgency doctrines" (and they are indeed treated as holy writ, handed down by St. David Petraeus) are not, perhaps, as entirely effective as they might be – especially considering the vast cost in innocent life they exact, and the hatred and extremism they engender.
Noel Shachtman at Wired has a couple of useful roundups (here and here) on the latest revelations of our sure-enough war in Pakistan. But equally revealing are some of the remarks he passes along from readers, and his own response: exchanges which demonstrate that, sadly, it is not only our elites who are marinated in "a sense of imperial entitlement and dominance" (as we noted here the other day).
Shachtman notes how the new revelations give the glaring lie to the solemn promises made by Obama's "special envoy" to the region, Richard Holbrooke. Speaking in Brussels last May, Holbrooke declared:
"The heart of the problem for the West is in western Pakistan. But there are not going to be US or NATO troops on the ground in Pakistan. There is a red line for the government of Pakistan and one which we must respect," he said.
(Parenthetically, isn't it rather strange that the "heart of the problem" for our militarist mandarins always seems to lie outside the borders of the country they are ravaging? So the "real problem" in Afghanistan lies in Pakistan. And, as we were told repeatedly for years, the "real problem" in Iraq was actually Iran, whose nuke-mad mullahs kept stirring up our lazy, docile darkies in Iraq. Tony Blair stuck to this line, well, religiously in his recent canard-o-rama at the Iraq inquiry in London. It was Iran who caused all our problems in Iraq, he said over and over; in fact, he mentioned Iran 58 times in the course of his testimony, much of which was aimed at fomenting new war fever against Tehran.)
Shachtman also notes the fact that the Americans killed in Pakistan this week were not, by the Pentagon's own admission, super-duper secret agents, but part of a straightforward "counterinsurgency" program: "a widening war," as he says, rightly.
Then comes a pushback from various warbloggers. First, the pseudonymous Islamophobe armchair warrior "Rusty Shackleford" (I guess cowardice in the service of virtue is no vice, eh, Rusty?) weighs in:
“Admitting that we have troops on the ground engaged in combat roles would — literally — lead to a civil war in Pakistan. .. It is a catch-22, ironic, and duplicitous: but calling this a war is the same thing as losing it. Me, I’m willing to be called two-faced for sake of winning a war. Those that prefer consistency over victory are misguided.”
This is wilful ignorance with a vengeance. Obviously, Pseudo-Warrior believes that Pakistanis are too stupid to notice foreign troops fighting on their own soil. So as long as we don't admit "that we have troops on the ground engaged in combat roles," then those dumb Pakis will never know! Man, that's some crafty, subtile strategy there.
Shachtman then gives us the views of "Uncle Jimbo" at Blackfive:
It is fair to point out that the ops in Pakistan are more tightly tied to a shooting war than many others, but does that mean we should take them and shine a bunch of bright lights on them? … There is plenty of oversight operating where it belongs in classified briefings… The political environment in Pakistan is delicate as Hell so we properly tread lightly. A bunch of breathless stories about the mere possibility that we are cooperating more w/ Pakistan or that heaven forbid the evil Blackwater mercenaries are helping load drones doesn’t make doing any good there easier… It is smart and a proper use of Special Forces. Now let’s stop making their jobs harder by acting like something nefarious is going on.
Shachtman replies, reasonably, that, as noted, the Pakistanis already know what's going on in their own country, and that "secrecy is only fueling the paranoia and conspiracy theories — not to mention depriving Americans of their right to know how their blood and treasure is being spent." Shachtman also, perhaps out of courtesy, refrains from commenting on Jimbo's touching naiveté that our always wise and competent leaders will provide all the necessary "oversight" in their secret briefings.
But despite this display of common sense, Shachtman feels compelled to establish his own "tough realist" credentials. In response to Jimbo's claim that telling the truth about the U.S. war in Pakistan "doesn’t make doing any good there easier," Shachtman hastens to reply:
I hear that. And if this were some other, relatively small-scale SF operation (cough Yemen cough), I’d agree 100%.
And there you have it: the quintessential, unconscious response of the fully marinated modern American. Shachtman is not at all opposed to imperial agents carrying out deadly attacks in foreign lands at peace with the United States. The principle of unlimited violence -- the right of America to kill people anytime, anywhere in the world -- is never questioned. The only argument that "serious" people can have concerns the application of this principle; i.e., is it in our best interest to kill these people now, or wait until later, or maybe kill some other people instead, or build a few more schools while we're killing people or -- and this is as radical as our "serious" discourse allows -- should we even maybe hold off on killing people for just a little while, to let the lesser breeds cool down a bit, and rebuild our busted finances?
As we noted here the other day:
Our elites and their courtiers [and their commentators] literally cannot imagine life without a permanent war for global dominance, fueled by a gargantuan war machine spread across hundreds and hundreds of bases implanted in more than 100 countries.
And so these debates between chest-beating militarists and more thoughtful "moderates" over the proper application of imperial violence in foreign lands will go on. Because until the empire is dismantled -- until we bring America home -- there will be no end to these wars and op and "interventions," secret, open, two-faced or otherwise. And no end to the blowback of violence and retrogression they produce. (show less)
The American elite's unbounded, unquestioned, indeed unconscious sense of imperial entitlement and dominance -- based ultimately on war, the threat of war and the profit from war -- is one of the defining characteristics of our age. And if you would like to see a glaring example of this attitude in action, look no further than the front page of Tuesday's New York Times, where one David Sanger gives us his penetrating "news analysis" of the Administration's just-announced $3.8 trillion budget.
Sanger focuses on the huge, continuing deficits that the budget forecasts over the next decade. Completely ignoring the plain truth that his own expert source tell him later in the story -- that "forecasts 10 years out have no credibility" -- Sanger boldly plunges forward to tell us just what it a... (continue reading)
The American elite's unbounded, unquestioned, indeed unconscious sense of imperial entitlement and dominance -- based ultimately on war, the threat of war and the profit from war -- is one of the defining characteristics of our age. And if you would like to see a glaring example of this attitude in action, look no further than the front page of Tuesday's New York Times, where one David Sanger gives us his penetrating "news analysis" of the Administration's just-announced $3.8 trillion budget.
Sanger focuses on the huge, continuing deficits that the budget forecasts over the next decade. Completely ignoring the plain truth that his own expert source tell him later in the story -- that "forecasts 10 years out have no credibility" -- Sanger boldly plunges forward to tell us just what it all means. You will not be surprised to hear that the upshot of these big deficits is that neither Obama nor his successors will be able to spend any money on "new domestic initiatives" for years to come. But let's let Sanger, savant and seer, tell it in his own words:
In a federal budget filled with mind-boggling statistics, two numbers stand out as particularly stunning, for the way they may change American politics and American power.
The first is the projected deficit in the coming year, nearly 11 percent of the country’s entire economic output. That is not unprecedented: During the Civil War, World War I and World War II, the United States ran soaring deficits, but usually with the expectation that they would come back down once peace was restored and war spending abated.
But the second number, buried deeper in the budget’s projections, is the one that really commands attention: By President Obama’s own optimistic projections, American deficits will not return to what are widely considered sustainable levels over the next 10 years. ...
For Mr. Obama and his successors, the effect of those projections is clear: Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors. Beyond that lies the possibility that the United States could begin to suffer the same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade. As debt grew more rapidly than income, that country’s influence around the world eroded.
What is most interesting here, of course, is not Sanger's noodle-scratching over imaginary numbers projected into an unknowable future, but his total and apparently completely unconscious adoption of the mindset of militarist empire. For as he puzzles and puzzles till his puzzler is sore on how in God's name the United States can possibly find any money at all to spend on bettering the lives of its citizens over the next 10 years, it becomes clear that Sanger -- like the rest of our political and media elite -- literally cannot conceive of an end to empire. Our elites and their courtiers literally cannot imagine life without a permanent war for global dominance, fueled by a gargantuan war machine spread across hundreds and hundreds of bases implanted in more than 100 countries.
And so this consideration, this possible outcome, does not figure in Sanger's "analysis" because it cannot: it lies far outside the scope of his consciousness. The only possible alternative he can conceive to the empire's bloody and bankrupting business as usual is some kind of divine intervention, "miraculous growth" or some "miraculous political compromise."
And make no mistake: the "miraculous political compromise" he is talking about has nothing to do with ending or even trimming the empire. A "compromise" on this issue could only be posited if there was some present conflict over it. But both parties are deeply committed to increasing spending on the wars and the war machine.
No, by "compromise" Sanger means some sort of "Grand Bargain" between the parties to cut Social Security and Medicare, along the lines of the "blue-ribbon panel" of entitlement cutters now being pushed by the Obama Administration. An effort to impose this kind of elitist, unaccountable commission failed in the Senate a few weeks ago -- although the Republicans have proposed such panels before, they didn't like this one because Obama proposed it -- but the idea will keep coming back. Sanger and the elite will doubtless get their "miracle" of slashing the remaining bits of the safety net to shreds in due time.
For these are the only possibilities for deficit-cutting that Sanger can even remotely contemplate: some whiz-bang new techno gizmo -- or maybe some hot new "financial instruments" cooked up by Wall Street -- that will goose the economy with a bright new bubble ... or else finally telling our old, sick, vulnerable and unfortunate to just crawl off and die already. That's it. That's all that our elite can envision.
Yet the ending of the imperial wars and the dismantling of America's global military empire -- and its global gulag -- would save trillions of dollars in the coming years. Not only from direct military spending, but also from the vastly reduced need for "Homeland security" funding in a world where the United States was no longer invading foreign lands, killing their people, supporting their tyrants -- and inciting revenge and resistance.
This would release a flood of money for any number of "new domestic initiatives," while also giving scope for deep tax cuts across the board. Working people would thrive, the poor, the sick and the vulnerable would be bettered, businesses would grow, opportunity would expand, the care and education of our children would be greatly enhanced, our infrastructure could be repaired and strengthened, our environment better cleansed and cared for. In short, people could keep more of their own money while government spending could be directed toward improving the quality of life of all the nation's citizens.
This is no utopian vision. Many problems, much suffering would remain. But it would be a better society -- more humane, more just, more secure, more peaceful, more prosperous than it is now. Such an alternative is entirely achievable, by ordinary humans; it would require no divine miracles, no god-like heroes to bring it about.
But such a society is precisely what our elites cannot -- or, to be more accurate, will not -- imagine. Because, yes, it would "erode" their "influence" around the world to some extent. Although they would still be comfortable, coddled and privileged, they could no longer merge their individual psyches with the larger entity of a globe-spanning, death-dealing empire -- a connection which, although itself a projection of their own brains, gives them a forever-inflated sense of worth and importance.
And on a more prosaic level, the end of empire would mean an end to the horrendous economic distortion wrought by our war-profiteering industries. Other businesses would inevitably come to the fore, economic activity would be sp( click title for more ) evenly across more sectors. And so, yes, those who have feasted so gluttonously for so long on blood money would not be quite as rich as they are now.
A better world -- again, not perfect, by no means perfect, but much better -- is entirely possible. We could easily dismantle the empire -- carefully, safely, with deliberation -- over the next ten years. It is a reasonable, moderate, serious option. It would not require violent revolution or vast social upheaval. But our elites do not want this. They can no longer fathom life without the exercise -- and worship -- of unrestricted power that empire entails. They will not accept -- or even contemplate -- any alternative to it.
And thus every option and policy we are offered -- whether from right-wing Republicans or "progressive" Democrats, or from "serious" news analysts on "serious" papers -- must fall within these pathetically cramped, constricted mental horizons. Empire -- the imposition of dominion by violence and threat of violence, and the financial and moral corruption this breeds, the malevolent example it sets at every level of society -- is the canker in the body politic. Until it is dealt with, there will be no healing, no hope, no change -- just more degradation and disaster all down the line. (show less)
Even as progressives were savoring Barack Obama's "masterful" – indeed, "brain-searing" – performance at the House Republicans' retreat last Friday, their dazzling champion was busy applying himself with renewed and reckless vigor to that most un-progressive of occupations: saber-rattling around the world. The last few days have certainly seen a remarkable display of bellicosity by the Obama Administration, putting almost every tool in the militarist kit to use: nukes, ships, missiles, money, proxies and war-profiteering. With just a few flicks of the imperial wrist, Obama sent waves of destabilization through some of the most volatile regions on earth.
There was the sale of $6.4 billion in military hardware to Taiwan: a bumper crop of boodle for America's war-profiteering community, ... (continue reading)
Even as progressives were savoring Barack Obama's "masterful" – indeed, "brain-searing" – performance at the House Republicans' retreat last Friday, their dazzling champion was busy applying himself with renewed and reckless vigor to that most un-progressive of occupations: saber-rattling around the world. The last few days have certainly seen a remarkable display of bellicosity by the Obama Administration, putting almost every tool in the militarist kit to use: nukes, ships, missiles, money, proxies and war-profiteering. With just a few flicks of the imperial wrist, Obama sent waves of destabilization through some of the most volatile regions on earth.
There was the sale of $6.4 billion in military hardware to Taiwan: a bumper crop of boodle for America's war-profiteering community, but a hard slap to the Chinese – who have responded to this stirring of hair-trigger cross-strait tensions by "canceling talks between senior Chinese and US officials on strategic security, arms control and nuclear non-proliferation," as the Guardian notes. Well, if there's one thing the world needs less of today, it's more cooperation on strategic security, arms control and nuclear non-proliferation, right?
Especially the latter. In fact, so unconcerned is Obama with nuclear proliferation that he is asking Congress to increase funding for the nation's nuclear arsenal by $5 billion, as McClatchy reports (via Antiwar.com). Much of this extra money will be spent on new facilities that will enable the government to build new nuclear warheads whenever it chooses. "There is no question that some counties, friends and foes, will see the increased spending as a sign of U.S. hypocrisy," said arms control expert Joseph Cirincione, in an obvious bid for the "Understatement of the Year" award. But this kind of higher hypocrisy is meat and drink for the American establishment, whose guiding motto for the earth's lesser breeds has ever been: "Do as we say, not as we do."
Obama was also busy slaughtering a few more villagers in Pakistan with his ever-accelerating "drone" attacks. The latest attack was Saturday night, which killed nine people in North Waziristan. This capped a month in which American drones killed "123 innocent Pakistanis," as The News of Pakistan reports. Ten of the 12 raids "went wrong and failed to hit their targets," but the robots did manage to assassinate three men alleged, by someone somewhere on some kind of evidence, or not, to be "al-Qaeda leaders."
The News also notes that the increase in drone killings by the United States (123 civilians killed this January in contrast to "only" 36 killings in January 2009) seems due in large part to "revenge attacks" by the U.S. in retaliation for the December 30 suicide bombing that killed seven CIA agents at a border base in Afghanistan. Everyone knew the American security organs would be stern in their reprisals for the attack; after all, the U.S. killed a million Iraqis as "payback for 9/11," to quote the rationale for war most often quoted by American soldiers as they stormed into Iraq in 2003. So at this point, 123 for seven seems almost a model of restraint. But it's early days yet; the Reprisal-by-Robot campaign will no doubt harvest much more blood fruit in the months to come.
II.
But of course, the centerpiece of Obama's wild warmonger weekend was the leaked-on-purpose news of the deployment of a bristling "missile shield" to four countries in the Middle East, along with the dispatch of even more warships to join those already poised with minatory intent around the Persian Gulf. The ostensible aim of this sudden outpouring of ordnance to Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait is to "protect" these nations from an attack by Iran – a nation which has not attacked anyone for centuries, but which is itself under relentless, open, repeated threat of attack from, er, the United States, and one of its regional proxies, Israel.
Word of the new deployment came just hours after the U.S. Senate voted to impose even more draconian sanctions on Iran: crippling measures that will only make life much more wretched and dangerous for millions of ordinary Iranians. The Senate measures are aimed chiefly at strangling Iran's supplies of gasoline --- a truly noble act of "humanitarian intervention," which, if successful, would see deliveries of essential food and supplies grind to a halt, fire trucks and ambulances parked, schools closed, mass business failures across the country, with the subsequent loss of jobs, homes, health and opportunity. The Iranian ruling elite will of course be spared any of these discomforts – just as our own ruling elite forever escapes even the slightest unpleasant consequence of its actions.
Some observers seem to regard the Senate move as some kind of rebuke to Obama, "taking Iran policy out of his hands" by force; but the deployment of the new war machinery to the region – which was accompanied by sales of military upgrades to the savagely oppressive religious extremists in Saudi Arabia – shows that the American political elite is, as usual, marching in lockstep when it comes to "projecting dominance" and threatening grave punishments (up and including "obliteration," because, as we all know, "all elements of national power" are always "on the table" at all times) for any rogue nations that fail to follow the Potomac line. (And a comparison between the repressive regime in Iran and the far more repressive regime in Saudi Arabia shows us clearly that it the line-following, not lack of freedom, that determines whether a nation is "rogue" or not.)
But we should not see this weekend's machinations in the Persian Gulf as moving the United States closer to war with Iran. The United States has been at war with Iran for a long time now, running and/or assisting armed terrorist groups inside the country to kill scores of people year after year, as we noted here last year. No, what we are seeing now is just another "surge" in the barely covert war with Iran – a war that in some ways has been going on for decades, and flares up any time a government in Tehran fails to show due obeisance. As I noted in that earlier piece, which came out just before the disputed Iranian election, and just after yet another terrorist attack in Iran:
Because the ultimate aim -- the only aim, really -- of the militarists' policy toward Iran is regime change. They don't care about "national security" or the "threat" from Iran's non-existent nuclear arsenal; they know that there is no threat whatsoever that Iran will attack Israel -- or even more ludicrously, the United States -- even if Tehran did have nukes. They don't care about the suffering of the Iranian people under a draconian, repressive and corrupt regime. They are not worried about Iran's "sponsorship of terrorism," for, as we've seen, the militarists thrive on -- when they are not actively fomenting -- the fear and anguish caused by terrorism. This fear is the grease that drives the ever-expanding war machine and 'justifies' its own ever-increasing draconian powers and corruption.
No, in the end, the sole aim of the militarist policy is to overthrow Iran's current political system and replace it with a regime that will bow to the hegemony of the United States and its regional deputy, Israel. There is no essential difference in aim or method between today's policy and that of 1953. (Except that the regional deputy in those days was Britain, not Israel.) What they want is compliance, access to resources and another strategic stronghold in the heart of the oil lands -- precisely what they wanted, and got, with the installation of the Shah and his corruption-ridden police state more than a half-century ago.
They play the long game, our militarists. For example, they agitated openly -- and plotted covertly -- for the invasion of Iraq for almost 10 years before they finally got their way. They have worked for 30 years now to restore a client regime in Iran, and today, with the relentless bipartisan demonizing of the Iranians -- and the "mushroom cloud" fearmongering over a non-existent nuclear weapons program -- they are as close as they have ever been to their goal.
The obscene folly of all this is so self-evident that it seems not only redundant but downright insulting to point it out. Yet in a land so marinated in its own myths, a nation whose imperial sense of entitlement runs so deep, embedded in so many unconscious, unquestioned assumptions that even its "progressives" cannot see the howling evil being done by their leaders (as long as those leaders make even the slightest "progressive" noises now and then), this redundant, insulting task remains an unfortunate imperative.
III.
And no one has laid out the case against attacking Iran with more depth, power, eloquence and persistence than Arthur Silber. What's more, Silber has offered practical steps that even those obsessed with retaining their "serious" and "politically savvy" cred could employ. Of course, most of these steps were first offered back in the bad old Bush days, when "progressives" were castigating the government for its reckless warmongering toward Iran -- not to mention its drone attacks on civilians in Pakistan, its plans for "modernizing" the nuclear arsenal, and its war-profiteering sale of death machinery in every volatile region on earth. Back then, you could still hope -- or pretend -- that the dissent against Bush's rapacious and criminal policies was more principled than partisan, and thus that reasonable suggestions for lowering the war fever might gain some traction.
These days, alas, we find that to many progressives, actions that were considered rank crimes and national shames under Bush have been magically converted into "tough choices," "necessary evils," "practical politics" or even far-seeing "11-dimensional chess" when they are committed by Obama. So the anti-war row is now a lot harder, and longer, to hoe.
But some hardy cultivators, like Silber, are still out there hacking away at the flinty soil, planting seeds of truth in the almost-but-quite-yet-impossible hope that they will bear good fruit some day, in some way, somewhere down the line. And so I urge readers to set themselves to school on some or all of these remarkable Iran-related articles by Silber, while following up on the wealth of links each one provides: here, here, here, here, here, and here.
(*And while you're there, consider contributing something to the tip jar, if you can. Silber continues to suffer from catastrophic health problems, and the website is his only means of support.*) (show less)
We are the San Patricios, a brave and gallant band
There'll be no white flag flying within this green command
We are the San Patricios, we have but one demand,
To see the Yankees safely home across the Rio Grande...
This looks like something worth looking for on the radar: "San Patricio," an upcoming release by The Chieftains and Ry Cooder:
‘San Patricio' (the Spanish name for St. Patrick) tells the nearly forgotten story of the brave San Patricio battalion - a downtrodden group of Irish immigrant conscripts who deserted the U.S. Army in 1846 to fight on the Mexican side against the invading Yankees in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848).
Although the members of the San Patricio Battalion were reviled as traitors and deserters in the U.S., Chieftains' founder and frontman Pad... (continue reading)
We are the San Patricios, a brave and gallant band
There'll be no white flag flying within this green command
We are the San Patricios, we have but one demand,
To see the Yankees safely home across the Rio Grande...
This looks like something worth looking for on the radar: "San Patricio," an upcoming release by The Chieftains and Ry Cooder:
‘San Patricio' (the Spanish name for St. Patrick) tells the nearly forgotten story of the brave San Patricio battalion - a downtrodden group of Irish immigrant conscripts who deserted the U.S. Army in 1846 to fight on the Mexican side against the invading Yankees in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848).
Although the members of the San Patricio Battalion were reviled as traitors and deserters in the U.S., Chieftains' founder and frontman Paddy Moloney says, "the men of the San Patricio Battalion are remembered by generations of Mexicans to this day as heroes who fought bravely against an unjust and thinly veiled war of aggression." ‘San Patricio' brings their story to life through heart-stirring ballads and effervescent dance songs from both countries, including traditional "sones" that the San Patricios might have heard while in Mexico, and Irish airs and reels that evoke the homeland they left behind. ....
‘San Patricio' showcases a brilliant roster of Irish, Mexican and American guest artists including Linda Ronstadt, actor Liam Neeson, Los Tigres del Norte, legendary 92-year-old Mexican ranchero singer Chavela Vargas, Van Dyke Parks, and Lila Downs, among many others. It will be released March 9 on Fantasy Records/Concord Music Group.
Dissident Voice
a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice
Haiti and Media Censorship 6 Feb 2010William Blum In America you can say anything you want — as long as it doesn’t have any effect.
– Paul Goodman
Progressive activists and writers continually bemoan the fact that the news they generate and the opinions they express are consistently ignored by the mainstream media, and thus kept from the masses of the American people. This disregard ( click title for more )
Apartheid: Stigmatizing Israel? 5 Feb 2010Kim Petersen Israel defense minister Ehud Barak has spoken to apartheid in Israel.
As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.1
Israeli media ( click title for more )
Human Rights Abuses in Israel and Occupied Palestine 5 Feb 2010Stephen Lendman Founded in 1972, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) is its leading human and civil rights organization through activities involving litigation, legal advocacy, education, and public outreach. Each year it publishes an annual report covering flagrant violations, positive trends, if any, and “significant human rights-related processes” affecting Israelis and Palestinians.
Its latest December 2009 ( click title for more )
The Source of the Economic Crisis: A Chicago State of Mind 5 Feb 2010Maidhc Ó Cathail Worried about the global economic crisis? It’s all in your head, says a leading financial expert.
And that’s the problem, according to Jeff Gates, author of the highly-regarded Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street from Wall Street, a sequel to The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century. The latter book ( click title for more )
My Visit to Iran 4 Feb 2010Azita Ebrahimi I went to Iran, the country of my birth, in November of 2009 and stayed there for two months after being away for 30 years. I had left Iran right before 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah. Before I left for my visit back to Iran, I was feeling very agitated and depressed about the ( click title for more )
US citizen kidnapped in Baghdad 6 Feb 2010Common Ills There are two possible scenarios when talking about the specter of a coup in Iraq in the aftermath of the U.S. occupation of the country.The chaos, which some described as "creative", was in their eyes a means to put the house in order. They believed partial or total destruction leads to reconstruction.This is what armed groups fighting under the umbrella of resistance might resort to do as part
The inquiry into the illegal war 6 Feb 2010Common Ills One such case concerns the breaches of the Geneva Conventions which were reported by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on the 26th February 2004. The ICRC representatives presented a twenty-four page dossier on serial breaches of the Conventions by coalition forces in Iraq, to Ambassador Paul Bremer, and the UK representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock. Widespread abuse of
Iraq snapshot 5 Feb 2010Common Ills Friday, February 5, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq is slammed again with bombings resulting in mass fatalities, election chaos continues, was Tuesday all a Democratic photo op, and more. Today, Iraq is again slammed with bombings resulting in mass fatalities. Fang Yang (Xinhua) reports, "Two car bombs went off at the same time on a bridge named Wadil- Salam which is located
At least 27 dead as Iraq slammed with bombings 5 Feb 2010Common Ills Today, Iraq is again slammed with bombings resulting in mass fatalities. Fang Yang (Xinhua) reports, "Two car bombs went off at the same time on a bridge named Wadil- Salam which is located east of Karbala, 80 km south of Baghdad, an Iraqi interior ministry source told Xinhua. The two cars loaded with heavy explosives were parked at the two ends of the bridge respectively, said the source who
The election confusion continues in Iraq 5 Feb 2010Common Ills Yesterday, the planned March 7th elections in Iraq became even more confusion and in doubt when the appeals court ruling that would allow the over 500 banned candidates was attacked by Nouri al-Maliki -- US installed thug of the occupation. In launching the attacks, Little Nouri not only threatened the scheduled elections, he also exposed non-reporters. Again, reporting what happens is
Violence Against Women Is a Global Struggle 6 Feb 2010by Humaira Shahid and Ritu SharmaEight years ago, Nasreen (not her real name) walked into the office of the Daily Khabrain newspaper in Lahore, Pakistan, and demanded justice. She stripped off her clothes, revealing a black and blue body covered with wounds and cigarette burns. She'd been gang raped. With tears in her eyes, she said, "My husband hired three men and got me raped in front of him because I was tired of his abuse and demanded the divorce that Islam gave me a right to. He didn't even respect me as the mother of his children. . .. I just want justice in the name of God.''( click title for more )
The Double Standard at CBS 6 Feb 2010by Derrick Z. JacksonThere are already at least two Christian broadcasting channels, so there is no need for CBS to be a right-wing revival tent for the Super Bowl.( click title for more )
An Old Prayer for Clean Coal: Strip-Mining Jesus 6 Feb 2010by Jeff Biggers"And upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew: 16:13-18.
Declaring his intent to chart a path toward "clean coal," President
Obama announced the establishment of an Interagency Task Force on
Carbon Capture and Storage this week, along with his goal of bringing 5
to 10 commercial coal-fired demonstration projects online by 2016.
All politics aside, I pray for the day our President declares his intent to chart a path toward a coal free future.( click title for more )
Repubs, Dems, Blue Dogs and Tea Partiers: Everybody Loves Medicare 6 Feb 2010by Donna SmithPresident Obama keeps torturing himself and the 111th Congress by trying to come up with new ways to work together and a single healthcare reform effort that all could embrace politically, morally and fiscally. He need not struggle so hard, as the leaders in each of the groups clamoring for leadership on the issue have stated unequivocally that they love Medicare and want to protect Medicare.( click title for more )
No matther whether th' constitution follows th' flag or not, th' supreme coort follows th' iliction returns.
- Finley Peter Dunne, The Supreme Court's Decision( click title for more )
The Best Way to Honor Howard Zinn 6 Feb 2010by Ralph NaderThere are several memorial services and events being planned for Howard Zinn whom The New York Times called a "historian, shipyard worker, civil rights activist and World War II bombardier, when he passed away at age 87 late last month."His legion of friends, students, admirers and colleagues will be out in force reminding the country about his impact as a civic leader, motivational teacher, author of the ever more popular book A People's History of the United States, and all around fine, compassionate, and level-headed human being.( click title for more )
Lobbyists Retreat but Never Surrender 6 Feb 2010by Michael WinshipGeorge Washington's birthday is approaching and with it will come the attendant mythology: hatchet and cherry tree, wooden teeth, throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac River - or the Rappahannock.
Of course, as the old joke goes, a dollar went a lot further then. Today, if you tried to hurl a silver dollar across the Potomac, chances are some member of Congress would snatch it in flight like one of those nature film grizzly bears grabbing a salmon in mid-leap. ( click title for more )
Who's Killing Financial Reform? 5 Feb 2010by Robert ReichSenator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, scolded Wall Street representatives at a hearing Thursday for sending “an army of lobbyists whose only mission is to kill the common-sense financial reforms” needed by the public. “The fact is,” Dodd said, “I am frustrated, and so are the American people.” He charged that Wall Street’s intransigence was the reason for Congress’s failure to pass any bill to regulate the Street. “The refusal of large financial firms to work constructively with Congress on this effort borders on insulting to the American peop( click title for more )
Constitutionally Illiterate 5 Feb 2010by Christopher DreisbachOn Nov. 5, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House minority leader, took the podium at a Republican rally, waved a document defiantly and declared:"This is my copy of the Constitution, and I'm going to stand here with the Founding Fathers who wrote in the Preamble, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " Mr.( click title for more )
Iraq Policy: D 5 Feb 2010by Bonnie Bricker and Adil E. ShamooRecent suicide bombings in the heart of Baghdad have sent a message to Washington: Maintaining the Iraq policy of the past administration does not inspire hope.( click title for more )
The Lynch Mob Mentality 5 Feb 2010by Glenn GreenwaldIf I had the power to have one statement of fact be universally recognized in our political discussions, it would be this one:
The fact that the Government labels Person X a "Terrorist" is not proof that Person X is, in fact, a Terrorist.
( click title for more )
What’s Missing from the New Clean Energy Agenda? 5 Feb 2010by Sarah LaskowNuclear power, biofuels, clean coal: These are the Obama administration’s answers to climate change. The 2011 budget, released this week, promised new loans for the construction of nuclear power plants, and on Wednesday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), White House, and other departments detailed steps to encourage ethanol and clean coal production.( click title for more )
Selma, Montgomery, Birmingham...Earth 5 Feb 2010by Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Lennox YearwoodOur country, and the world, faces the duel crisis of a failed
American economy and climate change that threatens life on this planet
as we know it.
Poor people and people of color are feeling the adverse impacts of
climate change first and worst, from rising energy prices, to increases
in heat-related illnesses. Ultimately, however, the destruction
resulting from our planet's rising temperature will not be discerning
of national borders, a family's yearly income, or the hue of one's
skin. ( click title for more )
‘Climategate’ Overshadows Copenhagen 5 Feb 2010by Julie HollarWith the Kyoto Protocol expiring in 2012, the United Nations Climate
Change Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) was intended to make new
international commitments to reduce emissions and fight the effects of
global warming. But instead of discussing measures, deadlines and the
urgency of international action, the overriding media story going into
Copenhagen was whether scientists have been making up the whole "global
warming" thing all along. ( click title for more )
Remembering Mahatma Zinn 5 Feb 2010by Harvey WassermanHoward Zinn was above all a gentleman of unflagging grace, humility and compassion. No
American historian has left a more lasting positive legacy on our
understanding of the true nature of our country, mainly because his
books reflect a soul possessed of limitless depth. Howard's People's History of the United States will not be
surpassed. As time goes on new chapters will be written in its spirit
to extend its reach. ( click title for more )
There's Real Hope From Haiti and It's Not What You Expect 5 Feb 2010by Johann HariIn the weeks after a disaster like the Haiti earthquake, journalists always search for an upbeat twist to the tale. You know it by now – the baby found alive after a week under wreckage. But this time, a shaft of light has parted the rubble and the corpses and the unshakeable grief that could last for years. In the middle of the Haitian people's nightmare, a system that has kept hundreds of millions like them poor and broken might just have shown its first fracture.( click title for more )
Message to President Obama: Why Trade Will Not Save Rural America 5 Feb 2010by Paula CrossfieldIn Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack’s op-ed this week in the Des Moines Register, he recognized that hunger could not be solved by raising production, because production is in fact at record highs.( click title for more )
Haiti - Still Starving 23 Days Later 5 Feb 2010by Bill Quigley
You can
walk down many of the streets of Port au Prince and see absolutely no evidence
that the world community has helped Haiti.
Twenty-three days after the earthquake jolted Haiti and killed over 200,000
people, as many as a million people have still not received any international food
assistance.
( click title for more )
Swiss Take Two Guantánamo Uighurs, Save Obama from Having to Do the Right Thing 4 Feb 2010by Andy WorthingtonCongratulations to the Swiss Canton of Jura, which recently accepted the asylum claims of two Uighur prisoners at Guantánamo, and to the Swiss federal government for agreeing to accept Jura’s decision on Wednesday.( click title for more )
Beer Battles: Workers in Belgium Take on Brewing Giant 4 Feb 2010by Benjamin DanglFor two weeks in January Belgian brewery workers
blocked roads, set fire to beer crates, kidnapped managers and handed
out free beer as part of their tactics against job cuts proposed by
Anheuser-Busch InBev, the world's largest brewer. The company announced
the cuts in spite of profits of $1.55 billion in the third quarter of
2009. ( click title for more )
Counterpunch
CounterPunch is the bi-weekly muckraking newsletter edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. Twice a month we bring our readers the stories that the corporate press never prints. We aren't side-line journalists here at CounterPunch. Ours is muckraking with a radical attitude. Out Of Bounds magazine calls us "America's best political newsletter".
Most of the content on this page is extracted from RSS sources from
various websites, blogs, and youtube channels. If an author prefers their
content not appear on these pages please email the below address
and the offending material will be immediately removed.
The reader is urged to click through to the
original material appearing on the original websites.
If the reader is thereby introduced to new and useful content
then this humble news aggregator has fulfilled its purpose.