From pieinsky at igc.org Sun Jun 1 05:46:59 2008 From: pieinsky at igc.org (Jay Moore) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 07:46:59 -0400 Subject: [R-G] The Spirit of '68 Lives On! Message-ID: <48428C33.4090104@igc.org> Forty years later, we are living the spirit of '68 The media accuse my generation of being apathetic. This is not true CHARLOTTE-ANNE MALISCHEWSKI Special to Globe and Mail Update http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080529.wcomment0529/BNStory/National/home May 29, 2008 at 1:00 AM EDT The year is 1968. The Tet Offensive has U.S. forces on the run, shaking American confidence to its core, and stimulating an international appetite for change. Students across Europe are chanting, "We shall fight. We will win. Paris, London, Rome, Berlin." And, merely six weeks later, 20,000 protesters are storming the U.S. Embassy in London. In Paris, students are staging campus occupations, barricading the streets, and holding mass assemblies where participants discuss ways to build a new society. In country after country, the tide is turning as a wave of hope, anger, and direct action sweeps the world. It's now 2008 ? 40 years later. According to the mainstream media, young people are not challenging conventions, nor are they laying the foundations of change. Indeed, while 1968 retains a mythical presence in our collective imagination, newspapers, magazines, and television programs claim my generation is unconscious, that we walk through our days unaware of ourselves or others, that we are insensitive to the needs of our bodies and our environment. The media accuse my generation of lacking the spirit of 1968, having settled into a state of apathy. In doing so, the media not only draw an unfair parallel between people in different situations, but they draw the wrong conclusions. My generation is not apathetic. We are politically active, but we are also fearful. The world we witness around us is not the same world young people saw 40 years ago. In the 1960s, people were living in a time of emancipation, amidst a sexual revolution. People were formulating new ideologies and adopting elements of different countercultures. Young people believed the world belonged to them and so they worked to change it. Today, young people aren't so sure the world belongs to us. Instead, we see ourselves as having social and ecological responsibilities toward the world and future generations. Though some young people choose to avoid this challenge, many of us choose to tackle it by collectively owning up to our responsibilities and urging others to do the same. In 1968, just before the start of the Olympics, Mexican security police murdered a still unknown number of students and workers at La Plaza de las Tres Culturas in Mexico City, and the world remained silent in the face of the slaughter. Forty years later, the country hosting this year's Olympic Games is again violently repressing its people. Tibetans are being arrested, interrogated, and killed by Chinese troops, but this time international outrage is being voiced. Indeed, people, especially young people, are more vocal during this first decade of the 21st century than they were in the 1960s. Canadian protests against the war in Iraq thus far have drawn 10 times more people than all the Canadian protests against the war in Vietnam combined. The largest protest in the United Kingdom, that attracted nearly two million people, was not in 1968. Rather, it was in 2003 and it, too, was against the war in Iraq. In the United States, the largest protest was not against the war in Vietnam, nor the war in Iraq. The largest wave of demonstrations in U.S. history took place in April 2006 when more than two million people took to the streets in favour of immigrant rights. This 2006 demonstration responded to a question that was asked before the revolts of the 1960s. It responded to a question George Orwell posed in 1943. Then, he asked: "Shall people ? be allowed to live the decent, fully human life which is now technically achievable, or shan't they?" In 2008, we are finally answering loud and clear. We are saying: "Yes, they shall." We want people to live fully human lives when we take to the streets against globalization and we want people to live fully human lives when we protest against the ecological destruction of the planet. In 1968, youth revolts were about individuals' ability to express themselves. Their anti-authoritarian rebellions provoked a new society and young people today are freely realizing it. We do not lack the spirit of 1968. We are living it. Charlotte-Anne Malischewski is a high school student in St. John's. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Jun 1 05:53:21 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:53:21 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] "Keep the Consumer Dissatisfied" Message-ID: <48428DB1.8020508@attglobal.net> by Charles Kettering Nation's Business, 17, no 1 (January 1929), pages 30-31, 79 A few weeks back I was sitting with a group of executives. All were admiring a new model. "It is absolutely the best automobile that can be made", enthused one. I objected to that statement. "Let's take this automobile which, you say, is the 'best that can be made' and put it into a glass showcase", I said. "Let's put it in there - seal it so no person can possibly touch it. Just before we seal it in the case, let us mark the price in big letters inside the case." "Let us do that and come back here a year from today. After looking at it and appraising it, we will mark a price on the outside of the glass. It will be a price something less than what we think the car is worth today. Probably $200 less. Then, let's come back once every year for ten years, look through the glass, and mark a new price. At the end of ten years we won't be able to put down enough ciphers to indicate what we think of the car. That is, of course, eliminating its value as junk. "In those ten years, no one could possibly have touched the car. There could be no lessened value through handling. The paint would be just as good as new; the crank case just as good; the real axle just as good; and the motor just as good as ever. What then, has happened to the car? "People's minds will have been changed; improvements will come in other cars; new styles will have come. What you have here today, a car that you call 'the best that can be made', will then be useless. So it isn't the best that can be made. It may be the best you can have made and, if that is what you meant, I have no quarrel with what you said ..." Change, to a research engineer, is improvement. People, though don't seem to think of it in that manner. When a change is suggested they hold back and say, "What we have is all right - it does the work". Doing the work is important but doing it better is more important. The human family in industry is always looking for a park bench where it can sit down and rest. But the only park benches I know of are right in front of an undertaker's establishment. **** The younger generation - and by that I mean the generation that is always coming - knows what it wants and it will get what it wants. This is what makes for change. It brings about improvements in old things and developments in new things. **** We, as manufacturers, must offer those improvements after they have been found to be capable improvements. The public buys and disposes of what it has. The fact that it is able to dispose of what it has enables us, as producers, to put a lower price tag on the new model. The law of economy in mass production enters here. We are permitted to turn out cars in volume because there is a market for them ... If everyone were satisfied, no one would buy the new thing because no one would want it. The ore wouldn't be mined; timber wouldn't be cut. Almost immediately hard times would be upon us. You must accept this reasonable dissatisfaction with what you have and buy the new thing, or accept hard times. You can have your choice. _____ Charles Kettering was General Director of Research Laboratories at General Motors when he wrote this article. http://websupport1.citytech.cuny.edu/Faculty/pcatapano/lectures_us2/consumerdis2.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Jun 1 08:55:31 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 07:55:31 -0700 Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?The_New_Smear_Against_Ch=E1vez?= Message-ID: The New Smear Against Ch?vez http://socialistworker.org/print/2008/05/28/new-smear-against-chavez June 01, 2008 By Chris Carlson Socialist Worker May 28, 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The reported death of Manuel Marulanda, leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), once again highlights the U.S.-backed dirty war in that country. The Colombian military's report that it killed the rebel leader comes amid claims that the FARC is receiving support from the Venezuelan government, led by President Hugo Ch?vez. Chris Carlson, a contributor to venezuelanalysis.com, looks at the allegations that there is a connection between Venezuela and the FARC, and finds them lacking. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WASHINGTON AND its faithful lackeys in the media have launched a new offensive against Hugo Ch?vez and the government of Venezuela. The recent "discovery" of a laptop computer that allegedly belonged to the FARC guerrilla group has ignited another media-generated scandal, creating a whole new round of accusations against the Ch?vez government, but without any evidence to support them. Those who have followed events in Venezuela in recent years shouldn't be surprised by this. Every few months, a new controversy is ignited by the media regarding Venezuela's socialist president, Hugo Ch?vez; each time with plenty of distortions, baseless accusations and outright falsehoods. Late last year, the media "show" centered on a proposed reform to the Venezuelan constitution. The mainstream media repeated endlessly that the constitutional reform would make Ch?vez "president for life" and would "turn Venezuela into a dictatorship." In reality, the reform simply proposed the removal of presidential term limits--something that has also been in the works in neighboring Colombia, where it has gotten absolutely zero criticism from the mainstream media. The reason? Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is Washington's closest ally in the region. In early 2007, the media generated yet another controversy based on complete fabrications, this time about freedom of expression and media censorship in Venezuela. After President Ch?vez announced the decision not to renew a broadcast license of one of Venezuela's major TV stations (a legal right afforded to the president), a media scandal erupted claiming that there was no "freedom of expression" in Venezuela, and for months on end, the media repeated the false claim that Ch?vez had "shut down" a major media outlet and was "censoring the media" because of its anti-government stance. But the reality is that no TV station was ever closed down, and to this day, the same TV station continues to broadcast its virulently anti-Ch?vez message across the country by cable and satellite TV. In fact, much of the media in Venezuela continues to be extremely anti- Ch?vez, including nearly all of the major newspapers and several radio and TV stations, leaving the claims about freedom of expression in Venezuela to be completely baseless. Venezuela has a diversity of media outlets and a range of political debate that one could only dream of having in the United States. So it should come as no surprise that Washington and its unofficial spokesmen at the media are at it again, this time accusing Hugo Ch?vez of having ties to the Colombian guerrilla organization FARC. And they claim that the computer recently "uncovered" from a guerrilla camp has the evidence to prove it. This "proof," Washington claims, is enough to put Venezuela on their list of state sponsors of terrorism, a move that would significantly change relations between the countries and could involve economic sanctions against Venezuela. But, once again, the allegations are full of complete distortions and baseless claims. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THIS LATEST attack on Venezuela has centered on information found on laptop computers that were allegedly uncovered from a FARC guerrilla camp in Ecuador after the Colombian military made an illegal cross- border bombing of the camp, an attack that was widely condemned in Latin America, but which Washington supported. The illegal military assault resulted in the killing of a top FARC official along with more than 20 other people, including several university students from Mexico. Hours after the attack, Colombia announced it had "found" a laptop computer at the camp belonging to the FARC, and that it contained information linking the Venezuelan government to the FARC guerrilla organization (allegations that Washington has long made, but has never supported with any evidence). The allegations raised some immediate doubts. First, how likely is it that a laptop computer could survive a bombing attack that killed nearly everyone in the camp? And second, if it did survive, how could the Colombian government have gone through the literally thousands of files on the computer in a matter of hours to find information implicating Hugo Ch?vez? But notwithstanding these questions, there is not even any way to prove that the computers were actually found at the guerrilla camp, or that the files contained on the computer are authentic, and weren't just put there by the Colombian government. After all, how easy would it have been for the Colombian government to simply load whatever files they wanted onto the computer, or simply prepare the computer ahead of time and claim that it was found it at the FARC camp? As Venezuela expert Eva Golinger said, "How easy it is to just write a document in Word on some computer and say it was written by someone else!" For this reason, the Colombian government invited the International Police (Interpol) to analyze the data and validate the information found on the computers. But contrary to the claims of the Colombian government and the international media, Interpol did nothing of the sort. The Interpol examination was limited to determining one thing: whether or not the computer files were manipulated after March 1, the date the Colombian military bombed the FARC camp and supposedly gained possession of the evidence. When Interpol's report stated that there was no evidence the files were manipulated, Colombia and Washington immediately jumped on this as validation for their claims. The international media faithfully echoed the official line. "FARC Computer Files Are Authentic," said one headline from the Washington Post. "Venezuela Offered Aid to Colombian Rebels," read another. And the next day, the BBC confidently stated, "Colombia did not fake Farc files." But even Interpol's own report reveals that they have no way of verifying this. Many of the files found on the computer were dated in the future, in 2009 and 2010, throwing out the reliability that any of the dates on the computer are accurate, and suggesting that the dates had been altered. In addition, Interpol's own report also says that they have no way of validating where the computers came from, or the source of any information found on the computers. "The verification of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits by Interpol does not imply the validation of the accuracy of the user files, the validation of any country's interpretation of the user files or the validation of the source of the user files," the Interpol report clearly states on page 9. So in other words, there is no way of knowing if the computers or any of the files contained on the computers are authentic, or if the Colombian government just made the whole thing up and planted the evidence. In spite of all this, Washington and the international media are treating the findings as irrefutable proof that Hugo Ch?vez has ties to the FARC guerrilla organization, and are accusing the Venezuelan government of supporting acts of "international terrorism." Some in Washington are even calling for Venezuela to be added to the U.S. State Department's list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism" along with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan and Syria, which could mean economic sanctions against Venezuela. Many analysts believe that the Bush administration will not go through with this, however, given that Ch?vez has repeatedly threatened to stop the supply of oil to the United States in the event of any aggressions toward Venezuela. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PERHAPS THE most ironic part of this latest attack on Venezuela is the fact that it is the United States, not Venezuela, that supports terrorism in Colombia. Washington sends hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Colombian government every year in addition to military equipment and personnel. In 2007, total aid to Colombia reached the astronomical level of $756 million, all of which goes to the Colombian government, and the Colombian military. Ironically, the largest perpetrators of violence and killing in Colombia are the Colombian military and the right-wing paramilitary groups connected to the government, not the FARC guerrillas. Human rights organizations that routinely document human rights violations in Colombia have repeatedly shown over the years that the paramilitary groups are responsible for the majority of the killings of civilians. For example, the Colombian Commission of Jurists (CCJ) reported last year that during President Uribe's first term in office (2002-2006), the paramilitaries were responsible for 61 percent of the deaths, the Colombian military accounted for 14 percent, while the various guerrilla groups were responsible for the remaining 25 percent. And over the last two years, it continues to be revealed that many in the Uribe government, including some of the president's closest allies, have maintained long ties to the right-wing paramilitary groups, those responsible for the largest portion of the killings in the country. As many as 33 lawmakers, and most recently, the president's cousin Mario Uribe Escobar, have been indicted for colluding with the paramilitaries and are currently in jail awaiting trial. It is becoming increasingly obvious that what is known as the "para- politcs" scandal is really more of a "para-Uribismo" scandal, as one Colombian senator has suggested--and that could explain why Uribe might want to divert attention away from his government and direct it toward Venezuela and the FARC. Once again, Washington and its allies have launched a successful media campaign of slander against Venezuela and the Ch?vez government. And, once again, it is based on lies, distortions and baseless accusations. But the hard truth is that Washington is supporting the side that is doing most of the killing in Colombia, with more money and weapons than the FARC could ever dream of having. And we don't need to "find" a laptop in the jungle to prove it. Chris Carlson writes for Venezuelanalysis.com Web site, a source in English for current news and analysis of Venezuela. Readers of Spanish should visit Aporrea.org. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Jun 1 09:56:10 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:56:10 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Algeria, France to Sign Nuclear Energy Pact + Algeria Riots Pose Risk of Wider Unrest Message-ID: It looks like the West is intent on proliferating nuclear technology in the Middle East: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Yemen (the poorest country in the Middle East!), all run by the regimes far more vulnerable to social unrest than Iran's. -- Yoshie Algeria, France to sign nuclear energy pact: minister 16 hours ago ALGIERS (AFP) ? Algeria and France are due to sign an unprecedented nuclear energy cooperation pact, Algerian Energy Minister Chakib Khelil said Saturday. At a press conference with Khelil, French counterpart Jean Louis Borloo said this agreement "mainly foresees an exchange of technology between the two countries as well as technical and financial assistance from France." Borloo refrained from giving any further information on the forthcoming agreement, saying that details will be released during Prime Minister Francois Fillon's visit to the North African country on June 20-21. The two countries signed a nuclear energy pact in Algiers back in December, during a visit to Algeria by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. "Cooperation on civil nuclear energy that our two countries have concluded is a sign that France trusts Algeria," Sarkozy said during the visit. It was also a wider mark of trust between the West and the Muslim world he added. This partnership will allow the mineral rich-country to take part in nuclear energy research, training and to exploit its uranium reserves. "This is the first time France has signed such an agreement with an Arab country," a delighted French representative said. A top presidential official confirmed that France would be in charge of installing the whole process to get this nuclear energy accord off the ground. Algeria has already signed similar nuclear energy deals with the United States and Russia. Since 1995 it has had two experimental nuclear reactors, both of which are monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Algeria riots pose risk of wider unrest Sun 1 Jun 2008, 11:00 GMT By William Maclean ALGIERS (Reuters) - Sporadic riots in OPEC member Algeria this year risk triggering wider protests against a political elite slow to turn unprecedented oil wealth into jobs and homes. Street clashes are a prickly issue in Algeria, a major gas exporter to Europe with a record of rebellion and where youth riots in 1988 forced the authorities to abandon one-party rule. The country of 33 million people is still searching for stability following an undeclared civil war in the 1990s that cost more than 150,000 lives. The violence erupted after the cancellation of a general election in 1992 which a now-outlawed Muslim fundamentalist party was poised to win. There is very little risk of a return to the bloodshed of the 1990s, Algerians say. But a return to nationwide civil disturbances that shook the north African country in 2001-02 and 1988 cannot be ruled out if violent protests continue. "We have settled into a rioting phase which augurs no good," wrote the independent El Watan newspaper. Unemployed youths in the second city of Oran last week spent three days ransacking banks, shops, cars and bars and fighting running battles with helmeted riot police firing tear gas. PETTY THUGS The immediate trigger was anger over the relegation of the town's soccer team to the second division. Commentators said that while the instigators may have been petty thugs, an atmosphere of despair over social ills helped draw in other youths and spread the turmoil to central districts. The unrest followed street protests in dozens of other towns in recent months over worsening economic and social conditions. Police have so far adopted a measured approach in tackling the disturbances, using tear gas and baton charges in towns such as Chlef, Oran and Berriane, but if rioters are killed the risk to national stability would grow, analysts say Former prime minister Ahmed Benbitour, a critic of what he calls the unresponsiveness of the army-backed administration, said the unrest showed the authorities should pre-empt more unrest by promoting transparency and cleaner government. "We need to work rapidly for change and set the conditions for its success in the interest of the Algerian people, or change will impose itself by force," he told El Khabar daily. Power is concentrated in the presidency, with parliament seen as a rubber-stamp. Some 75 percent of under 30-year-olds are unemployed and despite a state pledge to build a million new homes by 2009, demands for more housing are made daily. "Citizens, above all the young, compare what goes on in the country to other nations. They seek a living standard and a future akin to what they see on foreign TV," Benbitour said. Communications Minister Abderrachid Boukerzaza said the Oran disturbances "were at the centre of the concerns of the public authorities" and the government had embarked on an effort to understand the violence and identify its causes. Uppermost in many minds is concern to avoid a repeat of 2001, when a local revolt in the Kabylie region triggered by the death of a youth in police custody escalated into a national revolt against what protesters saw as authoritarian rule. The government only defused the unrest when it agreed to demands to withdrew the paramilitary gendarmerie from Kabylie. Some secular Algerians fear wider instability would present a window of opportunity to banned Islamist groups seeking a return to active politics: They could make political capital by using their extensive networks of informal influence in mosques and the black market to stabilise the situation, they argue. Last update - 13:27 29/12/2007 Sarkozy, in Egypt, offers French nuclear assistance to Cairo By Reuters French FM due in Jordan to sign nuclear deal 2 days ago US unveils deals with Saudi on nuclear power, oil protection May 16, 2008 UAE, France lay ground for nuclear partnership (Wam) 22 May 2008 Yemen signs nuclear energy deal with US firm Sep 24, 2007 -- Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Jun 1 10:00:54 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 12:00:54 -0400 Subject: [R-G] A Giant Backward Step on Iran Message-ID: May 30, 2008 A giant backward step on Iran By Kaveh L Afrasiabi "We haven't seen indications or any concrete evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and I've been saying that consistently for the last five years," Mohammad ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated last week at the World Economic Forum in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Unfortunately, the only thing consistent about ElBaradei is his inconsistency, reflected in his subsequent report, just delivered to the United Nations Security Council, which has been widely interpreted as "a grim reminder that Tehran is pressing ahead with its nuclear program", to paraphrase a New York Times editorial; the editorial goes on to say that ElBaradei's report "expresses serious concern about evidence [outlined in 18 documents accompanying the report] that Iran is working on programs with clear military applications". The report said Iran continued to stonewall investigators looking into documents alleging its government researched atomic weapons. But, didn't the same respected chief of the UN's atomic agency admit in his earlier report, in February, that his agency "has no credible information" regarding the so-called "alleged weaponization" studies? What magic was pulled on the IAEA to bestow sudden legitimacy on the admittedly "unreliable" and "dubious" information (other than the heat of US pressure)? Is this now the end of the IAEA's hitherto heroic standing up to the external pressures that threatened to compromise its integrity? Sadly, ElBaradei's latest report gives a strong impression that this may indeed be what is in store for the IAEA, which does not bode well either for the agency's own international prestige or for the future of its relationship with Iran - which has reacted angrily by calling the report a work of "deception" and deeply "flawed". New Majlis (parliament) speaker Ali Larijani - a former negotiator for Iran on its nuclear case - said in his first address to the legislature, "If they [the IAEA] want to continue along this path, the Majlis will surely take up the nuclear case and will set a new line for cooperation with the agency." Indeed, this report represents a giant leap backward with respect to the IAEA's performance on the Iran nuclear question, casting serious doubt on the agency's ability to conduct its business professionally and impartially. It was a mere two months ago that the agency gave a rather glowing report that declared all the "outstanding questions" minus the "alleged studies", which were never a part of the Iran-IAEA work plan in the first place, had been successfully resolved. Now the IAEA has now responded to the tremendous US backlash in the form of retracting some of its statements and adopting the US's allegations basically as facts warranting "serious concerns" about the peacefulness of Iran's nuclear program. In so doing, ElBaradei may have done some damage control in his relations with Washington, yet he has surely undermined the international community's confidence in his ability to operate independently and objectively, thus causing a widening perception gap toward the IAEA, between the West and the developing nations that are members of the Non-Aligned Movement. A clue to the bias of this report, ElBaradei fully contradicts himself by on the one hand stating that Iran's May 14 response to the IAEA's query regarding the alleged studies "could not yet be assessed by the agency" yet, on the other hand, puts a negative assessment on it by declaring it inadequate by statements such as "substantive explanations are required for Iran to support its statements". A more prudent director general would have issued his report after a careful assessment of Iran's response, including for example Iran's claim that some of the studies pertain to conventional military purposes. Although both this and prior IAEA reports confirm that the "agency has not detected the actual use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies", the tone of the latest report is so severe as to thoroughly discount this important observation as well as the fact that the IAEA has had unprecedented access to all nuclear facilities in Iran well beyond the scope of its inspection and verification agreements with Tehran. Another clue to the report's bias deals with its request for "more information on the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium metal document". This pertains to a 15-page document describing the procedures for the reduction of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to uranium metal, which can have weapons applications. Iran's position is that this was given to Iran, by the Pakistanis, in 1987 on their own volition and no activities were ever taken on them. The latter is confirmed in the IAEA's November 2007 report that states, "The agency has seen no indication of any UF6 reconversion and casting activity in Iran." In his February report, ElBaradei stated he was waiting for information from Pakistan to confirm Iran's response. Now, he admits in his latest report that the IAEA has indeed received such information that is consistent with Iran's statements, yet the issue has not been put to rest. Isn't the real purpose of keeping alive a moot issue, pertaining to a 21-year-old document, anything other than appeasing the Western powers that thirst in their desire for accusing Iran of nuclear proliferation? As a result, is it any wonder that US officials and media pundits have turned a deaf ear to the IAEA's categorical statement that it has not detected any evidence of military diversion, that it has been able to "verify" the non-diversion? The weight of disproportionate attention given to the "alleged studies" in ElBaradei's report facilitates the selective attention seen in the New York Times editorial, cited above, as well as in a slew of other US editorials, as if the entire US media have been put on automatic control on an "Iran offensive" fueled by this report, repeating parrot-like the official Washington line. Conspicuously absent in all reports is any reflection on the simple fact that these IAEA reports cite no evidence of safeguard breaches by Iran. Their frenzy of spinning things in an anti-Iran direction is clearly directed toward generating more heat on the recalcitrant UN Security Council members - Russia and China - to go along with more UN sanctions on Iran. And this while the previous IAEA report raised hopes that the council would gradually wash its hands of the Iran nuclear dossier and let it return to its proper forum, the IAEA. Wiping out that glimmer of hope by the fiat of his new emphasis on the "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear program, ElBaradei has also potentially jeopardized the well-spring of Iran's confidence in his agency, reflected in the stern statements that Tehran may now reconsider its cooperation with the IAEA. After all, if the net result of Tehran's nuclear transparency and cooperation is more fuel to punish Iran, why bother. Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote "Keeping Iran's nuclear potential latent", Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction. -- Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Jun 1 10:16:13 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 12:16:13 -0400 Subject: [R-G] What Putin Said to Le Monde Message-ID: Vladimir Poutine, premier ministre russe Vladimir Poutine : "Elargir l'OTAN, c'est ?riger de nouveaux murs de Berlin" LEMONDE.FR | 31.05.08 | 10h56 ? Mis ? jour le 31.05.08 | 14h02 Propos recueillis par Marie J?go, R?my Ourdan et Piotr Smolar La version int?grale de l'interview de Vladimir Poutine LEMONDE.FR | 31.05.08 | 13h57 ? Mis ? jour le 31.05.08 | 13h58 Propos recueillis par Marie J?go, R?my Ourdan et Piotr Smolar June 1, 2008, 9:32 What Putin said to Le Monde - in full On his official visit to Paris, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin spoke exclusively and at length to France's Le Monde newspaper. RT now presents the full version of that interview. Click the video button to watch the interview in full - below is a transcript On Russia's political system Russia is a presidential republic. And we are not going to strip the head of state of the key role he plays in Russia's political system. As for the delineation of responsibilities, the final decision, of course, is always made by the president, and that post today is occupied by Dmitry Medvedev. Of course, that I am now the head of the cabinet is an interesting fact in our political history. But of even greater interest is the fact that I am now the head of a political party that plays a leading role in Russia's politics and has a clear majority in parliament. This clearly indicates that Russia pays close attention to maintaining a multi-party system and increasing parliament's influence on its politics. It is this, I believe, that should be considered as the most important political signal. There are many challenges that Russia is facing. And we intend to deal fairly with our people. We are not going to play politics. If we succeed in what we do, it doesn't matter how everything is organised at the top level. What is important is that we reach our goals. Today, we in Russia have an effective, professional team of experts and politicians supporting us in parliament. We will do our best to preserve this unity for as long as possible. As for the distribution of roles and ambitions, that is a secondary matter. We do not invent anything, but develop our country, following the principles and criteria established in the civilised world and applicable to our reality, I mean political history and political culture in the Russian Federation - its traditions. It is this way that we are going to work. The judicial system, which despite its many drawbacks, does get firmer and functions. The law-enforcement and state management, including the judicial branch, functioned rather poorly in defending the interests of the people. Thus, naturally the people had a disrespect and mistrust towards the justice system. Which means our task is to improve this system. And this is what we have been doing and are going to continue to do. Much remains to be done to make the system work 100 per cent for the benefit of the people. The same I can say about the multi-party system. Much has been done to enhance parliamentarianism and the multi-party system. It is not about a thousand parties who are incapable of organising a political process and destroy the state organisation. A multi-party system is, in my view, when large groups of people representing the interests of various groups of the population, can efficiently function, and during the political struggle, a civilised struggle between themselves, work out decisions to express the interests of the overwhelming majority of the country's population. Also, in recent years we've undertaken concrete steps fixed in the law, concerning the passing over of some authority from the federal level to the regional and municipal. We have actually decentralised power and passed on some of the authority, along with financial resources to local levels. Without the municipal component there can be no normal, civilised society. We are aware of this and are acting towards this. It needs to be done according to reality, we'll make our steps realistic in order to improve the country. However, there are certain traditions which must be taken into account. At the same time, we'll be moving within the main stream of a general civilisation process. On Russia's energy sector In most oil-producing countries, oil-extracting companies are state-owned. In Russia, private companies account for a larger part of the oil and gas sector. All the world's oil giants are represented in the Russian oil sector, including those from Europe, including those from France: Gaz de France, Total? And those companies develop our major fields. Granted, we did take some steps to support those companies where the state has a share, or a controlling stake - say, Gazprom, or Rosneft. But all the other companies - and we have perhaps a dozen major companies - are in private hands, and some of them are owned by foreigners. British, American, Indian, Chinese, French, German companies? The Russian energy sector is much more liberal than those of many other countries, even European ones. For example, we are about to complete a massive reform of the electric energy sector. From July 1st, our largest electrical company, UES, will cease to exist. Instead, we'll have several major companies that were parts of this one big company. Generating facilities - both individual power plants and groups of plants - will now be sold to private owners. Major players from Europe will be part of this: ENI from Italy, some German companies? They will invest 6, 8, 10, or 12 billion dollars or euros. Please note that few European countries are so liberal. Nobody allows Russian investors to buy into similar projects abroad. But we are giving other countries such an opportunity. We have offered certain benefits to newly-developed fields, including those in the northern sea shelf and in Eastern Siberia, where there is no infrastructure. I have no doubt whatsoever that this sector of the Russian economy will develop dynamically in the near future. On TNK-BP TNK-BP hasn't had any trouble so far. They do have some problems with their Russian partners. Several years ago, I warned them that they had it coming. It's not because it's TNK-BP. It's because several years ago, they set up a joint venture with a 50-50 ownership. When they did it - and I was present when they signed the papers - told them, "You shouldn't do it. You should decide between the two of you who will have a controlling stake. And we don't mind if you want BP to have it. We would, of course, like to see the Russian side, TNK, as the main shareholder. But somebody has to be in charge. When you don't have a clearly defined authority in such a business, it is very likely you'll run into problems." They told me, "No, we will always be able to work out an agreement." I told them, "Fine, go ahead if you want." Now they have problems. They constantly have frictions regarding this matter, which one of the two companies is in charge. That's the main problem. These are commercial disputes within the company. On his achievements as president I'd prefer not to do it myself. I'd prefer not to assess the work I've done - although I believe I have been working diligently and in good faith, and there are many things I was able to accomplish, from restoring Russia's territorial integrity and constitutional order to ensuring the good dynamics of Russia's economic development and fighting poverty. The high oil prices and the situation on international markets today, of course, had a positive effect on the Russian economy, and that effect was substantial and significant. Nevertheless, I'd like to point out that there have been periods in the past, say in the time of the Soviet Union, when oil prices were quite high. However, that money was squandered and had no impact on economic development. In fact, even if we consider our recent history, one may recall that the oil price began to grow in 2004. But we were able to achieve a record 10% growth in the Russian economy as early as in 2000. That had nothing to do with oil prices. We made some changes to our tax system and our administration system to ensure growth in the manufacturing industry, which is of the utmost importance to us. On what's still to be done We need to make sure the Russian economy develops in an innovative way. We want our economy to be innovative, but even in our plans for the next five years our goals for the innovative part of the economy are too low. However, what this means is that we are focusing on those problems now. We'll work until we solve them. In Russia, we also face the need to take some steps to modernize a number of areas. I'm referring not only to making the economy more innovative - something that we are now working on and that has started to produce some results. But we should also change the way we pay our public servants. We need to switch to an occupation-based system of payment. We need to modernize our pension system. We need to ensure that our senior citizens have a decent life, a decent income. We need to bring up the so-called replacement ratio, i.e., the ratio between the pension and the income one has during their working life. Also, we need to modernise agriculture. On Mikhail Khodorkovsky Khodorkovsky broke the law. More than once and grossly. What's more, a part of his group is guilty, proven in a court, of personal crimes, not only economic. They committed murders, more than one person. This kind of "competition" is not admissible. And we'll do our best to stop it. Just as I was when I was president, Dmitry Medvedev should be guided by Russian legislation. Mr Medvedev, like myself, graduated from the Law Faculty of St. Petersburg University. We had good teachers who taught us to respect the law. And I've known Mr. Medvedev for many years. He will respect the law and, incidentally, he has said this in public several times. On Chechnya and the Caucasus The situation in the Chechen Republic has improved, and it improved because of several circumstances, the main one being the fact that the Chechen people have made a certain choice for themselves towards the development of their republic within the Russian Federation. We saw the reaction of the Chechen people to attempts to implant untraditional forms of Islam into the minds of the local population. This is what it all started with - resisting Wahhabism. In fact it is a normal branch of Islam, and there is nothing terrible in it, but it is those extremist trends within it, that were trying to be implanted into the consciousness of the Chechen people. And the people realized that someone from outside was fighting not for their interests, but trying to use people as a tool to loosen the Russian Federation as a major and significant player on the international arena and that would bring only suffering to the people. The awareness of this factor was the main thing, in terms of stabilisation. This was what it started with. And it became a fact, when we understood that the population's mood has changed, we passed on the main part of the responsibility, both in law-enforcement sector and economy. It seemed impossible that a defence minister in the government led by [Aslan] Maskhadov could become a member of today's Chechen parliament. Now it's a fact. And it created the necessary political conditions for the reconstruction of Grozny and for immediate steps in the economy. I can tell you that courts and the prosecutor's office is actively working in the Chechen Republic, and investigations are carried out. Suspects are made accountable for any crimes committed, disregarding their motives or previous posts or jobs. Even concerning former rebels and Russian servicemen. Criminal prosecution is possible not only in future but now. We have trials completed against a number of people who are convicted while serving as Russian officers, they are now in prison. I should say it was a hard decision for our courts, because despite their apparent crimes, a court jury justified them on more than one occasion. It shows trends in Russian society. Especially after the atrocities done to our citizens by terrorists. I'm personally certain that if we want to bring the order and peace, we mustn't let anyone contravene the law. As far as Dagestan and Ingushetia are concerned, we see and are well aware of what is going on there - there are indeed disputes and conflicts of interest, but it is not about political interests, but first and foremost, economic, as well as some political conflicts, but not related to any separatist movements - it is about an internal political struggle within the republics themselves. What is the priority for the Caucasus as a whole and the republics? First for all, it's the restoration of the social and economic sectors. Many people live below the poverty line there, most suffering from unemployment, which is particularly bad among young people. So we have adopted a Programme of Development for Southern Russia, which concerns the North Caucasus republics, first of all. This programme envisages huge investments into the economy and the social sector as a priority. I count on it to be fulfilled successfully. On NATO We are generally against NATO extension. Let's remember how NATO was created - in 1949, the 5th paragraph of the Washington treaty. It was done as a defensive measure during a face-off with the Soviet Union. To defend against a possible threat. The Soviet Union used to say that it wouldn't attack anybody, western countries said the opposite, but nevertheless officially it was done to defend against the Soviet Union. There's no Soviet Union anymore. There's no threat. But the organisation remains. The question is: "Against whom are you allied? What is it all for? " Ok, some say NATO should fight modern threats. But what are these threats? The spread of nuclear weapons, terrorism, epidemics, international crime, drugs. Is it possible to tackle these threats as a closed military alliance? No. These problems can be solved only on the basis of wide cooperation. Not on the basis of a military block, but on the basis of global cooperation. On the basis of an honest, open and joint struggle against these problems. And expanding the bloc is only creating new borders in Europe. New Berlin walls. This time invisible, but no less dangerous. It limits the power of joint efforts against common threats, because it leads to distrust. It's obstructive. We all know how decisions are made in NATO. Military-political blocs limit the sovereignty of any member country. Inside barrack-like discipline appears. And the decisions are at first made (we all know where) in one of the leading countries of the bloc, and then legitimized and dispersed. For example the decision on AMD. At first the decision was made and THEN it was discussed in Brussels, only after we criticized it. And we are afraid that if these countries get into NATO today - tomorrow there might appear some offensive rocket systems which will pose a threat to us. Nobody will ask them - the rockets will appear whatever. And what are we going to do then? We always talk about limiting arms in Europe. But while Western countries have been talking about it, we have done it in our country. And in return two military bases appeared near our borders? Soon we might get two new positions in Poland and the Czech Republic. And we can see that military infrastructure is heading towards our borders. What for? No one is posing threat. How can you be a good willing democrat inside the country, and a scary monster outside? What's democracy? - it is power of the people. In Ukraine polls show more than 80 per cent of the population does not want the country to join NATO. And our partners say that Ukraine WILL be in NATO. So they have decided everything for Ukraine? The opinion of the Ukrainian people doesn't mean anything? And you are saying this is democracy? On double standards and the West We always hear things like "we are civilised countries in the West, choosing partners we should follow common values." Remembering the hard events in the Caucasus several years ago - thank god it's over now ? during an apparent civil war we suspended the death penalty in our country. It was a hard, but responsible decision. Isn't it a case of "common values"? In some G8 countries, NATO members, the death penalty persists. Death penalties still carried out. Are they "common values"? It doesn't stop them from being in NATO and G8. Why is it so selective concerning Russia? What's permitted to Caesar is not permitted to anyone else? Such dialogue cannot be productive. We should show our hands, treat each other honestly, respect each other - and then a lot more can be done. Let's take Deripaska for example. I asked my US partners: "Why don't you grant him a visa? Can you explain? If you have reasons for not giving him a visa, if you have evidence of his illegal activity, please give them to us, and we'll use them in our country. They would give us nothing and explain nothing. However, he was not granted entry. He is not a friend or relative of mine, just a representative of big business in Russia. He has multi-billion dollar commercial interests in many countries of the world. Why is he restricted? What did he do? If there is something, show it to us. If there is nothing to show, then remove the restrictions. On Iran's nuclear programme I don't think the Iranians are looking to make a nuclear bomb. We have no reason to believe this. The Iranian people are very proud and independent. They are trying to implement their legal right to develop peaceful nuclear technologies. I should say that formally Iran hasn't violated any rules. It even has the right to carry out enrichment. It only takes a quick glance at the relevant documents to confirm this. There were some claims that Iran hadn't revealed all its programmes to the IAEA. This is what we need to clear up. But to a large extent Iran has revealed its nuclear programmes. I repeat there is no official basis for legal claims against Iran. But I have always openly told our Iranian colleagues that we take into account that Iran is not isolated in a vacuum, but in a very dangerous and volatile region. They should keep this in mind and avoid aggravating their neighbours and the international community, and should take steps to convince the international community that they have no secret plans. We have worked in very tight cooperation with our partners in Iran and within the framework of the six-party talks, and we will continue to do this in the future. We are against - this is our principle - we are against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We think it's a very dangerous trend. And most importantly its not in the interest either of Iran or the region as a whole. Because the use of nuclear weapons in such a small region as the Middle East is nothing short of suicide. In whose interest could a nuclear bomb possibly be used? Palestine? If nuclear weapons were used, Palestine would cease to exist. We remember the Chernobyl tragedy - all it takes is for the wind to blow in the wrong direction, and that's it! Who could possibly benefit from this? We think it's counter-productive. This has always been our position and I hope this opinion will be shared by president Medvedev. We will use any means possible to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. We offered an international programme of enrichment, because Iran is only a part of the problem. A lot of countries are on the threshold of the peaceful use of nuclear energy. And this means that they will need enrichment technology. And if they create their own closed cycle to solve the problem, there will always be the suspicion that they could produce military grade uranium. It is difficult to control. That's why we propose carrying out the enrichment on the territory of those countries which are beyond suspicion because they already possess nuclear weapons. Also these countries will get a guarantee that they will receive the uranium they need and be able to send spent fuel for recycling. It is possible to create such a system and it will be reliable and safe. On France's presidency of the EU France is our long-time partner and a reliable one. We have always talked about the strategic partnership between France and Russia, and I agree with this definition. France has always had and I hope will continue to have an independent foreign policy. It's in their blood - they won't be dictated to. And any French leader should always keep this in mind. We can see this independence today, we value it very much, and that's why we expect a lot from France's EU chairmanship. First of all we expect a constructive dialogue aimed at creating the legal basis for our relations with EU. I am talking about our fundamental partnership treaty which as you know has expired. However, this is not a legal vacuum, because existing procedures exist making it possible for us to prolong it every year, but of course it needs to be renewed. We have said many times that we are interested in signing a new agreement; this of equal importance to our European partners as it is to us. So I expect that the French chairmanship will lead to the renewal of our relations, and to joint efforts in developing our mutual interests. -- Yoshie From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Jun 1 14:09:45 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:09:45 -0700 Subject: [R-G] May 30, 1942: The day the United States sold its soul Message-ID: <200806012009.m51K9j70003684@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080601/f1993ac8/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Jun 1 14:08:53 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:08:53 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Reclaim Your Sense of Outrage - An interview with John Cusack Message-ID: <200806012008.m51K8rqv002889@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080601/d7766ec4/attachment.txt From shniad at sfu.ca Sun Jun 1 14:14:03 2008 From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:14:03 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Israel may well attack Iran soon: former German foreign minister Message-ID: <200806012014.m51KE34X007528@rm-rstar.sfu.ca> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/rad-green/attachments/20080601/b0c21665/attachment.txt From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Jun 1 17:57:46 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:57:46 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Pursuit Of Happiness Message-ID: <4843377A.1000309@attglobal.net> A six-hour day at the Kellogg Company plant liberated time for family and community, and provided jobs for the unemployed by Benjamin Hunnicutt It's About Time! (IC#37), Winter 1994, Page 34 The forty-hour-plus workweek has been part of the US job system for so many years that many people think of it as a natural law. Historian Benjamin Hunnicutt has spent years researching one company - Kellogg's - that broke that law by cutting work hours. He talked to hundreds of workers, many of whom recall the freedom and creativity unleashed by the extra time. Hunnicutt, who is the author of Work Without End (1990), is in the process of writing his findings on Kellogg's into a book, which will be published by Temple University Press. On December 1 1930, at the start of the Great Depression, W K Kellogg replaced the traditional three daily, eight-hour shifts in the Battle Creek, Michigan, cereal plant with four six-hour shifts. From now on, W K declared, his Cornflakes and Shredded Wheat would be produced by a company with a conscience, willing to do its share to fight the depression. By adding one entire shift, he reasoned, thirty percent more jobs would be added at the plant - jobs desperately needed by the unemployed in the city. Kellogg's six-hour day was an instant success, attracting national media coverage and the attention of Herbert Hoover's administration. The initiative won strong support from prominent businessmen and labor leaders all over the country, and from community leaders and workers in Battle Creek. Observers throughout the world speculated that Kellogg's experiment offered a practical way out of the depression, and in light of the fact that hours of labor had been steadily declining for over a century, was almost certainly a foretaste of things to come. W K and his lieutenants believed that the six-hour day would revolutionize industry because the balance of the workers' lives would shift from concerns about money and jobs to concerns about freedom. The true miracle of welfare capitalism would thereby be revealed: expanding leisure. Under the direction of enlightened industrialists such as W K, the exchange of goods, services, and labor in the free market would not have to result in mindless consumerism or eternal exploitation of people and resources. Rather, workers would be liberated by increasingly higher wages and shorter hours for the final freedom promised by the Declaration of Independence - the Pursuit of Happiness. Through the depression years, the six-hour day functioned as W K Kellogg and Lewis J Brown, the company president, hoped. Jobs were created as the company payroll grew. Plant employees seemed delighted to have more time of their own, especially so since their weekly paychecks were only a little smaller. Workers were paid for seven hours during the first year of the six-hour day, but beginning in the second year, total wages were raised back to the nominal level of the eight-hour day. Productivity was up, both because of the introduction of new technology and because of Kellogg's innovative approach to hours and work incentives. In essence, the management of Kellogg's was sharing the benefits of that increased productivity with the workers in the form of free time. Family and Community Life We have excellent information about what workers said about shorter hours. In 1932, the Women's Bureau of the US Department of Labor sent a research team to Battle Creek to interview Kellogg's women workers. The team found nearly 85 percent preferred the six-hour shift, primarily because it provided "more time for family activities and home duties and leisure" and because it helped some of the unemployed find work. The great majority of the Kellogg women used "freedom" or closely related words when the agents asked them to compare the eight-hour and six-hour shifts. The second most commonly used pattern of words had to do with control and possession; the women spoke about "my work", "my own time", "time to myself", or "enables". Several women told the agents that the balance of their life seemed to be shifting from constraint/servitude toward freedom/control. Interviews and surveys I conducted more recently confirm the findings of the Women's Bureau study. For Susan Smith*, one of the Kellogg employees I talked to, work was never the central part of life. The extra time she had as a result of the six-hour shift allowed her to get her housework out of the way and get on to what she saw as the real part of the day: reading, walking, writing. She was self-educated, and it was in the few hours between routine housework and the job that she could keep the life of her mind and spirit alive, and find time to be involved in her community. [*These names are pseudonyms to protect the privacy of those interviewed.] Many of the women found routine, repetitive housework to be a burden, but they enjoyed canning, sewing, gardening, and other household activities that had a sense of 19th century craftsmanship to them. Josephine Isley* spoke enthusiastically about canning at home during her early days at Kellogg's, remembering it as a family project that "we all enjoyed". To her, canning wasn't work in the same way that the job at Kellogg's was work. Certainly canning required effort - great effort in some cases to get her sons involved. But it was a productive activity that provided a number of important non-financial benefits; the most important was that her family was together doing something worthwhile. After they were recruited, Isley recalled that her "sons opened up to talk freely" and that during such activities "we were the most together as a family". Because of such activities "we were better parents". She contrasted such complex activities with the "silly" kinds of leisure pastimes (TV and video games) which, together with modern jobs, take all the time from family activities. George Howard* wrote that "the six-hour shift let dad be with four boys at ages when that was important". The shorter shift made a difference on the job as well. Roberta Babcock* wrote "I retired before they did away with the six-hour day ... but from my observation in talking to friends who were still working, there was a vast difference in attitudes regarding their work. They more or less lost interest and didn't look forward to going in to work like we all did on six hours. Then, there was a much more relaxed attitude, not the tension that exists on eight hours. They all liked the additional money but felt it wasn't worth the constant hassle." Like generations of workers before them in Europe and the United States, the Kellogg's women also saw the shorter hours as a moral act, symbolizing their willingness to share their good fortune with others. They criticized those who didn't support the six-hour policy as "money-hungry work hogs". Although there is no comparable survey from the 1930s for the men, there is strong evidence that their general support was similar. In addition to plant-wide votes taken in the 1930s and 1940s in which men voted three to one for a six-hour shift, interviews with surviving male workers support this claim. To a man, workers who still remember the 1930s recall that there was nearly total support at the plant, and that the few who opposed shorter hours were branded as misfits and "work hogs". Community life was strengthened and opened as well. Although there is no hard data on changes in the use of libraries and recreational facilities, interviews with some 500 residents of Battle Creek who lived during this period and a review of the 1932 women's survey indicate that there was a strengthening of the traditional institutions that thrive when people have free time: amateur sports, bars, clubs, churches, community service. The six-hour shift also represented a new opportunity to do things beyond the traditional. There was a sense of expectation and experimentation. One woman learned how to fly, for example. Schools were well-attended by adults interested in personal enrichment, the arts, or getting a better job. People would go to the city. There was a lot of discussion about this opportunity to create something new. A Post-War Shift After 1938, Kellogg management soured on the short shift, and the company began to withdraw support. This was in part because of union demands that all workers be put on the six-hour shift; departments that had needed extra scheduling flexibility had until then remained on an eight-hour shift. Also, the fixed costs associated with each worker on the payroll had increased. Kellogg management had tried to prorate retirement pay, insurance benefits, and other benefits, but the union had pressed for increases. Another factor was that Kellogg himself stepped down, turning over management of the plant to Watson Vanderploeg, a banker from Chicago who didn't share Kellogg's welfare capitalist philosophy. Complying with Franklin Roosevelt's executive order mandating a longer work week as a wartime measure, the Kellogg plant went to three eight-hour shifts in the early days of World War Two. But prompted by the union, management reluctantly promised to return to the six-hour day as soon as the war ended. After the war, management tried to convince workers to continue working eight hours. Despite generous money incentives and company pressure, workers voted three to one in 1945 and again in 1946 to return to the short shift. Management insisted that "those who want it" be allowed to work longer hours. Workers were divided by this tactic. Senior men in skilled crafts were more interested in working longer for more money and less interested in sharing their work. This group formed a coalition with management and together they began to challenge the six-hour supporters. They did this largely by trying to persuade others in the plant to join them in voting for eight-hour days. They began to talk about "necessity" as an absolute and unchanging reality, the importance of "full-time work", and the unimportance of "leisure". Romanticizing Work Embracing the new "Human Relations" techniques of business management, Kellogg's management tried to convince employees that work was the center of life, important for its own sake. Echoing management's rhetoric, senior male workers joined management in supporting work as an ideal, affirming work as life's center and organizing principle. A few workers and union leaders even joined the more loquacious managers in romanticizing "The Job" and raising work to heroic and mythic proportions. During the depression and the 1940s, Kellogg's workers had spoken of necessity declining as wages increased, of the possibility of a person getting "enough" or "too much", and of being able to "share the work". They had also spoken of their "needs" in relation to non-monetary values, saying things such as, "I need the extra money, but I need the time at home more". But after the 1950s, the majority of the eight-hour workers abandoned the language of freedom and control that both men and women had used for over fifty years, insisting that money was the only real job benefit. They insisted that they never had "enough" to work less than full-time. Shorter hours for less money was "stupid", "silly", "crazy", "wasted", et cetera and only for the "weak girls", "lazy, sissy men", or "housewives" who really didn't need to work or didn't realize the seriousness of The Job. This issue divided workers along gender and class lines. More and more, leisure was feminized. Those with power and status in the community stood to lose out if another part of life - leisure, community, family - made competitive claims to meaning and significance in the lives of the workers, along with claims on their time and allegiance. If the most important part of people's lives is outside the context of work, who is in control? Traditionally women have had more power in the home and in the community. So the battle over time became a power struggle between those who wanted work to continue in its central role and those who were claiming the importance of other parts of the culture. To a significant degree, this division came down between sexes and classes. The Six-Hour Mavericks Through the late 1950s and 1960s, more of the six-hour departments voted to go to eight-hour shifts. But the workers in the remaining departments closed ranks, becoming a mutually supportive and combative group. After 1960, the majority of six-hour workers were women. The six-hour mavericks believed they were fighting labor's historic battle against unemployment. The local union had given up that effort on a local level in favor of supporting politicians who claimed they would conquer unemployment by creating more jobs at the national level. But the mavericks still spoke about unemployment as a local problem; the unemployed were laid-off friends, neighbors, and relatives. The primary reason most of the mavericks gave for their being at work in the first place was necessity. Nonetheless, this group continued to insist that it was possible to make "enough" on the short shift to live reasonably. They also spoke of balancing the need for money and the need for free time by limiting their work hours. This group also hoped that shorter hours would revitalize the home and community. If the family spent more time at home as the industrial work day diminished, more energy for home-making would be available, housework could be shared, and the positive parts of home-making accentuated. The home and neighborhood, rather than factories, shops, and stores, might then grow in importance. By the late 1950s, the remaining six-hour mavericks were not only fighting a losing battle with Kellogg management and senior craftsmen, they were facing the intrusion of mass culture. During the 1940s and 1950s, consumerism increased as a cultural force nationwide. Workers in Battle Creek offered more resistance than others, unwilling at first to give up their time for "living" to the lure of new things to buy. But after the 1950s, mass amusements, radio, and TV began their domination of leisure time. Passive culture consumption began to replace the traditional active practice and creation of culture. Why go see the women play baseball when you can watch the Detroit Lions on TV? Why do your own canning when you can buy canned goods at the supermarket? Why do anything in leisure time when you can pay someone else to do it? As leisure lost its cultural role, emptied of activity and community and family meaning, consumerism strengthened. After the the centrality of work was reaffirmed and abundant leisure branded as only for "silly girls", consumerism no longer had a rival in Battle Creek. The End of the Six-Hour Shift In this environment, the remaining six-hour workers had little chance. Under siege through the 1960s and 1970s, the group nevertheless held their position until the issue came to a head in the summer of 1984. The company claimed that strong competitive pressure within the cereal industry was forcing it to make its work force more "efficient". Singling out the six-hour departments for cutbacks, Kellogg's Board of Directors threatened to relocate most of the jobs at the plant to other cities unless all six-hour departments voted to go to an eight-hour shift immediately. Pressured by the union and threatened by the company, a majority of the six-hour workers voted on December 11 1984, to accept the longer hours . A Culture of Work & Consumerism Most economists and historians assume that the reason working hours have not gotten shorter for fifty years and that we are now increasingly overworked is because we can't afford to work less. The Kellogg story demonstrates that the "necessity" to work full-time does not come from on high, but is the product of changes in community beliefs, values, and culture. Consumerism was a strong competitor for the extra time. Moreover, as leisure became little more than TV, its attractiveness waned. Class and gender interests, traditions, and allegiances also helped determine the course of events. It was no accident that women were the strongest and most persistent of the six-hour advocates, doggedly criticizing the work-centered life and promoting alternative social structures, activities, and values. After World War Two, for reasons of community status and power, Kellogg's managers and senior male workers promoted work, trivialized leisure, and made shorter hours into an issue strongly associated with feminine values. Their position set them apart from six-hour women, who were looking outside the job to the family, school, and community for meaning and satisfaction, control, and status. Over fifty years, the debate in Battle Creek evolved from strong support of "less work and more life" in 1930s and 1940s to a reaffirmation of work as the center of life and a rejection of increasing free time. This cultural change, rather than economic necessity, is the fundamental reason why the six-hour day ended at Kellogg's. _____ The New Economic Gospel Of Consumption Where did our culture pick up the notion that there is no such thing as enough? That we have to work long hours our whole lives just to get by? That we have to have the latest gadget, clothes, cars, and so on? Ben Hunnicutt, in his book, Work Without End (1990), describes the way these notions were consciously promoted starting in the 1920s. Consumerism was the business world's answer to "demand saturation". The idea that people would have enough, and therefore both buy less and work less, was not appealing to the business leaders of the day. The following is excerpted with permission from Work Without End, published by Temple University Press. In the 1920s, work was becoming critically scarce because, as so many observers agreed, human needs for work's products were being satisfied. At the same time, traditional motives for working were diminishing due to the fact that basic needs were being met. It's "perfectly clear that the middle class American already buys more than he needs", but "unless we have a greater outlet for our goods ... as manufacturing efficiency increases, there will be larger groups with too much leisure", observed business spokesperson Walter Henderson Grimes. Since many Americans had achieved a standard of living above "need", economic growth seemed doomed. By the mid-1920s, the fears of businessmen that people had too little work were gradually replaced by a new and vigorous optimism, which industrial relations counselor E S Cowdrick called the "new economic gospel of consumption". The good news was that increased consumption could save economic growth and redeem work. If existing markets were being saturated, then the reasonable response would be to find new markets and increase consumption. Growth in the "new era" of abundance, however, seemed to be complicated by the fact that workers did not desire new goods and services - automobiles, chemicals, appliances, and amusements - as spontaneously as they did the old ones - food, clothing, and shelter. It would be the hard work of investors, marketing experts, advertisers, and business leaders, as well as the spending examples set by the rich, that would promote consumption. With this, the business community broke its long concentration on production, introduced the age of mass consumption, founded a new view of progress in an abundant society, and gave life to the advertising industry. - Benjamin Hunnicutt Last Updated 29 June 2000. Copyright (c) 1994, 1996 by Context Institute http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC37/Hunnicut.htm TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Jun 1 23:33:57 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:33:57 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The Right of Might Message-ID: <1BAD1895-7F14-4483-9D73-6B6ABC73F27F@shaw.ca> The Right of Might 2008/05/16 http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56155 WASHINGTON/BERLIN/YANGON(Own report) - A military intervention in Myanmar is supposed to help create a precedence for an institutionalized right to armed interventions in other countries. This is demanded by Western pressure groups supported by prominent German politicians. They are calling for the application of the "Responsibility to Protect", (R2P) concept that began appearing in Western documents in 2001, and was discussed for years in the UN - in spite of the resistance put up by states opposing Western hegemony. Disregarding their opinion, the UN General Secretary, Ban Ki-moon has appointed an "R2P" special advisor to promote the institutionalization of this right of intervention. It justifies using military means in cases ambiguously defined as "crimes against humanity." It is currently alleged that this crime is being committed, if, in the aftermath of a natural disaster, a government refuses to allow all of the offered relief personnel into its country. It is not necessary to have the authorization of the UN Security Council. De facto, this right of intervention can only be applied by the major Western nations with powerful armed forces. An influential German officer assisted in the elaboration of their concept. He also declared recently that nuclear first-strikes were admissible. "R2P" "R2P" is a concept that Western governments have been trying to institutionalize for years. It is centered around the basic assumption that each state has a responsibility to protect its citizenry ("Responsibility to Protect"). As "R2P" proponents argue, the fulfillment of this duty could be imposed from abroad through economic and political pressure, but above all with military means. Controversial is whether or not the UN Security Council must agree to the intervention. Leading "R2P" proponents argue this is not the case. 1 Also unclear is what kind of violation of a government's duty to protect warrants armed operations. Categories usually mentioned are genocide, war crimes, racist motivated mass murder and "crimes against humanity". Particularly the term "crimes against humanity" is open to interpretation and considerably lowers the threshold to intervention. Proponents of the "R2P" concept claim that national sovereignty must therefore be scaled back. Commission Report Since 2000, the "R2P" concept has been systematically gaining prominence. In August 2000 the Canadian government set up the "International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty," (ICISS) that studied the question for about a year. The commission's work culminated in a report, which has laid the basis for discussions and was transmitted to the UN General Secretary in late 2001. The commission, which also included hand-picked members from non- Western countries, was mainly financed by Canada and the USA.2 One of the commission members was the German general Klaus Naumann, formerly the Inspector General of the German Bundeswehr. Naumann is also co- author of a recently published study, that proposes a new Western military strategy. This study has drawn attention around the world, because its authors explicitly declare that a nuclear first strike is permissible.3 Special Advisor Ever since the public introduction of "R2P" through the Canadian paper, Western politicians have been seeking to have it anchored as a basis of UN policy. They are having success, in spite of the resistance of numerous nations defying Western hegemony, including the Peoples Republic of China and Venezuela. At the United Nations Summit in September 2005, 150 nations approved a declaration containing "R2P" formulations.4 Following a heated dispute, UN General Secretary Ban Ki- moon has appointed a "special advisor", whose job is to promote "R2P" as a basis of UN policy. The advisor, a US citizen, is seeking to impose this concept and has already reached agreements with the German Foreign Ministry.5 Natural Disasters The most recent offensive, using the pretext of the natural disaster in Myanmar, demonstrates the extent of the "R2P" proponents' plans. The local military government has for years felt under attack from the West, and for the past few months been confronted with threats of US air strikes, which is why it is not willing to unconditionally open up its territory to Western relief personnel, including soldiers.6 The "International Crisis Group" (ICG) says this refusal by the Myanmarian government could be considered a "crime against humanity" and - in accordance with "R2P" - trigger a military attack.7 In fact the Canadian "R2P" basic principles paper provides for "overwhelming natural or environmental catastrophes" as possible triggers for foreign intervention.8 Government Advisors These ICG findings are not so amazing. After all Gareth Evans is the ICG chairman, a leading proponent of "R2P," who, as co-chairman of the Canadian commission, played a leading role in the elaboration of the "R2P" basic principles paper. The ICG, one of the most influential organizations of global government advisors, has for years been campaigning in favor of "R2P." Among its members are influential personalities from various Western nations, such as the US financier George Soros and the expert Zbigniew Brzezinski and German politicians. Also with ICG membership are the former German Foreign Minister, Josef Fischer (Green Party), on the senior advisory board is Volker Ruehe (CDU) and Uta Zapf (SPD). According to its own indications, the German Foreign Ministry is one of its financiers. Inter-Party Consensus Several government ministers have already declared their accord with a military intervention against Myanmar and thereby signaled their agreement with a liberal interpretation of "R2P." In Berlin this interpretation finds inter-party consensus. Even in the "Left Party" - which is critical toward the Bundeswehr - a prominent parliamentarian is in favor of an intervention in Myanmar. "One goes in with the military and distributes the relief supplies. And if the local military gets in the way, one takes measures to be able to continue to distribute the supplies."9 Relief organizations, such as the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), are urgently warning against this approach, because in addition to the fatal consequences of a natural disaster, it would provoke armed conflicts - at the expense of the civilian population, whose suffering is allegedly supposed to be relieved. Disparate Rights If "R2P" is institutionalized, this would mean that the right of might will be formalized as the valid norm in global relations. The certain amount of protection afforded by the principle of sovereignty to weaker nations - in force in international relations since the 17th Century - would now be defunct. The major powers would only have to choose a pretext, to accuse an annoying government of "crimes against humanity," to justify military operations. The inappropriate handling of a natural disaster could possibly be grounds enough. The thought that "R2P" will be implemented against major powers because of the growing human rights organizations' protests, can be excluded and the thought that weaker nations would be entitled to the same rights and could militarily intervene in Europe or the USA is absurd. 1 The Responsibility to Protect; www.crisisgroup.org 2 Neben US-Stiftungen und dem kanadischen Staat trugen die Regierungen Gro?britanniens und der Schweiz kleinere Betr?ge bei. Der Bericht ist unter dem Titel "The Responsibility to Protect" erschienen und unter www.iciss.ca abrufbar. 3 see also The Grand Strategy 4 "Art. 139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." World Summit Outcome Document, September 2005 5 "The Responsibility to Protect". Podium Globale Fragen mit Prof. Edward C. Luck am 26.02.2008 im Ausw?rtigen Amt in Berlin; www.auswaertiges-amt.de 6 see also Overt or Covert 7 Gareth Evans: Facing Up to Our Responsibilities; The Guardian 12.05.2008 8 The Responsibility to Protect. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001; www.iciss.ca 9 Die Linke: "Da muss man milit?risch eingreifen"; Tagesspiegel 13.05.2008 http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56155 From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Jun 2 00:15:58 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:15:58 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Afghanistan: Why the occupation needs to end Message-ID: <455E95D2-FD74-446C-AFB3-FE4AA394F3C0@shaw.ca> AFGHANISTAN Afghanistan: Why the occupation needs to end http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/753/38902 Marlene Obeid 30 May 2008 The anti-war movement must step up its campaign for the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan. Although Australian public sentiment is to see an end to any involvement in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Rudd Labor government?s budget demonstrates its commitment to sustained increases in military funding to sustain Australian involvement in both the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The excuse in relation to Afghanistan is that Australian troops are aiding in ?reconstruction? efforts. The Afghan occupation is in its seventh year and resistance has not abated. A May 21 Centre for American Progress statement reported that, according to the US national intelligence director Michael McConnell, the US puppet regime of President Hamid Karzai controls no more than 30% of the country. Further, senior US army commanders in Afghanistan have requested at least 10,000 more troops to deal with increasing violence and attacks. Civilian casualties The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) relies heavily on air power because of a ?shortages of ground-troops?. Bombings are causing heavy civilian casualties, as well as resentment among the population. Afghanistan is no better off since the occupation began. The 2007 Afghanistan Human Development Report reveals catastrophic indicators: access to water is at 31% of households; life expectancy is 43.1 years; adult literacy is 23.5%; 50% of Afghan children under five are malnourished; and 6.6 million Afghans do not meet their minimum daily food requirements. Infant and maternal mortality rates have worsened since 2001. Infant mortality is 135 per 1000 live births, while the maternal mortality rate is estimated at 1600 per 100,000 live births. In the remote rural area of Badakshtan, the MMR is 6500 per 100,000 live births. 100,000 children are disabled and otherwise severely affected physically due to prolonged conflict in the country. Unemployment rates, citing CIA World Fact figures, remains high at 40%. Unsurprisingly, 4 million Afghans have taken refuge in neighbouring countries since October 2001, when the US-led invasion occurred. While under the regime of the Taliban, opium cultivation was almost eradicated. Since the invasion overthrew the Taliban regime, Afghanistan has become the ?opium capital of the world?. A March 13 Christian Science Monitor article reported that Afghanistan ?is responsible for 92 percent of global [opium] output. Each year, the country produces about [US]$4 billion [in opium, amounting to] 53 percent of gross domestic product, making drug production easily Afghanistan?s most lucrative industry. ?There are twice as many heroin users on the streets of Kabul than just four years ago and about one million of Afghanistan?s 34 million people are drug users ?? There are 60,000 children addicted to drugs. The French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, has called for a review of international aid to Afghanistan, stating that ?international aid has not fully yielded fruit?, according to a May 24 China View article. Much of the aid money is being used for military purposes rather than reducing poverty. Oppression of women The situation for women has not improved since the US-led invasion ? quite the contrary. The Revolutionary Association of Women in Afghanistan, the lead Afghan women?s rights group (which fought both the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the Taliban regime) has argued that the US-backed Karzai regime is no improvement for Afghan women. A 2008 RAWA report on the situation of women argued: ?After the 9/11 tragedy, when the US began bombing Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, the oppression of Afghan women was used as a justification for overthrowing the Taliban regime. Five weeks later America?s first lady, Laura Bush, stated triumphantly: ?Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes?. ?But unfortunately the reality shows a different picture. The people of the world should know that though the disgusting, ludicrous and oppressive rule of Taliban was over in our ill-fated Afghanistan, this never meant the end of the horrible miseries of our tortured women. ?Because contrary to the aspirations of our people and expectations of the world community, the Northern Alliance, these brethren-in-creed of the Taliban and al Qaeda, are again in power and generously supported by the US government.? At present, through Operation Slipper, Australia has 1080 army personnel in Afghanistan ? which will be increased by another 550 sometime this year when combat troops are deployed to this area from Iraq. The Australian government has allocated A$429 million to this operation, plus $72.4 million for equipment on electronic counter measures in Iraq and Afghanistan, a further $122 million on Official Development Assistance and $47 million for a deployment of Australian Federal Police. Four hundred Australian soldiers are carrying out ?reconstruction? work in the village of Tarin Kowt in the Uruzgan province. The rest of the Australian soldiers are carrying out mainly support operations at airfields to the ISAF ? as well as providing surveillance, security, and aiding other occupying forces in Kabul, Urguztan and Helmand provinces. This a clear indication that the ?reconstruction? efforts are just a facade. It is obvious that Australia is aiding and abetting in a disastrous occupation ? contrary to the 1945 UN charter, the 1960 declaration of decolonisation and the 1966 international bill of rights (IBR). Foreign troops have not brought democracy to Afghanistan, but even more chaos and misery. It is time that all Australian troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan, and that the Australian government recognises the right of the Afghan people to self-determination, as noted in the first article of the IBR. [Marlene Obeid is an activist from the Sydney Stop the War Coalition and the Canterbury Bankstown Peace Group.] From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Mon Jun 2 07:18:13 2008 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:18:13 -0600 Subject: [R-G] The Brink of War [via Portside] Message-ID: <000d01c8c4b3$1d75ab20$0400a8c0@computer> NOTE BY HUNTER: Thanks much, Steve, for passing this along. I had noted this good Portside posting when it came -- but had, because of some personal challenges, deferred reading that grouping of its posts. [I usually read them very early on.] I am passing this along for obvious reasons to our three lists that have followed the FLDS / Texas situation with some consistency. Essentially, it's a quite good article -- and I am glad that it draws on the scholarship of LDS church historians who have always struck me as quite astute. I add only a few thoughts. It's been well established that the upper echelon of LDS leadership including Brigham Young, neither initiated nor sanctioned the Mountain Meadows Massacre [of the party of Gentiles from Arkansas] or had any advance knowledge of it. This has been underscored many times, including quite recently, by reputable scholars of all sorts -- though not always by "popular" writers. This obviously tragic situation, the outgrowth of then unremitting and general national hostility toward Mormons and their Salt Lake Zion. was a locally based affair. The very honorable Jacob Hamblin, known as the "Mormon Leatherstocking," who devoted his entire life toward building peaceful relations between the Mormons and the Indian nations of that vast region -- and who was eminently successful in his endeavors -- had no prior hint of the sanguinary Mountain Meadows affair. In the end, the primary blame was placed by Federal authorities -- wrongly in the opinion of some -- on the shoulders of a key LDS leader, John Doyle Lee. Lee had removed to Northern Arizona following the massacre but, years later, upon his return to Utah, was charged with having organized it, and was executed by a U.S. Army firing squad. He had been excommunicated by the Church; but decades later, about 50 years ago, that was formally lifted and he was reinstated. A great/great grandson of his was one of my closest friends in Flagstaff. A major factor in the early history of Mormon Utah was the discovery, by Gentiles, of gold, silver, lead, and truly vast deposits of copper in the Oquiirh Mountains near and southwest of Salt Lake. Primarily agricultural, and often in the communalistic sense, the Mormons were wary of mining and its corporate backing. This was a major factor in the shrill and sanctimonious anti-Mormonism which came to be generated ostensibly by the "polygamy issue." In epoch after epoch, the metal mining companies have obviously always known what "witch" to burn to serve their economic purposes. Efforts were made in this southeastern region of Idaho to prevent incoming Mormon settlers from voting -- for some years after the 20th Century began. Some anti-Mormonism is still found hereabouts -- and certainly in many other parts of the country. The LDS church, today, has obviously undergone some considerable acculturation vis-a-vis the "national culture." It does retain its faithful loyalty to its basic doctrines and its unique and appealing identity. The fundamentalist Mormons, of course, have essentially remained quite unacculturated -- and, obviously, very very traditional. And, of course [as I've said countless time by now!], that's their right. Best, H ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven McNichols" To: "'Hunter Gray'" Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 11:16 PM Subject: FW: The Brink Of War Hunter: Have you seen this? Steve Steven F. McNichols 268 Bush Street, #3602 San Francisco, CA 94104-3503 -----Original Message----- From: owner-portside at LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG [mailto:owner-portside at LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG] On Behalf Of moderator at PORTSIDE.ORG Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 3:15 PM To: PORTSIDE at LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG Subject: The Brink Of War The Brink Of War By David Roberts Smithsonian Magazine June 2008 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/brink-of-war.html One hundred fifty years ago, the U.S. Army marched into Utah prepared to battle Brigham Young and his Mormon militia On July 24, 1847, a wagon rolled out of a canyon and gave Brigham Young, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, his first glimpse of the Great Salt Lake Valley. That swath of wilderness would become the new Zion for the Mormons, a church roughly 35,000 strong at the time. "If the people of the United States will let us alone for ten years," Young would recall saying that day, "we will ask no odds of them." Ten years to the day later, when the church's membership had grown to about 55,000, Young delivered alarming news: President James Buchanan had ordered federal troops to march on the Utah Territory. By then, Brigham Young had been governor of the territory for seven years, and he had run it as a theocracy, giving church doctrines precedence in civil affairs. The federal troops were escorting a non-Mormon Indian agent named Alfred E. Cumming to replace Young as governor and enforce federal law. In their long search for a place to settle, Mormons had endured disastrous confrontations with secular authorities. But this was the first time they faced the prospect of fighting the U.S. Army. On June 26, 1858, one hundred fifty years ago this month, a U.S. Army expeditionary force marched through Salt Lake City-at the denouement of the so-called Utah War. But there was no war, at least not in the sense of armies pitched in battle; negotiators settled it before U.S. troops and Utah militiamen faced off. On June 19, the New York Herald summarized the non-engagement: "Killed, none; wounded, none; fooled, everybody." In retrospect, such glibness seems out of place. The Utah War culminated a decade of rising hostility between Mormons and the federal government over issues ranging from governance and land ownership to plural marriage and Indian affairs, during which both Mormons and non- Mormons endured violence and privation. The tension was reflected in the fledgling Republican Party's 1856 presidential platform, which included a pledge to eradicate the "twin relics of barbarism-polygamy and slavery." To look back at this episode now is to see the nation at the brink of civil war in 1857 and 1858-only to pull back. "The Utah War was catastrophic for those who suffered or died during it, and it was catalytic in advancing Utah along the slow but eventual path to statehood," says Richard E. Turley Jr., assistant church historian and recorder of the LDS Church. Allan Kent Powell, managing editor of the Utah Historical Quarterly, notes that Abraham Lincoln warned, in 1858, that "a house divided against itself cannot stand," referring to the United States and slavery. "The same comment could have been applied to Utah," says Powell. "Just as the nation had to deal with the issue of slavery to ensure its continuation, so did the Territory of Utah have to come to an understanding and acceptance of its relationship with the rest of the nation." The nation was unable to put off its reckoning over slavery. But the resolution of the Utah War bought the LDS Church time, during which it evolved as a faith- renouncing polygamy in 1890, for example, to smooth the way to Utah statehood-to become the largest home-grown religion in American history, now numbering nearly 13 million members, including such prominent Americans as Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada and hotelier J. W. Marriott Jr. At the same time, anti-Mormon bias persists. Last December, in an effort to make voters more comfortable with his Mormon faith, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, then a Republican presidential contender, declared like the Catholic John F. Kennedy before him: "I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion." In a Gallup Poll taken after Romney's speech, 17 percent of respondents said they would never vote for a Mormon. Roughly the same percentage answered similarly when Romney's father, Michigan Governor George Romney, ran for president in 1968. Even now, issues rooted in the era of the Utah War linger. Last September, when the LDS Church formally expressed regret for the massacre of some 120 unarmed members of a wagon train passing through Utah on September 11, 1857, the Salt Lake Tribune published a letter comparing the events to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A raid this past April by state authorities on a fundamentalist Mormon compound in Texas returned the subject of polygamy to the headlines (though the sect involved broke from the LDS Church more than 70 years ago). "In the late 1850s, Mormons believed that the world would end within their lifetimes," says historian David Bigler, author of Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847-1896. In addition, he says, "they believed the forefathers who wrote the American Constitution had been inspired by God to establish a place where His kingdom would be restored to power. The Mormons believed their own kingdom would ultimately have dominion over all the United States." At the same time, the American nation was pursuing a "manifest destiny" to extend its domain westward all the way to the Pacific. The continent was not large enough to accommodate both beliefs. The conflict had been building almost from the moment Joseph Smith, a religious seeker, founded his church in Palmyra, New York, in 1830. Where other Christian churches had strayed, Smith preached, the LDS Church would restore the faith as conceived by Jesus Christ, whose return was imminent. The next year, Smith moved with about 75 congregants to Ohio and sent an advance party to Missouri to establish what they believed would be a new Zion. In the agrarian democracy Americans were building, both land and votes mattered. Non-Mormons felt threatened by the Mormons' practices of settling in concentrated numbers and voting as a bloc. The Missouri Mormons were forced to relocate twice in the mid-1830s. In Ohio, an anti-Mormon mob tarred and feathered Smith in 1832, and he left the state in 1838 after civil lawsuits and a charge of bank fraud followed the failure of a bank he had founded. By the time he arrived in Missouri that January, non-Mormons were assaulting Mormons and raiding their settlements; a secret Mormon group called the Sons of Dan, or Danites, responded in kind. That August, Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs issued an order to his state militia directing that the Mormons "be exterminated or driven from the State for the public peace." Two months later, 17 Mormons were killed in a vigilante action at a settlement called Haun's Mill. The Mormons moved next to Illinois, founding the town of Nauvoo there in 1840 under a charter that gave the city council (which Smith controlled) authority over local courts and militia. This settlement grew to about 15,000 people, making it the biggest population center in the state. But in 1844, authorities jailed Smith in the town of Carthage after he destroyed a Nauvoo newspaper that had alleged he was mismanaging the town and had more than one wife. At that point, Smith's polygamy was acknowledged only to the LDS Church's senior leaders. In a raid on the jail, an anti-Mormon mob shot the church founder to death. He was 38. "Few episodes in American religious history parallel the barbarism of the anti-Mormon persecutions," historian Fawn Brodie wrote in her 1945 biography of Smith. At the same time, she added, the early Mormons' relationships with outsiders were characterized by "self- righteousness" and an "unwillingness to mingle with the world." To non-Mormons in Illinois, Brodie wrote, "the Nauvoo theocracy was a malignant tyranny that was spreading as swiftly and dangerously as a Mississippi flood." Amid continuing harassment in Illinois, the Mormons prepared to leave. After Smith's death, the LDS Church's ruling council, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, took control of church affairs. The lead apostle, Brigham Young, a carpenter from Vermont and an early convert to Mormonism, eventually succeeded Smith. In February 1846, he led the beginnings of an exodus of some 12,000 Mormons from Illinois, determined to establish their faith beyond the reach of American laws and resentment. Brigham Young biographer Leonard J. Arrington has written that Young and other church leaders knew about the Great Salt Lake Valley from trappers' journals, explorers' reports and interviews with travelers familiar with the region. At the time, most of what would become the American Southwest belonged to Mexico, but Young believed that that nation's hold on its northern frontier was so tenuous that the Mormons could settle there free from interference. In the spring of 1847, he led an advance party of 147 from an encampment in Nebraska to the Great Salt Lake Valley, arriving that July. Over the next two decades, some 70,000 Mormons would follow; the grueling journey would be one of the defining experiences of the LDS Church. In February 1848, Mexico sealed its defeat in the Mexican-American War by signing the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ceding to the United States what is now California, Nevada, Utah, Texas and parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming. Just six months after arriving in their new Zion, the Mormons found themselves back under the authority of the United States. To preserve self-rule, church leaders quickly sought official status, petitioning Congress in 1849 first for territorial status, then for statehood. The land they sought was vast, running from the Rockies to the Sierra Nevada and from the new border with Mexico all the way to present-day Oregon. Congress, guided in part by the struggle between forces opposing and condoning slavery, designated a Utah Territory, but not before reducing the area to present-day Utah, Nevada, western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming. Territorial status gave the federal government greater authority over Utah affairs than statehood would have. But President Millard Fillmore inadvertently set the stage for a clash with his choice for the new territory's chief executive. In 1850, acting partly in response to lobbying from a lawyer named Thomas L. Kane, a non-Mormon who had advised Mormon leaders in previous ordeals, Fillmore named Brigham Young governor of the new Utah Territory. Young ran the Utah Territory much as Smith had run Nauvoo, and conflicts between religious and secular authorities soon re-emerged. The Mormon leaders were suspicious of both the character and intent of federal appointees, such as a judge who was found to have abandoned his wife and children in Illinois and brought a prostitute to Utah. And over the next seven years, a succession of federal officers-judges, Indian agents, surveyors-came to the territory only to find that the governor would circumvent or reverse their decisions. Young "has been so much in the habit of exercising his will which is supreme here, that no one will dare oppose anything he may say or do," Indian agent Jacob Holeman wrote to his superior in Washington, D.C. in 1851-in effect going over Young's head (Young was also the territory's superintendent of Indian affairs). Surveyor General David Burr reported that Young told him federal surveyors "shall not be suffered to trespass" on Mormon lands. Through the mid-1850s, federal appointees returned East frustrated or intimidated or both, and some of them wrote books or articles about their travails. Anti-Mormon sentiment spread, inflamed particularly by reports of polygamy. By then, the practice of plural marriage had expanded beyond Joseph Smith's inner circle, and word of it had been passed by non-Mormon emigrants passing through Utah, where the evidence was in plain view. "During the first few years after their arrival in Utah," writes Young biographer M. R. Werner, "the fact that the Mormons practiced polygamy was an open secret." The Mormons' embrace of plural marriage was based on a revelation that Smith said he had received. (It was written down in 1843, but most historians agree that Smith had begun taking multiple wives earlier.) With the example of polygamous biblical patriarchs such as Abraham and Jacob in mind, Smith concluded that "the possession of more than one wife was not only permissible, but actually necessary for complete salvation," Werner writes. Brigham Young, who took his first plural wife in 1842, after 18 years of monogamy, maintained that he had been a reluctant convert: "I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded," he wrote in a reminiscence that would be collected in the church compendium Journal of Discourses, "but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave." (By the time he died, at age 76 in 1877, he had taken 55 wives but shared no "earthly life" with 30 of them, according to Arrington.) For years Young and other church leaders had dismissed allegations of plural marriages as calumnies circulated by enemies, but by the early 1850s, such denials were no longer plausible. On August 29, 1852, at a general conference of Mormons in Salt Lake City, the church leadership publicly acknowledged plural marriage for the first time. Orson Pratt, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, delivered a lengthy discourse, inviting the members to "look upon Abraham's blessings as your own, for the Lord blessed him with a promise of seed as numerous as the sand upon the seashore." After Pratt finished, Young read aloud Smith's revelation on plural marriage. The disclosure was widely reported outside the church, and the effect was to quash any hopes the Utah Territory might have had for statehood under Young's leadership. And conflicts between Young's roles as governor of the territory and president of the church would only become more complicated. In April 1855, at the Mormons' spring conference, Young called on some 160 men to abandon home, farm and family and head into the wilderness surrounding the Utah settlements to establish missions among the Native Americans there. In Mormon cosmology, Indians were the descendants of a fallen ancient patriarch, and church officials said they were undertaking the missions to convert tribes on their borders to their faith and to improve their welfare. But Garland Hurt, recently arrived in Utah as an Indian agent, was suspicious. In a confidential letter to the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, he wrote that the missions were actually intended to teach the Indians to distinguish between "Mormons" and "Americans"-a distinction, he added, that would be "prejudicial to the interests of the latter." The few historians who have studied these three missions disagree over their purpose. But irrespective of Young's intentions, correspondence to and from the missionaries, held in LDS archives, reflects rising tension between Mormons and the non-Mormon world. The first of the missionaries left Salt Lake City in May 1855. One band of men rode more than 350 miles north, into what is now Idaho-beyond Young's legal jurisdiction. Another headed 400 miles southwest-again, beyond Utah's boundaries-to the site of present-day Las Vegas, in the New Mexico Territory. A third pushed 200 miles southeast, to what is now Moab, Utah. In August, Young wrote to the Las Vegas missionaries, working among Paiutes, to congratulate them on the "prosperity and the success which has thus far attended your efforts" and to exhort them to start baptizing the Indians and to "[g]ain their confidence, love and esteem and make them feel by your acts that we are their real friends." In all, the missions would report baptizing scores of Indians. (What the Indians made of the ritual was not recorded.) In an October 1, 1855, letter to a friend, John Steele, an interpreter at the Las Vegas mission, suggested another motive. "If the Lord blesses us as he has done," he wrote, "we can have one thousand brave warriors on hand in a short time to help to quell any eruption that might take place in the principalities." (In 1857, the Utah militia, under Young's command, would number about 4,000.) The following summer, Young counseled secrecy to another church leader, John Taylor, president of the New York City-based Eastern States Mission (and, eventually, Young's successor as president of the church). "[M] issionaries to the Indians and their success is a subject avoided in our discourses and not published in the 'News,'" he wrote on June 30, 1856, to Taylor, who was also editing The Mormon, a newspaper widely read by Eastern Mormons. "Wherever any thing comes to hand no matter from what source it would be well to carefully look it over and draw your pen through all such as you might deem it wisdom not to publish." But by 1857, non-Mormon newspapers from New York to California had begun reporting that the Mormons were seeking the Indians' allegiance in case of a clash with the United States. Some accounts were based on briefings from officials who had returned to Washington; others, based on gossip, tended toward a more alarmist tone. For example, on April 20, 1857, the National Intelligencer, a Washington newspaper, put the number of the Mormons' Indian allies at 300,000, even though the total Indian population of the Utah Territory appears to have been 20,000 at most. Young would characterize press coverage generally as "a prolonged howl of base slander." Ultimately, none of the missions lasted. The southeast mission collapsed within four months after a skirmish with Utes; the Las Vegas mission followed, having shifted its focus from conversion to an abortive attempt at mining lead. The northern mission, called Fort Limhi, operated among the Bannock, Shoshone and others until March 1858. By the time Young led his senior aides on an expedition there in April 1857, almost every federal official had left Utah. In Washington, a new president faced his first crisis. James Buchanan, a Democrat, had defeated the Republicans' John Fr??mont and the Know-Nothings' Millard Fillmore in the 1856 election. He assumed the presidency in March 1857 preoccupied with the fight over whether Kansas would enter the Union as a free or slave state. But within weeks, reports from those who had fled Utah and strident petitions from the territorial legislature for greater influence over the appointment of federal officials turned his attention farther west. Brigham Young's term as territorial governor had expired in 1854; he had served on an interim basis since. Buchanan, with his cabinet likening the Utah petitions to a declaration of war, decided to replace Young with Alfred Cumming, a former mayor of Augusta, Georgia, who was serving as an Indian-affairs superintendent based in St. Louis. He ordered troops to accompany the new governor west and to enforce federal rule in Utah-but, for reasons that are not clear, he did not notify Young that he was being replaced. Young found out in July 1857, a month that brought a series of shocks to the Mormons. The Deseret News reported that Apostle Parley Pratt had been killed in Arkansas by the estranged husband of a woman Pratt had taken as his 12th wife. Rumors circulated that federal troops were advancing, prompting Apostle Heber C. Kimball to declare, "I will fight until there is not a drop of blood in my veins. Good God! I have wives enough to whip out the United States." Mormons traveling from the Kansas-Missouri frontier brought word that federal troops were, in fact, headed for Utah, leading to Young's announcement on the tenth anniversary of his arrival in the Great Salt Lake Valley. It was in this heated atmosphere that, six weeks later, a California-bound wagon train that included 140 non- Mormon emigrants, most of them from Arkansas, made camp in a lush valley known as Mountain Meadows, about 40 miles beyond the Mormon settlement of Cedar City. Just before breakfast, according to an account by historian Will Bagley in Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, a child among the emigrants fell, struck by a bullet. As a party of men with painted faces attacked, the emigrants circled their wagons. After a five-day siege, a white man bearing a white flag approached the emigrants. Mormons, he told them, had interceded with the attackers and would guarantee the emigrants safe passage out of Mountain Meadows if the Arkansans would turn over their guns. The emigrants accepted the offer. The wounded and the women and children were led away first, followed by the men, each guarded by an armed Mormon. After half an hour, the guards' leader gave the order to halt. Every man in the Arkansas party was shot from point-blank range, according to eyewitness accounts cited by Bagley. The women and older children fell to bullets, knives and arrows. Only 17 individuals-all of them children under the age of 7-were spared. For decades afterward, Mormon leaders blamed Paiute Indians for the massacre. Paiutes took part in the initial attack and, to a lesser degree, the massacre, but research by Bagley, Juanita Brooks and other historians has established that Mormons were culpable. Last September, on the 150th anniversary of the event, Mormon Apostle Henry B. Eyring, speaking for the church, formally acknowledged that Mormons in southern Utah had organized and carried out the massacre. "What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct," Eyring said. A "separate expression of regret," he continued, "is owed to the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre." In September 1857, Cumming and about 1,500 federal troops were about a month from reaching Fort Bridger, 100 miles northeast of Salt Lake City. Young, desperately needing time to prepare an evacuation of the city, mobilized the Utah militia to delay the Army. Over several weeks, militiamen raided the troops' supplies, burned the grass to deny forage to the soldiers' horses, cattle and mules, even burned Fort Bridger. November snowstorms intervened. Snowbound and lacking supplies, the troops' commander, Col. Albert Sidney Johnston, decided to spend the winter at what was left of the fort. The Mormons, he declared, have "placed themselves in rebellion against the Union, and entertain the insane design of establishing a form of government thoroughly despotic, and utterly repugnant to our institutions." As the spring thaw began in 1858, Johnston prepared to receive reinforcements that would bring his force to almost 5,000-a third of the entire U.S. Army. At the same time, Young initiated what has become known as the Move South, an exodus of some 30,000 people from settlements in northern Utah. Before leaving Salt Lake City, Mormons buried the foundation of their temple, their most sacred building, and planted wheat to camouflage it from the invaders' eyes. A few men remained behind, ready to put houses and barns and orchards to the torch to keep them out of the soldiers' hands. The Mormons, it seemed, would be exterminated or once again driven from their land. That they were neither is due largely to the intervention of their advocate Thomas Kane. Over the winter of 1857-58, Kane had set out for Utah to try to mediate what was being called "the Mormon crisis." Although his fellow Pennsylvanian President Buchanan did not provide official backing, neither did he discourage Kane's efforts. Kane arrived in Salt Lake City in February 1858. By April, in exchange for peace, he had secured Young's agreement to give way to the new governor. Many in the public, given Buchanan's failure to notify Young and the Army's delayed arrival in Utah, began to perceive the Utah expedition as an expensive blunder undertaken just as a financial panic had roiled the nation's economy. Buchanan, seeing a chance to end his embarrassment quickly, sent a peace commission west with the offer of a pardon for Utah citizens who would submit to federal laws. Young accepted the offer that June. That same month, Johnston and his troops marched through the deserted streets of Salt Lake City-then kept marching 40 miles south to establish Camp Floyd, in present-day Fairfield, Utah. With the Army no longer a threat, the Mormons returned to their homes and began a long and fitful accommodation to secular rule under a series of non-Mormon governors. Federal laws against polygamy targeted Mormon property and power through the 1870s and '80s; Wilford Woodruff, the LDS Church's fourth president, issued a formal renunciation of plural marriage in 1890. "The United States government used polygamy as a wrecking ball to destroy the old theocracy," says historian Bigler. "By 1890, Mormons were hanging on by their fingernails. But when Wilford Woodruff delivered his manifesto repudiating polygamy, he went further: he said that from now on, Mormons would obey the law of the land." Statehood for Utah followed in 1896.Their dreams of dominion over, the Mormons began to enter the American fold. David Roberts is the author of the forthcoming Devil's Gate: Brigham Young and the Great Mormon Handcart Tragedy. HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm See Personal Narrative: http://hunterbear.org/narrative.htm And see Outlaw Trail: The Native as Organizer: http://hunterbear.org/outlaw_trail1.htm In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and remembering way. From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 10:04:27 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:04:27 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Liban : les boucliers du Hezbollah Message-ID: FULL TEXT: Liban : les boucliers du Hezbollah LE MONDE | 31.05.08 | 14h34 ? Mis ? jour le 31.05.08 | 19h45 Patrice Claude Beyrouth, Baalbek, envoy? sp?cial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sur le boulevard Ras-Al-Ain, juste avant les sublimes colonnes du temple de Baal et de Bacchus, deux caf?s-restaurants avec terrasses ombrag?es se font face. Chez Hassan, n'?tait le soleil de cette fin mai qui br?le d?j? la grande plaine, on pourrait commander un whisky gla?ons. En face, chez Ali, militant encart? du Hezbollah, on ne sert que des jus de fruits. "Lui a les femmes voil?es et les enfants, Hassan, les hommes et les filles branch?es", plaisante Hikmat, notre guide en ces lieux. Les deux cafetiers sont chiites, l'un est plut?t la?c, l'autre religieux. Chez l'un comme chez l'autre, des affiches ? la gloire du Parti de Dieu accueillent les clients d?s l'entr?e. -- Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 15:08:16 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:08:16 -0400 Subject: [R-G] $544 Billion in Subsidies for Nuclear Industry Message-ID: Institute for Public Accuracy 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org ___________________________________________________ Monday, June 2, 2008 $544 Billion in Subsidies for Nuclear Industry Interviews Available KARL GROSSMAN, (631) 725-2858, kgrossman at hamptons.com, http://www.envirovideo.com Grossman just wrote the piece "Half-Trillion Dollars for Nukes!" which states: "With Wall Street unwilling to finance new nuclear plants, U.S. Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and John Warner of Virginia have cooked up a scheme to provide $544 billion -- yes, with a 'b' -- in subsidies for new nuclear power plant development. "Their move will be debated on the floor of the Senate Tuesday, June 3. "A Lieberman aide describes the plan as 'the most historic incentive for nuclear in the history of the United States.' "The Lieberman-Warner scheme is cloaked in a climate change bill -- the claim being that nuclear power plants don't emit greenhouse gases and thus don't contribute to global warming. However, the overall 'nuclear cycle' -- which includes mining, milling, fuel enrichment and fabrication, and reprocessing -- has significant greenhouse gas emissions that do contribute to global warming." http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/29/9268 Grossman is a professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, author of several books on nuclear technology and host of the nationally syndicated TV program Enviro Close-Up. For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020, (202) 421-6858; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 -- Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 15:49:07 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 17:49:07 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Exxon's Texas-Size War Chest Message-ID: Ideologues complain that national oil companies, which may subsidize domestic oil consumption and whose revenues may finance non-oil projects, tend to invest less in exploration and production than oil majors, but a Baker Institute study last year shows that, "Instead of favoring exploration, the five largest IOCs [International Oil Companies] have used (in 2006) 56% of their increased operating cash flow on share repurchases and dividends." Big Oil demands a high return on capital, and it refuses to invest in projects that doesn't meet its standard of profitability. Capitalists, unlike neo-cons, are not risk-takers.-- Yoshie Exxon's Texas-Size War Chest May 28, 2008, 5:23 pm The oil industry is known to be very conservative. And Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, may be the most conservative of the bunch. It refuses to invest in projects that would lower its industry-leading return on capital employed, which is now around 35 percent. Rather than use its phenomenal cash flow for huge, dilutive acquisitions, it prefers to spend billions of dollars to buy back its own stock. But it isn't as if Exxon Mobil is taking those shares and setting them on fire. The oil giant appears to be squirreling them away ? waiting for just the right time to strike. Or it sure seems that way, given the response that Rex Tillerson, Exxon Mobil's chairman and chief executive, gave to a shareholder at the company's annual meeting on Wednesday. The shareholder was inquiring about the board's decision to repurchase company stock, as opposed to using that money to fatten its dividend. Mr. Tillerson explained to the shareholder that Exxon Mobil had indeed increased its dividend over the years, but now chose to buy back large amounts of stock because it was in the best long-term interest of shareholders. He went on to say that Exxon used the same technique in the 1990s. Exxon bought back enormous amounts of stock and put it aside, listing the shares on its balance sheet as "common stock held in treasury." Then in 1998, when oil prices crashed to a now amazingly low level of about $10 a barrel, it made its move ? and used those shares it stored away to buy rival Mobil in an all-stock transaction worth around $80 billion. Since Exxon had bought back the shares at prices far lower than what its common shares were currently trading at, it essentially paid a fraction of the cost it would have if it issued new shares at market prices to buy Mobil. Once again, Exxon Mobil has amassed a large pile of common stock held in treasury. At the end of 2007, the company had 2.367 billion shares held in treasury, for which it paid $113 billion over the last 10 years, according to a regulatory filing. If that stock were valued at the current market price of $90 a share, it would be worth $237 billion, or $124 billion more than what Exxon Mobil originally paid for it. However you look at it, that's one Texas-sized mound of dry powder. So what could Exxon Mobil buy with a quarter-trillion dollars in stock? ConocoPhillips has a market capitalization around $140 billion, so Exxon Mobil could snap that company up whole and give a modest premium to shareholders, if it were so inclined. The second-largest United States oil company, Chevron, has a market capitalization of around $206 billion, so Exxon Mobil could swallow it up instead. Just to be clear: With oil prices hovering around $130 a barrel, it is very unlikely that Exxon Mobil will go on a spending spree anytime soon. It is, after all, the most risk-averse of oil companies when it comes to deal-making. But Exxon Mobil isn't using its stock buybacks to liquidate itself or to take itself slowly private. Rather, it appears to be waiting for the right time to make a deal, and when it does, it will likely be in grandiose, Texas style: Big. -- Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 16:50:17 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 18:50:17 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Cuba's Food & Agriculture Message-ID: Comments? Cuba's Food & Agriculture Situation Report by Office of Global Analysis, FAS, USDA March 2008 Since 2002, the United States has continued as Cuba's largest supplier of food and agricultural products. Cuba has consistently ranked among the top ten export markets for U.S. soybean oil, dry peas, lentils, dry beans, rice, powdered milk, and poultry meat. Cuba also has been a major market for U.S. corn, wheat and soybeans. U.S. firms, as a result of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSRA) signed into law in 2000, were allowed to sell food and agricultural products to Cuba on a cash basis. Cuba, however, did not begin purchasing from the United States until after Hurricane Michelle had severely damaged its agricultural sector in 2001. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Jun 2 18:45:42 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:45:42 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Unspoken Rule of Media Reporting Message-ID: <48449436.8090802@attglobal.net> The BBC's The Century of the Self Medialens Media Alert (April 03 2002) Focusing heavily on the machinations of public relations guru Edward Bernays, the BBC2 series, The Century of the Self, began its second programme with this account of post-war US history: "Politicians and planners came to believe that Freud was right to suggest that hidden deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires and fears. They were convinced that it was the unleashing of these instincts that had lead to the barbarism of Nazi Germany. To stop it ever happening again, they set out to find ways to control the hidden enemy within the human mind." {1} It is a remarkable claim, and one that could only be taken seriously in a culture that has been largely stripped of political awareness. In fact post-1945 (like pre-1945) "politicians and planners" set out to promote dangerous and irrational desires and fears in the service of profits and power, not peace. Similarly, far from setting out to "stop it ever happening again", post-war US policies generated repetitions of Nazi-style barbarism throughout the Third World. Australian academic Alex Carey described the actual problem perceived by elites following both the first and second world wars: "Major wars create major problems for the defenders of the established order. For modern wars require the support of everyone; and so wartime propaganda idealises the humane, egalitarian, democratic character of the home society in a way that no elite or business interest has any intention of allowing actually to come about." {2} Historian Elizabeth Fones-Wolf notes that the growth in workers' expectations and power during the 1940s and 1950s was a major factor in shaping elite policy, leading to a fierce business backlash: "Important segments of the business community responded to this economic and ideological challenge with an aggressive campaign to recast the political economy of America. They sought to undermine the legitimacy and power of organised labour and to 'halt the momentum of New Deal liberalism'." {3} The response was immense in scale, involving all the leading business organisations, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Committee for Economic Development, the National Association of Manufacturers, and industry-specific bodies: "Manufacturers orchestrated multimillion dollar public relations campaigns that relied on newspapers, magazines, radio, and later television, to re-educate the public in the principles and benefits of the American economic system ... employers sought to undermine unionism and address shop-floor conflict by building a separate company identity or company consciousness among their employees. This involved convincing workers to identify their social, economic, and political well-being with that of their specific employer and more broadly with the free enterprise system." {4} This was a nationwide propaganda campaign that had nothing to do with lessons learned from Nazism, and everything to do with power and profits. Notwithstanding its claims of an elite determination to ensure that Nazi barbarism could never be repeated, The Century of the Self revealed, as Tim Adams of the Observer puts it, "how Bernays single-handedly toppled the popular Guatemalan government with one or two publicity stunts, playing on Cold War fears, and acting on behalf of a banana corporation". {5} Adams' remarkable naivety is revealed by the briefest of glances at the facts. Elected in 1950, in Guatemala's first ever democratic elections, the aim of the popular Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz was to transform Guatemala from a backward country with a predominantly feudal economy to a modern capitalist state. As part of this process, Arbenz felt he had a strong mandate to instigate land reforms. Around 100,000 peasants received land through the reform; 234,000 acres of unused land owned by the US-owned United Fruit Company (UFCO) were expropriated with the offer of compensation that UFCO found "unacceptable". Displeased by Arbenz's reforms, UFCO began to apply pressure on the US government and the CIA to take action. In response, the US State Department, working closely with the CIA, evolved a covert plan to overthrow Arbenz, with the name PBSUCCESS. The absurdity of the idea that Bernays was somehow a rogue genius operating "single-handedly" is revealed by Stephen Schlesinger, who reports that "the [1954] Putsch was conceived of and run at the highest levels of the American Government in closest cahoots with the United Fruit Company and under the overall direction of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, backed by President Eisenhower". {6} Unmentioned by The Century of the Self, the campaign against Guatemalan democracy constituted a small part of a vast state-corporate campaign to undermine democracy and independent nationalism throughout the Third World: in Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, Haiti, Iran, Indonesia, Vietnam, and so on. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman have explained the link between terror and corporate profiteering: "The development model applied by ... [the US and its partners in the Third World] is so blatantly exploitative that it has required terror and the threat of terror to assure the requisite passivity". {7} The violence has long been targeted at civil resistance: "An important function of the military juntas has been to destroy all forms of institutional protection for the masses, such as unions, peasant leagues and cooperatives, and political groupings, making them incapable of defending themselves against the larger interests served by the state". {8} Curiously, Adams' suggestion that Bernays played on Cold War fears when organising the attack on Guatemala was simultaneously rejected and accepted by the programme itself: "In reality Arbenz was a democratic socialist with no links to Moscow. But Bernays set out to turn him into a Communist threat to America." {9} In other words, US elites did not "play on" Cold War fears, they created and then exploited them in pursuit of profit. This is hard to say in the mainstream media and so, in summing up Bernays' role in Guatemala, the programme declared: "Bernays had manipulated the American people, but he had done so because he, like many others at the time, believed that the interests of business and the interests of America were indivisible, especially when faced with the threat of Communism". Even when the "threat of Communism" had been invented by Bernays and others to justify an attack! As a result of this attack, Nazi-style barbarism was unleashed on Guatemala. The programme managed to hint at the reality when it quoted a CIA operative: "What we wanted to do was have a terror campaign, to terrify Arbenz particularly, to terrify his troops, much as the German Stuka bombers terrified the population of Holland, Belgium and Poland at the onset of World War Two, and rendered everybody paralysed". {10} But, typically for the BBC and other mainstream media, The Century of the Self ended its review of Guatemalan history where Western responsibility for mass murder begins. The programme made literally no mention of the hundreds of thousands of people killed and tortured by the US "terror campaign". On June 18 1954, the US plan for Guatemala came to fruition when its client, Castillo Armas and his forces crossed the Honduran border; on June 27 Arbenz resigned, and Armas was installed as president. Armas immediately returned land back to United Fruit and abolished tax on interests and dividends to foreign investors. Arbenz was later found drowned in his bath, whereas Armas received a ticker-tape parade in New York City and honorary degrees from Columbia and Fordham universities. Following the invasion, the military elite took control of the economy and the country more generally, with government troops patrolling both city and countryside in full battle gear. More than 200 union leaders were immediately killed. Within two months of the invasion, some 8,000 peasants had been murdered in a terror campaign that targeted UFCO union organisers and Indian village leaders. The US Embassy lent its assistance, providing lists of "communists" to be eliminated or imprisoned and tortured. Exiled journalist Julio Godoy, who had worked on the Guatemalan newspaper La Epoca, whose offices were blown up by government terrorists, compared conditions in Guatemala with those in Eastern Europe: "While the Moscow-imposed government in Prague would degrade and humiliate reformers, the Washington-made government in Guatemala would kill them. It still does, in a virtual genocide that has taken more than 150,000 victims [in what Amnesty International calls] 'a government programme of political murder'." {11} According to Amnesty International, victims were found "with signs of torture or mutilation along roadsides or in ravines, floating in plastic bags in lakes or rivers, or buried in mass graves in the countryside", many of them being from the peasantry and urban poor. {12} Over 440 villages were totally destroyed, with vast areas of the highlands wrecked. All of this was known to US government officials. The head of intelligence at the State Department wrote: "At the heart of the secret anti-communist force is a special unit of the army which kidnaps, kills in the street, plants bombs and executes real or supposed communists". {13} After the coup, as the slaughter continued, total US and multinational aid and credits to Guatemala increased 5,300 per cent. This support of terror is standard - the leading academic scholar on human rights in Latin America, Lars Schoultz, notes that US aid "has tended to flow disproportionately to Latin American governments which torture their citizens ... to the hemisphere's relatively egregious violators of fundamental human rights". {14} Similarly, the 1973 coup in Chile which established the Pinochet regime led to a 550 per cent increase in US economic aid and a 1,000 per cent increase in US and multinational credits. The BBC's failure to mention the horrific consequences of US policy in Guatemala might be dismissed as an isolated oversight. But in fact it is part of what John Pilger describes as the "unspoken rule of reporting whole societies in terms of their usefulness to western 'interests' and of minimising and obfuscating the culpability of 'our' crimes". {15} Readers should not be surprised if some or all of the above is unfamiliar to them. Schlesinger explains: "What strikes an observer immediately about the Guatemala affair is how history has over the years practically abandoned it. No book has ever explored it; no Senate committee has ever investigated it." {16} But all of these omissions have gone unnoticed by the many 'liberal' journalists who have commented favourably on the series, and who seem to have been amazed by its revelations. Tim Adams of the Observer enthused about the programme, calling it "remarkable". The New Statesman's Andrew Billen called it "riveting" and "remarkable". {17} The Guardian's Madeleine Bunting described it as "compelling ... and profoundly disturbing". {18} Nick Cohen of the Observer declared the series "a resounding justification for the licence fee". {19} In a different world, these journalists might have reflected on the fact that they are themselves employed by the same mendacious corporate system that has fought so hard to control the public mind. They might, for example, have noted that their papers are also profit-seeking businesses dependent on advertisers for fully 75% of their revenue. The reality being, of course, that the corporate media has always played a pivotal role in the campaign for corporate control of society. Thus James Reston, former editor of the New York Times, revealed, that "we left [out] a great deal of what we knew about US intervention in Guatemala and in a variety of other cases" at government request or for political reasons known only to the editors. The government lied, but the Times published their claims even though it knew the statements were untrue." {20} The Century of the Self is certainly unusual - the mainstream generally prefers to remain silent on the issue of corporate propaganda. Thus the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) - cited by Fones-Wolf and others as being at the heart of the corporate propaganda campaign over many decades - has been mentioned (as of March 28 2002) three times in the Guardian and Observer, and once in the Independent since 1998. None of these mentions referred to the NAM's role as a giant source of cynical propaganda. Today, the NAM is alive and well, and right at the heart of the (successful) attempts by big business to obstruct action on climate change. Notes {1} The Century of the Self - The Engineering of Consent, BBC2 (March 24 2002) {2} Alex Carey, Taking The Risk Out Of Democracy, University of New South Wales Press, 1995, page 137 {3} Fones-Wolf, Selling Free Enterprise - The Business Assault on Labour and Liberalism, 1945-60, University of Illinois Press, 1994, page 4 {4} ibid, page 6 {5} Adams, 'How Freud got under our skin', Observer (March 10 2002) {6} Quoted, Immerman, The CIA in Guatemala, University of Texas Press, 1982, page 176 {7} Chomsky and Herman, The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, South End Press, 1979, page 11 {8} Chomsky and Herman, ibid, page 11 {9} The Century of the Self - The Engineering of Consent, BBC2, March 24 2002 {10} Howard Hunt, Head of CIA Operations, Guatemala, 1954 {11} Quoted, Noam Chomsky, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Odonian Press, 1993, page 50 {12} Amnesty International Briefing on Guatemala, London, 1976 {13} Quoted, the Guardian, 'How the CIA kills its foes', August 27 1999 {14} Quoted, Chomsky, Year 501 - The Conquest Continues, Verso, 1993, page 120 {15} Pilger, 'Should we go to war against these children?', New Statesman, March 21 2002 {16} The Nation, October 28 1978 {17} Billen, 'Full of their selves', New Statesman, March 25 2002 {18} Bunting, 'Slaves of our desires', Guardian, March 25 2002 {19} Cohen, 'Primal therapy', the Observer, March 31 2002 {20} Quoted Edward Herman, Z Magazine, May 1998 SUGGESTED ACTION Write to Adam Curtis, the maker of The Century of the Self, and the BBC's commissioning editors, at: Email: http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/ You can also leave messages at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/contact/com_email.shtml Ask why The Century of the Self gave so much detailed attention to Guatemalan history, and yet failed to mention US responsibility for the 150,000 civilians killed in its assault on Guatemala. Ask why the series focused on this isolated US intervention without mentioning that it was a small part of similar interventions elsewhere in Latin America and in the Third World generally. Is this wider pattern not central to understanding the real significance, and costs, of corporate control of domestic and foreign societies in the 20th and 21st centuries? Copy your letters to editor at medialens.org Feel free to respond to Media Lens alerts (editor at medialens.org). Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.MediaLens.org http://www.medialens.org/alerts/02/020403_de_Media_Century.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Jun 2 20:41:14 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 22:41:14 -0400 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Americans_Favor_President_Meeting_With_U?= =?windows-1252?q?=2ES=2E_Enemies=3A_Six_in_10_Think_It=92s_a_Good_?= =?windows-1252?q?Idea_to_Meet_with_President_of_Iran?= Message-ID: June 2, 2008 Americans Favor President Meeting With U.S. Enemies Six in 10 think it's a good idea to meet with president of Iran by Lydia Saad PRINCETON, NJ -- Large majorities of Democrats and independents, and even about half of Republicans, believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States. Overall, 67% of Americans say this kind of diplomacy is a good idea. This is according to a Gallup Panel survey of a representative national sample of 1,013 Americans, conducted May 19-21. Although separate Gallup polling shows that few Americans view Iran favorably [LINK: ], and that Iran leads Americans' list of top U.S. enemies in the world [LINK: ], the new Gallup survey also finds high public support for presidential-level meetings between the United States and Iran, specifically. About 6 in 10 Americans (59%) think it would be a good idea for the president of the United States to meet with the president of Iran. This includes about half of Republicans, a majority of independents, and most Democrats. Both positions enjoy broad popular appeal, with majorities of men, women, younger and older Americans, and those from different regions of the country all saying direct presidential-level talks with Iran and other enemies are a good idea. The issue of using presidential diplomacy with U.S. enemies distinguishes Barack Obama from the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, and even from his opponent for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton. Obama is the only one of the three who has said he would personally meet with the leaders of countries like Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela as president, and he recently defended his position by saying "strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries." Clinton has criticized Obama's approach as "na?ve," and McCain has been unrelenting in his attacks on the issue, accusing Obama of being dangerously inexperienced and having "reckless judgment." Bottom Line McCain may eventually persuade more Americans that there is nothing for the president of the United States to discuss with hostile foreign leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and that to do so only undermines U.S. efforts to destabilize such regimes. However, for now, whether it's the leader of an "enemy" country, generally, or the president of Iran, specifically, Americans think it's a good idea for the president of the United States to meet directly with the nation's adversaries. Survey Methods Results for this Gallup Panel study are based on telephone interviews with 1,013 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 19-21, 2008. Gallup Panel members are recruited through random selection methods. The panel is weighted so that it is demographically representative of the U.S. adult population. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ?4 percentage points. For results based on the 529 national adults in the Form A half-sample and 484 national adults in the Form B half-sample, the maximum margins of sampling error are ?5 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. To provide feedback or suggestions about how to improve Gallup.com, please e-mail feedback at gallup.com. -- Yoshie From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Jun 2 23:55:15 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:55:15 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Human rights panel hears claim Maclean's article denigrated Muslims Message-ID: Human rights panel hears claim Maclean's article denigrated Muslims http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=2ea3c37b-aeda-406a-9541-571e84e78f52 Gerry Bellett Canwest News Service Monday, June 02, 2008 A human rights hearing began Monday with the Canadian Islamic Congress claiming an in Maclean's magazine article subjected Muslims to hatred and contempt. CREDIT: Nick Brancaccio/Windsor Star A human rights hearing began Monday with the Canadian Islamic Congress claiming an in Maclean's magazine article subjected Muslims to hatred and contempt. VANCOUVER - A four-day human rights hearing began in an overcrowded Vancouver courtroom Monday with the Canadian Islamic Congress claiming a Maclean's magazine article subjected Muslims to hatred and contempt. The complaint against the article, titled Why the Future Belongs to Islam and published Oct. 23, 2006, was made to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal by Naiyer Habib, an Abbotsford cardiologist and B.C. director for the Canadian Islamic Congress. This followed a complaint by Ontario resident Mohamed Elmasry, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, on behalf of Muslim residents of B.C. Maclean's is published in Ontario but the Ontario Human Rights Commission declined to hear the complaint. It alleges the magazine discriminated against Muslims on religious and racial grounds contrary to section 7 (1) of the B.C. Human Rights Code. The article by author Mark Steyn was based on excerpts from his book America Alone. Faisal Joseph, representing Habib, accused the national media of consistently denigrating Muslims and said the article alleged Muslims were poised to take over Western society and impose their laws by virtue of their numbers. He said the context of the article was that Muslims were violent people, and cast suspicions on them as potential terrorists and extremists who were a threat to Western values such as democracy and human rights. Joseph said Muslims were discriminated against in Western society and made to feel they don't belong. The fact a person is Muslim doesn't mean he wants to take over the world, he said. Roger McConchie, representing the magazine, said the tribunal's hearings constituted an "unjustifiable infringement of freedom of the press" as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. McConchie said Maclean's doesn't accept that the tribunal is entitled to monitor editorial decisions and what should and shouldn't be published. Maclean's will not be calling any witnesses, he added. The hearing was held in a tiny courtroom in Vancouver Provincial Court, which was small to hold all the journalists and members of the public wanting to attend. McConchie objected to Joseph calling Ontario law student Khurrum Awan - a human-rights activist in the Muslim community - to testify about how he felt after reading the article. McConchie said the B.C. tribunal should not be concerned with any emotional response from someone who lived in Ontario, as there was a potential for damages to be awarded. He said the tribunal should concern itself only with harm that occurred in B.C. "You can't have complainants coming in from Newfoundland, Montreal or Yellowknife and seeking compensation for harm caused by an alleged violation of Section 7," said McConchie. Joseph said Awan wasn't seeking compensation and the tribunal ruled he could give evidence. Awan said the overall theme of the article was that Islam was poised for a possible bloody takeover of Western society, and that no distinction was made between the different elements within the Muslim community. He said the article states that the high birth rate of Islamic populations in Europe makes them the new owners "already in place - tenants with a right-to-buy agreement." Meanwhile, the Canadian Association of Journalists has been awarded intervenor status at the hearing. The CAJ said it wants to defend the freedoms of the press and of expression and the interests of journalists. In a news release, the organization said it takes the view the tribunal does not have the constitutional right to hear the complaint, but since the case was going forward, its position is that human rights complaints under Section 7 must consider the intent of the writer when assessing published material. The hearing continues. ? Vancouver Sun 2008 From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Jun 3 07:39:28 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:39:28 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Clinton has run her campaign ... Message-ID: <48454990.4080908@attglobal.net> ... the same way Bush has run the country In her cynicism-sustained attempt to defeat Obama, she has shown contempt for intelligence, decency and democracy by Gary Younge The Guardian (May 26 2008) We all saw it. Indeed, that was the whole point. In the US, the networks stopped regular programming so we had little choice. The White House wanted to make sure we caught the full dramatic impact of the US president landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln in a navy jet against a backdrop of a clear sky and the sign "Mission Accomplished". America the beautiful. America the invincible. The soundtrack to this most flamboyant and flawed of photo opportunities was similarly unequivocal. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended", said President George Bush. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11 2001 and still goes on". "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue", wrote George Orwell in his essay In Front of Your Nose. "And then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." And so it was, this month, that on the fifth anniversary of that stunt the White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, insisted we did not see what we thought we saw. Indeed, we were all mistaken. The president wasn't referring to the Iraq war as such. Instead, claimed Perino, he made all that effort and secured all that airtime to congratulate just that "particular" crew on having accomplished its "particular" ten-month mission. "President Bush is well aware that the banner should have been much more specific and said 'mission accomplished' for these sailors who are on this ship on their mission", she explained. "And we have certainly paid a price for not being more specific on that banner". This kind of thing gives chutzpah a bad name. And yet, with this administration it is a practice with which we have become all too familiar. As median wages fall, Bush tells Americans they are better off; as the torture continues at Guant?namo Bay - the only part of Cuba Bush actually controls - he calls on Raul Castro to honour human rights; as he cuts taxes and starts wars, he calls on Congress to practise fiscal rectitude. Not content with pissing on your leg and telling you it's raining, he tries to convince you that your leg has been dry all along. As the primary season draws to a close it has become increasingly apparent that Hillary Clinton has run her campaign with the same contempt for intelligence, decency and democracy that Bush has run the country. Like the Bush administration, her campaign has been sustained by cynicism, divisiveness and fear-mongering, leaving a toxic and rancorous rift in its wake. Like the White House, her aim has been to win at all costs. And like the White House, it has produced the same result. Failure. It is a continuum not of policies - on that front she is closer to Barack Obama than either of them would concede - but a mindset that has served America ill these past seven years. Creating a bespoke reality out of whole cloth and then hoping people will not just buy it, but wear it. In a last, desperate bid to resuscitate her campaign, Clinton will put her case for the ratification of the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries to the Democratic National Committee rules and bylaws committee later this week. Both states held their primaries in January, in defiance of Democratic party rules. The party warned them beforehand that their delegates would be disqualified if they went ahead, and asked the candidates not to campaign there. The candidates obliged. The states went ahead anyway. Clinton won both. Her senior adviser, Harold Ickes, was on the committee that voted not to recognise them. Obama's name was not even on the ballot in Michigan. Back in October last year Clinton said uncomplainingly of Michigan: "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything". But then she won both. Now everything is different. Speaking before a crowd of senior citizens in Boca Raton, Florida, last week she went into metaphorical hyperbole, comparing the battle to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan to the suffragettes, the civil rights movement and Zimbabwe - where more than forty people have been killed in election-related violence. "We're seeing that right now in Zimbabwe", she explained to a crowd of senior citizens. "Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people. So we can never take for granted our precious right to vote." Clinton insists she is winning the popular vote. She's right. But only if you tally votes with the same degree of selectivity as Robert Mugabe. For her claim to make sense, you would have to count the discounted Florida and Michigan primaries and discount the legitimate caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington state, three of which Obama won. These four states do not reveal popular vote totals. It's like saying if you include your goals that were ruled offside and don't recognise your opponents' headers (it is football after all) then you really won the game. The reason Clinton has had to resort to this sophistry reveals another trait she shares with Bush - hubris. She believed she would have the nomination sewn up by Super Tuesday. She woke up on the following Wednesday out of money, ideas and volunteers. It was a month and nine contests before she won again. By then the momentum was Obama's and, though he has stumbled, he has been running with it since. By most reckonings he leads by about 190 delegates and 400,000 votes. Even if Michigan and Florida were counted, she would still trail in delegates. And, like Bush, she has appealed to the basest instincts of the electorate to dig herself out of a hole. First came fear. "It's three am in the morning and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the telephone [in the White House]", went her ad. Then there is racism. The most recent example of which was her claiming that Obama's "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again", as evidence of her own viability. Later she would concede that equating "white" and "hard- working" was a "dumb comment". On Friday she was lambasted for intimating that she was staying in the race because, like Bobby Kennedy, Obama may yet be assassinated. It was clumsy. But a reasonable reading of the context shows she neither said nor meant anything of the kind. Her problem is that by now the general impression is that there is almost nothing she wouldn't do or say. It would indeed take something that dramatic and tragic for her to win. Like the Bush administration, the issue is no longer whether she leaves the stage with her reputation irreparably tarnished, but what state she leaves it in and how many people she is prepared to take with her. g.younge at guardian.co.uk _____ ?Gary Younge is a Guardian columnist and feature writer based in the US. He was formerly the paper's New York correspondent. His most recent book is Stranger in a Strange Land: Encounters in the Disunited States (2006); he is also the author of No Place Like Home, published in 1999 guardian.co.uk (c) Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/26/hillaryclinton.barackobama TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Jun 3 10:45:17 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:45:17 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The Liberal Foundations of Media Reform? Message-ID: Originally published in Global Media Journal http://stc.uws.edu.au/gmjau/vol1_2008/barker.html The Liberal Foundations of Media Reform? Creating Sustainable Funding Opportunities for Radical Media Reform by Michael Barker Global Research, June 3, 2008 Global Media http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9167 Today in America, tens of thousands of philanthropic foundations finance social change and, in the year 2000 alone, these foundations distributed $26.7 billion worth of grants. To date, while scholarly attention has been paid to the role of right-wing foundations in promoting a neoliberal media environment, few studies have critiqued the role of liberal foundations in funding similar media reforms. Thus with next to no critical inquiry from media researchers, the Ford Foundation ? which is arguably one of the most influencial liberal foundations ? supplied over $292 million to American public broadcasting between 1951 and 1977 and continues to fund progressive media groups like FreePress and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. This article provides a much needed overview of the problematic nexus between liberal philanthropy and progressive media reform, and concludes by providing a number of recommendations for how media activists may begin to move away from their (arguably unsustainable) reliance on liberal philanthropy. Philanthropy is a word that rarely crops up in American (or any other) mass communications research. This is strange because public broadcasting was built on the back of the financial aid provided by liberal philanthropic institutions like the Ford Foundation. In fact, only a handful of studies have critically reflected on the effect of liberal (i.e. progressive) philanthropy on the American media, or examined its historic influence on efforts to reform the mass media. This research void is not peculiar to media studies, instead it exemplifies a more general trend which extends across all academic disciplines. Indeed the effects of philanthropy have been thoroughly marginalised from scholarly discourses. One can only conclude that the majority of researchers ascribe no importance to the activities of the tens of thousands of philanthropic foundations that thrive in America?s uniquely charitable culture. This media research blackout raises interesting questions, as it would be strange if some of the world?s most successful capitalists (turned philanthropists) would collectively provide tens of billions of dollars a year to finance social change that has little or no real researchable effects (the exact figure was $26.7 billion in 2000). Surely some of the world?s most successful business elites would want to see some tangible outcomes flowing from their philanthropy? Therefore, depending on whether philanthropic activities are beneficial or detrimental to democratic processes, it would seem more reasonable that the influence of philanthropic endeavours should be either happily celebrated and encouraged, or vigorously critiqued and discouraged ? but definitely not ignored. With the rise of global neoliberalism, which serves to alienate electorates (consumers) from the trappings of liberal democracy and openly seeks to replace social welfare with corporate welfare, some scholarly attention has documented the remarkable success of right wing foundations in forcing these changes. [1] Yet if anything, the response of the Left, (that is, those who oppose corporate-led globalisation and who are demanding more participatory forms of governance), has been to acknowledge the vision and ideological cohesion of the Right?s strategies and then to issue calls for liberal foundations to adopt similar tactics (e.g. see the work of the US- based Democracy Alliance) in order to turn back the neoliberal tide. This elitist answer to the neoconservatives? organising strategies has been widely commended, but it is a solution that denies the theoretical insights that could be derived from a deeper understanding of the historical hegemonic role that liberal foundations have fulfilled within American democracy. This article seeks to throw some light on the so far neglected influence of liberal foundations on media developments and reform by adopting a three pronged approach. First, it will briefly review the limited literature concerning the influence of liberal foundations on social change. The article will then provide a critical review of the role that liberal foundations have played in shaping the American media environment, from 1930 through to the 1970s, as well as examining the reliance of many progressive media reform groups on the Ford Foundation in the past few decades. Finally, this study will reiterate some of the problems associated with relying on liberal foundations to finance progressive social change and radical media reform groups and will conclude with a number of recommendations for generating sustainable funding sources for a form of media reform that is aligned with participatory principles. [...] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9167 From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Jun 3 10:59:06 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:59:06 -0700 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Letter_to_Post_1=3A_Re=3A_Your_article_=93?= =?windows-1252?q?The_real_Cuba=94?= Message-ID: <9CDA3A8F-6286-4CDA-B925-01BC0CCA8862@shaw.ca> Letter to the Editor of the National Post Arnold August May 30th, 2008 Re: Your article ?The real Cuba? In your May 30th edition you reproduce a letter written by the Cuban Ambassador to Canada, Ernesto Senti Darias in response to the letter written by the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Wilkins. However, you chose to introduce your own comment (?The real Cuba?) in the same issue. You indicated that you wanted to put Mr. Senti?s letter ?in the proper context?. You add that ?we also owe it to our readers?. However, when you reproduced the May 21st statement by the US Ambassador to Canada, Mr. Wilkins, you did not choose to place his article ?in its proper context?. For example, in your May 30th rebuttal to Mr. Senti, you admit to the ?U. S. socioeconomic inequality and imperfections in America's electoral system? and write that ?such criticism is valid?? This being the case, why did you not choose on May 21st to place the U.S. ambassador?s comment in its proper context? Did you not owe it to your readers? I am aware that Canadians have written to your newspaper since the American Ambassador?s letter. However, you chose not to produce any of them or even excerpts of these letters. Did you not owe it to your readers? You feel obliged to reproduce Ambassador Senti?s letter, but at the same time try to discredit it even before your readers have a chance to read the letter and digest it in order to make up their own mind. You readers could then perhaps forward to the Editor any questions or comments that they may have and provide an opportunity to Ambassador Senti to reply. In your May 30th comment, you write that Ernesto Senti ?completely ignor[es] the litany of human rights abuses listed by Mr. Wilkins.? There is only so much that one can write in a letter in response to M. Wilkin?s attempt to completely falsify the Cuban reality and its entire history. I wrote a letter to you as a Canadian citizen on May 22nd in response to Ambassador Wilkinson?s letter dated May 21st. I chose to deal with one aspect of the U.S. Ambassador?s letter, what you call ?the litany of human rights abuses listed by Mr. Wilkins?. I attempted to place the U.S. Ambassadors comments ?in its proper context?. You did not acknowledge nor reproduce in part or in full my letter. Do you not owe it to your readers to allow them to even read a rebuttal based on facts? Mr. Wilkins in his May 21st letter calls for the release of political prisoners in Cuba. The small group of Cuban political prisoners to which the Ambassador is referring have been arrested and tried on the basis of the Cuban Penal Code. This criminalizes those ?who in the interest of a foreign state, commit an act with the objective of damaging the independence or territorial integrity of the Cuban state...? They have also been tried on the basis of two other pieces of legislation that have been adopted in response to the Helms-Burton Law (1996) and Torricelli Law (1992). The goal of these two American laws consists of further tightening the blockade against Cuba in order to starve the Cuban people into submission, that is create havoc and provoke a revolt against the Cuban constitutional order. Full evidence was presented in court showing that the accused were working in close collaboration and being funded by the U.S. Interest Section in Havana to destabilize the Cuban political system and apply the goals of the Torricelli and Helms-Burton laws. The Cubans who were tried and convicted were done so not because of their political beliefs but rather their financial and other forms of collaboration with a foreign country against their own people in violation of the Cuban laws and penal code. Most countries have such laws. For example, the U.S. itself has several statutes which criminalize the injection of foreign funding into the American political process. The U.S. Ambassador mentions the ?Ladies in White? in his article as an example of what he calls persecution. This group of individuals comprises one example of people receiving funding from the U.S. interest Section in Havana, money coming from a convicted terrorist in the U.S. What actually happened during the incident to which the Ambassador is referring that took place a few weeks ago in Plaza de la Revoluci?n? These individuals showed up in Plaza de la Revoluci?n, Havana on a week-day morning when people were going to work or to school. The ?Ladies in White? are known by Cubans as being mercenaries. The Cuban authorities with female police officers removed them from the area in a non-violent way and brought them to their homes in order to avoid any incident caused by this provocation. You write in your rebuttal that in Cuba ?free elections are non- existent?. I was the first Canadian to have spent a great deal of time in Cuba during the elections in order to write a full detailed book on the political system based on my studies and own observations. When this book was published in 1999, all of the mainstream media including your predecessors ignored it, as you have ignored all other testimonies and letters that I have written on the subject. Do you not owe it to your readers to allow them to get to know the other side of the story, how elections take place on the island? It has also come to my attention, that the National Post has included in the last lines of paragraph four of the Cuban Ambassador?s note the sentence ?the U. S. govern Trudeaupian ment regarding terrorism (sic)?. This phrase was never in the original message, nor was it included in the copy you sent to the Cuban embassy for acceptance. There was even an obvious error with regards to the word ?government?. Does this amount to an attempt to link the Cuban government with a slanderous statement regarding Pierre-Elliot Trudeau? You will recall that Trudeau at least had the guts to go to Cuba and recognize the Cuban reality and thus hail it. Do you not owe it to your readers to be far more professional in your journalism? Please let your readers know through this letter that the Cuban government and people have the greatest respect for Trudeau regarding his position and stance on Cuba. From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Jun 3 10:59:07 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:59:07 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Letter to Post 2 : Cuba Chose their own Destiny Message-ID: Letter to the Editor, National Post, May 31, 2008 Chose their own Destiny Arnold August Montreal, Canada Re: Thanks, comrade, May 31, 2008 On May 31st, the National Post published a letter dismissing in one sentence as a joke the claim by Cuban Ambassador Ernesto Senti Darias that ?the Cuban people chose their own destiny?. In addition to insulting the accredited representative in Canada of a sovereign country, no facts or arguments were provided by the writer. Yet, the National Post decided to publish this while refusing to print the letters it had received from other Canadians. These letters, with facts, logic and argument, not to speak of personal experiences in Cuba, presented the views of the writers. In some cases the opinions regarding Cuba reflected their organizations which include hundreds of members and accumulate thousands of individual visits to Cuba. Let us deal with the question of the Cuba people having chosen and still choosing their own destiny. If some readers have pre-conceived notions of how to choose one?s destiny, here is one fact amongst others: Fidel Castro was about to win his elections in 1952 when Batista organized a coup d??tat in 1952. The latter cancelled the elections to be held and discarded the relatively progressive1940 Constitution that had been an outcome of the 1930s revolution in Cuba. Batista?s anti-democratic act was fully supported by the U.S. The political arena then shifted towards armed struggle in order to liberate the country from U.S. domination and create a new sovereign society based on equality and justice. There was no other alternative. This was accomplished on January 1, 1959 with the full participation of the masses of Cuban people. How otherwise could a corrupt, fascist government supported and trained by the powerful U.S. military be toppled? From 1959 through the 1960s, the new revolutionary government relied on open direct mass meetings with millions participating. The program and goals, that is the destiny of the Cuban people, were actually discussed and approved by a show of hands vote or by applause. In researching my first book, Democracy in Cuba and the 1997-98 Elections (1999), I investigated these examples of direct democracy by reading every single account of these meetings (there were hundreds). What did I employ as a source? In order to provide a balanced account, I delved through the University of Texas Institute of Latin American Studies Fidel Castro Speech Data Base. This source is far from being an instrument of the Cuban state. There are innumerable examples in this Data Base regarding public exchanges between Fidel Castro and the people as well as accounts of applause and voting on the destiny of the Cuban people. The new Cuban government also ruled through enabling laws to the resuscitated 1940 Constitution previously trashed by the Batista dictatorship. In the 1970s, the Cuban leadership decided to involve the Cuba citizens even further and in a more institutionalized manner. A new draft constitution was presented to the people in 1975 which outlined in detail and in principle the destiny of the Cuban people in all fields that is political, social, cultural, health, culture, rights, etc. The proposed document reflected in juridical and constitutional terms the destiny of the Cuban people. Public debates took place in which 6 million people participated resulting in changes to 60 of the proposed articles. On February 15, 1976, the referendum approved the latest version of the Constitution by secret ballot universal suffrage. Over ninety-seven percent of the citizens voted in favour of the new Constitution. In the same period, the Cuban government started to organize elections for the first time. The elections, in addition to choosing the electorate?s representatives also serve as a confirmation or rejection of the destiny mapped out by the Cuban people and their government. During my stay in Cuba during the 1997-98 elections, ten years ago, the government opponents, some of whom were supported by the U.S. Interest Section in Havana, attempted to discredit the political system. They called for a boycott or the spoiling of ballots. The goal was to give the impression that the Cuban people do not agree with the destiny as outlined in the Constitution and with the general orientation of the revolution. However, in the 1998 national elections for Parliament, 98.35% of the people voted. The number of spoiled ballots amounted to only 1.66%. My own observations in the Polling Stations at that time indicated that the proportion of spoiled ballots coincided in general with the nationally announced formal results. One of the leaders of the government opponents, or who some call ?dissidents?, Elizardo S?nchez, is quoted as admitting in 1998 that the national elections ?signified the renovation of the mandates and the legitimacy of the government? (Inter Press Service, February 23, 1998). More recently, during my stay in Cuba for the 2007-2008 elections it was revealed that the brother of Elizado S?nchez, Gerardo S?nchez, was presented for nomination to be elected to a Municipal Assembly in the October 21st 2007 municipal elections. According to the BBC Mundo (the Spanish online edition of BBC, October 23, 2007), S?nchez only ?got 5 votes in a meeting of about 100 voters, for a 5% of the total (my translation)?. During the national elections for Parliament on January 20th, 2008, my observations once again confirmed that the very small amount of spoiled ballots officially announced at the national level (1.04%) was pretty much the same as was counted in the Polling Stations that I had visited that election day. It should also be noted that many of the votes counted as spoiled are inadvertently annulled by voter over-enthusiasm in favour of the system. For example when a voter filled in the ballot correctly but added a sketch of Che, it was considered to be a spoiled ballot by the Polling Board members. I have seen many other such examples. Despite the fact that voting is not mandatory in Cuba, in 2008, 96.89% of the voting age population 16 years and older voted. My own observations this year once again dispelled the accusation that people are pressured into voting. And the act of voting itself is absolutely secret. No one knows how anyone else votes. All of these facts indicate that the vast majority of Cuban people not only have chosen their own destiny, but still continue to ratify it in so many ways, whether though elections or other forms of participation in the political system. Is the system perfect or serve as a model for others countries? No, I do not think so, and neither do the Cubans. They are the first ones to work towards perfecting and improving the political system as well as the socio/economic/cultural/juridical system. But I firmly believe that it is up to the Cuban people to bring improvements to their own system. The U.S. or any other country does not have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of Cuba. This island, like any other country, has the right to self-determination. Within this internationally recognized right is included how a people choose and ratify its destiny and the type of destiny itself. It would be very positive in my view if the National Post reproduces my letter. Perhaps we can engage together in discussion with the author of the May 31st letter through your blog or opinion pages. From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Jun 3 11:42:17 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:42:17 -0700 Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?It_is_not_only_Ch=E1vez_who_has_links_to_gue?= =?iso-8859-1?q?rrilla?= Message-ID: <69028614-0210-4C77-A10B-43EFD5DE6322@shaw.ca> It is not only Ch?vez who has links to guerrillas Uribe's dealings with rightwing paramilitaries remains an untold story, says Andy Higginbottom http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/03/venezuela.colombia * Andy Higginbottom * The Guardian, * Tuesday June 3 2008 Your report on the find by Colombian security forces diverts attention from the mounting evidence of President ?lvaro Uribe's own links with rightwing paramilitary death squads (Laptop emails link Ch?vez to guerrillas, May 16). The article states that Interpol "announced that a two-month forensic investigation of the laptops seized in a raid by Colombian security forces concluded they belonged to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc)". None of the findings in Interpol's report "conclude" any such thing, as in conclude after an investigation. The two Interpol investigators are computer experts: neither speaks Spanish, and they were tasked solely with inspecting the kit. Interpol assumes that the equipment it inspected was indeed used by Farc, it did not investigate the circumstances of their seizure, when the Colombian army killed 25 guerrillas in its raid into Ecuador on March 1. Are the Colombian security services to be trusted? It is they who presumably sourced the article's claim that: "Leaks from the trove of 16,000 files and photographs have suggested high- ranking Venezuelan officials plotted to help the Marxist group to obtain weapons and funding." Your article is more remarkable for the story it did not tell, also involving computers. In the early hours of May 13 Uribe extradited 14 leaders of the paramilitary Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia from its custody to penitentiaries in the US. This manoeuvre leaves in tatters any justice component of the government's own "justice and peace" process. Despite admitting the murder of more than 4,000 people, the "para" leaders have been extradited on drugs charges, not human rights violations, for which they may never stand trial. In the course of this sudden extradition, top paramilitary Salvatore Mancuso's computer and the hard drives used by four other leaders have disappeared from Itag?? maximum security prison. One drive was used by "Tuso Sierra", known to have business dealings with the former senator Mario Uribe, President Uribe's cousin and lifelong political ally. With no less than 96 Uribe supporters in the country's congress being held in detention or under investigation for links with the paramilitaries, this latest manoeuvre adds to the suspicion that Uribe himself enjoys impunity at home and in the US. International press investigation of the allegations is thus vitally important, but still woefully absent. Uribe and Ch?vez exemplify the two social models competing for the continent's future: neoconservatism versus "socialism of the 21st century". The Andean region is split. Like Uribe, Peru's Alan Garc?a is eager to strike a free trade and investment deal with the European Union, while Ecuador and Bolivia, like Venezuela, will not accept the EU's privatisation terms. In Lima this month I joined 8,000 participants from indigenous peoples' groups, environmental organisations and social movements - at the "people's summit"; we rejected the primacy of corporate interests in the relationship between our two continents. We would all appreciate a better informed reporting of these inspirational developments rather than mere snapping at Ch?vez. ? Dr Andy Higginbottom is a senior lecturer at Kingston University and is secretary of the Colombia Solidarity Campaign a.higginbottom at kingston.ac.uk From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Jun 3 13:02:00 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:02:00 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Pilger: After Bobby Kennedy Message-ID: <7174B942-9E1E-4978-86A9-24900F6B446A@shaw.ca> After Bobby Kennedy John Pilger Published 29 May 2008 http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-pilger-mccain-kennedy Bobby Kennedy's campaign is the model for Barack Obama's current bid to be the Democratic nominee for the White House. Both offer a false hope that they can bring peace and racial harmony to all Americans, writes John Pilger In this season of 1968 nostalgia, one anniversary illuminates today. It is the rise and fall of Robert Kennedy, who would have been elected president of the United States had he not been assassinated in June 1968. Having travelled with Kennedy up to the moment of his shooting at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on 5 June, I heard The Speech many times. He would "return government to the people" and bestow "dignity and justice" on the oppressed. "As Bernard Shaw once said," he would say, "'Most men look at things as they are and wonder why. I dream of things that never were and ask: Why not?'" That was the signal to run back to the bus. It was fun until a hail of bullets passed over our shoulders. Kennedy's campaign is a model for Barack Obama. Like Obama, he was a senator with no achievements to his name. Like Obama, he raised the expectations of young people and minorities. Like Obama, he promised to end an unpopular war, not because he opposed the war's conquest of other people's land and resources, but because it was "unwinnable". Should Obama beat John McCain to the White House in November, it will be liberalism's last fling. In the United States and Britain, liberalism as a war-making, divisive ideology is once again being used to destroy liberalism as a reality. A great many people understand this, as the hatred of Blair and new Labour attest, but many are disoriented and eager for "leadership" and basic social democracy. In the US, where unrelenting propaganda about American democratic uniqueness disguises a corporate system based on extremes of wealth and privilege, liberalism as expressed through the Democratic Party has played a crucial, compliant role. In 1968, Robert Kennedy sought to rescue the party and his own ambitions from the threat of real change that came from an alliance of the civil rights campaign and the anti-war movement then commanding the streets of the main cities, and which Martin Luther King had drawn together until he was assassinated in April that year. Kennedy had supported the war in Vietnam and continued to support it in private, but this was skilfully suppressed as he competed against the maverick Eugene McCarthy, whose surprise win in the New Hampshire primary on an anti-war ticket had forced President Lyndon Johnson to abandon the idea of another term. Using the memory of his martyred brother, Kennedy assiduously exploited the electoral power of delusion among people hungry for politics that represented them, not the rich. "These people love you," I said to him as we left Calexico, California, where the immigrant population lived in abject poverty and people came like a great wave and swept him out of his car, his hands fastened to their lips. "Yes, yes, sure they love me," he replied. "I love them!" I asked him how exactly he would lift them out of poverty: just what was his political philosophy? "Philosophy? Well, it's based on a faith in this country and I believe that many Americans have lost this faith and I want to give it back to them, because we are the last and the best hope of the world, as Thomas Jefferson said." "That's what you say in your speech. Surely the question is: How?" "How . . . by charting a new direction for America." The vacuities are familiar. Obama is his echo. Like Kennedy, Obama may well "chart a new direction for America" in specious, media-honed language, but in reality he will secure, like every president, the best damned democracy money can buy. Embarrassing truth As their contest for the White House draws closer, watch how, regardless of the inevitable personal smears, Obama and McCain draw nearer to each other. They already concur on America's divine right to control all before it. "We lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good," said Obama. "We must lead by building a 21st-century military . . . to advance the security of all people [emphasis added]." McCain agrees. Obama says in pursuing "terrorists" he would attack Pakistan. McCain wouldn't quarrel. Both candidates have paid ritual obeisance to the regime in Tel Aviv, unquestioning support for which defines all presidential ambition. In opposing a UN Security Council resolution implying criticism of Israel's starvation of the people of Gaza, Obama was ahead of both McCain and Hillary Clinton. In January, pressured by the Israel lobby, he massaged a statement that "nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people" to now read: "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel [emphasis added]." Such is his concern for the victims of the longest, illegal military occupation of modern times. Like all the candidates, Obama has furthered Israeli/Bush fictions about Iran, whose regime, he says absurdly, "is a threat to all of us". On the war in Iraq, Obama the dove and McCain the hawk are almost united. McCain now says he wants US troops to leave in five years (instead of "100 years", his earlier option). Obama has now "reserved the right" to change his pledge to get troops out next year. "I will listen to our commanders on the ground," he now says, echoing Bush. His adviser on Iraq, Colin Kahl, says the US should maintain up to 80,000 troops in Iraq until 2010. Like McCain, Obama has voted repeatedly in the Senate to support Bush's demands for funding of the occupation of Iraq; and he has called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. His senior advisers embrace McCain's proposal for an aggressive "league of democracies", led by the United States, to circumvent the United Nations. Amusingly, both have denounced their "preachers" for speaking out. Whereas McCain's man of God praised Hitler, in the fashion of lunatic white holy-rollers, Obama's man, Jeremiah Wright, spoke an embarrassing truth. He said that the attacks of 11 September 2001 had taken place as a consequence of the violence of US power across the world. The media demanded that Obama disown Wright and swear an oath of loyalty to the Bush lie that "terrorists attacked America because they hate our freedoms". So he did. The conflict in the Middle East, said Obama, was rooted not "primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel", but in "the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam". Journalists applauded. Islamophobia is a liberal speciality. The American media love both Obama and McCain. Reminiscent of mating calls by Guardian writers to Blair more than a decade ago, Jann Wenner, founder of the liberal Rolling Stone, wrote: "There is a sense of dignity, even majesty, about him, and underneath that ease lies a resolute discipline . . . Like Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama challenges America to rise up, to do what so many of us long to do: to summon 'the better angels of our nature'." At the liberal New Republic, Charles Lane confessed: "I know it shouldn't be happening, but it is. I'm falling for John McCain." His colleague Michael Lewis had gone further. His feelings for McCain, he wrote, were like "the war that must occur inside a 14-year-old boy who discovers he is more sexually attracted to boys than to girls". The objects of these uncontrollable passions are as one in their support for America's true deity, its corporate oligarchs. Despite claiming that his campaign wealth comes from small individual donors, Obama is backed by the biggest Wall Street firms: Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse, as well as the huge hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. "Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors," wrote the investigator Pam Martens, "consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages." A report by United for a Fair Economy, a non-profit group, estimates the total loss to poor Americans of colour who took out sub- prime loans as being between $164bn and $213bn: the greatest loss of wealth ever recorded for people of colour in the United States. "Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign," said Obama in January, "they won't run my White House and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president." According to files held by the Centre for Responsive Politics, the top five contributors to the Obama campaign are registered corporate lobbyists. What is Obama's attraction to big business? Precisely the same as Robert Kennedy's. By offering a "new", young and apparently progressive face of the Democratic Party - with the bonus of being a member of the black elite - he can blunt and divert real opposition. That was Colin Powell's role as Bush's secretary of state. An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent. Piracies and dangers America's war on Iran has already begun. In December, Bush secretly authorised support for two guerrilla armies inside Iran, one of which, the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, is described by the state department as terrorist. The US is also engaged in attacks or subversion against Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Bolivia and Venezuela. A new military command, Africom, is being set up to fight proxy wars for control of Africa's oil and other riches. With US missiles soon to be stationed provocatively on Russia's borders, the Cold War is back. None of these piracies and dangers has raised a whisper in the presidential campaign, not least from its great liberal hope. Moreover, none of the candidates represents so-called mainstream America. In poll after poll, voters make clear that they want the normal decencies of jobs, proper housing and health care. They want their troops out of Iraq and the Israelis to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbours. This is a remarkable testimony, given the daily brainwashing of ordinary Americans in almost everything they watch and read. On this side of the Atlantic, a deeply cynical electorate watches British liberalism's equivalent last fling. Most of the "philosophy" of new Labour was borrowed wholesale from the US. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were interchangeable. Both were hostile to traditionalists in their parties who might question the corporate-speak of their class- based economic policies and their relish for colonial conquests. Now the British find themselves spectators to the rise of new Tory, distinguishable from Blair?s new Labour only in the personality of its leader, a former corporate public relations man who presents himself as Tonier than thou. We all deserve better. http://www.johnpilger.com From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Jun 3 19:13:54 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:13:54 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] In Front of Your Nose Message-ID: <4845EC52.8000903@attglobal.net> by George Orwell Tribune, London (March 22 1946) Many recent statements in the press have declared that it is almost, if not quite, impossible for us to mine as much coal as we need for home and export purposes, because of the impossibility of inducing a sufficient number of miners to remain in the pits. One set of figures which I saw last week estimated the annual 'wastage' of mine workers at 60,000 and the annual intake of new workers at 10,000. Simultaneously with this - and sometimes in the same column of the same paper - there have been statements that it would be undesirable to make use of Poles or Germans because this might lead to unemployment in the coal industry. The two utterances do not always come from the same sources, but there must certainly be many people who are capable of holding these totally contradictory ideas in their heads at a single moment. This is merely one example of a habit of mind which is extremely widespread, and perhaps always has been. Bernard Shaw, in the preface to Androcles and the Lion, cites as another example the first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, which starts off by establishing the descent of Joseph, father of Jesus, from Abraham. In the first verse, Jesus is described as 'the son of David, the son of Abraham', and the genealogy is then followed up through fifteen verses: then, in the next verse but one, it is explained that as a matter of fact Jesus was not descended from Abraham, since he was not the son of Joseph. This, says Shaw, presents no difficulty to a religious believer, and he names as a parallel case the rioting in the East End of London by the partisans of the Tichborne Claimant, who declared that a British working man was being done out of his rights. Medically, I believe, this manner thinking is called schizophrenia: at any rate, it is the power of holding simultaneously two beliefs which cancel out. Closely allied to it is the power of igniting facts which are obvious and unalterable, and which will have to be faced sooner or later. It is especially in our political thinking that these vices flourish. Let me take a few sample subjects out of the hat. They have no organic connexion with each other: they are merely cased, taken almost at random, of plain, unmistakable facts being shirked by people who in another part of their mind are aware to those facts. Hong Kong. For years before the war everyone with knowledge of Far Eastern conditions knew that our position in Hong Kong was untenable and that we should lose it as soon as a major war started. This knowledge, however, was intolerable, and government after government continued to cling to Hong Kong instead of giving it back to the Chinese. Fresh troops were even pushed into it, with the certainty that they would be uselessly taken prisoner, a few weeks before the Japanese attack began. The war came, and Hong Kong promptly fell - as everyone had known all along that it would do. Conscription. For years before the war, nearly all enlightened people were in favour of standing up to Germany: the majority of them were also against having enough armaments to make such a stand effective. I know very well the arguments that are put forward in defence of this attitude; some of them are justified, but in the main they are simply forensic excuses. As late as 1939, the Labour Party voted against conscription, a step which probably played its part in bringing about the Russo-German Pact and certainly had a disastrous effect on morale in France. Then came 1940 and we nearly perished for lack of a large, efficient army, which we could only have had if we had introduced conscription at least three years earlier. The Birthrate. Twenty or twenty-five years ago, contraception and enlightenment were held to be almost synonymous. To this day, the majority of people argue - the argument is variously expressed, but always boils down to more or less the same thing - that large families are impossible for economic reasons. At the same time, it is widely known that the birthrate is highest among the low-standard nations, and, in our population, highest among the worst-paid groups. It is also argued that a smaller population would mean less unemployment and more comfort for everybody, while on the other hand it is well established that a dwindling and ageing population is faced with calamitous and perhaps insoluble economic problems. Necessarily the figures are uncertain, but it is quite possible that in only seventy years our population will amount to about eleven millions, over half of whom will be Old Age Pensioners. Since, for complex reasons, most people don't want large families, the frightening facts can exist some where or other in their consciousness, simultaneously known and not known. UNO. In order to have any efficacy whatever, a world organization must be able to override big states as well as small ones. It must have power to inspect and limit armaments, which means that its officials must have access to every square inch of every country. It must also have at its disposal an armed force bigger than any other armed force and responsible only to the organization itself. The two or three great states that really matter have never even pretended to agree to any of these conditions, and they have so arranged the constitution of UNO that their own actions cannot even be discussed. In other words, UNO's usefulness as an instrument of world peace is nil. This was just as obvious before it began functioning as it is now. Yet only a few months ago millions of well-informed people believed that it was going to be a success. There is no use in multiplying examples. The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. When one looks at the all-prevailing schizophrenia of democratic societies, the lies that have to be told for vote-catching purposes, the silence about major issues, the distortions of the press, it is tempting to believe that in totalitarian countries there is less humbug, more facing of the facts. There, at least, the ruling groups are not dependent on popular favour and can utter the truth crudely and brutally. Goering could say 'Guns before butter', while his democratic opposite numbers had to wrap the same sentiment up in hundreds of hypocritical words. Actually, however, the avoidance of reality is much the same everywhere, and has much the same consequences. The Russian people were taught for years that they were better off than everybody else, and propaganda posters showed Russian families sitting down to abundant meal while the proletariat of other countries starved in the gutter. Meanwhile the workers in the western countries were so much better off than those of the USSR that non-contact between Soviet citizens and outsiders had to be a guiding principle of policy. Then, as a result of the war, millions of ordinary Russians penetrated far into Europe, and when they return home the original avoidance of reality will inevitably be paid for in frictions of various kinds. The Germans and the Japanese lost the war quite largely because their rulers were unable to see facts which were plain to any dispassionate eye. To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle. One thing that helps toward it is to keep a diary, or, at any rate, to keep some kind of record of one's opinions about important events. Otherwise, when some particularly absurd belief is exploded by events, one may simply forget that one ever held it. Political predictions are usually wrong. But even when one makes a correct one, to discover why one was right can be very illuminating. In general, one is only right when either wish or fear coincides with reality. If one recognizes this, one cannot, of course, get rid of one's subjective feelings, but one can to some extent insulate them from one's thinking and make predictions cold-bloodedly, by the book of arithmetic. In private life most people are fairly realistic. When one is making out one's weekly budget, two and two invariably make four. Politics, on the other hand, is a sort of sub-atomic or non-Euclidean word where it is quite easy for the part to be greater than the whole or for two objects to be in the same place simultaneously. Hence the contradictions and absurdities I have chronicled above, all finally traceable to a secret belief that one's political opinions, unlike the weekly budget, will not have to be tested against solid reality. THE END (c) 1999-2004 O. Dag ? ?C. date: 2000-02-12 & L. mod.: 2004-12-06! http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/nose/english/e_nose TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Jun 3 19:49:44 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:49:44 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] How Freud got under our skin Message-ID: <4845F4B8.8030008@attglobal.net> From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 4 06:10:55 2008 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 05:10:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] National Call-in Day for Impeachment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <519830.19656.qm@web50809.mail.re2.yahoo.com> www.VoteToImpeach.org Subscribe: http://www.impeachbush.org/site/R?i=9stWtoDwXxQkesx3EpykHw.. ********************* **Please circulate widely -- tell your friends to join the Call-in Day** NATIONAL CALL-IN DAY FOR IMPEACHMENT The crimes of this administration are enormous: a widespread policy of torture and murder; a war that has killed a million Iraqis, 4,000 U.S. service members and devastated the lives of so many more; sophisticated programs for spying on U.S. citizens; lying to the public. The future threats posed are ominous. As Ramsey Clark recently wrote: "In his remaining eight months, President Bush will continue to threaten other nations in violation of international law and clearly intends to commit new aggressions in his belligerent presidency. If not stopped by impeachment he may strike Iran's nuclear projects and immerse the United States in avoidable war for a generation far more exhausting than any we have known." Today, Tuesday June 3, is the National Call-In Day for Impeachment. Take a moment right now and call Rep. John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee at 202-225-5126, 202-224-3121, 202-225-3951, 313-961-5670, or 734-675-4084. Demand that articles of impeachment be introduced by July 4. Over one million people have voted to impeach Bush, Cheney and other high officials for high crimes and misdemeanors. It's time for Congressman Conyers to hear from you. Make a donation today to support the impeachment movement by clicking here: http://www.impeachbush.org/site/R?i=13-wdUL2MNek0ToBnZsXzw.. As Ramsey Clark wrote: "It is imperative that We, the People of the United States, demand of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and its Chairman John Conyers that they immediately commence consideration of the many allegations of impeachable offenses by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other civil Officers of the Untied States and present a comprehensive Bill of Impeachment for Committee consideration by July 4, 2008. "I ask every American who cares about the integrity of our government and the welfare of our People and those we assault to immediately demand Chairman John Conyers and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives commence hearings on a Bill of Impeachment of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and others by July 4, 2008." When you've made your call, please take a moment to encourage even just one friend to join with you and more than a million other Americans, and sign the referendum to Impeach Bush by going to our homepage: http://www.impeachbush.org/site/R?i=1v8bb2KBHRK4l9X0qGS0EA.. We will not rest until Bush and his cabal have been held accountable for war crimes, crimes against humanity and mass deprivation of civil rights and civil liberties. This is an unstoppable movement for justice. Make your call now! This movement is making a difference. To support this campaign and the important work of the impeachment movement, please click this link and make an urgently needed donation. http://www.impeachbush.org/site/R?i=bNadhIPiO_tyjtEiaS3Fjg.. -- All of us at ImpeachBush/VotetoImpeach.org ********************** Click here for the ImpeachBush Resource Center: http://www.impeachbush.org/site/R?i=Oaoqor0y8w-NTqDp0Qm5_g.. From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 4 06:14:42 2008 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 05:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Nuke amdts to climate bill: voted on soon; call your Senators In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5136.61518.qm@web50812.mail.re2.yahoo.com> NUCLEAR AMENDMENTS TO CLIMATE BILL TO BE VOTED ON SOON CALL YOUR SENATORS! http://www.nirs.org/ YOUR ACTIONS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE! Debate on the Senate climate change bill (now numbered S. 3036) began on Monday and has continued through Tuesday. Voting on amendments?including amendments to give billions more taxpayer dollars to the nuclear power industry?will begin as early as tomorrow, Wednesday, June 4. Your calls to your Senators are needed now more than ever! Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 If you already have called your Senators, call again to remind them that no nuclear amendments are acceptable, and that nuclear power has no place in the necessary effort to address the climate crisis. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner ways to reduce carbon emissions and meet our electricity needs. And ask your parents, kids, grandchildren, the guy at the gas station, the woman at the bank, the person in the next cubicle, and everyone else you know, meet and run into, to call as well. We don?t have huge budgets and hundreds of lobbyists running all over Capitol Hill?we rely on people power. Your calls ARE effective and CAN make a real difference. Call even if you think your Senators are hopeless?part of what we need to do is create a real buzz on Capitol Hill that millions of Americans believe this is an important issue. The message to your Senators is simple: Vote against any and all nuclear amendments to the climate bill. The wealthy nuclear industry does not deserve any more taxpayer dollars. Our resources need to be spent on energy efficiency, solar and wind power, distributed energy and smart grids. Please call now, and please send us a quick e-mail letting us know you called. As always, let us know if we can help in any way. Thank you! Michael Mariotte Executive Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service nirsnet at nirs.org www.nirs.org 301-270-6477 Please consider making an extra $30 donation (or $300 or $3,000, if you can!)?in honor of NIRS? 30th anniversary this year?on our secure website here. Help kick off our next 30 years, and our work to build a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy future, with your most generous contribution possible. And if you haven?t done so yet, don?t forget to sign the statement on nuclear power and climate at www.nirs.org (but please don?t sign more than once!). If you?ve already signed, please ask your friends and colleagues to sign! We?ve passed 7750 signatures, let?s get to 10,000 this month! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the NIRS E-Mail Alert list. You are on this list because you signed up on our website, at a NIRS table at a concert, on a petition, or directly to NIRS. Your name and address are never sold, rented, or traded with anyone for any reason. For address changes or to unsubscribe, just send an e-mail to nirsnet at nirs.org. If you have friends or colleagues who would like to be on this list, have them send a note to nirsnet at nirs.org From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 4 06:22:19 2008 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 05:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Emergency Action: Save the Wild Buffalo / USA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <936394.6763.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Dear Members of Global Response?s ?Quick Response Network:? http://www.globalresponse.org/ Most Americans don?t know that state and federal agencies including the National Parks Service are collaborating in killing thousands of healthy wild buffalo every year. Native American organizations and wildlife defenders are asking us to join in their efforts to stop this unnecessary slaughter. Held sacred by many Native peoples, the wild buffalo is an iconic symbol of the American west. We nearly drove it to extinction 150 years ago. Will we allow it to be exterminated now? ___________________________________________________________________________ GR# 3/08 SAVE THE WILD BUFFALO / USA Issued June 2, 2008 Wild buffalo are a keystone species critical to the health of grasslands ecosystems, and an integral aspect of many Native American cultures, but they are ecologically extinct everywhere outside of Yellowstone National Park. The wild buffalo that inhabit the Yellowstone region are the descendants of the vast herds of millions that once occupied most of North America. They are the only bison to continuously occupy their native range, and they are behaviorally unique as they still follow their migratory instincts. They are one of the last populations to retain the identity of Bison bison as a wild indigenous species native to North America. But, instead of being protected, these wild buffalo are under siege. In the past ten years nearly 4,000 wild buffalo have been killed by state and federal agencies for migrating across Yellowstone Park?s ecologically meaningless boundaries and into non-parkland Montana. These wild creatures ? males, females and calves ? are systematically trapped, captured and delivered to slaughterhouses. Today, fewer than 2,100 wild bison exist in the United States. This year, Yellowstone Park and Montana state agencies have killed 1,600 wild buffalo (more than one-third of the last continuously wild population), leading to the largest-scale bison slaughter since the late 1800s. When other losses are counted (including wild bison removed for quarantine research, winter kill, highway mortality, and other deaths), nearly two-thirds of the wild population has been lost. Yellowstone National Park, the Montana Department of Livestock and other state and federal agencies carry out the wild bison killing to appease Montana?s cattle interests. The cattle industry claims they fear the spread of a cattle disease called brucellosis (Brucella abortus) from wild bison to cattle. Wild bison have never transmitted this disease to cattle, and the risk of transmission is nearly non-existent. Brucellosis was introduced to native wildlife by European livestock. While these other native wildlife that carry the disease are free to roam, wild bison are held prisoners by an arbitrary political fence. At a closer look one sees that the issue is not about disease; it is about the grass and who gets to eat it. So the centuries-old buffalo wars continue. Seventh Generation Fund for Indian Development http://www.7genfund.org/ and Buffalo Field Campaign http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/ , are leading the efforts to stop the slaughter, protect wild bison habitat, naturally restore wild bison to their historic range. They aim to bring Native voices and power into the decision-making process and revitalize their historic relationship with the sacred wild buffalo. This campaign is also endorsed by the Indegenous Action Network http://www.ienearth.org/ and Honor the Earth http://www.honorearth.org/ . How you can help: Please write letters to the officials listed below. Urge them to take immediate steps to stop the wild bison slaughter. Tell them you believe that: Wild buffalo should be allowed to restore themselves on their native range, starting with the Horse Butte peninsula, and surrounding Gallatin National Forest lands. Wild buffalo should be listed as an endangered species with their historic range included as critical habitat The harassment and killing of wild buffalo by all state and federal agencies should cease Native American tribes should have a strong voice in all decisions affecting wild buffalo and their habitat The Montana Department of Livestock should be removed from all authority and involvement in wild buffalo management Yellowstone National Park should withdraw from the Interagency Bison Management Plan, shut down the Stephens Creek bison trap, and refrain from harassing and killing wild buffalo Wild buffalo should be respected as a valued native wildlife species in Montana, able to live freely as elk, deer, moose and other wildlife do. Please write to: Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer State Capitol PO Box 200801 Helena, MT 59620-0801 1-406-444-3111 brianschweitzer at mt.gov Superintendent Suzanne Lewis Yellowstone National Park P.O. Box 168 Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190-0168 Yell_superintendent at nps.gov OR Suzanne_lewis at nps.gov Michael Stempel Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 134 Union Boulevard Suite 645 Lakewood, CO 80228 Mike_stempel at fws.gov For more information contact: Buffalo Field Campaign P.O. Box 957 West Yellowstone, MT 59758 406-646-0070 buffalo at wildrockies.org http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org Buffalo Field Campaign is the only group working in the field every day in defense of the last wild buffalo population in the United States. Seventh Generation Fund for Indian Development P.O. Box 4569 Arcata, CA 95518 707-825-7640 http://www.7genfund.org/contact_us.php The Seventh Generation Fund is an Indigenous non-profit organization dedicated to promoting and maintaining the uniqueness of Native peoples throughout the Americas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTERS! Since 1990, Global Response has organized over 100 international letter-writing campaigns, and in 43% of them we have already celebrated victories! * MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTION to support Global Response. We need and appreciate your support! * REGISTER to receive Global Response action alerts by email or regular mail. Give a gift membership to teachers, young people, friends and family members. * BUY GLOBAL RESPONSE MERCHANDISE including great campaign posters, postcards, t-shirts, etc. Paula Palmer, Executive Director Global Response PO Box 7490 Boulder, Colorado 80306 United States Tel +303/444-0306 Global Response organizes effective international letter-writing campaigns to protect the environment and the rights of indigenous peoples. See action alerts for adults, teens and children at www.globalresponse.org From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Jun 4 07:01:03 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:01:03 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Justice Undone Message-ID: <4846920F.40106@attglobal.net> I didn't get my man, but I helped to remind people what he's done. by George Monbiot Published in the Guardian (June 03 2008) I realise now that I didn't have a hope. I had almost reached the stage when two of the biggest gorillas I have ever seen swept me up and carried me out of the tent. It was humiliating, but it could have been worse. The guard on the other side of the stage, half hidden in the curtains, had spent the lecture touching something under his left armpit. Perhaps he had bubos. I had no intention of arresting John Bolton, the former under-secretary of state at the US State Department, when I arrived at the Hay Festival. But during a panel discussion about the Iraq war, I remarked that the greatest crime of the 21st century had become so normalised that one of its authors was due to visit the festival to promote his book. I proposed that someone should attempt a citizens' arrest, in the hope of instilling a fear of punishment among those who plan illegal wars. After the session I realised that I couldn't call on other people to do something I wasn't prepared to do myself. I knew that I was more likely to be arrested and charged than Mr Bolton. I had no intention of harming him, or of acting in any way that could be interpreted as aggressive, but had I sought only to steer him gently towards the police I might have faced a range of exotic charges, from false imprisonment to aggravated assault. I was prepared to take this risk. It is not enough to demand that other people act, knowing that they will not. If the police, the courts and the state fail to prosecute what the Nuremberg tribunal described as "the supreme international crime" {1}, I believe we have a duty to seek to advance the process {2}. The Nuremberg Principles, which arose from the prosecution of the Nazi war criminals, define as an international crime the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances" {3}. Bolton appears to have "participated in a common plan" to prepare for the war (also defined by the principles as a crime) by inserting the false claim that Iraq was seeking to procure uranium from Niger into a State Department fact sheet {4, 5}. He also organised the sacking of Jose Bustani, the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons {6, 7}. Bustani had tried to broker a peaceful resolution of the dispute over Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction {8}. Some of the most pungent criticisms of my feeble attempt to bring this man to justice have come from other writers for the Guardian. Michael White took a position of extraordinary generosity towards the instigators of the war {9}. There are "arguments on both sides", he contended. Bustani might have received compensation after his sacking by Bolton, "but Bolton says that does not mean much. That is sometimes true." In fact Bustani was not only compensated at his tribunal; he was completely exonerated of Bolton's charges and his employers were obliged to pay special damages {10}. White suggested that Iraq might indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger, on the grounds of a conversation he once had with an MI6 officer. Alongside the British government's 45-minute claim, this must be the best-documented of all the false justifications for the war with Iraq. In 2002, the US government sent three senior officials to Niger to investigate the claim {11}. All reported that it was without foundation. The International Atomic Energy Agency discovered that it was based on crude forgeries {12}. This assessment was confirmed by the State Department's official Greg Thielmann {13}, who reported directly to John Bolton {14}. No evidence beyond the forged documents has been provided by either the US or the UK governments to support their allegation. White also gives credence to Bolton's claims that the war in 2003 was justified by two UN resolutions - 678 and 687 - which were approved in 1990 and 1991, and that it was permitted by Article 51 of the UN Charter. The attempt to revive resolutions 678 and 687 was the last, desperate throw of the dice by the Blair government when all else had failed. When it became clear that it could not obtain a new UN resolution authorising force against Iraq, the government dusted down the old ones, which had been drafted in response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. This revival formed the basis of Lord Goldsmith's published advice on 17th March 2003. It was described as "risible" and "scrap[ing] the bottom of the legal barrel" by Lord Alexander, a senior law lord {15}. After the first Gulf War, Colin Powell, General Sir Peter de la Billiere and John Major all stated that the UN's resolutions permitted them only to expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait, and not to overthrow the Iraqi government {16}. Lord Goldsmith himself, in the summer of 2002, advised Tony Blair that resolutions 678 and 687 could not be used to justify a new war with Iraq {17}. Article 51 of the UN Charter is comprehensible to anyone but the lawyers employed by the Bush administration. States have a right to self-defence "if an armed attack occurs against" them, and then only until the UN Security Council can intervene. On what occasion did Iraq attack the United States? Is there any claim made by the Blair and Bush governments that Michael White is not prepared to believe? Conor Foley, writing on Comment is Free, suggested that my action "completely trivializes the serious case" against the Iraq war {18} and claimed that I was seeking to "imprison ... people because of their political opinions" {19}, as if Bolton were simply a commentator on the war, and not an agent. Does he really believe that the former under-secretary did not "participate in a common plan" to initiate the war with Iraq? What other conceivable purpose might the State Department's misleading fact sheet have served? And what more serious action can someone who is neither a Law Lord nor a legislator take? Bolton himself maintains that my attempt to bring him to justice reflects a "move towards lawlessness and fascism". {20} This is an interesting commentary on an attempt to uphold a law which arose from the prosecution of fascists. But there is one charge I do accept: that my chances of success were very slight. Apart from the 300-pound gorillas, the main obstacle I faced was that although the crime of aggression, as defined by the Nuremberg Principles, has been incorporated into the legislation of many countries, it has not been assimilated into the laws of England and Wales {21}. This does not lessen the crime but it means that it cannot yet be tried here. This merely highlights another injustice: while the British state is prepared to punish petty misdemeanors with vindictive ferocity, it will not legislate against the greatest crime of all, lest it expose itself to prosecution. But demonstration has two meanings. Non-violent direct action is both a protest and an exposition. It seeks to demonstrate truths which have been overlooked or forgotten. I sought to remind people that the greatest crime of the 21st Century remains unprosecuted, and remains a great crime. If you have read this far, I have succeeded. www.monbiot.com References: 1. Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, 9th November 2004. Aggressive War: Supreme International Crime. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml 2. The charge sheet Nicola Cutcher and I compiled can be read here: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05/27/arresting-john-bolton/ 3. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390?OpenDocument 4. See letter from Representative Henry Waxman to Representative Christopher Shays, 1st March 2005. http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20050301112122-90349.pdf 5. The State Department fact sheet can be read here: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/16118.htm 6. Charles J Hanley, 4th June 2005. Bolton Said to Orchestrate Unlawful Firing. Associated Press. 7. Bolton himself boasts of this role in his book, Surrender is Not an Option, 2008. pages 95-98. Threshold Editions, New York. 8. See http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/04/16/a-war-against-the-peacemaker/ 9. Michael White, 29th May 2008. What I really think about John Bolton. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/05/michael_whites_political_blog_169.html 10. See http://www.ilo.org/public/english/tribunal/fulltext/2232.htm 11. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Ambassador Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick and General Carlton Fulford. 12. Mohamed ElBaradei, 7th March 2003. The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: an Update. Statement to the United Nations Security Council. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml 13. Michael Duffy and James Carney, 21st July 2003. A Question Of Trust. Time magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005234-1,00.html 14. No author given, 1st August 2005. Bush appoints Bolton as his UN ambassador. The Economist. 15. Clare Dyer, 15th October 2003. Goldsmith 'scraped the legal barrel' over Iraq war. The Guardian. 16. Philippe Sands, 2005. Lawless World, page 190. Penguin, London. 17. John Kampfner, 2003. Blair's Wars, page 378. Free Press. 18. Conor Foley, 30th May 2008. Monbiot's silly stunt. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_foley/2008/05/monbiots_silly_stunt.html 19. Conor makes this claim in the comment thread. 20. Stephen Adams, 29th May 2008. John Bolton: Citizen's arrest attempt was comic. The Telegraph. 21. House of Lords, 2006. Judgments - R vs Jones (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R vs J (Appellant), Et cetera. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060329/jones-5.htm Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/06/03/justice-undone/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 07:47:01 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:47:01 -0400 Subject: [R-G] US, Turkey Agree on Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Message-ID: If nothing else, the Bush White House can claim that it indeed has given birth a new Middle East -- totally nuclear, from North Africa to West Asia! -- Yoshie US, Turkey agree on peaceful nuclear cooperation Turkey and the United States have started a 15-year nuclear energy cooperation agreement, according to State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack. Turkey and the United States have begun a 15-year nuclear energy cooperation agreement with the exchange of diplomatic notes by officials from the two countries. The two countries agreed to cooperate on civilian nuclear projects with the "US-Turkey Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation," according to the Turkish Foreign Ministry and the US State Department. Turkey and the US had signed the cooperation agreement in Ankara on July 26, 2000, but it was only brought into force on Monday due to problems in the ratification processes, a statement by the Turkish Foreign Ministry said yesterday. "The agreement -- mindful of the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which both countries have long been parties, and of the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency's [IAEA] security inspections in preventing proliferation -- sets up a framework for the peaceful use, development and inspection of nuclear energy," the statement said. The ministry also indicated that the agreement permits the transfer of technology, information, materials, equipment and components for nuclear research in such areas as medicine and agriculture, as well as for nuclear power production. The agreement does not permit transfers of sensitive nuclear technology and restricted data. In a similar statement the US State Department's Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs said: "The agreement establishes a firm foundation for mutually beneficial cooperation in the important field of peaceful nuclear energy for many years to come. It opens up opportunities for US and Turkish nuclear industries to cooperate in this field." The agreement has an initial term of 15 years, with a provision for automatic renewal in increments of five years each unless either party decides to terminate it. "By bringing the Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation into force, the United States and Turkey have taken an early step in what they both expect will be a very long and fruitful partnership in efforts to enhance their energy options and promote their energy security," the US statement said. Sedat La?iner, the head of the Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (ISRO/USAK), told Today's Zaman that the agreement shows the extent of the trust that the United States has for Turkey. "Nuclear materials are highly sensitive products. There is a danger that they can be sold to third countries on the US black list, such as Iran. So the White House cannot by itself approve selling nuclear technology. It goes through a process of approval by Congress," La?iner said. He also said American companies have a stronger hand in this agreement than others, such as French and Canadian firms, which are most interested in Turkey's nuclear development projects, because the agreement involves technology transfer, mutual production of materials and the education of Turkish engineers in the field of nuclear production. "If other countries' companies cannot provide these things, American firms will have an upper hand," he said. In January US President George W. Bush approved a civilian nuclear cooperation deal with Turkey, saying that private-sector proliferation worries have been addressed. Then Bush sent the US Congress a July 2000 agreement, signed by then-US president Bill Clinton, which would clear the way for cooperation with Turkey's planned civilian atomic sector. "In my judgment, entry into force of the agreement will serve as a strong incentive for Turkey to continue its support for nonproliferation objectives and enact future sound nonproliferation policies and practices," Bush said in a letter to lawmakers on Jan. 23. "It will also promote closer political and economic ties with a NATO ally, and provide the necessary legal framework for US industry to make nuclear exports to Turkey's planned civil nuclear sector," Bush also said. The deal stalled shortly after being signed in July 2000 because US agencies received "information implicating Turkish private entities in certain activities directly relating to nuclear proliferation," the White House said, adding that those "issues have been sufficiently resolved." The US Congress still has to approve the agreement. The agreement will facilitate Ankara's September tender to build the first of three planned nuclear power plants that will provide Turkey with an additional 5,000 megawatts of electricity. -- Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 07:51:49 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:51:49 -0400 Subject: [R-G] US Admiral Keen for Contact with Iran Navy Message-ID: US admiral keen for contact with Iran navy By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington Published: June 4 2008 03:00 | Last updated: June 4 2008 03:00 The top US naval commander in the Middle East says contacts between the navies of the US and Iran would be useful once Tehran stopped sponsoring violence inside Iraq. Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the US Fifth Fleet, made his comments as Barack Obama and John McCain, the presumptive Democratic and Republican candidates for president, spar aggressively over whether Washington should engage with Tehran. In an interview, Adm Cosgriff told the Financial Times that the US and Soviet navies had benefited from contacts during the cold war. Asked whether similar contacts between the US and Iran navies would be useful, he said: "I think they would." Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has recently adopted a less rigid tone on talks with Iran than the White House or Mr McCain. He recently advocated opening new channels between the countries, though he added the US should try to gain more leverage before holding talks with Tehran. "We are coming up on 30 years' worth of strategy questions with respect to Iran and in many ways the importance of communication, of a dialogue, of having a two-way exchange . . . can't be overstated," a senior military official said. Sitting in the Pentagon, Adm Cosgriff explained how a 1972 agreement between the US and USSR helped prevent incidents at sea from escalating into crises. The admiral, who has also served as director of the White House situation room, said negotiations for the agreement had created long-lasting "confidence-building measures". To stress the point, he added that his last encounter with a Soviet ship off the coast of Oman about 20 years ago was "pretty routine". "The key takeaway is it created an opportunity for the two navies to talk," said Adm Cosgriff. "That led to other things - visits and those sorts of things." Adm Cosgriff has witnessed several dangerous incidents involving US and Iranian ships in the Gulf. The most serious occurred in January when a US warship came within 10 seconds of firing on Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats. "It could have gone the other way," the admiral said. "The message I would want the Iranians to have taken away is that 20 US sailors have died at the hands of small-boat attacks [including the 2000 USS Cole attack], and there is not a captain in the US navy . . . that does not know that." One problem, he said, was that while the Iranian navy responded to radio calls from US ships, the more aggressive Revolutionary Guard did not. He grappled with the question of whether the Revolutionary Guard navy was acting under orders, or just like "cowboys". "Which Iran is acting here? It is mostly opaque to me. My inkling is some of the things we see are local. [But] I am not absolving accountability for the centre because they have created the tone or the environment within which local commanders seem to think that they can operate this way." Adm Cosgriff laced his desire to have better naval relations with a dose of reality, saying that the US could not have a "normal relationship" with Iran while it shipped lethal weapons to groups attacking US forces in Iraq. "That is perhaps a bridge too far. So they have to resolve some of those issues . . . before I would be suggesting doing anything like doing formal talks." Anthony Zinni, a retired marine general and former head of central command, agreed on the need for a mechanism to prevent "unintended confrontations". He suggested forming a Gulf naval co-ordination centre, which would include Arab navies and allow bridge-to-bridge communications. The US and Iranian navies could also co-ordinate search and rescue missions for missing sailors and fishermen. "These could be a starting basis, with more co-operation along the lines of Admiral Cosgriff's caveat leading to greater connections," General Zinni said. Adm Cosgriff dismissed reports that the US will attack Iran this year as "urban legend". "I know . . people have this unsettled feeling . . So every little thing now fits into this conspiracy. Like 'there [are] two carriers, prelude to war'. So you say, 'just watch, watch what happens, literally two ships passing in the night in the Gulf. Case closed.' But people are inclined to think something." -- Yoshie From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Jun 4 12:28:42 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:28:42 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Bigwood: How U.S. funding of the world press corps may be buying influence Message-ID: <1D090907-EFE6-4992-97EF-16628C259F6D@shaw.ca> Features > June 4, 2008 No Strings Attached? How U.S. funding of the world press corps may be buying influence By Jeremy Bigwood http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3697/no_strings_attached/ Lebanese men in Beruit watch Alhurra, a U.S.-funded Arabic-language television network. The name of the satelite channel means 'the free one' in Arabic. Share Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine Domestic propaganda campaigns like the ?Pentagon Pundits? fiasco have been exposed and decried. Mainstream media outlets hired high-ranking military officers to provide ?analysis? about the war in Iraq. Turns out they had ties to military contractors with a vested interest in continuing the war. Below the radar, another journalism scandal is brewing: the U.S. government is secretly funding foreign news outlets and journalists. Government bodies ? including the State Department, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and the U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP) ? support ?media development? in more than 70 countries. In These Times has found that these programs include funding hundreds of foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), journalists, policy-makers, journalist associations, media outlets, training institutes and academic journalism faculties. Grant sizes can range from a few thousand to millions of dollars. ?The bottom line is that we are teaching the mechanics of journalism, whether it be print, television or radio,? USAID spokesman Paul Koscak says. ?How to do a story, how to write with balance ? all of those types of things that you would expect in a professional piece that is published.? But some people, especially those outside the United States, see it differently. ?We think that the real issues here are the foreign policy objectives behind these media development programs,? says a high-level Venezuelan diplomat who asked not to be identified. ?When the objective is regime change, these programs have proven to be instruments for the destabilization of democratically elected governments that the United States doesn?t support.? Isabel MacDonald, communications director at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a New York-based media watchdog nonprofit, is also critical. ?This is a system that, despite its professed adherence to norms of objectivity, has often worked against real democracy,? she says, ?by stifling dissent and helping the U.S. government spread misinformation serviceable to U.S. foreign policy goals.? Show me the agency Measuring the size and scope of independent media development is difficult because similar programs exist under different rubrics. Some agencies consider ?media development? to be its own field, while other agencies categorize it under ?public diplomacy? or ?psychological operations.? That makes it hard to figure out how much money goes into these programs. In December 2007, the Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) ? a State Department-funded office at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) ? reported that in 2006, USAID doled out almost $53 million for foreign media development activities. According to the CIMA study, the State Department spent an estimated $15 million on such programs. NED?s budget for media projects was an additional $11 million. And the small Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Institute for Peace may have contributed up to $1.4 million more, according to the report, which did not examine Defense Department or CIA media funding. The U.S. government is by far the largest funder of media development in the world, giving more than $82 million in 2006 ? not counting money from the Pentagon, the CIA or U.S. embassies in recipient countries. To complicate matters, many foreign NGOs and journalists receive media development funding from more than one U.S. government source. Some receive funding from various U.S. subcontractors and ?independent international nonprofit organizations,? while others receive money directly from the U.S. embassy in their country. Three foreign journalists who receive U.S. media development funding told In These Times that such gifts do not affect their behavior or alter their reporting. And they deny that they practice self- censorship. None, however, would say this on the record. Gustavo Guzm?n, a former journalist and now Bolivian ambassador to the United States, says, ?A journalist who receives such gifts is no longer a journalist, but becomes a mercenary.? A twisted history The U.S. government?s funding of foreign media has a long history. During the mid-?70s, in the aftermath of Watergate, two congressional investigations ? the Church and Pike committees, after Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) and Rep. Otis Pike (D-N.Y.) ? delved into covert U.S. government activities in other countries. They confirmed that, apart from CIA-funded journalists (both foreign and American), the U.S. government also subsidized foreign print media, radio and television outlets ? something the Soviets were also doing. For instance, Encounter, an anti-communist literary magazine published in England from 1953 to 1990, was revealed to be a CIA operation in 1967. And, as is the case today, benign-sounding organizations, such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom, have also been CIA fronts. Congressional investigations found that clandestine U.S. funding of foreign media often played a decisive role abroad, but nowhere more so than in Chile in the early ?70s. ?The CIA?s major propaganda operation, through the opposition newspaper El Mercurio, probably contributed most directly to the bloody overthrow of the Allende government and Chile?s democracy,? says Peter Kornbluh, senior analyst at the National Security Archive, an independent nongovernmental research institute. In These Times asked the agency if it still funds foreign journalists. CIA Spokesman Paul Gimigliano responded, ?The CIA does not, as a matter of course, publicly deny or confirm these kinds of allegations.? Enemies of the State Department? On Aug. 19, 2002, the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela, sent a cable to Washington. It read: ?We expect Mr. Lacayo?s participation as an IV grantee to be directly reflected in his reporting on political and international topics. As he moves upward in his career, our improved ties with him would mean a potentially important friend in positions of editorial influence.? [Editor?s Note: Mr. Lacayo?s name has been changed to protect his identity.] The State Department had chosen the Venezuelan journalist to visit the U.S. under what is known as an IV grant ? a cultural exchange program started in 1961. Last year, the department brought some 467 journalists to the United States at a cost of about $10 million, according to a State Department official who requested anonymity. FAIR?s MacDonald says that the ?visits serve to build ties between the visiting foreign journalists and institutions that ? are extremely uncritical of U.S. foreign policy and the corporate interests it serves.? The State Department funds media development through several of its bureaus, including the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), as well as through its regional bureaus and embassies worldwide. It also funds foreign journalists through another section called the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Most importantly, the State Department usually decides where other agencies, such as USAID and NED, should invest their media development funds. (The State Department did not respond to In These Times? requests for information about its media development budget, but the 2007 CIMA study shows that in 2006, DRL, for instance, received almost $12 million for media development alone.) The case of Bolivia is a revealing example of a country in which the United States has been funding media development. According to DRL?s website, the bureau sponsored 15 workshops in Bolivia on freedom of the press and expression in 2006. ?The country?s journalists and journalism students discussed professional ethics, good reporting practices and the media?s role in a democracy,? the site says. ?These programs were sent out to 200 radio stations in remote areas throughout the country.? In 2006, Bolivia elected Evo Morales, its first indigenous president, whose rise to power the U.S. government and Bolivia?s mainstream press has repeatedly tried to impede. Morales and his supporters allege that the U.S. government is backing a separatist movement in Bolivia?s gas- rich eastern states, and they allege that part of that backing involves media development meetings, according to journalist and former presidential spokesperson Alex Contreras. USAID?s Koscak denies the charge. This is the BBG The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), is most famous as the funder of the Voice of America. According to its website, BBG is ?responsible for all U.S. government and government-sponsored, non- military, international broadcasting? that brings ?news and information to people around the world in 60 languages.? In 1999, BBG became an independent federal agency. By 2006 it received a $650 million budget, according to CIMA estimates, with about $1.5 million earmarked for media development to train journalists in Argentina, Bolivia, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria and Pakistan. Besides Voice of America, BBG also runs several other radio and TV stations. Alhurra television, based in Springfield, Va., ?is a commercial-free Arabic-language satellite television network for the Middle East, devoted primarily to news and information,? according to its website. Alhurra, which is Arabic for ?the free one,? has been described by the Washington Post as ?the U.S. government?s largest and most expensive effort to sway foreign opinion over the airwaves since the creation of Voice of America in 1942.? BBG also funds Radio Sawa (for Arab youth, with streaming to Egypt, the Gulf, Iraq, Lebanon, the Levant, Morocco and Sudan), Radio Farda (to Iran) and Radio Free Asia (regional programming in Asia). BBG also supports broadcasts to Cuba through Radio and TV Mart?, which will amount to almost $39 million this year, according to the Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification for fiscal year 2008. Pentagon PR The Department of Defense (DOD) refused to speak to In These Times about its media development programs. According to a Dec. 11, 2005, New York Times article by Jeff Gerth, ?the military operates radio stations and newspapers [in Iraq and Afghanistan] but does not disclose their American ties.? The task of media development in Iraq ?was given to the U.S. Department of Defense, whose major contractors had little or no relevant experience,? states an October 2007 report by the U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP). A 2007 study by the Center for Global Communication Studies at the University of Pennsylvania?s Annenberg School for Communication found that Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), a longtime DOD contractor, was awarded an initial contract of $80 million for a year to transform an entire state-run media system into an independent, BBC- style national news service ? in part to counteract the effect Al Jazeera was having in the region. ?Supervising SAIC was a DOD office specializing in psychological warfare operations, which many believe contributed to the perception among Iraqis that the Iraq Media Network (IMN) was merely a mouthpiece for the Coalition Provisional Authority,? the USIP report says. ?SAIC?s performance in Iraq was considered costly, unprofessional and a failure in terms of establishing the objectivity and independence of the IMN.? SAIC eventually lost the contract to another company ? Harris Corp. SAIC wasn?t the only Pentagon media subcontractor that massively failed. In an April 30 USA Today article by Peter Eisler, the Iraqi news website Mawtani.com was exposed as a Pentagon-funded information outlet. USAID: ?From the American people? President John F. Kennedy created the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in November 1961 to administer humanitarian assistance and economic development worldwide. But while USAID prides itself on promoting transparency in the affairs of other nations, it is itself hardly transparent. This is especially true of its media development programs. ?In a number of countries, including Venezuela and Bolivia, USAID is acting more as an agency involved in covert action, like the CIA, than as an aid or development agency,? says Mark Weisbrot, an economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington, D.C.- based think tank. Indeed, while investigators have been able to obtain general budgets for USAID?s global programs through the Freedom of Information Act, as well as names of countries or geographic regions where money has been spent, the names of specific foreign organizations receiving this money are state secrets, just as in the case of the CIA. And in cases where the recipient organizations? names are known, and information is requested about them, USAID responds that it is ?unable to confirm or deny the existence of records? about them, using the same language as the CIA. (Disclosure: In 2006, I filed an unsuccessful lawsuit against USAID in an attempt to identify which organizations it funds abroad.) USAID funds three major media development operations: the International Research & Exchanges Board (more commonly known as IREX), the Internews Network and the largely privately funded Search for Common Ground. To complicate matters, all three have also received funding from the State Department, the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), the Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. According to its brochures, IREX is an international nonprofit organization that ?works with local partners to advance the professionalism and long-term economic sustainability of newspapers, radio, television and Internet media.? IREX?s 2006 ?990? tax form states that its media activities include ?small-grant support for more than 100 journalists and media organizations; training for hundreds of journalists and media outlets? and has a staff of more than 400 that delivers programs and consultation to more than 50 countries. The Internews Network, more commonly known as ?Internews,? receives only about half of IREX?s budget but is better known. Founded in 1982, most of Internews? funding comes through USAID, although it also receives funding from NED and the State Department. Internews is one of the largest operations in the independent media development business, funding dozens of NGOs, journalists, journalist associations, training institutes and academic journalism faculties in dozens of countries throughout the world. Internews? operations have been shut down in countries such as Belarus, Russia and Uzbekistan, where they have been viewed as undermining local governments and pushing U.S. agendas. In a May 2003 speech in Washington, D.C., Andrew Natsios, USAID?s former administrator, described USAID-funded private contractors as ?an arm of the U.S. government.? The other major USAID media development recipient, Search for Common Ground, receives more money from the private sector than it does from the U.S. government, most of which goes into ?conflict resolution,? according to the CIMA report. Two major targets for USAID?s media development and assistance are Cuba and Iran. USAID?s budget for ?Media Freedom and Freedom of Information? ? to ?transition? Cuba under the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba II (CAFC II) ? totals $14 million. This represents a $10.5 million increase from the amount allocated in 2006. In Iran, USAID has budgeted some $25 million for media development for fiscal year 2008. It is part of a $75 million package for what USAID calls ?transformational diplomacy? in that country. Funding U.S.-style ?democracy? ?A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.? said Allen Weinstein, one of National Endowment for Democracy?s founders, in a 1991 Washington Post article. Formed in the early ?80s, NED is ?governed by an independent, nonpartisan board of directors.? Its purported aim is to support pro- democracy organizations around the world. Historically, however, the foreign policy objectives of Washington have defined its agenda. ?When the rhetoric of democracy is put aside, NED is a specialized tool for penetrating civil society in other countries down to the grassroots level? to achieve U.S. foreign policy goals, writes University of California-Santa Barbara professor William Robinson in his book, A Faustian Bargain. Robinson was in Nicaragua during the late ?80s and watched NED work with the U.S.-backed Nicaraguan opposition to remove the leftist Sandinistas from power during the 1990 elections. NED also came under major public scrutiny in Venezuela, where it was exposed for funding the anti-Ch?vez movement. In her book The Ch?vez Code, Venezuelan-American attorney Eva Golinger writes that NED (and USAID) grantees were involved in the 2002 coup attempt against Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez, as well as in the management-driven ?labor strikes? aimed at shutting down the country?s petroleum industry. Golinger also notes that NED funded S?mate ? a Venezuelan NGO whose stated goal is to promote the free exercise of citizens? political rights ? which orchestrated the failed recall referendum against Ch?vez in 2004. Dependency and obligation The concept of separation of the powers of the press from the government is a basic tenet of not only the U.S. political system, but also Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. U.S. government funding of any press risks establishing client-donor relationships that cannot be considered independent media. ?Even the donation of equipment, such as computers and recorders by the U.S. government, affects the work of journalists and journalist organizations,? says Contreras, the Bolivian journalist, ?because it brings about dependency and an obligation to the hidden agendas of U.S. institutions.? From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 12:39:56 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:39:56 -0400 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?L=27Egypte_=3A_une_cl=E9_pour_comprendre_e?= =?windows-1252?q?t_lib=E9rer_le_Moyen-Orient?= Message-ID: FULL TEXT: Que Faire ? num?ro 8 ? mai/juillet 2008 L'Egypte : une cl? pour comprendre et lib?rer le Moyen-Orient Sellouma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . La gauche et les Fr?res Musulmans Comme l'Iran, l'Egypte est un pays qui a une classe ouvri?re massive, potentiellement capable de d?stabiliser les r?gimes en place. Les r?volutionnaires pr?sents dans le pays ont donc un r?le central ? jouer au sein du mouvement ouvrier. Mais ceux-ci sont peu nombreux, et la politique men?e par le parti communiste ?gyptien a pour une grande part contribu? ? d?t?riorer l'image d'une gauche cens?e combattre l'Etat. Au milieu des ann?es 80, ils form?rent un alliance avec l'Etat contre les islamistes, et mirent de c?t? toute critique contre l'imp?rialisme et les r?formes ?conomiques. En 5 ans, la vente de leur journal est pass?e de 150 000 ? 3 000 exemplaires6. Aujourd'hui encore, le PC accuse le Hamas de diviser les palestiniens, alors que Egypte s'est alli?e avec Isra?l pour mener une offensive militaire contre le Hamas. Cette attitude d?note une incompr?hension totale de ce que sont les partis politiques se r?clamant de l'islam dans la r?gion. Pour mieux comprendre la strat?gie ? adopter vis-?-vis des partis d'opposition, il est important d'abord d'?tudier s?rieusement ce qu'est aujourd'hui la confr?rie des Fr?res Musulmans. Cela veut dire avoir un regard de classe, d?mystifi?, c'est-?-dire un regard politique et marxiste sur ce qu'est cette organisation. Elle compte aujourd'hui 1 million de membres, ce qui n'a pas toujours ?t? le cas. Aujourd'hui, la confr?rie est incontournable. De mani?re g?n?rale, l'histoire des Fr?res Musulmans a connu beaucoup de revirements, surtout en p?riode de lutte de classes, car elle cherchait ? concilier les int?r?ts contradictoires des classes populaire, de la vieille et de la nouvelle classe dirigeante7. Il est important pour le comprendre d'enlever le vernis religieux qui obscurcit de nombreux d?bats autour cette organisation. Parce que nous pensons que le mouvement de l'histoire est celui de la lutte des classes, les contradictions se situent alors au niveau des interpr?tations de l'islam entre la classe ouvri?re et la classe moyenne8. Les probl?mes que traverse la soci?t? ?gyptienne sont pour eux de la faute du comportement ? non-religieux ? des ?gyptiens, en particulier les Coptes et les femmes, et non pas celle du capitalisme et du pouvoir en place. Pour ?viter les confrontations de classe, les hauts dignitaires de la confr?rie ne combattent pas l'appareil d'Etat, et militent pour une solution r?formiste et associative. Ils construisent des h?pitaux o? l'on peut se soigner gratuitement, ainsi que des ?coles et des mosqu?es. En accord avec certains notables locaux, ils pratiquent la baisse des prix. En p?riode de reflux des luttes, cette implantation a permis aux Fr?res de gagner en popularit?. Ainsi, durant la gr?ve de 1977, elle apporta m?me son soutien ? l'Etat. La masse paup?ris?e d'?tudiants et de paysans sans avenir, base militante ou sympathisante de la confr?rie, est plus attir?e par une vision r?volutionnaire remettant en cause l'Etat. Aujourd'hui, cette base plus importante que jamais, est une opportunit? pour les r?volutionnaires de montrer le terrain r?el de la lutte. Cette br?che s'est ouverte sur les bases d'un travail en commun entre organisations de gauche et Fr?res Musulmans sur la question de la guerre en Irak. La force des camarades r?volutionnaires, peu nombreux, mais organis?s au sein du front Kifaya, c'est leur clart? vis-?-vis des enjeux de ce mouvement. Leur objectif est de prol?tariser leurs effectifs et de cr?er un r?seau entre les luttes. Actuellement, les perspectives sont plus ouvertes gr?ce aux manifestations ouvri?res de ces derniers mois, dans laquelle les sympathisants et militants de base de la confr?rie impliqu?s dans le mouvement n'ont pas d'intervention islamiste, mais suivent le mouvement social. Un article paru sur le site d'Al Jazeera explique que : ? la confr?rie a d?clar? qu'elle soutient le droit de gr?ve pour les travailleurs, mais elle n'a jou? aucun r?le dans l'organisation des manifestations. Le groupe dit ne pas vouloir mobiliser ses partisans pourqu'ils se joignent ? la gr?ve car elle trouve que les objectifs de cette lutte ne sont pas clairs ?9. Sur ce terrain, malgr? les pressions de la base, il n'y a pas d'intervention politique de la confr?rie. En revanche, contrairement ? 1977, elle est plus proche des pr?occupations de la classe laborieuse. Ce positionnement indique clairement que la fracture entre la confr?rie et Moubarak est tr?s importante, ? cause de sa politique pro-US, des arrestations des militants et candidats aux ?lections, ainsi que la torture d'Etat. Pour les r?volutionnaires, le terrorisme d'Etat est l'ennemi prioritaire ? abbattre. Ne pas r?p?ter les erreurs du pass?, c'est ne pas taire ses agissements, et mener campagne pour la lib?ration de tous les prisonniers politiques qui sont entre autres Khaled Ahmed10, Kareem al-Beheiri11, Kamal El-Faioumy12, et George Ishaq13. L'erreur inverse serait de taire nos divergences avec la confr?rie, notamment sur la question des femmes et des Coptes. Cela implique concr?tement avoir des outils de propagande et des interventions ind?pendantes. -- Yoshie From internacional at pcdob.org.br Wed Jun 4 13:29:24 2008 From: internacional at pcdob.org.br (=?Windows-1252?Q?PCdoB_-_Secretaria_de_Rela=E7=F5es_Internacionais?=) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:29:24 -0300 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?PSVU_venezuelano_realiza_elei=E7=F5es_inte?= =?windows-1252?q?rnas?= Message-ID: <036901c8c679$4cb6f3e0$0e05a8c0@mh> PSVU venezuelano realiza elei??es internas No ?ltimo domingo o Partido Socialista Unido da Venezuela deu um passo importante para a campanha eleitoral de governadores e prefeitos de novembro pr?ximo e para a sua pr?pria consolida??o como partido de vanguarda e de massas da revolu??o democr?tica-popular, antiimperialista e socialista em curso no pa?s. Cerca de 2,5 milh?es de filiados escolheram os candidatos do partido para o pleito de novembro.Acontecimento in?dito, as elei??es prim?rias do PSUV, realizaram-se depois de uma campanha rel?mpago que durou tr?s semanas, ao longo das quais 4.888 pr?-candidatos disputaram a indica??o da milit?ncia a 353 cargos de governador e prefeito, numa m?dia de 138 pr?-candidatos por cargo. No caso da prefeitura de Caracas, havia 125 pr?-candidatos. A Constitui??o venezuelana assegura ao Conselho Nacional Eleitoral, como um dos poderes republicanos, a prerrogativa de organizar quaisquer elei??es no pa?s, desde que solicitado. Assim, as elei??es internas dos candidatos do PSUV se tornaram um acontecimento pol?tico de grandes dimens?es. O processo de vota??o obedeceu aos tr?mites de qualquer elei??o pol?tica, sendo constitu?das mesas eleitorais pelo CNE, onde o militante-eleitor era identificado de acordo com as listas do registro de eleitores e votava em m?quinas muito semelhantes ?s brasileiras. A diferen?a b?sica ? que na Venezuela a m?quina emite um recibo que em seguida ? depositado em urna ? parte. As elei??es internas do PSUV tiveram a presen?a de observadores internacionais provenientes do Brasil, Uruguai, Argentina, Chile, Bol?via, Paraguai, Col?mbia, Equador, M?xico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nam?bia, Inglaterra, It?lia, B?lgica e Gr?cia. O secret?rio de Rela??es Internacionais do PCdoB, Jos? Reinaldo Carvalho, acompanhou o processo no s?bado e no domingo, participando de um ato pol?tico que contou com a presen?a do presidente Hugo Chavez, de conversa??es pol?ticas, de entrevistas a jornais e canais de televis?o e visitando as mesas eleitorais espalhadas em toda a Caracas. Em sua opini?o, ?foi numerosa a participa??o popular e o pronunciamento eleitoral deu-se com lisura e com elevada educa??o pol?tica, sem incidentes?. O secret?rio de Rela??es Internacionais do PCdoB opinou ainda que as elei??es internas do PSUV ?atestam o grau de amadurecimento democr?tico no pa?s?. Ch?vez fala sobre o Partido No ato pol?tico realizado no s?bado no Teatro Tereza Carre?o, em Caracas, na presen?a de cerca de 2 mil pr?-candidatos dos estados centrais do pa?s, o presidente Hugo Ch?vez destacou a import?ncia das elei??es de novembro chamando a aten??o para os planos do imperialismo norte-americano de criar duas ?meias-luas? no pa?s, uma ocidental e outra oriental. Para isso os inimigos da revolu??o bolivariana concentrar?o esfor?os em determinados estados e capitais de estados para eleger seus candidatos. Chavez exortou a milit?ncia do PSUV para ganhar as elei??es de ponta a ponta e lan?ou a palavra de ordem ?vamos com tudo!?. O presidente Chavez discorreu longamente sobre o PSUV e seu papel no processo pol?tico em curso. Para ele ?imprescind?vel ? o Partido, n?o o indiv?duo?. O mais importante ? construir ?a grande maquinaria vermelha?, enfatizou. Citando os cl?ssicos Marx, L?nin, Rosa Luxemburgo e Fidel, Chavez afirmou a prioridade de construir o partido como ?garantia de perman?ncia revolucion?ria?. ?Para que a revolu??o ocorra ? disse o comandante da revolu??o bolivariana ? ? preciso que desperte o ?mpeto revolucion?rio das massas, sob a dire??o de uma organiza??o pol?tica. Se este segundo componente n?o aparece, o impulso revolucion?rio das massas desaparece?. Chavez comparou o Partido pol?tico a um estado maior e afirmou que este tem de ser ?uma vanguarda?, um ?partido de quadros e de massas?, com ?estrat?gia e t?tica?, ?dire??o pol?tica? e ?programa?. E acima de tudo, disse o presidente, deve ser Secretaria de Rela??es Internacionais do Comit? Central do Partido Comunista do Brasil - PCdoB S?o Paulo, 3 de junho de 2008. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Jun 4 17:38:45 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:38:45 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Presidential Race Ignores Arms Race Message-ID: <48472785.4030104@attglobal.net> by Amy Goodman Truthdig (May 21 2008) As the US presidential race continues, so does the arms race worldwide. People - civilians, children - are being killed and maimed, on a daily basis, by unexploded cluster bombs and land mines. Thousands of nuclear missiles remain at hair-trigger alert. The US government rattles its saber at Iran, alleging a nuclear-weapons program, while at the same time offering uranium to Saudi Arabia. And with the war in Iraq well into its sixth year, one of its architects, Douglas J Feith, the former undersecretary of defense for policy under Donald Rumsfeld, has predictably penned a revisionist history of the war and the decisions behind it. Feith said this week: "So while it was a terrible mistake for the administration to rely on the erroneous intelligence about WMD - and, I mean, it was catastrophic to our credibility - first of all, it was an honest error and not a lie. But even if you correct it for that error, what we found in Iraq was a serious WMD threat. Even though Saddam Hussein had chosen to not maintain the stockpiles, he had put himself in a position where he could have regenerated those stockpiles in three to five weeks." In an interview I asked Hans Blix about Feith's comments. He was the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, in charge of the WMD search. Reflecting back five years, he said: "To prove that there is nothing is almost impossible. I think that if we had been in Iraq for a couple of months more, it would have been enough to make it extremely clear to everybody that the chances were real that there were no weapons of mass destruction." Instead of waiting for the inspections, the Pentagon was busy trying to discredit Blix. I asked him about the allegations that the US was bugging his office and home. He said, "I wish to heaven that they had listened a little better to what I had to say, if they did listen". Blix describes the current state of the world as a "Cold Peace": "It is hard to avoid the impression that - almost twenty years after the end of the Cold War - military calculations still dominate the long-term thinking about major global relations. Terrorism is formally made the chief enemy, but precautions are taken against the growing power of China and Russia." President Bush's nuclear-cooperation pact with India, Barack Obama's stated willingness to unilaterally strike nuclear-armed US ally Pakistan, Hillary Clinton's promise to Iran to "totally obliterate" the nation of seventy million (should it attack Israel), and John McCain's hard-line position on Russia, including the deployment of a missile defense in eastern Europe, all point to a reliance on military solutions that Blix sees as a path to conflict and war. In a remarkable demonstration of hypocrisy, the Bush administration has pledged to deliver enriched uranium to Saudi Arabia. Anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman said: "The idea of giving enriched uranium to the Saudis while threatening war with the Iranians for enriching uranium is astonishing. The idea that the Saudis are going to somehow lower the price of oil on the basis of possibly getting nuclear reactors in the future is just almost staggering to think about." I asked Blix what is the single most important thing the US could do to support world peace. Sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, he said: "Then I think it's very likely that the Chinese, who have not ratified, will follow. If China does it, maybe India does. If India does, Pakistan does, et cetera. And the treaty would enter into force. It would be a great thing if we outlawed any nuclear-weapons tests in the future." Nuclear weapons are not the only weapons of mass destruction. As I spoke to Blix, hundreds of people were meeting in Dublin, Ireland, to craft an anti-cluster-bomb treaty, the cause Princess Diana championed in the last years of her life. The Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions is dedicated "to negotiate a new instrument of international humanitarian law banning cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians". The conference in Dublin has 128 participating nations. Absent is the leading producer of cluster munitions, the United States. Russia and China are also not there. From critical.montages at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 21:48:54 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 23:48:54 -0400 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?AIPAC_on_Iran=3A_=22It=92s_the_Sanctions?= =?windows-1252?q?=2C_Stupid=22?= Message-ID: June 2, 2008 Iran sanctions figure large in AIPAC lobbying By Ron Kampeas As 5,000 AIPAC activists ascend Capitol Hill this week, they will be pushing a multifaceted agenda with a clear bottom line: It's the sanctions, stupid. Some new wrinkles in the lobbying blitz that traditionally follows the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy forum deal with the role of Arab nations in advancing Israel-Arab peace and with securing a pledged increase in U.S. assistance to Israel. But the most dramatic advance is in a proposal to cut off refined petroleum exports to Iran, hitting 40 percent of that country's gas market. AIPAC has led the way since the mid-1990s in advocating for sanctions aimed at crippling the Iranian economy until the Islamic Republic ends its suspected nuclear weapons program. In recent years, the notion of sanctioning Iran has gained traction, with the U.N. Security Council imposing three sets of sanctions in the past 18 months. Still, the sanctions regime has apparently had little effect: U.N. nuclear weapons inspectors last month delivered a blistering report saying that Iran was taking steps to hide its weapons program. In addition, inspectors say they have evidence suggesting that some elements of the Iranian program were military and not peaceful?in sharp contrast to Tehran's claims. After two days of sessions heavily weighted toward considering the possibility of a nuclear threat, 5,000 of the 7,000 activists will head to 500 meetings on the Hill armed with talking points for a bill that has languished in the U.S. Senate since it passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives last year. The Iran Counter Proliferation Act would expand existing sanctions by hitting companies and nations that deal with Iran's energy sector. It also would cut off Iran entirely from the U.S. finance system. Bolstering that bill is a nonbinding resolution put forward last week by U.S. Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.). The resolution urges President Bush to immediately impose some of the sanctions in the Counter Proliferation Act and adds the new proposal: cut off the export of refined petroleum to Iran. "Despite sitting on some of the largest oil reserves in the world, Iran has been forced to import 40 percent of its refined petroleum?gasoline and diesel?because of a lack of investment in its oil refining infrastructure," states the memo prepared for AIPAC activists. "Limiting Iran?s ability to import gasoline will severely impact Iran?s economy and could lead to dramatically greater domestic pressure on the regime to change course." The language of the congressional resolution is sensitive to the political realities of a presidential campaign that has made the possibility of war against Iran a partisan issue: It explicitly counts out military action?a point hammered home in the AIPAC talking points. "The resolution specifically states that nothing in the resolution shall be construed to be an authorization for military action," the sheet says. "In fact, the sanctions called for in H. Con. Res. 362 are the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability by avoiding military action." Additionally, the action part of the resolution opens by declaring "that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently." Notably absent from AIPAC's talking points is any mention of military force?a prospect that spooks Democrats and would discomfit an organization that prides itself on its bipartisanship. The proposal falls just shy of reported suggestions from Israel's government that the United States and Britain blockade Iran's ports to keep out refined petroleum. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly brought up the proposal in conversations last month with U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House speaker. Olmert and Pelosi are addressing the AIPAC conference. AIPAC in its talking points is generally careful to hew to areas where Democrats and Republicans agree when it comes to Iran. However, some of the language would appear to clash with specific policies associated with U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the likely Democratic presidential nominee who also is addressing the conference. "Entering into a dialogue before Iran has complied with U.N. resolutions and suspended its uranium enrichment could undermine Security Council decisions and allow Tehran to use the dialogue as a way to continue advancing its nuclear program," the AIPAC memo states. "Iran used previous talks with the European Union to make significant advances in its nuclear program while staving off international sanctions." That hardly jibes with Obama's support for dialogue backed up by what he calls tough diplomacy; it sounds of a piece with the rhetoric of U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama's Republican rival. Furthermore, in conference literature AIPAC proudly touts support in both the House and Senate for language declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist group. Obama was not present for that vote, but said he would would have opposed the measure, a position favored by many liberal Democratic activists. Obama's main Democratic rival in the primaries, U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), backed the language. Also on the lobbying agenda is Bush's proposal to increase U.S. assistance to Israel from an average of $2.4 billion to $3 billion annually. Letters circulating in both chambers of Congress urge the president to continue his efforts to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The letters, initiated in the House by its leaders, and in the Senate by Mary Landrieu (R-La.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), do not mention recent backing by Bush and Congress for increased U.S. financial and political support for Palestinian moderates. Instead they decry the alleged lack of such support from Arab nations. "We anticipated more from nations that have claimed reaching such an agreement is one of their top priorities," the letters say. "We struggle to understand why those Arab states that are flush with oil revenues cannot provide meaningful financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority." The emphasis underscores a tone throughout AIPAC's materials that suggests a skepticism about the peace process. The talking points pose a question: "Can a peace agreement still be reached this year?" Its answer is hardly committal: "Israel and the Palestinians have both made clear that any agreement reached will be subject to the implementation of the first phase of the 'road map.' In Israeli eyes, this must include an end to violence and the dismantling of the terrorist infrastructure." -- Yoshie From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Jun 5 04:06:46 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:06:46 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Kids in America(n Torture Camps) Message-ID: <4847BAB6.6010402@attglobal.net> Why Does the Media Cover Up War Crimes? by Ted Rall http://www.rall.com (May 27 2008) In last week's column I cited New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau as a prime example of what ails us: reporters who don't report, aka journalists who love the government too much. When Lichtblau found out that the Bush Administration was listening to Americans' phone calls and reading their e-mail, he decided to hold the story. Instead of fulfilling his duty to the Times' readers and running with it, he asked the White House for permission. By the time the NSA domestic surveillance story finally ran, fourteen months had passed - and Bush had won the 2004 election. Again, in a May 17th piece bearing the headline "FBI Gets Mixed Review in Interrogation Report", Lichtblau is running interference for the government. "A new Justice Department report praises the refusal of FBI agents to take part in the military's abusive questioning of prisoners in Guant?namo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan", begins the article, "but it also finds fault with the bureau's slow response to complaints about the tactics from its own agents". "Abusive questioning". "Harsh interrogation tactics". According to the Justice Department report, "routine" treatment of Guant ?namo prisoners - witnessed by the FBI - includes "bending the detainee's thumbs back and grabbing his genitals". Military and CIA torturers chained detainees' hands and feet together for as long as a full day, "left to defecate on themselves". They terrorized them with dogs, stripped them and made them wear women's underwear and subjected them to blaring music, freezing cold and searing heat. Torture. Such a simple word. Why not use it? Lichtblau's "mixed review" appellation notwithstanding, the report by the Justice Department paints a shocking, uniformly negative portrait of a federal law enforcement agency whose officers react to appalling conduct with the Nuremberg defense - "I was just following orders". "Indeed", reported US News & World Report, "time after time, the report concludes that FBI agents saw or heard about numerous interrogation methods - from sleep deprivation to duct-taping detainees' mouths to scaring them with dogs - that plainly violated their own agency's code of conduct". (Not to mention the Geneva Conventions.) Rather than report their scruples to someone who might raise hell and put a stop to the systemic torture at Gitmo and other US concentration camps - that is, the public - FBI agents turned to the criminals. Just like Lichtblau did with domestic spying. "When [one] agent mentioned [a torture] incident to the general [at Guant?namo], the general's response ... was 'Thank you, gentlemen, but my boys know what they're doing'". Ultimately the FBI, worried that agents could be charged with war crimes if they continued to witness the torture by CIA operatives and mercenaries, pulled its employees out of Gitmo and other camps. No one called a Congressman. None called a press conference. FBI agents kept quiet - even when the CIA frat-boy-style torture tactics screwed up their interrogations. In 2003 one FBI agent had "begin building a rapport" with Yussef Mohammed Mubarak al-Shihri, a Saudi citizen. Al-Shihri told the agent that female CIA agents had "forced to listen to the 'meow mix' jingle for cat food for hours and had a women's dress 'draped' on him". As usual, the agent turned to the torturer. "The agent said he confronted a female military intelligence interrogator who admitted to 'poaching' his detainee, but there was little more the agent could do. Following the incident, al-Shihri became uncooperative, and the agent said he never bothered to tell his superiors about the military interrogator's actions." Turning a blind eye to torture. Watching passively as CIA goons destroy the trust of a possible material witness to terrorism. What "mixed review"? As usual, the Newspaper of Record's worst sins in Gitmogate are those of omission - the really weird stuff that could deprive the Administration of its few remaining supporters. "Buried in a Department of Justice report", reported ABC News, "are new allegations about a 2002 arrangement between the United States and China, which allowed Chinese intelligence to visit Guant?namo and interrogate Chinese Uyghurs held there". Like their Tibetan neighbors, the Uyghurs of western China are victims of government oppression, including mass executions. Throughout the 1990s, US-funded Radio Free Asia urged Uyghurs to revolt against Chinese occupation. After 9/11, however, the US agreed to help China capture and torture Uyghur independence activists - as a quid pro quo for not using its UN veto to stop the American invasion of Afghanistan. (There's more about the US betrayal of the Uyghurs in my book "Silk Road to Ruin".) "Uyghur detainees were kept awake for long periods, deprived of food and forced to endure cold for hours on end, just prior to questioning by Chinese interrogators", said ABC. "When Uyghur detainees refused to talk to Chinese interrogators in 2002, US military personnel put them in solitary confinement as punishment". It's a tale bizarre enough to make Rush Limbaugh blush: intelligence agents from communist China invited to an American military base, where they're allowed to torture political dissidents in American custody, with American soldiers as their sidekicks. In light of China's crackdown on Tibet during the run-up to the Olympics, it's a tasty news tidbit. But it didn't run in The Times - as far as I can tell, it only ran in one newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor. At the same time journo-wimp Lichtblau was penning his "balanced" take on the Justice Department's bombshell report, the US government admitted that it has more than 500 children in its torture and concentration camps. More than 2,500 children have gone through US secret prisons since 2002, including at least eight at Guant?namo. I know a lot of right-wing conservatives. We don't share much political common ground, but it's hard to imagine any of them thinking the indefinite detention and torture of children, against whom there is no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing, is anything other than the behavior of a monster. If a man screams in a government torture chamber, does he make a sound? Not if the only one who hears him is an American reporter. _____ Ted Rall is the author of the book Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East? (Nantier Beall Minoustchine Publishing, 2006), an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge. Copyright 2008 Ted Rall TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jun 5 09:35:07 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:35:07 -0400 Subject: [R-G] EU Nations Agree New Rules on Expelling Illegal Immigrants Message-ID: EU nations agree new rules on expelling illegal immigrants Agence France-Presse LUXEMBOURG - European Union nations approved Thursday tough new rules on expelling visa-overstayers which could see them banned for five years if they resist, the EU's Slovenian presidency announced. The agreement was sealed by the 27 EU interior ministers at a meeting in Luxembourg, the presidency said, and is expected to be passed by the European Parliament at its session in Strasbourg between June 16 and 19. The new measures will oblige authorities in EU nations to choose between issuing residency or other permits to illegal immigrants from outside the bloc or returning them to their countries of origin. The measures will mainly target people whom Europeans rarely suspect are breaking the law: visa overstayers, estimated at some 12 million people -- the biggest category of illegal immigrants in the 27 nation bloc. These illegals are often Filipinos, nationals from China and Ukraine or Latin American and African states, however they can include US citizens, people from Japan and others. They enter Europe on a tourist visa, become reasonably well integrated and work on the black market, perhaps as cleaners or child minders for families, or in industry as laborers and restaurant staff. The new rules will not focus on would-be asylum seekers who disembark on the shores of Italy, France, Malta or Spain after dangerous sea journeys from northern Africa. Under the measures, an illegal immigrant has two options: "return" home or face "removal". Should he or she -- and these steps also involve children -- decline both options and resist, the individual would be forced to leave and face being banned from EU territory for five years. As far as forced expulsions are concerned, authorities could decide to keep individuals in custody for up to six months -- 18 months under exceptional circumstances -- particularly if they are deemed likely to run away. This could also happen if their home countries are slow to provide documents. EU law triggers fears of treatment of immigrants by Vanessa Mock in Brussels 05-06-2008 Human rights groups have cried foul at new rules agreed today to clamp down on illegal immigrants in the European Union. EU ministers say the 'return directive' is necessary to set clear, standard rules on how to deal with migrants who stay in a country beyond their visa period. Under the legislation, those who refuse to go back to their country of origin voluntarily could be forcefully removed and banned from coming back to EU territory for five years. Most controversially, the new law - which still has to be approved by the European Parliament - will make it possible to detain an irregular migrant for up to 18 months, a time-limit which exceeds current time lines in most EU states. 'Treated like criminals' Bjarte Vandvik, Secretary General, European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), says the extended detention period is tantamount to treating migrants as criminals: "We welcome a Directive but not at all costs. It's understandable to detain someone for a short time while they await deportation but when the time margin is so wide, it becomes punishment," he says. "We're very worried that this could also include families and unaccompanied minors." The directive comes as governments in Italy and France have threatened to introduce harsher measures to fight immigration. "I worry that this law is there as a deterrent, as a message to those who want to come here that they will be treated badly," says Mr Vandvik, adding that the number of migrants and refugees coming to Europe reached its lowest-numbers in 2006. Necessary legislation But the criticism has been swept aside by many European politicians. Dutch MEP Jeanine Hennis Plasschaert from the right-wing VVD party says:"This is complete nonsense. There's no way that illegal migrants will simply be thrown into jail." She says the standard period of detention in the EU would be six months, to be extended "under strict conditions" for a further 12 months only if necessary. In any case, only a tiny minority of migrants - one per cent - would face long-term detention, she adds. "A lot of these new rules are theoretical and will seldom have to be applied, and it does not apply to legitimate asylum-seekers." Ms Hennis-Plasschaert also rejects concerns, expressed by Amnesty International, that a five-year ban on returning to Europe after expulsion is inhumane as it does not take account of a possible change of circumstance: "Not everyone who's been thrown out of Europe will be banned from coming back. I understand that migrants are in search of a better life in Europe, but at the end of the day, they also have to realise that they are breaking the law." The directive has been delayed for months, most recently over demands by the European Parliament that EU states should be forced to provide immigrants with legal aid. Although a compromise on this has been reached - member states are encouraged to offer legal aid - the vote on 17 June is likely to be tight, with socialists politicians still voicing concerns about the rights of immigrants. What's been agreed EU ambassadors have agreed common rules to tackle illegal immigration, making it possible to detain irregular migrants for up to 18 months. The rules will not cover asylum-seekers, but all those who overstay their visa period will be affected. It will be up to EU member states' governments to decide whether to deport the immigrants or regularise them. But in most cases they will be given two options - to return home voluntarily or face deportation. According to European Commission estimates, there are currently up to 8 million illegal immigrants living in the EU. -- Yoshie From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Jun 5 20:06:52 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:06:52 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Is the world about to be running on empty? Message-ID: <48489BBC.7090808@attglobal.net> As evidence emerges of dwindling oil reserves, the price of crude hits $135 a barrel by Stephen Foley in New York Independent.co.uk (May 23 2008) In France, fishermen are blockading oil refineries. In Britain, lorry drivers are planning a day of action. In the US, the car maker Ford is to cut production of gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles and airlines are jacking up ticket prices. Global concerns about fuel prices are reaching fever pitch and the world's leading energy monitor has issued a disturbing downward revision of the oil industry's ability to keep pace with soaring demand. Yesterday's warning from the International Energy Agency sent the price of a barrel of oil to a new record for the thirteenth day in a row. The latest high - $135 for a barrel of light sweet crude - was reached in New York barely five months after the price hit $100. Experts in London and on Wall Street predict that prices will rise to $200, regardless of the protests of consumers and the complaints of politicians. It is simple economics, they say: supply and demand. The former is short, the latter growing. Consumers are feeling the pinch in almost every area of their daily lives. The pain is felt most obviously at the pumps. In Britain, the price of petrol has risen to an average of 114 pence for a litre of unleaded - GBP 5.15 per gallon. In the US, where drivers pay much lower prices, gasoline is more than $4 (GBP 2) a gallon. Beyond that, energy bills are rising for households across the globe, hitting the poorest the hardest. British Gas, the nation's biggest gas and electricity supplier, is mulling further price rises, on top of the fifteen per cent average increase it introduced in January. Airlines which once limited fare increases to temporary "fuel surcharges" are now raising ticket prices and - as American Airlines did this week - starting to charge for checked baggage. Meanwhile, manufacturers are putting up the price of goods to compensate for higher energy bills at their factorues, ending many years of price deflation that began when firms started transferring production overseas. "The high-priced energy environment is being driven by the fact that demand has outstripped supply", President George Bush's Energy Secretary, Samuel Bodman, told the US Congress yesterday. "We have sopped up all the available spare oil production capacity in the system ... and there is no silver bullet that will immediately solve our energy challenges or drastically reduce costs at the gas pump". The world uses about 87 million barrels of oil a day, about a quarter of it in the US. Saudi Arabia is the only country thought to have the capacity to pump oil faster. Meanwhile, China is in the throes of an industrial revolution that demands ever greater supplies of crude, yet global production has stagnated for two years. The Saudi government rejected a recent appeal from Mr Bush to increase production, saying there were no oil shortages at present. Economists worry, though, that shortages are around the corner, as mature oilfields wind down. The Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) said yesterday that it might have overestimated the capacity of oil-producing nations to open new fields to keep up with growing demand over the next decade. Global production, which the IEA previously reckoned could reach 116 million barrels a day by 2030, might not even make 100 million. Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist, said the oil industry had entered "a new energy world order" where it was harder to keep supply and demand in equilibrium. "When the price went up as a result of the Iranian revolution, demand went down", he added. "But what has happened in the last few years has not been in line with economic theory. The price of oil went up sharply between 2004 and 2006 and demand actually increased. That may seem bizarre but it is the result of new buyers coming in, such as China and the Middle Eastern economies where fuel is subsidised by government and rises are not reflected on the consumer side." Some politicians in the US rail against nationalised oil companies in the developing world for failing to invest in new production that might alleviate stresses in the market. And at every turn, Mr Bush and members of his administration insist that environmentalists should yield to the public hunger for oil and Congress should authorise drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. However, the investment bank Goldman Sachs said this month that the oil price could rise as high as $200 over the next year and would remain consistently above $100 until there was a significant fall in US demand. There are small signs of that happening. Yesterday, Ford said it was cutting vehicle production by more than it announced earlier this year. It will make the deepest cuts in its SUV and pick-up truck businesses because US customers are increasingly switching to lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Alan Mulally, the chief executive, said pick-up sales now accounted for nine per cent of the market compared with eleven per cent a few weeks ago. Copyright (c) independent.co.uk http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/is-the-world-about-to-be-running-on-empty-832874.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jun 5 23:04:18 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 01:04:18 -0400 Subject: [R-G] US Issues Threat to Iraq's $50bn Foreign Reserves in Military Deal Message-ID: US issues threat to Iraq's $50bn foreign reserves in military deal By Patrick Cockburn Friday, 6 June 2008 The US is holding hostage some $50bn (?25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent. US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday. Iraq's foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq's funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States. The threat by the American side underlines the personal commitment of President George Bush to pushing the new pact through by 31 July. Although it is in reality a treaty between Iraq and the US, Mr Bush is describing it as an alliance so he does not have to submit it for approval to the US Senate. Iraqi critics of the agreement say that it means Iraq will be a client state in which the US will keep more than 50 military bases. American forces will be able to carry out arrests of Iraqi citizens and conduct military campaigns without consultation with the Iraqi government. American soldiers and contractors will enjoy legal immunity. The US had previously denied it wanted permanent bases in Iraq, but American negotiators argue that so long as there is an Iraqi perimeter fence, even if it is manned by only one Iraqi soldier, around a US installation, then Iraq and not the US is in charge. The US has security agreements with many countries, but none are occupied by 151,000 US soldiers as is Iraq. The US is not even willing to tell the government in Baghdad what American forces are entering or leaving Iraq, apparently because it fears the government will inform the Iranians, said an Iraqi source. The fact that Iraq's financial reserves, increasing rapidly because of the high price of oil, continue to be held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is another legacy of international sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Under the UN mandate, oil revenues must be placed in the Development Fund for Iraq which is in the bank. The funds are under the control of the Iraqi government, though the US Treasury has strong influence on the form in which the reserves are held. Iraqi officials say that, last year, they wanted to diversify their holdings out of the dollar, as it depreciated, into other assets, such as the euro, more likely to hold their value. This was vetoed by the US Treasury because American officials feared it would show lack of confidence in the dollar. Iraqi officials say the consequence of the American action was to lose Iraq the equivalent of $5bn. Given intense American pressure on a weak Iraqi government very dependent on US support, it is still probable that the agreement will go through with only cosmetic changes. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the immensely influential Shia cleric, could prevent the pact by issuing a fatwa against it but has so far failed to do so. The Grand Ayatollah met Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which is the main supporter of the Iraqi government, earlier this week and did not condemn the agreement or call for a referendum. He said, according to Mr Hakim, that it must guarantee Iraqi national sovereignty, be transparent, command a national consensus and be approved by the Iraqi parliament. Critics of the deal fear that the government will sign the agreement, and parliament approve it, in return for marginal concessions. Search Query: Independent.co.uk The Web Go -- Yoshie From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Jun 6 04:32:19 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:32:19 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Majesty, We Have Gone Mad Message-ID: <48491233.5000204@attglobal.net> An open letter to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia by George Monbiot Published in the Guardian (May 26 2008) Your Majesty, In common with the leaders of most western nations, our prime minister is urging you to increase your production of oil. I am writing to ask you to ignore him. Like the other leaders he is delusional, and is no longer competent to make his own decisions. You and I know that there are several reasons for the high price of oil. Low prices at the beginning of this decade discouraged oil companies from investing in future capacity. There is a global shortage of skilled labour, steel and equipment {1}. The weak dollar means that the price of oil is higher than it would have been if denominated in another currency. While your government says that financial speculation is an important factor, the Bank of England says it is not {2}, so I don't know what to believe. The major oil producers have also become major consumers; in some cases their exports are falling even as their production has risen, because they are consuming more of their own output {3}. But what you know and I do not is the extent to which the price of oil might reflect an absolute shortage of global reserves. You and your advisers are perhaps the only people who know the answer to this question. Your published reserves are, of course, a political artefact unconnected to geological reality. The production quotas assigned to its members by Opec, the oil exporters' cartel, reflect the size of their stated reserves, which means that you have an incentive to exaggerate them. How else could we explain the fact that, despite two decades of furious pumping, your kingdom posts the same reserves as it did in 1988? {4} You say that you are saving your oil for the benefit of future generations {5}. If this is true, it is a rational economic decision: oil in the ground looks like a better investment than money in the bank. But, reluctant as I am to question your majesty's word, I must remind you that some oil analysts are now wondering whether this prudence is a convenient fiction {6}. Are you restricting supply because you want to conserve stocks and keep the price high, or are you unable to raise production because your fabled spare capacity does not in fact exist? I do not expect an answer to this question. I know that the true state of your reserves is a secret so closely guarded that oil analysts now resort to using spy satellites to try to estimate the speed of subsidence of the ground above your oil fields {7}, as they have no other means of guessing how fast your reserves are running down. What I know and you may not is that the high price of oil is currently the only factor implementing British government policy. The government claims that it is seeking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, by encouraging people to use less fossil fuel. Now, for the first time in years, its wish has come true: people are driving and flying less. The AA reports that about a fifth of drivers are now buying less fuel {8}. A new study by the Worldwide Fund for Nature shows that businesses are encouraging their executives to use video conferences instead of flying {9}. One of the most fuel-intensive industries of all, business-only air travel, has collapsed altogether {10}. In other words, your restrictions on supply - voluntary or otherwise - are helping the government to meet its carbon targets. So how does it respond? By angrily demanding that you remove them so that we can keep driving and flying as much as we did before. Last week Gordon Brown averred that it's "a scandal that forty per cent of the oil is controlled by Opec, that their decisions can restrict the supply of oil to the rest of the world, and that at a time when oil is desperately needed, and supply needs to expand, that Opec can withhold supply from the market" {11}. In the United States, legislators have gone further: the House of Representatives has voted to a bring a lawsuit against Opec's member states{12}, and Democratic senators are trying to block arms sales to your kingdom unless you raise production {13}. This illustrates one of our leaders' delusions. They claim to wish to restrict the demand for fossil fuels, in order to address both climate change and energy security. At the same time, to quote Britain's department for business, they seek to "maximise economic recovery" from their remaining oil, gas and coal reserves {14}. They persist in believing that both policies can be pursued at once, apparently unaware that if fossil fuels are extracted they will be burnt, however much they claim to wish to reduce consumption. The only states which appear to be imposing restrictions on the supply of fuel are the members of OPEC, about which Gordon Brown so bitterly complains. Your majesty, we have gone mad, and you alone can cure our affliction, by keeping your taps shut. Our leaders, though they do not possess the faintest idea of whether or not the oil supplies required to support it will be sustained, are also overseeing a rapid expansion of our transport infrastructure. In the United Kingdom we are building or upgrading thousands of miles of new roads and doubling the capacity of our airports, in the expectation that there will be no restriction in the supply of fuel. The government's central forecast for the long-term price of oil is just $70 a barrel {15}. Over the past few months I have been trying to discover how the government derives this optimistic view. In response to a parliamentary question, it reveals that its projection is based on "the assessment made by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its 2007 World Energy Outlook" {16}. Well last week the Wall Street Journal revealed that the IEA "is preparing a sharp downward revision of its oil-supply forecast". Its final report won't be released until November, but it has already concluded that "future crude supplies could be far tighter than previously thought". {17} Its previous estimates of global production were wrong for one simple and shocking reason: it had based them on anticipated demand, rather than anticipated supply {18}. It resolved the question of supply by assuming that it would automatically rise to meet demand, as if it were subject to no inherent restraints. Our government must have known this, but it has refused to conduct its own analysis of global oil reserves. Uniquely among possible threats to the economy and national security, it has commissioned no research of any kind into this question {19}. So earlier this year I asked the department for business what contingency plans it possesses to meet the eventuality that the IEA's estimates could be wrong, and that global supplies of petroleum might peak in the near future. "The Government", it replied, "does not feel the need to hold contingency plans" {20}. I am sure I do not need to explain the implications, if its forecasts turn out to be wildly wrong. Your majesty, I recognise that this is not among your usual duties as the ruler of Saudi Arabia. But I respectfully beg you to save us from ourselves. Yours Sincerely, George Monbiot www.monbiot.com References: 1. Carola Hoyos, 19th May 2008. Running on empty? Fears over oil supply move into the mainstream. Financial Times. 2. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, 22nd May 2008. Why oil could soon come barrelling down. The Daily Telegraph. 3. Jeff Rubin and Peter Buchanan, 10th September 2007. OPEC's Growing Call on Itself. Occasional Report # 62. CIBC World Markets. http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/occrept62.pdf 4. For example, Danny Fortson, 4th January 2008. Oil: the power to shock. The Independent. 5. Carola Hoyos, ibid. 6. For example, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, 16th May 2008. Day of truth for US- Saudi axis. The Daily Telegraph. 7. Carola Hoyos, ibid. 8. BBC Online, 19th May 2008. Fuel prices 'keep cars off road'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7409166.stm 9. WWF, 2008. Travelling Light: why the UK's biggest companies are seeking alternatives to flying. http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/travelling_light.pdf 10. For example, Kevin Done, 23rd May 2008. Silverjet suspends shares amid funding crisis. Financial Times. 11. Gordon Brown, 19th May 2008. Speech to Google Zeitgeist Conference. http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page15587.asp 12. Suzy Jagger, 21st May 2008. Congress takes step towards Opec legal challenge. The Times. 13. Ian Black, 17th May 2008. Frustration for Bush as pledge to Saudis fails to win oil concession. The Guardian. 14. Eg, Department of Trade and Industry, May 2007. Meeting the Energy Challenge: a white paper on energy. Paragraph 4.07, page 107. 15. Dan Milmo, 20th May 2008. Road policy oil assumptions attacked. The Guardian. 16. Malcolm Wicks, 2nd April 2008. Parliamentary Answer to question 197009. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080402/text/80402w0045.htm 17. Neil King Jr and Peter Fritsch, 22nd May 2008. Energy Watchdog Warns of Oil-Production Crunch. Wall Street Journal. 18. ibid. 19. I have asked the four departments with direct interests in future oil supply: DBERR, transport, environment, communities and local government. 20. DBERR, 8th April 2008. Response to FoI request Ref 08/0091. Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05/27/majesty-we-have-gone-mad/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Jun 6 10:37:15 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:37:15 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The banality of spin Message-ID: <1540A826-3A40-4986-ACBB-5B9842576142@shaw.ca> http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=31058e49-9079-44db-b71c-2467a9be2ded&sponsor= John Robson . The banality of spin John Robson The Ottawa Citizen Friday, June 06, 2008 One problem with living in Ottawa is that if you go away you might miss something important. Especially these days. By "important" I don't just mean so awful it's also funny. The word usually carries a quite different meaning here. And I can prove it. You see, one of the peculiar pleasures of my job is to be inundated with press releases that routinely plumb new depths of banality, hypocrisy and vanity, often simultaneously. Like one from Foreign Affairs on May 20 that said "Minister Bernier Concludes Successful Visit to Croatia". At the time I wondered what it would take for them to categorize a visit as unsuccessful. Would he have to fall down the steps of the plane, call publicly for the resignation of a senior official, dispatch planes we didn't have or show up with a "spouse" to whom he isn't married who'd forgotten her shirt? Obviously it has since become clear that when it comes to foreign ministers the bar had been dramatically lowered, raised or otherwise placed somewhere unexpected. But let us not dwell on spilled confidential documents. My topic is important things in Ottawa and you cannot imagine how many of them there are unless you, too, get these press releases. In case you don't because you have a life, allow me to explain. As an important journalist I am informed on an almost daily basis that some minister or other will make an "important announcement" on, say, infrastructure in Hampton, New Brunswick (April 24), the transfer of the federal gas tax to Saint-Elz?ar, Quebec (May 20) or some other thing I might otherwise have overlooked. For instance, on May 1 I was told that in just one more day "The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health, along with the Honourable Doug Currie, Prince Edward Island Minister of Health, will announce an important health investment for the people of Prince Edward Island." Which maybe they did. It seems more likely than that Rick Dykstra, MP for St. Catharines, actually managed on May 9, "On behalf of the Honourable Jos?e Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages," to make "an important announcement ... concerning the Niagara Folk Arts Festival" or that the next day Mike Allen, MP for Tobique-Mactaquac, contrived to do so "about the Carleton-Victoria Arts Council." Again one wonders what they would categorize as an unimportant announcement on these topics. My favourite in this genre was the April 30 notice that "The Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of International Cooperation, will make an important announcement" on a subject they didn't even bother to specify later that same day. Regrettably I had trouble persuading myself the Hon. Beverley J. Oda would under any circumstances make an important announcement about anything and I confess that I never did discover what it was. If you don't pay attention in this town you can miss a lot. Including that Ottawa is a darn exciting place where important people are forever doing important things or at least saying important things or, cynics might assert, saying they're saying important things in case no other evidence of this fact could be unearthed even by trained experts. If I didn't know better I'd think some PR hacks in drab cubicles had hit upon an uninspired strategy of routinely inserting hyperbole into boring press releases because they had to do something to justify their salaries or because their employers needed a new way to annoy us after finally getting as tired as we were of the phrase "Canada's New Government". Probably the powers that spin will consider me a crank for airing this possibility. And yes, I'm also the sort of person who doesn't react well to the adjective "delicious" on a menu. Years ago I encountered a sound rule of thumb that lots of adjectives on menus are bad; if they tell you their alfredo sauce is "creamy" it amounts to admitting you might well have different expectations after seeing the restaurant and talking to the waiter. But "delicious" is doubly bad because (a) as the customer I should decide after tasting it and (b) to tell me so pre-emptively implies that I look like such a chump you don't feel any need to hear my opinion before disputing it. Sorry, I lost focus there. And as a result almost missed two ministers of the Crown going to Lima for, they announced pre-emptively, "an important announcement to advance Canada's trade relationship with Peru" - as opposed to an unimportant announcement on that subject which a trained journalist might have carelessly assumed he could ignore. So I hate to go away because I might miss something important. Especially given how often it happens even when I'm here. John Robson's column appears weekly. From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Jun 6 11:18:18 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:18:18 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Mike Davis Interviewed on Haiti and Iraq Message-ID: From: K M Ives This Week in Haiti" is the English section of HAITI LIBERTE newsweekly. For the complete edition with other news in French and Creole, please contact the paper at (tel) 718-421-0162, (fax) 718-421-3471 or e-mail at editor at haitiliberte.com. Also visit our website at . HAITI LIBERTE "Justice. Verite. Independance." * THIS WEEK IN HAITI * June 4 - 10, 2008 Vol. 1, No. 46 MODELS OF COMING U.S. INTERVENTIONS: IRAQ OR HAITI? BEN TERRALL INTERVIEWS MIKE DAVIS Mike Davis is the author of several books; the best known deal with U.S. urban issues, particularly in Southern California where he grew up. They include Prisoners of the American Dream: Politics and Economy in the History of the U.S. Working Class (1986), City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles (1990), and Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster (2000). He is a history professor at the University of California, Irvine, and an editor of the New Left Review. Defining himself as an international socialist and "Marxist-Environmentalist," he is a frequent contributor to The Nation and the British publications New Statesman and Socialist Review, the organ of the Socialist Workers Party of Great Britain. This interview, conducted by Haiti journalist and activist Ben Terrall in early February, was first published by the online publication Dissident Voice in March with the title "Toward a Better World: Interview with Mike Davis." ----- Ben Terrall: I wanted to get in a question about the United Nations in Haiti. In Planet of Slums you talk about the Pentagon's global approach to counter-insurgency being more focused on a kind of urban warfare. Having gone to Haiti and seeing what the UN is doing, I wonder if you see that as a new role for UN peacekeepers, as a kind of counterinsurgency proxy, in areas where politically, after Mogadishu [the "Black Hawk Down" debacle of U.S. troops in Somalia in the early 1990s -ed.], it's too risky for U.S. forces to be there. Mike Davis: Well to be honest with you, I'm very disturbed that groups like the Friends [American Friends Service Committee] and CARE, Save the Children and other NGOs have supported the establishment of this State Department Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization and support the Haitian Stabilization Initiative. This whole idea of having a "smart" foreign policy is what this stuff really is about. I think it was in the Spring of 2006 when the State Department issued this extraordinary report which found almost everything possible wrong with the U.S. occupation of Iraq and then argued for a new policy that avoided expensive reconstruction and in favor of a combination of imposing law and order and then small-scale economic progress. It's very clear that's what's still going on Iraq with the surge represents the past, but Haiti is the future. And what the United States is looking for, or at least the State Department and almost certainly an Obama or Clinton administration, would be a form of intervention that can establish a minimum threshold of control and stability in the areas recognized as most potentially volatile or dangerous from the standpoint of U.S. interests. It's done this in Haiti not only using the UN, including the first Chinese contingent, but it's part of this extraordinary, and I think much overlooked alliance between the Bush Administration and the Workers Party in power in Brazil, which includes consensus about "peacekeeping" in the Caribbean, but also the joint development of biofuels internationally. What is also extraordinary about Haiti is that the object of intervention isn't just Haiti or Port-au-Prince, but it's specifically Port-au- Prince's largest slum and probably the poorest in all the Americas, Cite Soleil, with a combination of building police stations and paving roads, and setting up a few popular projects. It's explicitly a strategy to take control from the so-called Chimere gangs to the new government of Haiti, in a context where the democratically elected President of Haiti is in exile, and has been deposed by a combination of French, American and Brazilian intervention. It's quite extraordinary, and I think the program, though relatively small scale, is more the template for the future than the occupation of Iraq. In a world where a lot of governments have been reduced to a bare minimum after structural adjustment, where huge areas of the cities have been essentially abandoned by the state, how do you re-establish state control, how do you prevent groups of any kind from achieving dual power and sovereignty in the slums? The experiment in Cite Soleil is supposed to provide a model for that, and a model for future U.S. interventions. In a sense it meets [neoconservative author] Max Boot's demand in a column last year that the United States should basically have a Department of Colonial Affairs - well, that's the Office of Reconstruction and Stabilization. BT: One things that's clear to me, from following what's going on in Haiti since the 2004 coup, which forced out Aristide and his democratically elected government, is the role that NGOs play in taking back democracy from the people. This has been the case since before the coup. I recently heard from a grassroots group that does work with the poor in Cite Soleil. Just to keep people alive they're ready to give over the group to these right- wing funded characters behind the coup. MD: I think you're absolutely right, and I think the State Department has now made explicit - and indeed even the Bush Administration, by transferring the primary responsibility for stabilization, at least theoretically, from the Pentagon to the State Department - that throughout the world the United States is going to work with these NGOs, and these NGOs are kind of soft-power American intervention. But what I find very disturbing is that groups like the Friends, who for so long have advocated for peace and nonintervention, would endorse a policy where basically the small-scale job schemes, and free clinics, are part and parcel of strengthening the police and dramatically repressive strategies. For them to buy into this line, I wonder if this is not what a Clinton or Obama administration would give us on an even larger scale. Of course, McCain is more apt to keep using a big stick. I think people are so focused on the horror of what the American intervention in Iraq has brought that they're not paying attention - and, of course, nobody's being forced to debate - what's happening in Haiti, what's happening in the horn of Africa, U.S. interventions in West Africa. It's just all off the radar screen. BT: A politically engaged geography professor wanted me to ask you how activists might effectively counter the nationalist logic that governs discussion on matters of immigration (emphasizing "illegality" and the supposed "right" of countries to control their boundaries and who comes in and out). MD: My position on this is virtually the same as many people in the Catholic Church - including those with whom I would disagree with vehemently on other issues - which is that human rights come first, that borders are essentially systems of violence imposed on landscapes and human lives. It's very important that there's something like an abolitionist minority that reject borders as a way to ration rights in the world or to manage conflicts. There are differences between borders: The U.S./Mexican border is fighting against an inexorable fact, which is that Mexicans and North America are totally entangled. Europe, which already has its own internal Mexicos, like Poland, would try to go to an absolute border, and to have an almost Orwellian-type border patrol. This is what a lot of the nativists in the country want to do, to move toward something more like the Schengen system in Europe, total exclusion, total control. But the violence of borders, and the number of wall borders, of course, has increased exponentially. A lot more people die now at the borders of Europe than they did in the age of the Iron Curtain. All articles copyrighted Haiti Liberte. REPRINTS ENCOURAGED. Please credit Haiti Liberte. -30- From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Jun 6 15:30:12 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 17:30:12 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Shaul Mofaz Threatens Iran --> Oil Prices Skyrocket, Taking Biggest Jump Ever, and Dow Slides Nearly 400 Points Message-ID: We have to come up with a way of making clear to the US power elite: no, we can't afford Israel any more. Otherwise, we'll all go bankrupt. Since the decades of neoliberal capitalism have led to public and private underinvestment in key industries and infrastructure, including oil, the margin of error is narrow. Meanwhile, "the unemployment rate in May had its highest monthly increase in 22 years." Will the Fed stick to its promise not to cut rates again any time soon and defend the dollar? -- Yoshie June 7, 2008 Oil Prices Skyrocket, Taking Biggest Jump Ever By JAD MOUAWAD Oil prices had their biggest gains ever on Friday, jumping nearly $11 to a new record above $138 a barrel, after a senior Israeli politician raised the specter of an attack on Iran and the dollar fell sharply against the euro. The unprecedented gains on Friday capped a second day of strong gains on energy markets, and fueled suspicions that commodities might be caught in a speculative bubble. Oil futures surged $10.75, or 8 percent, to $138.54 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The record gain followed a jump of 5.5 percent on Thursday, bringing total two-day gains to $16 a barrel. Stocks fell sharply. The Dow Jones industrials fell 323.97 points, or 2.53 percent, in midday trading. Chevron Corp. was the only stock that rose on the blue-chip index. "This market is going to shoot itself in the foot," said Adam Robinson, an analyst at Lehman Brothers. "It is searching for a price that will build a safety cushion in the system ? either as inventories or as spare capacity. But this takes time. The market has gotten extremely impatient and is not willing to wait." Even as uncertainties abound about the fundamentals of the market, geopolitical tensions in the Middle East regained center stage after Israel's transportation minister, Shaul Mofaz, said Friday that an attack on Iran's nuclear sites looked "unavoidable." Iran is the second-largest oil producer within the OPEC cartel and any interruptions in its exports could push prices higher levels. "The return of the Iranian risk premium calls for a careful assessment of the potential oil supply impact of military strikes on Iran," said Antoine Halff, an analyst at Newedge, an energy broker. The strong volatility in energy markets in recent weeks have continued to puzzle investors and traders. Prices keep rising despite a lack of shortages in the market, and strong evidence of lower consumption in industrialized countries. But investors seem to be caught in a bullish mood, focusing instead on perceived risks to future oil supplies and continued growth in oil demand from emerging economies that subsidize fuels. The latest jump in oil prices also came as the dollar lost almost 1 percent against the euro amid bleak economic news that fanned recession fears on Friday. The unemployment rate surged to 5.5 percent last month, the government said, the biggest increase in more than two decades. Investors reacted to the latest forecast by a large Wall Street bank that oil prices would spike to $150 a barrel in the next month because of strong demand from Asian economies. Morgan Stanley said "an unprecedented share" of Middle East oil exports are headed to Asia. Some analysts also said that the threat of a strike by Chevron's workers in Nigeria could lead to "considerable" shutdowns of Nigerian production. A similar strike by Exxon Mobil workers last April, which lasted a week, reduced Nigerian output by 800,000 barrels a day, or nearly a third of the country's daily exports. A strike might delay the start of Chevron's 250,000 barrels-a-day Agbami project, the country's largest offshore venture, which is slated for June 15. One view that has been gaining ground in recent months is that the commodity market is caught in a speculative bubble akin to the housing or technology bubble of the late 1990s. The notion is buffered by the fact the oil prices have doubled in 12 months despite a slowing economy. That theory was raised by politicians in Washington and a slew of OPEC producers, who blame speculators for the staggering rally in oil prices. Speaking before Congress recently, George Soros, a prominent hedge fund investor, said the current oil markets presented some characteristics of a bubble. "I find commodity index buying eerily reminiscent of a similar craze for portfolio insurance, which led to the stock market crash of 1987," Mr. Soros said earlier this week. But he cautioned that an oil market crash was not imminent. "The danger currently comes from the other direction. The rise in oil prices aggravates the prospects for a recession." Jeffrey Harris, the chief economist at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who was speaking before another Senate committee last month, said he saw no evidence of a speculative bubble in the commodity market. Instead, Mr. Harris pointed out to a confluence of trends that have contributed to the oil price rally, including a weak dollar, strong energy demand from emerging-market economies, and political tensions in oil-producing countries. "Simply put, the economic data shows that overall commodity price levels, including agricultural commodity and energy futures prices, are being driven by powerful fundamental economic forces and the laws of supply and demand," Mr. Harris said. "Together these fundamental economic factors have formed a 'perfect storm' that is causing significant upward pressures on futures prices across the board." Oil prices had been weakening in recent days but reversed dramatically after the president of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, suggested on Thursday that the bank might raise interest rates. That pushed up the euro against the dollar and prompted investors to buy into commodities to hedge against the weaker American currency. Gasoline prices have also been rising steadily. American drivers are now paying an average of $3.99 for a gallon of gasoline nationwide, according to AAA, the automobile group. In many parts of the country, like California, Connecticut and New York, consumers are already paying well over $4. Diesel costs $4.76 a gallon on average. "I don't know how else to say it, this is not a bubble," Jan Stuart, global oil economist at UBS, said. "I think this is real. There is a whole bunch of commercial buyers out there who are spooked and are buying. You are an airline, right now, you're scared. But I don't see who would buy at these prices unless they need to." June 7, 2008 Dow Slides Nearly 400 Points; Oil Surges By ABHA BHATTARAI The markets opened lower on Friday and then just kept falling, hit by remarkable rise in the price of crude oil and a spike in the unemployment rate. Wall Street suffered its worst losses in more than two months. The Dow Jones industrials plunged more than 400 points on fears about high energy prices and a continued economic slowdown, raw nerves that have pestered investors for months. "The market is meeting its worst fears right now," said Quincy Krosby, chief investment strategist at The Hartford, a financial services firm. At the close, the Dow was off 3.13 percent, at 394.64. The broad-based Standard & Poor's 500-stock index fell 43.37 points, or 3 percent, to 1,360.68, and the technology-laden Nasdaq composite index declined 75.38 points, or 2.96 percent, to 2,474.56. Shares opened lower after the government reported that the unemployment rate in May had its highest monthly increase in 22 years. But the decline accelerated as investors confronted a $10.75 jump in the price of crude oil, the biggest one-day climb ever. "Oil prices have reached the tipping point," said Richard Sparks, an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research. "Prices have rallied for a good two months but now it's really weighing on the market." Wall Street has run into choppy waters over the last two weeks after a period of relative calm. Friday's decline marked a return to the triple-digit collapses of February and March, when the market was rocked by the Bear Stearns bailout and significant interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve. The last time the Dow fell this far was March 19, a day after the Fed slashed rates by three-quarters of a point. On Friday, the blue-chip index was dragged down by shares of American International Group, the big insurer, which stumbled after accusations that the company may have overstated the value of contracts tied to subprime mortgages. Shares of A.I.G. closed down $2.48, or nearly 6 percent, to an 11-year low of $33.93. Shares of financial firms and companies that depend on discretionary spending were the hardest hit, as investors worried that the weak labor market is likely to raise anxieties among some Americans and put a pall on spending habits. Friday's report from the Labor Department said that the economy lost jobs for the fifth straight month and the unemployment rate surged to 5.5 percent in May from 5 percent. Investors are also worried that high energy prices will further slow the economy. "If oil prices stay this high, you're going to have to reexamine your estimates for G.D.P., inflation and consumers' ability to spend outside of non-discretionary items," Ms. Krosby said. "This has all of the elements of an investor's worst-case scenario." Oil prices surged almost 8 percent, to $138.54 a barrel after a senior Israeli politician raised the specter of an attack on Iran and the dollar fell against the euro. "As soon as that news hit the tape, oil spiked about $6," said David Kovacs, an investment strategist at Turner Investment Partners. Prices were buoyed further by a report from Morgan Stanley that predicted oil would reach $150 a barrel by July 4 because of higher demand in Asia. Shares of General Motors, whose fortunes can depend on oil prices, fell more than 4 percent, to a record low. Mr. Sparks added the market is also taking a hit from a string of bad news that came out earlier this week: Standard & Poor's downgrading of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley; the ousting of Wachovia's chairman. "All of this has culminated and it's bringing the boogeyman back out of the closet," he said. Bond prices jumped on Friday as investors sought the safety of Treasuries in the volatile market. The dollar declined against other currencies, a move that makes each barrel of oil more expensive. Gold prices rose. -- Yoshie From internacional at pcdob.org.br Fri Jun 6 15:59:39 2008 From: internacional at pcdob.org.br (=?iso-8859-1?Q?PCdoB_-_Secretaria_de_Rela=E7=F5es_Internacionais?=) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 18:59:39 -0300 Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?_Secret=E1rio-geral_do_PC_Portugu=EAs_visita?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_o_Brasil?= Message-ID: <034401c8c820$9e908840$0e05a8c0@mh> Secret?rio-geral do PC Portugu?s visita o Brasil Uma das mais importantes lideran?as da esquerda mundial aporta em S?o Paulo na pr?xima semana. Trata-se de Jer?nimo de Sousa, secret?rio-geral do Partido Comunista Portugu?s. Na visita, feita a convite do PCdoB, o dirigente - que ? tamb?m deputado na Assembl?ia da Rep?blica (Parlamento) de Portugal - far? uma palestra nesta segunda-feira, dia 9, no Sindicato dos Engenheiros (Rua Genebra, 25, S?o Paulo), a partir das 19 horas. Com o tema Revolu??o e contra revolu??o em Portugal: fatores externos e a Uni?o Europ?ia - o PCP e a alternativa, Sousa falar? da experi?ncia de luta dos comunistas num continente cada vez mais voltado para a direita. ? a terceira vez que o PCdoB recebe lideran?as m?ximas do PCP. A primeira foi em 1995, quando veio ao Brasil o hist?rico dirigente ?lvaro Cunhal. Mais tarde, no final da mesma d?cada, os brasileiros receberam o ex-secret?rio-geral Carlos Carvalhas. Na opini?o de Jos? Reinaldo Carvalho, secret?rio de Rela??es Internacionais do PCdoB, "o PCP se destaca no cen?rio pol?tico europeu como um partido comunista, nitidamente antiimperialista, de classe e com clareza de prop?sitos". Al?m disso, num per?odo em que a Europa se inclina para a direita - a elei??o de Silvio Berlusconi na It?lia e de Nicolas Sarkozy na Fran?a sinalizam essa tend?ncia - o PCP coloca-se como um contraponto importante. "? um partido que tem lutado cada vez mais contra a pol?tica militarista, neoliberal, antinacional e anti-social em curso no Velho Continente", ressalta Carvalho. Amizade de al?m-mar Sobre as rela??es fraternais e de coopera??o entre PCP e PCdoB, o dirigente brasileiro destacou que "s?o express?o do internacionalismo prolet?rio, da identidade de ideais e da solidariedade entre os povos do Brasil e de Portugal na luta em comum pela paz, pela independ?ncia nacional, pelos direitos dos trabalhadores, pelo progresso social e pelo socialismo". Parceiros em diversas esferas do movimento comunista mundial, os dois partidos desenvolvem suas rela??es tamb?m no ?mbito de eventos importantes como o Encontro dos Partidos Comunistas e Oper?rios e o F?rum de S?o Paulo, onde o PCP, por ser europeu, participa como observador. A primeira reuni?o de trabalho da delega??o do PCP ser? com o presidente do PCdoB, Renato Rabelo, o secret?rio de Rela??es Internacionais, Jos? Reinaldo Carvalho e outros membros do Secretariado e da Comiss?o Pol?tica. Compromissos no Brasil Na agenda de atividades de Jer?nimo de Sousa constam, ainda, encontros com o vice-presidente da Rep?blica, Jos? Alencar; com o ministro da Justi?a, Tarso Genro e com o assessor internacional da Presid?ncia da Rep?blica, Marco Aur?lio Garcia. No campo legislativo, Sousa ser? recebido pelos presidentes da C?mara e do Senado, Arlindo Chinaglia e Garibaldi Alves Filho. Tamb?m participar? de um jantar com a bancada do PCdoB e com partidos amigos e ter? encontros com os presidentes do PT, Ricardo Berzoini, do PDT, Vieira da Cunha e com o vice-presidente do PSB, Roberto Amaral. Jer?nimo de Sousa ainda visitar? o arquiteto Oscar Niemeyer e pontos tur?sticos do Rio de Janeiro, Bras?lia e S?o Paulo, como o monumento 25 de Abril, no Parque do Ibirapuera, em homenagem ? Revolu??o dos Cravos de 1974. No Rio de Janeiro, os cariocas tamb?m ter?o a oportunidade de assistir ? palestra de Jer?nimo Sousa, que acontece dia 12, quinta-feira, na Assembl?ia Legislativa do estado, ?s 18h. Um secret?rio-geral oper?rio Jer?nimo Carvalho de Sousa, 61 anos, nasceu em abril de 1947. Iniciou a sua atividade pol?tica na juventude antifascista durante a d?cada de 60, quando estabeleceu tamb?m os primeiros contatos com o PCP. ? militante do partido desde 1974, tendo sido eleito para o Comit? Central em seu 9? Congresso, realizado em 1979. ? membro da Comiss?o Pol?tica do PCP desde o 14? Congresso (1992). ? oper?rio metal?rgico. Teve ativa milit?ncia no movimento oper?rio. Ainda em 1972 foi eleito pelos trabalhadores da empresa MEC como membro da chapa que, em 1973, foi eleita para dirigir o Sindicato dos Metal?rgicos de Lisboa. Em 1974, fez parte da Comiss?o de Trabalhadores da MEC, sendo sucessivamente eleito at? 1995. Jer?nimo de Sousa foi eleito deputado na Assembl?ia Constituinte ap?s a Revolu??o de 1974, e foi eleito deputado ? Assembl?ia da Rep?blica, o parlamento portugu?s, em 1976, sendo sucessivamente eleito e exercendo o mandato at? 1993. Desde 2002, voltou a ser deputado na Assembl?ia da Rep?blica. Foi candidato ? Presid?ncia da Rep?blica, proposto pelo PCP, em 1996. Desde 2004, ? o Secret?rio-geral do PCP, eleito no 17o Congresso. PCP tem 87 anos O Partido Comunista Portugu?s, PCP, ? um dos partidos pol?ticos mais antigos em atividade. Tem deputados na Assembl?ia da Rep?blica e no Parlamento Europeu, onde integra o grupo Esquerda Unit?ria Europ?ia - Esquerda Verde N?rdica. O partido foi fundado em 1921. Colocado na ilegalidade no fim dos anos 20, o PCP teve um papel fundamental na oposi??o ao regime ditatorial fascista de Ant?nio de Oliveira Salazar. Durante as cinco d?cadas de ditadura, o PCP participou ativamente da oposi??o ao regime e era o partido (clandestino naquela ?poca) mais organizado e mais forte da oposi??o. Foi perseguido constantemente pela pol?cia pol?tica, a Pide, que obrigou seus membros a viver clandestinamente, sob a amea?a de serem presos, torturados ou assassinados. Ap?s a Revolu??o dos Cravos, em 1974, os seus 36 membros do Comit? Central, em conjunto, tinham j? cumprido mais de 300 anos de pris?o. Ap?s o fim da ditadura, o partido tornou-se a principal for?a pol?tica do novo regime democr?tico, principalmente na classe dos trabalhadores, e continua popular em vastos setores da sociedade portuguesa, particularmente nas ?reas rurais do Alentejo e Ribatejo e ?reas industrializadas como Lisboa e Set?bal, onde lidera v?rios munic?pios. O PCP publica o jornal seman?rio Avante!, fundado em 1931, e a revista bimensal O Militante. De S?o Paulo, Priscila Lobregatte e Ol?via Rangel From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Jun 6 17:34:49 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:34:49 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Marines pushing Christianity in Fallujah Message-ID: <96F2E91E-ACCC-4E4F-90A1-57AFC3A9585B@shaw.ca> [See, more recently: Marine removed from duty over Bible coin reportshttp://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/29/iraq.bible/index.html ] Iraqis claim Marines are pushing Christianity in Fallujah http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38820.html FALLUJAH, Iraq ? At the western entrance to the Iraqi city of Fallujah Tuesday, Muamar Anad handed his residence badge to the U.S. Marines guarding the city. They checked to be sure that he was a city resident, and when they were done, Anad said, a Marine slipped a coin out of his pocket and put it in his hand. Out of fear, he accepted it, Anad said. When he was inside the city, the college student said, he looked at one side of the coin. "Where will you spend eternity?" it asked. He flipped it over, and on the other side it read, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16." "They are trying to convert us to Christianity," said Anad, a Sunni Muslim like most residents of this city in Anbar province. At home, he told his story, and his relatives echoed their disapproval: They'd been given the coins, too, he said. Fallujah, the scene of a bloody U.S. offensive against Sunni insurgents in 2004, has calmed and grown less hostile to American troops since residents turned against al Qaida in Iraq, which had tried to force its brand of Islamist extremism on the population. Now residents of the city are abuzz that some Americans whom they consider occupiers are also acting as Christian missionaries. Residents said some Marines at the western entrance to their city have been passing out the coins for two days in what they call a "humiliating" attempt to convert them to Christianity. In the markets, people crowded around men with the coins, passing them to each other and asking in surprise, "Have you seen this?" The head of the Sunni endowment in Fallujah, the organization that oversees Sunni places of worship and other religious establishments, demanded that the Marines stop. "We say to the occupiers to stop this," said Sheikh Mohammed Amin Abdel Hadi. "This can cause strife between the Iraqis and especially between Muslim and Christians . ... Please stop these things and leave our homes because we are Muslims and we live in our homes in peace with other religions." A spokesman said the U.S. military is investigating. "Multi-National Force-Iraq is investigating a report that U.S. military personnel in Fallujah handed-out material that is religious and evangelical in nature," the spokesman, Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll, said in a statement e-mailed to McClatchy. "Local commanders are investigating since the military prohibits proselytizing any religion, faith or practices." Multi-National Force-Iraq is the formal name for coalition forces in Iraq. In interviews, residents of Fallujah repeated two words ? "humiliation" and "weakness". "Because we are weak this is happening," said a shop owner who gave his name as Abu Abdullah. "Passing Christianity this way is disrespectful." "The occupier is repeatedly trespassing on God and his religion," said Omar Delli, 23. "Now the occupier is planting seeds of strife between the Muslims and Christians. We demand the government in Fallujah have a new demonstration to let the occupier know that these things are humiliating Islam and the Quran." The controversy over the coins that Iraqis said some Marines are passing out comes on the heels of a tempest triggered by a U.S. sniper who used the Quran, Islam's holy book, for target practice. The sniper was pulled out of Iraq after Iraqi police on May 11 found a Quran with 14 bullet holes and graffiti on the pages. In Islam, the holy book is never to touch the floor, let alone be defaced. Iraqi leaders condemned the actions, U.S. generals apologized and President Bush offered a personal apology to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. In Fallujah, Mohammed Jaber saw one of the coins and said he thought of the bullets lodged in the Quran, the torture of Iraqi men at the Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 and the rape of a 14-year-old girl and her murder and that of her family in Mahmoudiya. "Now we have this missionary way by these coins," he said. "We feel the Muslims are weak and we hope that we will reach a point when we are strong to let them know what is wrong and what is right. " Naji is a McClatchy special correspondent in Fallujah. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Jun 6 18:35:12 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 09:35:12 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Ten unfortunate assumptions of energy addicts Message-ID: <4849D7C0.5000704@attglobal.net> by Jan Lundberg Culture Change Letter #186 (May 24 2008) This is a message on record crude and gasoline prices to oil addicts (Hello!). I include their close cousins the green energy addicts (Ciao!). This is prompted by the shallow, momentary news analyses of the oil market, as well as by the slightly less-shallow boosterism of a green-energy Utopia. Lend me your ears before I say, "Have a global warming day" and we go our separate ways. I'd like to think I'm moving to the country or the high seas. I want to say "Hey" to the endangered American gas guzzler and all manner of major oil burner, and, "Hail ye plastic-consuming, tax-funding supporters of never-ending war! You've been driving up a storm, whether Operation Desert Storm or the next Katrina." The few who aren't driving are marginalized like Cassandras - usually considered losers. Our hearts go out to one and all, for the (c)rude awakening has barely begun. Some have pondered what it means for pump prices to get past $4 a gallon and for oil prices to get to $135 a barrel. Continuing to ponder away has, significantly, resulted in no action other than be forced to cut back on some expenditures. Your habits and thinking haven't changed, but they will shortly. This is a heads-up on what goes on with the oil industry; it might help, for there is more than meets the eye that affects everyone. What's in store for us all, energy-wise and for our very survival? "You know something is happening here, but you don't know what it is Do you Mr Jones" -- Bob Dylan, Ballad of a Thin Man, 1965 Our collective problem as we see the world sputter out of control for the worse (before it gets better) is largely that so many loud mouths claim to know what IS happening here. Honest and wise assessments of what all is really going on are hard to come by, partly because the corporate media suppress independent voices who may have the background and objectivity to offer clarity. There are several major assumptions blinding most of those who try, within the confines of the dominant culture and "The System", to grasp trends and glimpse the future: 1) Oil supplies will diminish gradually now that peak extraction has arrived. 2) Alternative fuels and renewable energy can replace our petroleum consumption. 3) The petroleum infrastructure can last or become renewable-energy based. 4) Technology is the equivalent of energy, and energy is energy (all the same). 5) Today's population of consumers has something to fall back on if and when petroleum-grown/distributed food and petroleum-pumped water disappear. 6) Government and scientists can see us through this challenge and save us. 7) "The market" and "entrepreneurial innovation" offer salvation for our unraveling social fabric and our destruction of the ecosystem. 8) Climate change will be gradual and be reflected accurately by numerical averages. 9) The US population can cope with anything and is at an advantage over other countries especially as scarcity and adversity mount. 10) The "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan are winnable or can be put behind us with elections, and that the waste of lives and wealth on these wars can be absorbed. Baby, here are the debunking facts on the above, in order: 1. The oil industry and the oil market are, like the global corporate economy, not set up for contraction. Enough of a shortage will sink the whole ship. 2. Petroleum has no substitute, neither for all its uses nor for the cheapness of the bygone days of rising supply. "Unlimited" petroleum created the growth and abundance we've known. The main alternatives are just for electricity and have far lower energy yield than the easily extracted, cheap petroleum of yore. 3. The petroleum infrastructure is hard-wired and decaying rapidly. A replacement-alternative needed to be created decades ago to avoid industrial and economic collapse. 4. Energy comes at a physical cost (entropy) and has been exploited according to convenience at hand. Continuing to wish for a free lunch to power our endless consumption may yield gee-wizz technologies, but there are too many weak links in the supply chain (metals, petroleum, uranium). "Externalities" such as environmental degradation come home to roost with, for example, the cancer epidemic. 5. People are basically eating petroleum as part of modern agriculture's industrialization and scale dedicated only to profit. Ten units of fossil energy are needed today to create one unit of food-calorie energy, and that does not include transportation or food preparation. The average piece of food in the US has to travel 1,500 miles from its point of origin. 6. Government is not really in control of the gigantic, complex systems it has unleashed for its Big Business constituency. Corruption, incompetence and ignorance prevail, and reflect the dominant culture of materialism and private wealth - at odds with any spirit of citizen-cooperation for the public good. Katrina and Rita were only ameliorated by individual and grassroots volunteerism. 7. Making more money and relying on ever-advancing technology is the basis of not only green consumerism but the promise of a "new economy" that is really just more of the same: a disconnect with ecology. 8. Global warming is already out of control, as positive feedback loops have kicked in. The tipping points, accompanied by mass extinction already underway, are inescapable and are characterized over geological time by sudden, total flips to new states not seen on Earth perhaps for the last 55 million years. It has always been true that Mother Nature knows no restraint. 9. The average US citizen has become far softer than our tough forebears who worked the land and could create and repair anything their lives depended upon. Crucial skills have been lost along with community. Most other countries have been called impoverished, but even after being ravaged by corporate and government manipulation, they remain - compared to Northern Americans - close to the land, and their peoples retain family cohesion. 10. The cost of the Iraq War alone has approached half a trillion dollars and is projected to cost over three trillion in the long run. Far more significant is the death and destruction that, although tragic and incalculable already, will persist for generations. The use of depleted uranium amounts to a nuclear war that the average US citizen knows nothing about, as if one is not affected on this side of the world. One could add to the list and go far beyond ten. My May 22 2008 essay on Ecocities (Culture Change Letter #185) contains explanation on the workings of the oil industry and the oil market, helping to inform the seeker. We do not have an energy crisis or a financial crisis, but rather a culture crisis. The above regrettable assumptions cover most of the attitudinal confusion and error that prevent modern consumers from understanding their own lives. Automatic acceptance of technology, and chauvinism for the "Red White and Blue", with some religious faith thrown in, are leading all of us - humanity and innocent species that we drive extinct - to what may be oblivion. If this sounds too dire to be possible, look at the direction we are going in, and do the math. "Hope" is a human trait that we cannot live without, but it can be dangerous to over-rely on. What are we hoping for? Continued affluence for those who slave away, or compete or exploit, so that our homes can be spacious and loaded with electronic convenience? Why should the loss of our doodads and energy profligacy be considered "doom and gloom"? This column has tried to dispel that false claim since Culture Change's beginning in 2001, by exploring values enhanced by fundamental change. Some of us have tasted the fruits of truly sustainable living and equitable relationships. We will not restate here the "solutions" or "the answer" that many demand upon realizing profound change is in the offing. People who are locked into their conventionalism and the collapsing paradigm are afraid to question their own life-styles and their rulers, such that a further-trashed natural world is preferable to taking action that involves uncertainty. Their "System" is sacrosanct, but perhaps society is on the verge of seeing widespread questioning of The System and its demise at the hands of the many. I used to provide the hungry news media with regular announcements and analyses on US gasoline prices. Seeing the boring pointlessness and the ethical toxic?hole of supplying solace and profitable information to the motoring public and my major oil-company clients, I left. The "truth business" I went into, that of researching and developing alternatives to the dominant forms of transportation, land-use, has been lucrative only in the spiritual sense, one might say. I trot out this background to assure anyone that there is no refuge in playing the game of materialistic "$uccess", because sooner or later one comes up empty. And, the rewards of opening one's eyes and meeting people on equal terms of real respect are vast. I close with my explanation of what we are experiencing and what's about to hit. I offer a warning and some hope. We are caught in a culture of denial and ruination: of our rights as humans and animals, and of the absolute interdependence of humans and the rest of nature. Too many of us want to believe the propaganda that brainwashed us as "THE Americans", regarding our being the most special and justly proud of nations - never mind the inextricable bases of slavery and the genocide of the native peoples. This is not to say there are not amazingly wonderful Americans today. Nor do we forget we have unique wonders of natural beauty such as the Grand Canyon. But our phase of history whereby our "exuberance", as William Catton called our "Overshoot", is coming to an end more swiftly than some us thought even a few years ago. The world is turning upside down for better AND for worse. The days of pumping gas and flicking a switch are going to be all but forgotten when we lurch desperately toward more human, "convivial" interaction (as Ivan Illich described our next possible phase). That is, if we do not go extinct from our releasing the chemical and radioactive genies into the world. Gone will be the days of further such atrocities done without the permission of all affected. If we pull through, we will live in such a way to reject false values, idiocies and greedy tendencies that have dragged us all down. This hegemony has at least accelerated its own demise and helped to close the chapter on a bloody period that began many centuries ago. Now it is time for us to open up the doors and go outside to our freedom. Don't wait for the talking heads or bosses or politicians to give you permission. Just tell them "Have a global warming day". http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sat Jun 7 08:09:45 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 23:09:45 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Confronting the inevitable Message-ID: <484A96A9.7040805@attglobal.net> Population reduction, voluntary and otherwise by J Kenneth Smail Culture Change (May 05 2008) Editor's note: One can run into a good report on a critical subject, only to find the author has a deficit of understanding on peak oil, for example. Or one may encounter the delusion that population growth is a problem basically in "Third World" countries. Not with this new essay for Culture Change. Professor Ken Smail has put together the best argument for facing depopulation. Its full title was Acknowledging and Confronting the Inevitable: A Significant Shrinkage in Global Human Numbers, and Other Inconvenient Truths. Some readers may find Ken's timing-scenario for depopulation optimistic - picturing it further off into the future than the 21st century - but he acknowledges its possibly being played out earlier due to today's "toxic brew" of crises.- Jan Lundberg Assuming then, my postulata as granted, I say that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. -- Thomas Malthus (1798) It has become increasingly apparent over the past half-century that there is a growing tension between two seemingly irreconcilable trends. On one hand, moderate to conservative demographic projections indicate that global human numbers will almost certainly reach eight to nine billion by mid-21st century, only two generations from the present. On the other, prudent and increasingly reliable scientific estimates suggest that the Earth's long-term sustainable human carrying capacity, at what might be defined as an "adequate" to "moderately comfortable" developed-world standard of living, may not be much greater than two to three billion. It may in fact be considerably less, perhaps in the one to two billion range, particularly if the normative life-style (level of consumption) aspired to is anywhere close to that currently characterizing the United States. As a consequence of this modern-day "Malthusian dilemma", it seems reasonable to suggest that it is now time - indeed, past time - to think boldly about the midrange future, and to consider alternatives that go beyond merely slowing the growth, or even the stabilization, of global human numbers. In this brief essay, I shall argue that it has now become necessary for the human species to develop and implement, as quickly as possible, a well conceived, clearly articulated, flexibly designed, broadly equitable, and internationally coordinated program focused on bringing about a very significant reduction in global human numbers over the next two or more centuries. In simple quantitative terms, this effort will likely require a global population "shrinkage" of at least two-thirds to three-fourths, from a probable mid-to-late 21st century "peak" in the nine to ten billion range to a future (23rd century and beyond) "population optimum" of not more than two to three billion, or perhaps even fewer. Obviously, a demographic change of this magnitude, whether brought about by conscious human design or ultimately by forces beyond human control, will require a major reorientation of human thought, values, expectations, and lifestyle(s). Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that such a program will be successful. Moreover, if humanity fails in this effort, it seems likely that nature's even harsher realities will almost certainly be imposed. Speaking as a professional physical anthropologist/human evolutionary biologist, it is entirely possible that this rapidly metastasizing - yet still partly hidden - demographic and environmental crisis could emerge as the greatest evolutionary/ecological "bottleneck" that our species has yet encountered. Validating the Hypothesis It is important to recognize that this admittedly controversial proposition - that there must be a very significant reduction in global human numbers over the next two or three centuries - is presented here in the form of a testable scientific hypothesis, one that is amenable not only to continued empirical confirmation but also to potential falsification. Specifically, this hypothesis may be quickly and easily rejected (that is, empirically falsified) if it can clearly be demonstrated that ongoing estimates for global population size over the next few hundred years will not exceed what will presumably be increasingly accurate projections of both current and future optimal human carrying capacities. However, this hypothesis is confirmed if future global population size continues to exceed (by a significant margin) these same carrying capacity estimates. Moreover, such confirmation would be true regardless of whether human numbers continue to grow at current rates, grow more slowly, stabilize, or even begin to decline. For example, even if future research shows that the two to three billion optimal carrying capacity utilized in this essay has been significantly underestimated (that is, is "off-target" by a factor of two or more), the argument put forth here loses little if any of its persuasive power, nor is the above hypothesis in any way invalidated. The reason for this is simple. Even a global population optimum of four to five billion, approximately double the figure recommended here, would still necessitate a very substantial reduction (of some fifty percent or more) from the nine-plus billion projected for the mid-to-late 21st century. Notwithstanding the numerous difficulties in addressing a problem of such complexity, it is nonetheless surprising how little scientific and public attention has been directed toward establishing empirically quantifiable, scientifically testable, and socioculturally agreed-upon parameters for what the Earth's long-term human carrying capacity - or flexibly defined "optimal population range" - might actually be. Unfortunately, with only a few notable exceptions, many otherwise well-qualified scientific investigators and public policy analysts have been rather hesitant to take a clear and forthright position on this profoundly important matter, certainly destined to become the overarching issue of the current century. It is difficult to say whether this unfortunate reticence is due to ingrained investigatory caution, concerns about professional reputation and advancement (particularly among younger investigators), the increasingly specialized structure of both the scientific and political enterprises, personal qualms about reaching conclusions that have potentially unpalatable social and political ramifications, or other unspecified (and perhaps deeply-rooted) ideological, moral, or religious reservations. Or perhaps, given its global nature and seemingly endless ramifications, the chief difficulty in dealing with the complex population/environment conundrum represents little more than a manifestation of "scale paralysis", that enervating sense of individual and collective powerlessness when confronted by problems whose magnitude seems overwhelming. Certainly the rough approximations of global human carrying capacity put forth during the past century show considerable variation, ranging from fewer than one billion to well beyond twenty billion (an order of magnitude or more). It is, however, important to note that over the past two decades there have been a growing number of investigators and organizations who have put forth reasonably well-thought-out positions on future global population optimums. Interestingly enough, these estimates have all clustered in the one to three billion range. This is an important development, since it is patently obvious that it will be difficult to engender any sort of effective public response to the above-mentioned global crisis if future population goals (that is, desired demographic optimums) continue to be imperfectly understood and poorly articulated. Quite frankly, I hope the above hypothesis is wrong and that various demographic optimists are correct in their recent claims that human numbers will begin to show a "natural" stabilization and subsequent decline somewhat sooner than expected. Presumably, when this welcome demographic trend is coupled with "enhanced efficiencies" in energy production, resource utilization, and materials conservation, and is further reinforced by efforts toward significantly reduced per capita consumption levels (particularly in the developed world), it might allow for somewhat larger carrying capacities, or optimal population sizes, than we currently imagine. But this sort of optimism is warranted only by corroborative data, that is, only if the above-mentioned "irreconcilable numbers" show unmistakable evidence of coming into much closer congruence. And it is now increasingly apparent that any such optimism should be further tempered by an honest and full consideration of the problems surrounding at least two other rapidly emerging (and converging) "inconvenient truths", global phenomena whose powerful downstream effects will undoubtedly become manifest within the next few decades: (1) the broad-scale ecological and environmental consequences of ongoing "climate change", or increasing "climatic instability" (or more popularly, anthropogenic "global warming"). Based on the evidence provided by extensive scientific research and analysis over the past two decades, these wide-ranging climatic effects are empirically quite well-documented, certainly resting on an overwhelming "preponderance of evidence" as they come ever closer to the level of "beyond all reasonable doubt". (2) the unpredictable consequences - including the potential for widescale political, economic, and social destabilization - of passing the global "production peak" of oil, gas, and coal. For it seems quite likely that the "post-carbon" world will very soon be engaged in a massive struggle to adapt to a steady and significant decline in the supply of cheap and abundant energy derived from fossil fuels (that is, the aptly named "ancient sunlight", or "one-time bonanza", that for the past two centuries has fueled the exuberant growth of modern industrial/technological civilization). More specifically, the evidence from recent "peak energy" research and analysis increasingly suggests that by the middle of the present century humanity could well be faced with a global population of some nine billion, struggling to maintain - or in several instances still trying to acquire - some semblance of modern (first- world) civilization on but one-fourth to one-third of the oil and gas the world currently produces, exacerbated still further by a notable deficit of "proven" or "environmentally benign" energy substitutes (renewable or otherwise) on anywhere near the scale that would be necessary. This of course is in addition to dealing with growing constraints and pressures due to other important "limiting factors": the above-mentioned climatic instability (all too likely enhanced by increasingly heavy reliance on coal); availability of fresh water; adequate food supplies; ongoing topsoil degradation; shortages of various minerals and materials; continuing biodiversity and wilderness losses; enhanced geopolitical competition over essential resources; and the growing power and influence of various "non-state" actors. Acknowledging Our Dilemma Clearly, assertions that the Earth might be able to support a population of ten to fifteen billion people for an indefinite period of time at a standard of living superior to the present are not only cruelly misleading but almost certainly false. Notwithstanding our current addiction to continued and uninterrupted economic growth, surely the dominant political mantra of the 20th and early 21st centuries, it is essential for humanity to recognize that there are, after all, finite physical, biological and ecological limits to the Earth's long-term sustainable carrying capacity (that is, the "natural capital" that supports us). And to recognize further that we are now drawing down on the principal, as well as the interest, of this precious "capital", as many of these finite limits have already been reached (and in a number of instances surpassed). Consequently, since at some point in the not-too-distant future the negative ramifications and ecological damage stemming from the mutually reinforcing effects of excessive human reproduction and over-consumption of resources could well become irreversible, and because there is only one Earth with which to experiment, it would undoubtedly be better for our species to err on the side of prudence, exercising wherever possible a cautious and careful stewardship. Perhaps it is time to suggest that the burden of proof on these matters, so long shouldered by so-called "neo-Malthusian pessimists", be increasingly shifted to the "cornucopian optimists". In other words, for those who might be inclined to ignore (or summarily reject) the hypothesis put forth here, the scientific "burden of proof" should be quite clear: What is the evidence that the Earth can withstand - without irreparable damage - another two or more centuries during which global human numbers and per capita consumption greatly exceed the Earth's optimal (sustainable) carrying capacity? In any event, having established in this essay a "quantifiable and falsifiable" frame of reference, it seems obvious that it is now time to go one step further, and at the very least begin to make the case that current rhetoric about "slowing the growth", or even the "stabilization", of global human numbers is clearly insufficient to the task that lies before us. Quite simply, both the empirical data and inexorable logic suggest with increasing clarity that what will be required for the foreseeable future - the "default position" for the next two or three centuries - is a very significant reduction in global human numbers. Admittedly, this presents a vexing "temporal disconnect" that may be difficult (perhaps even impossible) to resolve, particularly in a manner that will be perceived as equitable, voluntary, and humane. It seems all too likely that the period of time - two centuries or more - that will be minimally necessary for population stabilization and subsequent significant reduction, eventually to a desired "global optimum" in the one to three billion range, is clearly inconsistent with the much more "restricted" time frame suggested by the rapidly swelling chorus of those who project significant fossil-energy production declines, and steadily growing problems associated with global climatic change, appearing within the next generation or two. I refer here to the distinct possibility of an environmental "critical threshold", or quasi-evolutionary "bottleneck", or cascading political, economic, and social "breakdown", or global "synchronous failure", all emerging over the next several decades (by mid-century or before), while demographic momentum remains an active force and global human numbers continue to increase. I am therefore only cautiously optimistic that the human species will be able successfully to confront the complex and interrelated problems we have managed to create for ourselves - what some have begun to characterize as an ecological, economic, political, sociocultural, and moral "perfect storm". In fact, when I see how little traction various mitigating (or ameliorative) efforts have gained over the past thirty to forty years, I have become increasingly pessimistic that humanity - potentially some nine-plus billion of us within our children's and grandchildren's lifetimes - will be successful in staving off some very difficult times over the next several generations (throughout the 21st century and beyond). Put bluntly, the synergistic combination of declining "post-peak" energy supplies (and other essential resources), a still growing global population, increasingly apparent finite limits on food production and the availability of fresh water, unpredictable and likely deleterious climatic instability, potentially destabilizing challenges from various (non-state) terrorist organizations, and increasingly massive (and largely uncontrolled) third-world to first-world patterns of human migration, is surely a "toxic brew". And it certainly doesn't help that this deteriorating state of affairs - with a few notable exceptions - has been further exacerbated by a generalized lack of political, economic, social, and moral foresight and cooperation on both a national and a global level, not to mention a recalcitrant human nature all too prone to both individual and collective denial. Nevertheless, to the extent that humans universally share a deep-rooted and powerful "investment in immortality" - however we might individually or collectively choose to define it - it is essential that we keep trying to bias the future in a positive direction. Final Thoughts And so, the crucial question ... Is it naive to suggest that the evidence is now sufficiently convincing that a "critical mass" of concerned and motivated investigators should quickly begin to put together a serious, legitimate, and empirically well-documented case for what appears to be a rapidly emerging global catastrophe? If so, it would certainly become much easier - or more "palatable" - for still other scientists, as well as environmentalists, politicians, economists, moralists, and other concerned citizens of the planet, to speak forthrightly and with ever greater confidence about humanity's responsibility to rapidly and resolutely address this burgeoning existential crisis. Surely it is essential that elected public officials, civil servants at all levels of government, academics from a broad range of disciplines, representatives of the news media, religious leaders from all the major faith traditions, and spokespersons for national and international environmental organizations not feel as though they are committing political, professional, or moral suicide by bringing these matters to public attention. For time is becoming increasingly precious, and our "window of opportunity" for effective remedial action may be quite short, if it has not already passed. I very much hope that this all-too-brief essay has helped to clarify an important and often underappreciated point: that ongoing population growth has a significant influence on, or connection with, nearly every other issue that humanity currently faces. I hope it is also obvious that this influence is both reciprocal and mutually reinforcing, resulting in numerous and interconnected positive feedback (or deviation amplifying) systems and subsystems, many of which are imperfectly understood. It may thus be entirely appropriate to characterize the 20th and early 21st centuries' rapid and continuing population expansion as the critical factor underlying many, if not most, of our species' growing political, economic, social, environmental, and moral difficulties. Until demonstrated otherwise, I would therefore argue that unchecked or "insufficiently restrained" population growth should perhaps be considered the single most important feature in an admittedly complex (and synergistic) physical, ecological, biocultural and sociopolitical landscape. It should by now be unassailable that the limitation of human population size, and subsequently confronting the numerous problems that will be engendered by its eventual and inevitable contraction, should occupy a central position within the "modern problematique", and as such should be dealt with much more forthrightly, and much more promptly, than has heretofore been the case. More than half a century ago, at the dawn of the nuclear age, Albert Einstein suggested that we shall require a new manner of thinking, if humankind is to survive. Even though the aptly named "population explosion" is neither as instantaneous nor as spectacular as its nuclear counterpart, its ultimate consequences may be just as real (and potentially just as devastating) as the so-called "nuclear winter" scenarios promulgated in the early 1980s. That there will be a large-scale reduction in global human numbers over the next two or three centuries appears to be inevitable. The primary issue may well be whether this lengthy and difficult process will be comparatively benign or unpredictably chaotic. More specifically, is modern humanity capable of a comprehensive organized effort to compassionately reduce global human numbers, or will brutal self-interest prevail - either haphazardly or selectively - resulting in an unprecedented toll of human lives? Clearly, we must begin our "new manner of thinking" about this critically important issue now, so that Einstein's prescient and very legitimate concerns about human (and civilizational) survival into the 21st century and beyond may be addressed as rapidly, as fully, and as humanely as possible. Don't speak to me of shortage. My world is vast And has more than enough - for no more than enough. There is a shortage of nothing, save will and wisdom; But there is a longage of people. -- Garrett Hardin (1975) _____ Ken Smail (PhD Yale, 1976) is Professor of Anthropology (Emeritus) at Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio 43022 (smail at kenyon.edu). http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&Itemid=1 TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Sat Jun 7 08:58:23 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 07:58:23 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Failing Haiti: An interview with Peter Hallward Message-ID: Failing Haiti: An interview with Peter Hallward "Canada played a significant role in creating an ideological and propaganda type of climate in which Aristide came to be seen as a kind of international pariah." >by Paul Boin June 6, 2008 http://www.rabble.ca/rabble_interview.shtml?x=72297 Peter Hallward is the author of a new book, Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide and the Politics of Containment, which details recent Haitian history including the 2004 coup backed by the United States, France and Canada. Hallward completes a four-city Canadian book tour this Saturday, June 7 in Vancouver. He was interviewed by Paul Boin, a professor of media and communication studies at the University of Windsor. Paul Boin: Whether it's the Associated Press, the Globe and Mail, the UN, or the CIA World Fact book, mainstream media and other organizations continue to characterize what happened in Haiti on February 29, 2004 in the following manner: that Haiti's twice elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide "departed" from Haiti? After all the extensive research and interviews you've done for your book, how would you most accurately characterize what happened on that day? Peter Hallward: There's no question. It was a coup. The denials aren't exactly impressive. People also denied that it was a coup back in 1991. In 2004 it was presented as a kind of version of the "orange revolution" that was happening in other places like Ukraine. So it was presented that Aristide was under pressure by a popular uprising, he had lost credibility, and he had no other alternative except to turn to the U.S. for help to leave the country in order to avoid a bloodbath. That's basically the official line. But if you look at that official line it's already very peculiar. If you're trying to "avoid a bloodbath" why would you have the president leave rather than try and stop the few insurgents who were causing havoc in parts of the country given that these insurgents did not have any popular support (this lack of support was subsequently confirmed as the leader of this insurgent group stood for president in the most recent election and only received 2 per cent of the vote). So why you would ask a president who'd been elected with a massive majority to go rather than the insurgents is kind of curious. So if the official line isn't the correct one, than what is? If you look at what actually happened, the story is much more complicated and it has nothing to do with a type of "orange revolution." The problem with Aristide's second government is that he was elected [in 2000] with a big mandate, bigger then the first time he was elected in 1990. So he comes in with this mandate and a more coherent political organization, his Fanmi Lavalas party, with a solid infrastructure and support all across the country. So they're poised to implement genuine political change. And for the first time in Haitian history that political victory and support was combined without the presence of an army, that had previously been used to get in the way or overturn previous Haitian governments. So it is this situation that unleashes this huge international campaign to destabilize his government and to spread a very elaborate web of propaganda, presenting Aristide as a tyrant and human rights violator so that he could eventually be presented as a kind of new version of Fran?ois Duvalier. Figure after figure state this line, including Roger Noriega who says in front of the U.S. Congress that Aristide is just like another Duvalier and his supporters are just like the Tonton Macqoutes, that they slaughtered the political opposition, and that he had to be pushed out of office as a result. So that's the first thing. In response to this popular government of Aristide, the Americans, the French and the elite of Haiti do a few things. First, they deprive his government and Haiti of all international funding and aid, which cuts their national budget in half. So virtually all the social programs that the Aristide government had lined up had to be put on ice. Secondly, they support and fund Aristide's opponents by pouring millions of dollars to them, plus supplying about another $70 million per year into NGO groups that our complicit with Aristide's opponents. Without this outside money there would have been very little political opposition to Aristide. They also made particular investments in the media that was hostile to the Aristide government. So for example, if you look at the 25 radio stations in Haiti, and radio is the main source of news for the Haitian population, about 20 of them belong to an anti-Aristide coalition that was funded by US AID, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the European Union. And these radio stations spread lie after lie after lie, and create a kind of massive accumulation of accusations and rumours and innuendo against Aristide that present him as a kind of tyrant and human rights abuser. And after a while it kind of starts to sink in and its hard to disprove these unsubstantiated charges on a case-by-case basis. The third step that was done was to strengthen resistance to the Aristide government in the business, civil society and in some student groups, which carry out the odd demonstration. These occasional demonstrations then cause counter-demonstrations by pro-Aristide supporters, which sometimes can get out of hand. Leading up to the coup some of these demonstrations lead to a couple of deaths on each side. Which then allows those against Aristide to blame Aristide for presiding over a wave of violence and a climate of insecurity, and to accuse Aristide of intimidating the opposition. The fourth thing that was done was to promote a contra-style military insurgency that's based in different parts of Haiti and in the Dominican Republic, which were able to conduct hit-and-run operations against police stations and other government facilities starting in July 2001 and running all the way through to the final month when there's a full-blown military insurgency. The numbers are never huge, just about fifty or so soldiers, most of them ex military members of the Haitian National Army that Aristide disbanded back in 1995. These people eventually succeed in putting the Aristide government in a very difficult position, as now having no army (and less than 3000 police officers scattered throughout Haiti) it was difficult for the government to confront these insurgents. The U.S. had also imposed an ammunition embargo on Haiti so their police forces did not have needed supplies. So all these factors combined put Aristide into a pretty impossible position. Then the Americans threaten him with a "bloodbath" looming in the streets. So under these circumstances and under severe pressure, and very much at the last minute, he ends up having to leave Haiti. The final details as to how he left still remain very unclear. I would urge your readers to carefully read through the numerous articles and postings at HaitiAnalysis.com. What role have you found Canada to have played, both prior to February 29, 2004 and since, in Haiti? Canada played a significant role in creating an ideological and propaganda type of climate in which Aristide came to be seen as a kind of international pariah. So they funded some anti-Aristide NGOs and Canada provided a kind of legitimacy and credibility to the campaign to discredit Aristide. The basic idea was to say that the Aristide government was presiding over a worsening human rights situation and was continuing the continuum of human rights disasters and the cycle of violence in Haiti since Fran?ois Duvalier to Jean Claude Duvalier through the coups and now by the Aristide Government. Now that's something we can look at and analyze. Under Fran?ois Duvalier the number of killings in Haiti attributed in some way to his government is about 50,000. The number of people killed in the first coup against Aristide (1991) is about 4,000 or 5,000. The number of people killed during the second coup (2004) is estimated to be 3,000, it's hard to know exactly. And how many people killed are attributed to the Aristide government or their supporters? The number is just in between 10 and 40 people, and 40 being a largely exaggerated number. In the spring of 2005 I interviewed Canadian Member of Parliament and Special Government Envoy to Haiti, Denis Coderre. When I asked him why the Canadian and U.S. government would not allow Aristide to be a candidate in the upcoming Haitian presidential elections, Coderre stated the following: "The issue is this. Aristide belongs to the past. And we want to build on the future. We don't want to build on the nostalgia of the past. It is clear in our mind that you can't go back." What is your response to a Canadian government official with this type of opinion? First of all the form of it is incredible. I mean who is it that can tell Canada what does or does not belong to your future. This is a question for the Haitian people to decide. If you believe in democracy there is a well established process for doing that. It's called an election. And Aristide was elected by a huge mandate. Far more powerful a mandate then that enjoyed by any Canadian government in recent history. Far more powerful a mandate then any of the governments that overthrew him, the U.S., France and Canada. Secondly, it's a ludicrous thing to say to the Haitian people. For the vast majority of the Haitian people fundamentally Aristide represented hope. The reason why he was elected with such enthusiasm was that he gave voice to a very widely felt sense of injustice and hope for change. And he did it in terms that made sense for Haitian people. He's not a firebrand revolutionary talking about radical change on a model that has nothing to do with Haiti and which has no practical chance of success. He's not talking about turning the world upside down or a cultural revolution. He's talking about democratic change within the existing constraints broadly speaking, and working for a slow but significant reform of the existing Haitian institutions to slowly but surely empower ordinary people, and begin to get rid of the type of class-apartheid that structures Haitian society. And that is the thing that is very inspiring to most people and was threatening to the elite. In this regard, Aristide still has a part to play. Aristide himself has said that he doesn't want to stand again as president for Haiti. That remains his position at the moment. He does want to go back to Haiti to help strengthen Fanmi Lavalas, which remains the most powerful political organization in the country. And that's the thing I think his enemies in Canada, and in other parts of the world, are most afraid of. That's the last thing they want to happen. You know this line, "Aristide belongs to the past, and we need to move onto the future," that basically means that popular politics in Haiti should come to an end, and that they should accept a version of a kind of democracy that's been imposed on them by very undemocratic organizations and other governments and NGOs funded by USAID and CIDA and transnational technocrats in the IMF and World Bank who will manage the country in the interests of the ruling class. That's what it boils down to. That the people who would want to mobilize for something different, those people, should accept their lowly place in society. The mainstream conventional "wisdom" reported in the press and stated in privileged countries like Canada, the U.S. and France is that Haiti is a "failed state." While other, more historically versed, Haiti watchers counter that it is the world that has failed Haiti. It also seems that this type of coverage is analogous to the way the mainstream media often covers Africa. What are your thoughts on who's failing whom, and to what degree do race and racism play a role in how western media and governments continue to misrepresent Haiti? It is fundamentally racist. The only way that this level of propaganda can begin to be understood is if the story begins with the racist attitude that "these people are black." And that's why we (in the west) can characterize them (Haiti and Haitians) as "undemocratic," and "intransigent," "unreasonable," "irrational" and a few other things. Even though the most basic look at the facts at the international role in Haiti will show that that is complete crap. From the beginning of Haiti's history, after winning their freedom from slavery, and setting an example that was profoundly threatening to the world's imperial powers, they've had to fight to keep the world from closing its ranks on them. Yes, 1804, in terms of an example of true freedom and democracy, Haiti provided the world with a wondrous example of the success of a double- revolution ? a revolution for independence from France and a revolution against slavery. And it was both incredibly sad and remarkable that on January 1, 2004, when the world should have been celebrating the bicentennial of the truest accomplishment of freedom and democracy that our planet has ever seen, the western world ignored it. I believe only a handful of countries sent official delegates. Canada, the U.S. and France sent no one. When you think back to the blanket coverage that the world's mainstream press gave to the American and French bicentennial celebrations, the difference is stark, shocking and shameful. It is outrageous. Truly outrageous. South Africa's President Mbeki should be credited. He was one of the only high-profile people to go to Haiti's historic bicentennial. Mbeki also made the connection between Haiti's struggle and victory over slavery and South Africa's over apartheid. It really is a scandal that so few world leaders attended. It's also a cruel irony of history that Haiti was also robbed of a proper anniversary to mark the day that Haiti's first-ever democratically elected leader was removed from office for a second time, as this latest coup happened on the leap year date of February 29, 2004. So when earlier this year we had our first leap year since the coup (February 29, 2008), I was expecting, yes perhaps naively, that the mainstream media might have some form of coverage of this historic international event, given that it was the first time in four years that the actual date was before us. Yet, incredibly, there was none, and I mean no North American media coverage whatsoever, except for a very brief mention in the Miami Herald. What are your other thoughts on why the mainstream media coverage is so terrible when it comes to Haiti? I also saw really no coverage from my vantage point in the U.K. I was trying get on or get some kind of acknowledgement on radio, and I couldn't get anywhere with that. Well, mainstream media does the job that it seems it's designed to do. Which is to preserve or promote a type of corporate agenda that doesn't ask fundamental questions about why the world is the way it is. If you look at a place like Haiti, it's very difficult to look at it without calling into question some of the things that structure the world the way the world is. - Paul Boin is a professor of media and communication studies at the University of Windsor. He the director of the Media Justice Project, an investigative journalist and a media democracy activist. Paul's forthcoming book is entitled Media For the Public Mind: Creating a Democratic and Informative News Media, and is to be published in the spring of 2009 by Fernwood Publishing. From gmeyerson at triad.rr.com Sat Jun 7 14:36:35 2008 From: gmeyerson at triad.rr.com (gregory meyerson) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 16:36:35 -0400 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Confronting the inevitable In-Reply-To: <484A96A9.7040805@attglobal.net> References: <484A96A9.7040805@attglobal.net> Message-ID: Essays like this one, however much info they carry, border on or pave the way for fascism (whatever the talk about "benign reduction" in population "we" must carry out) or other hideous dysfunction when they discuss population with no reference to political economy, class interests , class struggle, capitalism, etc. that progressives are allying with garret hardin types is pretty disturbing--wonder what his immigration policy would look like! On the other hand, the failure of many marxists to take ecological/energy limits seriously helps reproduce this cornucopian/malthusian dialectic, one we (anti capitalists) can hardly afford to entertain much longer. On Jun 7, 2008, at 10:09 AM, Bill Totten wrote: > > Population reduction, voluntary and otherwise > > by J Kenneth Smail > > Culture Change (May 05 2008) > > > Editor's note: One can run into a good report on a critical subject, > only to find the author has a deficit of understanding on peak oil, for > example. Or one may encounter the delusion that population growth is a > problem basically in "Third World" countries. Not with this new essay > for Culture Change. Professor Ken Smail has put together the best > argument for facing depopulation. > > Its full title was Acknowledging and Confronting the Inevitable: A > Significant Shrinkage in Global Human Numbers, and Other Inconvenient > Truths. Some readers may find Ken's timing-scenario for depopulation > optimistic - picturing it further off into the future than the 21st > century - but he acknowledges its possibly being played out earlier > due to today's "toxic brew" of crises.- Jan Lundberg > > > Assuming then, my postulata as granted, I say that the power of > population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to > produce subsistence for man. -- Thomas Malthus (1798) > > It has become increasingly apparent over the past half-century that > there is a growing tension between two seemingly irreconcilable trends. > On one hand, moderate to conservative demographic projections indicate > that global human numbers will almost certainly reach eight to nine > billion by mid-21st century, only two generations from the present. On > the other, prudent and increasingly reliable scientific estimates > suggest that the Earth's long-term sustainable human carrying capacity, > at what might be defined as an "adequate" to "moderately comfortable" > developed-world standard of living, may not be much greater than two to > three billion. It may in fact be considerably less, perhaps in the one > to two billion range, particularly if the normative life-style (level > of > consumption) aspired to is anywhere close to that currently > characterizing the United States. > > As a consequence of this modern-day "Malthusian dilemma", it seems > reasonable to suggest that it is now time - indeed, past time - to > think boldly about the midrange future, and to consider alternatives > that go beyond merely slowing the growth, or even the stabilization, of > global human numbers. In this brief essay, I shall argue that it has > now > become necessary for the human species to develop and implement, as > quickly as possible, a well conceived, clearly articulated, flexibly > designed, broadly equitable, and internationally coordinated program > focused on bringing about a very significant reduction in global human > numbers over the next two or more centuries. In simple quantitative > terms, this effort will likely require a global population "shrinkage" > of at least two-thirds to three-fourths, from a probable mid-to-late > 21st century "peak" in the nine to ten billion range to a future (23rd > century and beyond) "population optimum" of not more than two to three > billion, or perhaps even fewer. > > Obviously, a demographic change of this magnitude, whether brought > about > by conscious human design or ultimately by forces beyond human control, > will require a major reorientation of human thought, values, > expectations, and lifestyle(s). Unfortunately, there is no guarantee > that such a program will be successful. Moreover, if humanity fails in > this effort, it seems likely that nature's even harsher realities will > almost certainly be imposed. Speaking as a professional physical > anthropologist/human evolutionary biologist, it is entirely possible > that this rapidly metastasizing - yet still partly hidden - > demographic and environmental crisis could emerge as the greatest > evolutionary/ecological "bottleneck" that our species has yet > encountered. > > > Validating the Hypothesis > > It is important to recognize that this admittedly controversial > proposition - that there must be a very significant reduction in > global human numbers over the next two or three centuries - is > presented here in the form of a testable scientific hypothesis, one > that > is amenable not only to continued empirical confirmation but also to > potential falsification. Specifically, this hypothesis may be quickly > and easily rejected (that is, empirically falsified) if it can clearly > be demonstrated that ongoing estimates for global population size over > the next few hundred years will not exceed what will presumably be > increasingly accurate projections of both current and future optimal > human carrying capacities. > > However, this hypothesis is confirmed if future global population size > continues to exceed (by a significant margin) these same carrying > capacity estimates. Moreover, such confirmation would be true > regardless > of whether human numbers continue to grow at current rates, grow more > slowly, stabilize, or even begin to decline. For example, even if > future > research shows that the two to three billion optimal carrying capacity > utilized in this essay has been significantly underestimated (that is, > is "off-target" by a factor of two or more), the argument put forth > here > loses little if any of its persuasive power, nor is the above > hypothesis > in any way invalidated. The reason for this is simple. Even a global > population optimum of four to five billion, approximately double the > figure recommended here, would still necessitate a very substantial > reduction (of some fifty percent or more) from the nine-plus billion > projected for the mid-to-late 21st century. > > Notwithstanding the numerous difficulties in addressing a problem of > such complexity, it is nonetheless surprising how little scientific and > public attention has been directed toward establishing empirically > quantifiable, scientifically testable, and socioculturally agreed-upon > parameters for what the Earth's long-term human carrying capacity - > or > flexibly defined "optimal population range" - might actually be. > Unfortunately, with only a few notable exceptions, many otherwise > well-qualified scientific investigators and public policy analysts have > been rather hesitant to take a clear and forthright position on this > profoundly important matter, certainly destined to become the > overarching issue of the current century. > > It is difficult to say whether this unfortunate reticence is due to > ingrained investigatory caution, concerns about professional reputation > and advancement (particularly among younger investigators), the > increasingly specialized structure of both the scientific and political > enterprises, personal qualms about reaching conclusions that have > potentially unpalatable social and political ramifications, or other > unspecified (and perhaps deeply-rooted) ideological, moral, or > religious > reservations. Or perhaps, given its global nature and seemingly endless > ramifications, the chief difficulty in dealing with the complex > population/environment conundrum represents little more than a > manifestation of "scale paralysis", that enervating sense of individual > and collective powerlessness when confronted by problems whose > magnitude > seems overwhelming. > > Certainly the rough approximations of global human carrying capacity > put > forth during the past century show considerable variation, ranging from > fewer than one billion to well beyond twenty billion (an order of > magnitude or more). It is, however, important to note that over the > past > two decades there have been a growing number of investigators and > organizations who have put forth reasonably well-thought-out positions > on future global population optimums. Interestingly enough, these > estimates have all clustered in the one to three billion range. This is > an important development, since it is patently obvious that it will be > difficult to engender any sort of effective public response to the > above-mentioned global crisis if future population goals (that is, > desired demographic optimums) continue to be imperfectly understood and > poorly articulated. > > Quite frankly, I hope the above hypothesis is wrong and that various > demographic optimists are correct in their recent claims that human > numbers will begin to show a "natural" stabilization and subsequent > decline somewhat sooner than expected. Presumably, when this welcome > demographic trend is coupled with "enhanced efficiencies" in energy > production, resource utilization, and materials conservation, and is > further reinforced by efforts toward significantly reduced per capita > consumption levels (particularly in the developed world), it might > allow > for somewhat larger carrying capacities, or optimal population sizes, > than we currently imagine. > > But this sort of optimism is warranted only by corroborative data, that > is, only if the above-mentioned "irreconcilable numbers" show > unmistakable evidence of coming into much closer congruence. And it is > now increasingly apparent that any such optimism should be further > tempered by an honest and full consideration of the problems > surrounding > at least two other rapidly emerging (and converging) "inconvenient > truths", global phenomena whose powerful downstream effects will > undoubtedly become manifest within the next few decades: > > (1) the broad-scale ecological and environmental consequences of > ongoing > "climate change", or increasing "climatic instability" (or more > popularly, anthropogenic "global warming"). Based on the evidence > provided by extensive scientific research and analysis over the past > two > decades, these wide-ranging climatic effects are empirically quite > well-documented, certainly resting on an overwhelming "preponderance of > evidence" as they come ever closer to the level of "beyond all > reasonable doubt". > > (2) the unpredictable consequences - including the potential for > widescale political, economic, and social destabilization - of > passing > the global "production peak" of oil, gas, and coal. For it seems quite > likely that the "post-carbon" world will very soon be engaged in a > massive struggle to adapt to a steady and significant decline in the > supply of cheap and abundant energy derived from fossil fuels (that is, > the aptly named "ancient sunlight", or "one-time bonanza", that for the > past two centuries has fueled the exuberant growth of modern > industrial/technological civilization). > > More specifically, the evidence from recent "peak energy" research and > analysis increasingly suggests that by the middle of the present > century > humanity could well be faced with a global population of some nine > billion, struggling to maintain - or in several instances still > trying > to acquire - some semblance of modern (first- world) civilization on > but one-fourth to one-third of the oil and gas the world currently > produces, exacerbated still further by a notable deficit of "proven" or > "environmentally benign" energy substitutes (renewable or otherwise) on > anywhere near the scale that would be necessary. > > This of course is in addition to dealing with growing constraints and > pressures due to other important "limiting factors": the > above-mentioned > climatic instability (all too likely enhanced by increasingly heavy > reliance on coal); availability of fresh water; adequate food supplies; > ongoing topsoil degradation; shortages of various minerals and > materials; continuing biodiversity and wilderness losses; enhanced > geopolitical competition over essential resources; and the growing > power > and influence of various "non-state" actors. > > > Acknowledging Our Dilemma > > Clearly, assertions that the Earth might be able to support a > population > of ten to fifteen billion people for an indefinite period of time at a > standard of living superior to the present are not only cruelly > misleading but almost certainly false. Notwithstanding our current > addiction to continued and uninterrupted economic growth, surely the > dominant political mantra of the 20th and early 21st centuries, it is > essential for humanity to recognize that there are, after all, finite > physical, biological and ecological limits to the Earth's long-term > sustainable carrying capacity (that is, the "natural capital" that > supports us). And to recognize further that we are now drawing down on > the principal, as well as the interest, of this precious "capital", as > many of these finite limits have already been reached (and in a number > of instances surpassed). > > Consequently, since at some point in the not-too-distant future the > negative ramifications and ecological damage stemming from the mutually > reinforcing effects of excessive human reproduction and > over-consumption > of resources could well become irreversible, and because there is only > one Earth with which to experiment, it would undoubtedly be better for > our species to err on the side of prudence, exercising wherever > possible > a cautious and careful stewardship. > > Perhaps it is time to suggest that the burden of proof on these > matters, > so long shouldered by so-called "neo-Malthusian pessimists", be > increasingly shifted to the "cornucopian optimists". In other words, > for > those who might be inclined to ignore (or summarily reject) the > hypothesis put forth here, the scientific "burden of proof" should be > quite clear: What is the evidence that the Earth can withstand - > without irreparable damage - another two or more centuries during > which global human numbers and per capita consumption greatly exceed > the > Earth's optimal (sustainable) carrying capacity? > > In any event, having established in this essay a "quantifiable and > falsifiable" frame of reference, it seems obvious that it is now time > to > go one step further, and at the very least begin to make the case that > current rhetoric about "slowing the growth", or even the > "stabilization", of global human numbers is clearly insufficient to the > task that lies before us. Quite simply, both the empirical data and > inexorable logic suggest with increasing clarity that what will be > required for the foreseeable future - the "default position" for the > next two or three centuries - is a very significant reduction in > global human numbers. > > Admittedly, this presents a vexing "temporal disconnect" that may be > difficult (perhaps even impossible) to resolve, particularly in a > manner > that will be perceived as equitable, voluntary, and humane. It seems > all > too likely that the period of time - two centuries or more - that > will be minimally necessary for population stabilization and subsequent > significant reduction, eventually to a desired "global optimum" in the > one to three billion range, is clearly inconsistent with the much more > "restricted" time frame suggested by the rapidly swelling chorus of > those who project significant fossil-energy production declines, and > steadily growing problems associated with global climatic change, > appearing within the next generation or two. I refer here to the > distinct possibility of an environmental "critical threshold", or > quasi-evolutionary "bottleneck", or cascading political, economic, and > social "breakdown", or global "synchronous failure", all emerging over > the next several decades (by mid-century or before), while demographic > momentum remains an active force and global human numbers continue to > increase. > > I am therefore only cautiously optimistic that the human species will > be > able successfully to confront the complex and interrelated problems we > have managed to create for ourselves - what some have begun to > characterize as an ecological, economic, political, sociocultural, and > moral "perfect storm". In fact, when I see how little traction various > mitigating (or ameliorative) efforts have gained over the past thirty > to > forty years, I have become increasingly pessimistic that humanity - > potentially some nine-plus billion of us within our children's and > grandchildren's lifetimes - will be successful in staving off some > very difficult times over the next several generations (throughout the > 21st century and beyond). > > Put bluntly, the synergistic combination of declining "post-peak" > energy > supplies (and other essential resources), a still growing global > population, increasingly apparent finite limits on food production and > the availability of fresh water, unpredictable and likely deleterious > climatic instability, potentially destabilizing challenges from various > (non-state) terrorist organizations, and increasingly massive (and > largely uncontrolled) third-world to first-world patterns of human > migration, is surely a "toxic brew". > > And it certainly doesn't help that this deteriorating state of affairs > - with a few notable exceptions - has been further exacerbated by a > generalized lack of political, economic, social, and moral foresight > and > cooperation on both a national and a global level, not to mention a > recalcitrant human nature all too prone to both individual and > collective denial. Nevertheless, to the extent that humans universally > share a deep-rooted and powerful "investment in immortality" - > however > we might individually or collectively choose to define it - it is > essential that we keep trying to bias the future in a positive > direction. > > > Final Thoughts > > And so, the crucial question ... Is it naive to suggest that the > evidence is now sufficiently convincing that a "critical mass" of > concerned and motivated investigators should quickly begin to put > together a serious, legitimate, and empirically well-documented case > for > what appears to be a rapidly emerging global catastrophe? If so, it > would certainly become much easier - or more "palatable" - for > still > other scientists, as well as environmentalists, politicians, > economists, > moralists, and other concerned citizens of the planet, to speak > forthrightly and with ever greater confidence about humanity's > responsibility to rapidly and resolutely address this burgeoning > existential crisis. Surely it is essential that elected public > officials, civil servants at all levels of government, academics from a > broad range of disciplines, representatives of the news media, > religious > leaders from all the major faith traditions, and spokespersons for > national and international environmental organizations not feel as > though they are committing political, professional, or moral suicide by > bringing these matters to public attention. For time is becoming > increasingly precious, and our "window of opportunity" for effective > remedial action may be quite short, if it has not already passed. > > I very much hope that this all-too-brief essay has helped to clarify an > important and often underappreciated point: that ongoing population > growth has a significant influence on, or connection with, nearly every > other issue that humanity currently faces. I hope it is also obvious > that this influence is both reciprocal and mutually reinforcing, > resulting in numerous and interconnected positive feedback (or > deviation > amplifying) systems and subsystems, many of which are imperfectly > understood. It may thus be entirely appropriate to characterize the > 20th > and early 21st centuries' rapid and continuing population expansion as > the critical factor underlying many, if not most, of our species' > growing political, economic, social, environmental, and moral > difficulties. > > Until demonstrated otherwise, I would therefore argue that unchecked or > "insufficiently restrained" population growth should perhaps be > considered the single most important feature in an admittedly complex > (and synergistic) physical, ecological, biocultural and sociopolitical > landscape. It should by now be unassailable that the limitation of > human > population size, and subsequently confronting the numerous problems > that > will be engendered by its eventual and inevitable contraction, should > occupy a central position within the "modern problematique", and as > such > should be dealt with much more forthrightly, and much more promptly, > than has heretofore been the case. > > More than half a century ago, at the dawn of the nuclear age, Albert > Einstein suggested that we shall require a new manner of thinking, if > humankind is to survive. Even though the aptly named "population > explosion" is neither as instantaneous nor as spectacular as its > nuclear > counterpart, its ultimate consequences may be just as real (and > potentially just as devastating) as the so-called "nuclear winter" > scenarios promulgated in the early 1980s. > > That there will be a large-scale reduction in global human numbers over > the next two or three centuries appears to be inevitable. The primary > issue may well be whether this lengthy and difficult process will be > comparatively benign or unpredictably chaotic. More specifically, is > modern humanity capable of a comprehensive organized effort to > compassionately reduce global human numbers, or will brutal > self-interest prevail - either haphazardly or selectively - > resulting in an unprecedented toll of human lives? Clearly, we must > begin our "new manner of thinking" about this critically important > issue > now, so that Einstein's prescient and very legitimate concerns about > human (and civilizational) survival into the 21st century and beyond > may > be addressed as rapidly, as fully, and as humanely as possible. > > Don't speak to me of shortage. My world is vast > And has more than enough - for no more than enough. > There is a shortage of nothing, save will and wisdom; > But there is a longage of people. > -- Garrett Hardin (1975) > > _____ > > Ken Smail (PhD Yale, 1976) is Professor of Anthropology (Emeritus) at > Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio 43022 (smail at kenyon.edu). > > http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php? > option=com_content&task=view&id=168&Itemid=1 > > > TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click > on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this > essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From fentona at shaw.ca Sat Jun 7 17:17:29 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:17:29 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Nairn: Burma, Food Crisis, Wall Street, and the World Economy Message-ID: Drawing Your Last Breath Hungry Burma, Food Crisis, Wall Street, and the World Economy June 06, 2008 By Allan Nairn Source: News and Comment http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17853 In parts of Burma before the cyclone hit the heat was so severe that you could walk around on a hazy day and run the risk of sunstroke. On Thingyan the Buddhist holiday in which people dunk each other with water you could get a full-face full-pail drenching and be crisply sundried in minutes. But when the storm water rose on the Irrawaddy Delta drying out became secondary because the sun's rays were largely gone and so was much of the land, housing, and plantings. No one really knows how many people died but the world press has made the point that it would have been far fewer if Burma had a better government. The point could also be made, though, that far fewer still would have died if the world had a better system of producing and allocating its wealth. It's hard to come up with solid figures but it seems safe to estimate that the entire disposable wealth of the Irrawaddy Delta before the storm, that of its' 3.5 million residents, could have been less than that of one table-full of diners at New York's Four Seasons Grill Room. Actually, it's more dramatic than that. Working with figures from Forbes magazine, the IMF, and the UNDP, it's possible to estimate that there are between three hundred and a thousand individuals whose accumulated wealth is so vast that any one of them alone could pay each person in the Irrawaddy Delta for a year, and in the case of the richest, like Warren Buffett, could do it for six decades running and still have billions left. One could get a visualization of this notion and its implications when flying over the Netherlands. Looking down from the Royal Dutch Airline a few weeks after Irrawaddy sank, you could see another delta, a country with much land below sea level, but where long infusions of wealth -- much of it extracted from Southeast Asia by whip (see the histories of the Dutch East and West Indies Companies) -- have made possible the building, behind strong dikes, by the sea, of nice, glassy homes and offices. A cyclone Nargis would have killed anywhere -- viz. the recent storms in the US midwest -- but whether you survive a storm depends in important part on whether you and your ancestors were rich or poor and were able to build good infrastructure (even in the US, see New Orleans). So the rich world is right to flagellate the Burmese generals for holding back resources as people die (a BBC World TV interviewer yesterday called it "criminal neglect") but wrong to fail to note that they do the same thing daily, on a global, far more deadly, scale. The rich do pass out some of their spare wealth during a cyclone or other covered crisis, but on a daily basis withhold enough of it such that 850 million people routinely go hungry. The recent food price hike has upped that statistic by perhaps a hundred million, and so it is said that we are in a "food crisis" and that "the era of cheap food is over." The world would indeed be in a food crisis if there were not enough food to feed the people. But that is not the case. The problem is that many millions of people can't afford food. That, clearly, is not a food crisis, but rather a wealth crisis, more precisely a wealth distribution crisis that can be solved by shifts from rich to poor, and a crisis that can be kept from recurring if laws and economies are then modified to institutionalize a new, more realistic, system that doesn't happen to starve people -- an objective which, one would think, is a fairly modest, and perhaps popular, goal. Today in Rome there is a world summit on food and there has been a political stir over an attempt to exclude Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's liberator and despot. The point is made correctly that Mugabe runs a failed economic system that kills many people who could have been saved if he had made different choices. But the same could also be said of a number of others at the summit -- those who run the world economy -- which is certainly failed from the point of view of those who draw their last breath hungry. UN people from FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and other agencies have also caused a flutter by talking about $50 billion, over many years, for various food projects, which is a tenfold increase but still less than the personal holdings of Buffett, Bill Gates, and Carlos Slim, who got quite rich essentially overnight when Mexico gave him its cell phone system. It's also what the US goes though in about five months of occupying Iraq, where child malnutrition has risen in rough correlation with precision bomb drops and Iraqi democracy. If someone's dying and you have a dollar that could save them and you withhold it, you have killed them. It's so extreme it sounds ridiculous, but it happens to be true, and will continue to be true so long as surplus coexists with bodies living on the cliff of death, or, for the luckier young ones, the cliff of mere body stunting and underdevelopment of their brains. The big story before the food crisis was the US Wall Street financial crisis. For some weeks sober economists were fearing 1929-style panic. But Ben Bernanke, the US Federal Reserve chairman, stepped in to save the day by essentially imagining into existence several hundreds of billions of dollars worth of money that was effectively made available to some of the world's richest institutions and people. The coverage focused on the fact that Bernanke did this cleverly, and succeeded, but it could also have noted that this is a remarkable aspect of today's economy: while most people have to work for their money incrementally, bending in mud to plant their rice, a few can imagine it into existence in large blocks, and give it to their friends and colleagues. By printing money, issuing bonds, making loans, creating new financial instruments, and by other means, these few create notions that have the power to buy goats, or anything else one wants, and can continue doing so indefinitely so long as rich society buys the pretense. Which is to say that though, say, getting food to people, requires rearranging some physical things, most of the task involves rearranging the notions that govern actions from people's heads. It's simply a choice as to whether the power to conjure funds will be used for hungry people, and not just the juridical, imaginary persons that are investment corporations (US judicial precedent gives corporations the legal rights of persons, but like persons become ghosts it's impossible to jail them if they transgress). And it is likewise simply a choice whether or not to save expiring people by allowing resources to be shifted from an aid ship off Burma's shore, or from the guys having drinks and lunch at the Four Seasons, table four. From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Jun 7 18:59:21 2008 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (Richard Menec) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:59:21 -0500 Subject: [R-G] What Would a Liveable City Look Like? Message-ID: <000901c8c902$e3152330$0200a8c0@agingCHS072729> http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=449#more-449 Climate and Capitalism June 1, 2008 What Would a Liveable City Look Like? Today's cities are built and operated to serve the needs of the rich and powerful rather than those of the working people By Dave Holmes (From Green Left Weekly, 30 May 2008) When one sees a modern city from the air, especially at night, it is a truly awe-inspiring spectacle. The immensity of the project is a testimony to the power and creativity of human beings. However, on the ground and actually living and working in this wonder, things are quite different: the social and ecological problems crowd in and fill your view. The truth is that our cities have always been dominated by the rich and powerful, and built and operated to serve their needs rather than those of the mass of working people who live and toil in them. Today the destructive effect on the quality of urban life of the capitalist pursuit of profits before anything else is growing alarmingly: -Modern capitalist cities are absolutely dominated by cars and trucks. This leads to massive, life-threatening pollution and a vast network of roads and car parks that scar the urban landscape. People live on islands surrounded by seas of asphalt and concrete - 40% or more of the city surface is asphalt and concrete. The city creates its own, warmer climate. -Motor vehicles also directly kill and maim large numbers of people each year; still greater numbers die from the pollution. Vehicle emissions are also a major contributor to greenhouse gases and climate change that threatens humanity with utter catastrophe. -Public transport systems are weak and take second place to the motor car. Similarly, the great bulk of freight is carried by trucks not rail. -Developers, aided by governments, have created the appalling urban sprawl with all its ecological and social consequences (erosion of farmland, huge distances between home and work, etc.). The word "developers" is an appalling euphemism - capitalist sharks would be a more accurate description. -And now, in the name of urban consolidation, these same developers are being encouraged to build their often crappy-blocks of units anywhere and everywhere. -Then look at what the developers actually construct. Modern houses and buildings are generally not only hard to maintain but ecologically wasteful and often extremely unhealthy (emissions from building materials, plastics and cleaning agents). They could be designed differently - we could easily have ecologically sensible houses instead of the current extremely wasteful "McMansions" favoured by the building industry. -In the cities, public land - modest though it is - is constantly being alienated by greedy devoured in league with councils and city and state governments. -Not only are house prices soaring beyond the reach of most workers, but homelessness is growing sharply (estimated to be over 100,000 nationally) as governments refuse to build public housing and rely on the market to solve everything (preferring to give subsidies to people to rent from private landlords). -Shopping centres (malls and supermarkets) dominate much of city life. They kill most of the neighbourhood shops and force people to rely on cars to do their shopping. But these juggernauts are purely the result of the capitalist thirst for profit - they appear before us as facts of life; people never get to discuss what is really needed. Moreover, the ubiquitous shopping mall represents a serious privatization of social space - we all have to use them and they thus fulfil a social function but access and control is wholly in the hands of the private owners. -As the supermarkets and malls kill off many of the neighbourhood shops, their place is taken by chain outlets (7-11, Coles Express, petrol station shops) all offering emergency supplies at much higher prices. -Within the city we have the monstrous swelling of the city centre (full of truly ugly buildings all jostling for position) and the bleak wasteland of the sprawling suburbs. -In the 1960s, "decentralization" was a buzzword. Governments encouraged a modest movement of services and industry to regional centres. But today country towns and villages are dying as governments cut services and jobs and banks close branches. This has a multiplier effect. People move to the city (or at least to the big regional centres) and the rural crisis intensifies. -There is a movement back to some regional centres but - under the wonderful capitalist system we have - it becomes a ghastly caricature of what is really needed. The rich and middle classes build holiday homes in coastal towns, forcing up prices and making life impossible for ordinary working-class pensioners and renters who have to move elsewhere. Peak oil and climate change On top of the all this, as the concept of peak oil and the eventual end of this finite resource laid down over millions of years gains currency, the fragility of the modern city is suddenly laid bare. The movie The End of Suburbia demonstrates very well how the American suburbs have been built on the automobile. If the motor vehicle as we know it goes - i.e., can no longer serve as mode of mass transport - then the urban sprawl becomes even more untenable and an alternative way of living becomes desperately urgent. Similarly, climate change has put a big question mark over the modern city. Effecting a drastic and rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a life-and-death question. In Australia, perhaps the most dramatic manifestation of climate change for the cities is the question mark over water supplies. Achieving water security and sustainability is a burning issue. To date, the main response of state and federal governments has been to go for big-budget projects (in Victoria, a desalination plant and a diversion pipeline to take scarce water from the equally drought-affected Murray-Goulburn irrigation area in the north). Arguably, such responses do not address the real problem and will actually make it worse. For instance, Victoria's projected desalination plant will be a major emitter of greenhouse gases. All in all, climate change calls into question many aspects of our current urban existence. -The motor vehicle culture that big business has foisted on us is no longer viable (if it ever was). If declining fuel supplies and ever-more-expensive petrol costs don't kill it off, surely climate change will. Public transport systems will have to be developed to replace it. -The urban sprawl especially characteristic of Australian capital cities - which compels people to travel vast distances to get to work - will have to give way to some form of consolidation. The growth of the city centre and the bleakness of much of the suburbs needs to be overcome. A much better spread of jobs would mean that people didn't have to travel vast distances to work. -Over time the fetish of the quarter-acre block - the equivalent of every family owning its own car - would start to ease and eventually disappear as people realized that denser living with radically improved public amenities (parks, transport, services) had a lot to offer (as it does in some European cities). -As currently constructed, our houses and buildings embody huge amounts of water and energy and considerable greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, their actual operation is characterized by a high and unsustainable energy and water consumption. -Climate change will put our food supply under extreme pressure. What foods we eat, how they are transported and distributed will become important questions. As well as finding ways to guarantee our food security, reducing the water and energy consumed in the whole process will be vitally important. -We need a much more uniform distribution of the population over the countryside. At the very least, the cities must get smaller and the country towns grow. But, unlike what is happening today, this needs to be done in such a way that jobs and services move out also, transport access is maintained and actual living communities are created. In time, the traditional isolation of the countryside would disappear along with the swollen capital city with its bloated centre. In this regard socialists reject the current developer-driven model whereby green field housing estates gobble up precious farmland and create McMansion-style ghettos on the fringes of the city, isolated and with few amenities, a trap for the less mobile and a terrific burden for those who have to travel vast distances to work. We can surely work out something much better. Abandon affluence? As an aside, Ted Trainer, in his 1985 book Abandon Affluence, had a lot to say on the modern city. But his non-Marxist, radical green framework marred a lot of the useful points he made. He saw "over-consumption" by the West as the source of the global ecological crisis. In his book he bases everything on reducing consumption. Marxists, of course, see the fundamental problem not as "over-consumption" but the capitalist drive for profits ahead of all else; achieving a relative material abundance is essential if humanity is to leave class conflict behind and achieve full communism. With modern technology, it would be quite possible to achieve relative material abundance and - by improving production processes and eliminating the wastefulness of capitalist production and society - at the same time actually reduce our ecological footprint massively. One can say generally that the West consumes too many resources but this obscures the reality that these are class-divided societies and a large proportion of the population doesn't consume very much at all. For example, in the United States there is a huge internal Third World which radically under-consumes the necessities of life. They are not responsible for the reckless extravagance of the US - that should be sheeted home squarely to the ruling capitalist plutocracy. While we oppose the wasteful use of resources and while we too are opposed to capitalist consumerism, posing the problem in terms of reducing consumption as such is wrong and would be political suicide for the socialist movement. For instance, supermarkets, for all their capitalistic form, are actually a tremendous labour- and time-saving convenience. The liberation of women and the whole working class has many aspects; a key one is reducing drudgery to the minimum. We want to go forwards from capitalism, not backwards. Trainer's city of the future has a very definite reactionary, feudal, labour-intensive feel to it, but even allowing for this rather basic weakness, he does paint a thought-provoking picture of the new city, with the old freeways and roads dug up, with vegetable gardens where the factories once stood, etc. Monstrous beast in the room Making our cities livable and grappling with peak oil, climate change and sustainability are really one and the same thing. Ideally, we would have a big discussion, develop a rational plan and then organize ourselves to implement it. If we were, say, a small community living in ancient times before the development of class society, that is exactly what we would have done. But today, the problem is not that the population has grown but that the economy on which we all depend - the productive apparatus and everything associated with it - is not owned collectively by society, but by a tiny handful of capitalists. Working people's labour operates the means of production - in that sense it is social - but only a few per cent of the population privately own it. This is the monstrous, slaving beast in the room. At every turn of the wheel it has to fed. Its ravenous appetite must be satisfied ahead of any human need. What it wants - profits - is not what the rest of us want: meaningful action on climate change and other social problems. For example, in Victoria right now, the big-business-oriented Brumby ALP government is moving at high speed in the opposite direction to what is needed to confront peak oil and climate change: -Rather than a massive program of fitting all dwellings with water tanks and recycling systems, imposing conservation targets on industry and agribusiness, and establishing the infrastructure for large-scale storm water capture, it has signed off on the desalination plant and the northern pipeline - bonanzas for big business but a disaster for the rest of us. Water bills for ordinary households are projected to double within five years. -Rather than a program to phase out our disastrous dependence on brown coal and make the switch to renewable energy, the state government is intent on pursuing the mirage of "clean coal" technology. Power prices are also set to double for ordinary users over the next few years. -It refuses to put the necessary resources into public transport, which exists in absolutely infuriating and permanent crisis; instead its program is roads and still more roads. Now it is inching towards a truly insane monster road tunnel under Melbourne's general cemetery. Not even the dead are to be left to rest in peace! -It is going ahead with a radical dredging of Melbourne's Port Phillip Bay that threatens to lead to the flooding of low-lying suburbs at high tide. And all this is so that bigger ships - laden with yet more consumerist crap - can transit the bay. -It has given the go-ahead to GM canola. Brumby's utterly ludicrous comment was that this was giving the consumer "choice"! The consumers don't want this sort of fake "choice" - they want safe foods. GM was given the green light to give a profit bonanza to Monsanto and a few big exporters; the rest of us will pay the price (an increase in allergies and who knows what other long-term health damage). Public ownership and planning In order to grapple with the crisis of climate change we need a total mobilization of society and a drastic, rapid reorientation of our entire economy. But to imagine that anything can compel a horde of profit-crazed corporations to be "responsible" is utterly fanciful. The commanding heights of the economy must be in public hands. -Socialists call for the nationalization of the entire energy sector. This vital infrastructure must belong to the community - whether it is in federal, state or municipal hands. The charter of this sector must be to phase out the fossil fuel power plants and make the "big switch" to renewable energy as quickly as possible. -The public transport and freight systems must also be in public hands. The aim must be to achieve a rapid, substantial reduction in the use of motor vehicles. The roads should be kept safe; apart from that, massive investments must be poured into rail, trams and feeder bus systems. -The automobile industry should likewise be nationalized. The car plants should be retooled to produce public transport stock and renewable power equipment. -As the crisis of climate change bites deeper, food security will become a big issue for society. We can't leave the bulk of the distribution system in the hands of profit-gouging supermarket chains like Coles and Woolworths, that exploit small suppliers and consumers alike. They too should be brought under public ownership. -The banks, which underpin the capitalist economy, should be nationalized and a single state bank created. This would guarantee bank workers' jobs, provide services and generate funds for the reconstruction of the economy. Economic planning based on public ownership of the means of production has tremendous power. Here is just one example. In 1967 Isaac Deutscher, the renowned biographer of Trotsky, published The Unfinished Revolution, his well-known study of the Soviet Union. He pointed out that if you allowed for all the years the USSR took to simply get back to pre-war levels of production (following World War I and the Civil War and then World War II), then in the equivalent of a mere 25 peaceful years - from a very low base - it had created the second most powerful industrial economy in the world. Put aside Stalinist bureaucratism and repression, the deliberate neglect of consumer needs in favour of heavy industry, and the damage to the environment - this example nevertheless shows the enormous power of collective labour, once it is freed from the shackles of capitalism and allocated according to a conscious plan. Of course, the capitalist class has immense power and wealth and will not give it up without a tremendous struggle. Only the growth of a vast popular movement, solidly based on the great working-class majority, can succeed. The development of a movement to fight for meaningful action on climate change will at the same time prepare the political conditions for a workers' government which will finally bring the economy under collective ownership and control. This - and only this - will enable us to begin to construct a society based on the fulfilment of human needs and living sustainably in harmony with nature. [Dave Holmes is a member of the Democratic Socialist Perspective, a Marxist tendency within the Socialist Alliance in Australia. This article is based on a talk presented at the Climate Change - Social Change Conference in Sydney in April, 2008. The conference was organized by Green Left Weekly.] ============== Fresh Ink is an alternative news service and sister project of Booksinternationale.com. Join us! https://booksinternationale.info/mailman/listinfo/freshink ============== From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sat Jun 7 20:25:07 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:25:07 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] A Strategy to Roll Back Sprawl and Rebuild Civilization Message-ID: <484B4303.2070402@attglobal.net> by Richard Register Culture Change (Issue 16) Introduction Everyone reading this magazine knows the automobile / sprawl / highways / oil infrastructure is dragging us way, way down. And it's somewhat fashionable now to skewer sprawl on its zillion disasters, which is fine, but let's try to do it right. Let's don't just slow it down a bit. Let's roll it back. Let's get some of those bulldozers working for us because we need big time depaving, whole suburbs at a time, the whole "civilization". To be realistic, it would be a few generations of time. To those advocating more efficient cars, improved suburbs, and slow painful progress toward greenbelt acquisition, a little here, a little there, let it be said that you can't cross the chasm in baby steps. The gradualists and baby steppers are helpful in some ways, but when we have to completely rebuild the infrastructure on ecological principles, it pays to know what we are up to, to spend the time getting ready for a different approach - then make the big effort and jump that chasm. I maintain that the particular jump we need to make is from the haphazardly built community oblivious to ecology. It amounts to reshaping the city, town and village for pedestrians, not cars, not even transit. San Francisco has a transportation policy called "transit first". We need a whole new (and ancient at the same time) approach that could be called "pedestrian first". To get that, we need to design for it in the first place. We've been building essentially the wrong thing for the last 150 years. We've been building the civilization for machines (and those who profit by them) rather than the civilization for people and all other living things. The built community, our home, is overlooked in the debacle of our biosphere. Our physical creations fail to help make us creative and wise after all we have learned. Our home is in a shambles, dis-integrated, blown out over the landscape to vast distances, stitched back together grotesquely by smoldering, ravenous varicose veins of asphalt and concrete called freeways. Our home is suffocating the surface of the earth with paving, lawns and endless rooftops, displacing more natural habitats and agricultural lands by millions of acres every year. To live in this land-use/infrastructure, this physical anatomy of the built community, is to constantly be taught to keep on making profoundly destructive mistakes. The way out is, very largely, the vision of the ecologically healthy city, town and village and the strategy to get there - the jump across the chasm. The sprawl-eating dragon Imagine for a moment there could be a beautiful dragon sitting in our midst, harmless to us, in fact quite friendly, but horrifying to asphalt parking lots, gas stations and ticky-tacky sprawl. Our ravenous reptilian friend gobbles up little pieces of sprawl one or a few at a time, leaving behind ever growing patches of nature and agriculture, which over time multiply, consolidate and turn into natural landscapes with spectacular biodiversity and rich soils for farming. Where vast sprawling cities had parks under whiskey colored skies, now cities, towns and villages are islands of much smaller size surrounded by a richness of species and agriculture known only to a deep past and the best of organic farming, all under the bright blue with clean white clouds that used to be normal in most parts of the world. The dragon is the city, town and village center of the future, a kind of compact cluster of buildings linked by pedestrian streets and bridges between buildings, permeated by mid-block pedestrian passage ways, arranged around public plazas, sun angles and natural features like creeks, dramatic rock outcroppings, monumental trees and celebrated local views. The dragon gets somewhat bigger (taller buildings, relatively speaking) while sprawl gets radically smaller. The dragon is interesting because it grows by nibbling away at the once-spreading rot, not by sitting in a natural field and eating that up. If the friendly big dragon is the town center sucking up the suburbs steadily over decades, how does it do it? What's the trick? It turns out there are many tricks and these are the tools of rolling back sprawl. Here are some of those tools, just for you, because if you are reading this publication you are already among the few with the curiosity and probably the commitment to apply them. The "Double Transfer of Development Rights" or "Double TDR" Transfer of development rights (or TDR) is a legal/financial arrangement in which the rights to build on a piece of land are sold to a developer. These rights are then transferred to another place where building makes more sense. For example, a farmer might sell the rights to build on the farm to a developer who then builds housing in a neighboring town rather than build suburban sprawl on the farm. The farmer and those who might buy or inherit the farm in the future will never have the right to build more than exists there already. Thus the preserving of open space is assured. The developer is allowed to build more than he or she would otherwise be permitted to build, and if the ordinances by which this arrangement was established were informed by ecological awareness, then that location would be part of a highly mixed use part of town and close to efficient transit. The "Double" TDR does one more thing: it restores. It does this by removing buildings and re-creating the open space of nature or agriculture. It does this by "de-developing" at the same time it transfers development elsewhere. It "unfills" at the same time it "infills". Ordinances encouraging this kind of real estate transaction must be written so that the developer has a strong incentive and the citizens have better access to housing, jobs, shops, transit, cultural life and nature and agriculture. If Double TDR programs become popular, a very powerful tool for reversing sprawl and building a healthy community will have been created. The Ecocity Zoning Map This is a map that identifies the centers of town that should be increased in density and diversity of "land uses" and identifies the areas farthest from those centers that should be a high priority for withdrawing from automobile dependent development. Special features of high ecological importance are also located on these maps, such as buried or degraded creeks, shorelines and marshes, ridgelines, natural rock outcroppings, historic trees and so on. The ecocity zoning map directs the shaping of the city and the restoring of nature - with special benefit to educating children about nature and healthy communities. It is a new game board that is fair to all players. Environmentalists and business people can both study the map and see that it is supportive of both nature and development - so long as the right development is placed in the right location. The Double TDR Bank Any non-profit or any municipality can create a fund to buy land and sell development rights so that they can be shifted to other parts of town. City ordinance must define the process and identify where the rights can be sent from ("sending sites") and where they can be exercised ("receiving sites'), that is, where more can be built. Double TDR Banks can do this after the municipality has passed such ordinances or even before, to demonstrate that there is resolve and support for the reshaping of the city in this way among the citizens. If funds are gathered from donations from individuals, foundations, businesses, governments or any combination of those, the original nest egg turns into land and buildings at the time of purchase. The building or buildings are then removed and nature, agriculture or other open space restored. Then at the time the developer buys the development rights for use elsewhere, the fund is recapitalized and the land maintained or deeded over to the City, a land trust, community group or other steward. The Double TDR Bank is thus again in the position of buying more real estate for further transformation of the urban structure and further restoration. Should-be Open Space Acquisition Fund City, state and federal governments can set up funds to purchase open space for parks, gardens, sports fields, creek and shoreline restoration and so on. They should also help buy real estate where buildings are in the wrong place in regard to automobile dependence, floods, agriculture, efficient urban structure and so on. These funds could be called "Should-be Open Space Acquisition Funds" since the land is not open at the time the fund is exercised to purchase the land with its existing development, which could include buildings, driveways, walls and culverts and other "improvements". Since replacing economically productive real estate with open space provides no new means to raise rent or sell new development, considerable money has to be provided up front. It's expensive. Thus if the costs of acquiring the development rights are unrealistically high for the developer, they do not have to be if a partnership between governments and developer is created, that is, if they all contribute to the purchase of the property. Later on the federal government will save money by not having to build as much highway development, city government will make more money in taxes from the increased development built by the developer who buys the transferable development rights, and the developer makes more money by being able to build more. The car-free condominium or apartment City ordinances almost always demand that developers provide parking whenever they construct buildings. This is expensive and stuffs the streets with cars, their hazard, pollution, and other tragedies. Yet there are millions of people who are happy to save money and who even relish living in an exciting and pleasant city without owning a car. Buildings should be built for them; they stress the society and the planet far less than car owners. We should help them live the beneficial way they desire to live. Ecological Building Features These features could be demanded of developers who are allowed to build to higher densities in city and town centers. They include terracing, rooftop gardens, solar greenhouses, simple windscreens to make rooftop uses pleasant, rooftop restaurants and promenades, bridges between buildings, mid-block street-level pedestrian passageways, design that relates to adjacent public plazas, creek restoration, pedestrian streets, street orchards and more. Heart of the City Projects These are projects that create buildings and open spaces that embody the inter relation of all the essential components of an ecologically healthy built and natural environment in one location. For example, a Heart of the City Project could create a public plaza, pedestrian street, housing with ecological features, new shops and office space and transit all together in one location with nature welcomed into the environment in the form of a restored creek or special view to nature from the town center. A proper Heart of the City Project would have to be in the center of the city, but there could be smaller Heart of the Neighborhood Projects incorporating an element of nature too. A Roll Back Sprawl Campaign These projects are all new tools for ecological city-building. Their recent appearance is good timing because at this very moment, as Vice President Al Gore declares sprawl a disaster and offers funding for open space land acquisition and other steps to fight sprawl, society seems to be catching on at long last, after so much of the damage has been done. But maybe not catching on enough to make that leap over the chasm. Taken collectively, the tools described above almost constitute the beginning of a strategy to roll back sprawl. I say almost because we may find that to activate the tools faster than society is building cars, low density housing, highways and oil we may need a concerted strategy. Presently the many environmental and preservation organizations with anti-sprawl programs are not employing the sprawl-removing tools. They don't have the vision of the friendly big dragon that is the ecological city, town and village center, that's gobbling up the suburbs while building an architecture and arrangement of buildings and open spaces that celebrate life systems. They are cautiously avoiding the frontal attack on cars and highways, weaving an inconsistent and confusing if hopefully "politic" picture that demonizes sprawl yet says we can make better cars. But if we finally say the whole car / sprawl / highway / cheap energy infrastructure needs to be replaced with the person / compact and diverse land use / foot, bike and rail system for access / with natural energy systems, and if we apply tools like the above to the problem, we can finally bring humanity's home into balance with the home nature has provided for all us living creatures. We can roll back sprawl and begin to build right in the first place. For more information contact Richard Register at Ecocity Builders: http://www.citizen-planners.org/ecocitybuilders Culture Change mailing address: Post Office Box 4347, Arcata, California 95518 USA Telephone (and fax) 1-215-243-3144 Web: http://www.culturechange.org E-Mail: info at culturechange.org Culture Change was founded by Sustainable Energy Institute (formerly Fossil Fuels Policy Action), a nonprofit organization. http://www.culturechange.org/issue16/roll%20back%20sprawl.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Sat Jun 7 21:57:13 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 20:57:13 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Meet the King of Beers: John McCain and Latin America Message-ID: Weekend Edition June 7 / 8, 2008 http://counterpunch.com/kozloff06072008.html Meet the King of Beers John McCain and Latin America By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF As the presidential campaign heats up the media has failed to analyze John McCain?s ties to corporate America and in particular to the beer industry. Anheuser-Busch, the nation?s largest beer producer, has proven highly instrumental in McCain?s rise on the political stage. McCain?s wife Cindy was the daughter of a multimillionaire Anheuser- Busch distributor and her beer earnings have afforded the Arizona Senator a wealthy lifestyle including a private jet and vacation homes. In the early years of McCain?s Washington career, Anheuser- Busch's political action committee was among the Senator?s donors. Though McCain's fundraising base is now far broader than his family bank accounts and Anheuser-Busch, executives from the company have been important and longtime supporters. Though Anheuser Busch is most known for its domestic beers such as Budweiser (which some ridiculously refer to as the ?King of Beers?), the company has also become something of an international player. For example, Anheuser-Busch has a stake in Mexico?s largest brewer, Grupo Modelo, which makes Corona, Negra Modelo, and Pac?fico. Since the mid-1980s, the company has had particular success in the United States with Corona, a light-tasting beer -- often served with a wedge of fresh lime -- that became popular with many young adults. For Modelo, a strong incentive for entering the deal with Anheuser- Busch was the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA: under the accord, U.S. import duties on Mexican beer were eliminated. As a Senator, McCain has been a big booster of economic globalization which has made consolidation of the beer industry possible. The Republican presidential hopeful supports NAFTA and has in fact assailed Barack Obama for his criticism of free trade. According to labor unions, NAFTA has cost the U.S. at least one million jobs, a fact of little apparent concern to the Arizona Senator. Though the agreement has led to a social and ecological disaster in Mexico, McCain does not support special provisions which would protect workers and the environment. In recognition of his efforts, the right wing Cato Institute gave McCain a 100% ranking when it came to promoting the free trade agenda. McCain, IRI and Anheuser-Busch On Capitol Hill, McCain has long opposed Third World governments which seek to contest corporate supremacy and free trade. Since 1993, McCain has chaired an outfit called the International Republican Institute (IRI). The group, funded by U.S. taxpayers and private money, bills itself as non-partisan and claims to promote democracy world-wide. On the surface at least, IRI seems to have a rather innocuous agenda including party building, media training, the organization of leadership trainings, dissemination of newsletters, and strengthening of civil society. In reality however the IRI serves as an instrument to advance and promote the most far right Republican foreign policy agenda. More a cloak-and-dagger operation than a conventional research group, IRI has aligned itself with some of the most antidemocratic factions in the Third World. In Haiti, IRI helped to fund, equip, and lobby for the country?s two heavily conservative and White House-backed opposition parties, the Democratic Convergence and Group 184. The latter group, comprised of many of the island's major business, church and professional figures, was at the vanguard of opposition to Jean Bertrand Aristide prior to the Haitian President's forced ouster in 2004. In Venezuela, IRI generously funded civil society groups that were militantly opposed to the Ch?vez regime. Significantly, Anheuser-Busch has donated tens of thousands of dollars to IRI. On a certain level the brewing company?s financial support is not very surprising. If it can avoid it, the company would undoubtedly like to turn back the tide of so-called Pink Tide regimes which have come to power in recent years. As I explain in my current book Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave- Macmillan 2008), nationalistic governments from Venezuela to Brazil to Argentina have opposed the creation of President Bush?s corporately- driven Free Trade Area of the Americas. McCain, Anheuser Busch and CAFTA Hoping to outflank hostile left wing regimes in the region, the Bush White House has been busy over the past few years hammering out free trade agreements with more conservative governments. In 2005, the U.S. Congress passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement or CAFTA, which cuts tariffs among the United States, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Having reaped maximum gain from NAFTA, Anheuser-Busch is likely to benefit from an expansion of corporate-driven free trade in Central America. In Honduras, Anheuser-Busch introduced Budweiser in 2006. The following year, Heineken announced that it had reached an agreement with Anheuser-Busch to produce and market Budweiser in Panama. The production and bottling of Budweiser in the tiny Central American nation is a major achievement for the company, as it provides a starting point for expanding the brand to other markets in the region. What?s more, under CAFTA U.S. beers will be able to enter Central America duty free by 2015. The beer industry hopes that CAFTA will spur increased per capita consumption, particularly in countries like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, thus leading to greater profits. McCain has been an important backer of CAFTA and voted for the agreement in the Senate despite the fact that the deal, modeled after NAFTA, does not contain adequate environmental or labor protections. Not only does McCain support CAFTA but he also wants to expand free trade to other governments throughout the region. Despite Colombia's status as a human rights and labor nightmare, the Senator backs a pending trade deal with the Andean nation. McCain?s lobbying on behalf of the Colombia deal stands to benefit his political benefactor Anheuser-Busch: in February, 2006 the company introduced Budweiser in the Andean nation. Touting the virtues of mediocre Budweiser, Esteban Amoia, a regional marketing manager for Anheuser-Busch International, remarked that ?Budweiser has exceeded expectations in Colombia?and there is a growing demand for the brand's clean, crisp and refreshing taste." Encouraged by Budweiser?s success in Colombia, Anheuser-Busch is now marketing Bud Light. Amoia added that the beer could ?become the brand of choice for young, fun-loving men and women who are on the move." From his earliest days as a politician, McCain has eagerly enmeshed himself in an insidious political web with Anheuser-Busch. If it weren?t for Cindy McCain and her beer money, the Arizona Senator might not have achieved great political power in the Senate. In exchange for Anheuser-Busch?s support, McCain looks out for the beer company?s long-term interests abroad. Truly, it might be said that the Arizona Senator is the ?King of Beers? in Latin America. Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan) From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Jun 8 07:46:52 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:46:52 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Peak Oil Crisis: Speculation, Subsidies & Megacities Message-ID: <484BE2CC.2040309@attglobal.net> by Tom Whipple Falls Church News-Press (May 29 2008) The energy issue of the week is whether high gasoline prices are being caused by supply no longer being able to keep with demand or by speculators garnering untoward riches at the expense of hardworking motorists. The facts, economic theory, and the most knowledgeable observers such as the US Secretary of Energy are telling us that the problem is one of supply and demand. Speculators, however, make an irresistible scapegoat that few politicians can ignore. They are nameless, faceless (probably foreign) individuals that can be bashed with impunity without the slightest hint of political incorrectness. Blaming speculators is now worldwide. OPEC officials routinely mention the role played by speculators as the chief cause of high oil prices. German leaders have proposed a worldwide ban on oil trading by speculators. The transport chief for Germany's Social Democrats said his party will call on the G8 powers to prohibit leveraged trading on energy contracts, claiming that 25 percent of the current crude price is caused by speculators. The Germans, however, can't compare to the US oil executive who told Congress last week that the real price of oil might be as low as $30 a barrel without the speculators. If he is right, gasoline could fall back to eighty cents a gallon, SUV sales would flourish, and all would be well. Placing limits on speculators, probably by mandating that leverage on futures contracts be reduced or eliminated, seems like a good idea to many in Congress. Since Congress cannot realistically expect to summon up more oil production in the short run, nor order the Chinese to stop growing their economy, cracking down on speculators seems like a sure vote-getter in this fall's elections. Sensible or not, restrictions on speculating combined with drilling in Alaska looks like a good bet. Of more importance, however, are the reductions in government mandated price caps that have happened or are under consideration around the world. To appreciate how serious this issue may become, it is necessary to remember that since the beginning of the oil age a hundred years or so ago, the world's population has increased from about 1.5 billion to 6.7 billion. The CIA estimates that about forty percent of the earth's population is busy growing food which leaves about four billion of us who aren't. Now a lot of the four billion, who depend on somebody else growing food for them, live in reasonably advanced countries that can probably figure out how to keep its people fed without lots of cheap oil. Unfortunately a lot don't and that is where the problem begins. As the world's population grew, more and more people found themselves gravitating to cities which grew to megacities (population of more than ten million) and many will soon reach hypercity (population over twenty million) status. Unfortunately, most of our mega- and hypercities are not in the more well-off countries. Jakarta, Dhaka, Karachi, Bombay and Lagos are all in contention to become hypercities shortly. Once you move or are born into one of these places, you are no longer in a position to raise much of your own food or gather your own cooking fuel. Whether you realize it or not, you have become dependent on cheap oil to raise and bring to you much of the food you eat, and petroleum-derived fuel, usually kerosene or propane, to cook it. Many in the underdeveloped world's megacities live right on the edge. For them, food and fuel prices are a life and death issue. Governments have long been aware of the affordability problem and have mandated various forms of subsidies or price caps for fuel. This practice is especially prevalent in Asia and oil in exporting countries which consider low fuel prices as a birthright. Venezuela is still the champion with gasoline retailing at around twelve cents a gallon. In many cases, national oil companies were simply given a set retail price and were told to swallow any losses. Given that many of the most populous countries such as China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh all had subsidies, many of he world's consumers have been shielded from the six fold increases in petroleum prices in the last five years. Cheap retail fuel prices did nothing to dampen demand and only contributed to the run-up in world prices. In the last few months, however, prices have increased so rapidly that national oil companies and even several large national governments could no longer afford to maintain the subsidies. Last week the subsidizers began to fold. Indonesia increased fuel prices by 29 percent, Sri Lanka did the same and India and Bangladesh are expected to do the same shortly. Only the Chinese, who have world class inflation underway and $1.2 trillion in liquid reserves, are saying they will continue to subsidize fuel costs. While there seems no choice but to raise prices, the consequences are not predictable nor likely to be pleasant. Already enduring rapidly increasing food costs, it is feared that increasing the cost of transportation and cooking will result in government-toppling social unrest. The fuel subsidy situation obviously is not going to get any better. Oil prices will continue to rise. In the advanced countries the solution to increasing oil prices will be to park the cars and planes and start riding on buses and trains, while continuing to outbid the poor countries for the remaining supplies of oil. Those living in the world's new mega- and hypercities are going to have a far tougher time. Oil has built these monstrosities where hundreds of millions will be trapped without direct access to food supplies and cooking fuel. Someday, the historians will note that the collapse of many megacities was among the first real tragedies of peak oil. Copyright (c) 2008 Falls Church News-Press http://www.fcnp.com/national_commentary/the_peak_oil_crisis_speculation_subsidies__megacities_20080529.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Jun 8 18:14:08 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:14:08 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Religion and the Survival of Culture Message-ID: <484C75D0.60101@attglobal.net> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (June 04 2008) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society ? Among the more interesting things I've had occasion to notice, during the time The Archdruid Report has been online, is a common assumption shared by the two popular viewpoints about the future of industrial societythe belief in a future of perpetual progress and the belief in a future of sudden collapse. Despite their disagreements, both viewpoints embrace the claim that there is nothing to be learned from the past; our present situation, both insist, is unlike anything else in history, and therefore history cannot be used as a yardstick to measure the possible shapes of the future ahead of us. It will not come as an unbearable surprise to readers of this blog that I find this claim unconvincing. It's true, of course, that the current predicament of industrial civilization differs in some ways from the equivalent challenges that faced, and overwhelmed, civilizations of the past. It's equally true that historical patterns never repeat themselves precisely. Still, it's worth suggesting that despite the differences, our predicament is analogous to those earlier examples, and the experiences of the past thus may turn out to be useful as we face our own future. One pattern found very commonly in the decline and fall of civilizations, as I pointed out in last week's post, is the transmission of cultural heritage from one civilization to its successors through the medium of a newly established religious movement. The classic example, which has seen a certain amount of discussion in futurist circles since Roberto Vacca's The Coming Dark Age (1973) introduced it to contemporary culture, is the role played by monasteries in Europe in preserving Greek and Roman literature, philosophy, and scientific knowledge through the worst years of the Dark Ages. The same thing has happened often enough elsewhere that Arnold Toynbee made the concept a key theme in the later volumes of his massive A Study of History (1943 - 1961). In Toynbee's view, the fading years of every civilization form a seedbed for new religious movements; one or more of these movements break free of the others as decline continues, to become a major cultural force; as the civilization that nurtured it collapses completely, the new religious movement fills the vacuum, salvaging what remains of the old civilization's heritage, and the concepts central to that religion become the framework on which a new civilization begins to take shape. Toynbee's account of this process, like so much of his historical vision, derives primarily from Roman history, and some of his details do not wear well when applied to other historical examples. In his view, for example, the religions that rise from one civilization to pass on cultural heritage to another are newly minted or recently imported missionary religions with a sense of universal mission, and this is by no means always true. The Jewish and Zoroastrian religions provide persuasive counterexamples. Both were old religions that underwent major retooling after the collapse of their national communities, the Roman depopulation of Israel after 70 CE and the Muslim conquest of Persia in the seventh century respectively. Both abandoned universalizing ambitions to become ethnic religions, holding outsiders at arm's length through a formidable body of custom and taboo. Both nonetheless played a significant role in passing on the cultural heritage of the classical Middle East to rising cultures in Europe and the Arabic world, in the case of the Jews, and India, in the case of the Parsis. Broaden Toynbee's insight to embrace a wider range of religious phenomena, though, and his basic claim - that religion very often serves as the conduit by which the cultural treasures of one civilization reach the waiting hands of the next - is true much more often than not. It's easy enough to see why this should be so. In a time of social disintegration, when institutions collapse and long-accepted values lose their meaning, only the most powerful human motives can ensure that the economically unproductive activities needed to maintain cultural heritage will be carried out in the teeth of the difficulties. Religion is the only cultural force that consistently provides motivation strong enough for the job; the same sense of transcendent value that leads martyrs to sing hymns as they are burnt alive can just as easily inspire scholars and scribes to preserve and transmit knowledge to a future they will never see. Nor was Toynbee wrong to point out that the religions that accomplish this function are rarely identical to the established faiths of the old civilizations. Both Rabbinic Judaism and the Zoroastrian faith of the medieval and modern Parsis differ in significant ways from the forms the same faiths took in the ancient world; the forms of Buddhism that enabled classical Japanese culture to survive the breakup of the Heian period were not the forms that thrived under the patronage of the Nara and Heian courts; even in imperial China, where a cult of cultural continuity persisted for some five thousand years, the end of a dynasty generally meant the rise of a new form of Buddhist or Taoist spirituality. Here again, the reasons behind this changing of the guard are straightforward enough, though certain features of a civilization in decline have to be taken into account. In Toynbee's view, as a civilization moves into its imperial phase, it suffers a schism between the dominant minority, which benefits from the imperial project, and the bulk of the population of the imperial state, which does not. As this schism in the body politic widens, the bulk of the population - the internal proletariat, in Toynbee's terms - becomes alienated from the values of their own culture, which becomes identified with the interests of the dominant elite. Religion is among the things most affected by this sense of alienation, and so one of the classic signs of a society on its way to collapse is a widening religious schism along class lines. America offers an interesting example of this process in motion. As it entered its imperial phase around 1900, a significant minority of Americans began breaking away from the religious consensus of their culture - a consensus that used the forms of mainstream Protestantism but, in the name of the "social gospel", transformed that faith into an anthropolatrous worship of progress. The vehicle for the countering schism was Christian fundamentalism. Twice, however - in the 1920s and then again in the 1980s and 1990s - fundamentalist leaders proved all too eager to cash in their ideals in exchange for crumbs of political power from the tables of the dominant minority; the result in the first case was a near-total implosion of the fundamentalist movement, and a repeat of that process seems increasingly likely today as fundamentalist churches move further away from their once-challenging role as social critics to embrace unthinking partisan loyalties nicely calibrated to support the status quo. The failure of fundamentalism to establish itself as an alternative to the values of the dominant minority left the field open to other new religious movements. Some of those have proven just as willing to sell out as their fundamentalist equivalents; others never did veer far enough from the values of the mainstream to attract a following outside the privileged classes. At the same time, the mainstream Protestant-progressive religiosity of the elite has widened into a consensus shared by most varieties of American Judaism, much of the English-speaking wing of the American Catholic church, and several forms of Americanized Buddhism, not to mention a very large number of people who would insist they follow no religion at all. What is often portrayed as a rising tide of tolerance among these traditions actually marks the widespread embrace of a common ideology of social progress unrelated to the central historic commitments of the faiths in question, but easy to insert into the shell of any religious (or irreligious) tradition once awkward questions about transcendent values are quietly put on the shelf. Thus it's hard to name a religious movement in contemporary America, or for that matter most other parts of the industrial world, that is well placed just now to rise to the occasion as industrial civilization begins the long slow process of its decline and fall. At the same time, it's crucial to remember that we are still in a very early stage of that process. A Roman scholar of 150 CE, say, who tried to guess at the religious forms that would rise to prominence during the empire's decline, would have faced a ferocious challenge in sorting through the contenders; his world was awash in new religious movements, some homegrown and many others from elsewhere in the Mediterranean world; nothing special marked out the destinies of Christianity and Judaism from those of their many competitors, and the religion that arguably played the largest role in passing classical culture to the medieval world, Islam, didn't even exist yet. Thus one of the religious movements that will pick up the remnants of modern culture and pass them on to the future might well, at the present time, consist of a few dozen people gathered around a charismatic teacher in a commune in Kentucky. Another might have been founded fifty years ago in Brazil or Bangladesh, and still awaits the brilliant missionary who will bring it to Europe or America and transform it into a mass movement. A third might still be an inchoate current of ideas that will not find its prophet for another two hundred years. The one thing that can be predicted in advance is that those movements will draw on the religious heritage of contemporary culture, but reshape it in unexpected ways that will inevitably be at odds with the conventional wisdom of our age. Yet new religious movements there will be, and it's far more likely than not that they will attract a growing number of followers as the industrial age stumbles toward its end. It's often said that there are no atheists in foxholes, and there tend to be very few in times of social decay and collapse. In every age in which people believe that their own efforts can bring them the material goals their culture sets before them, it's common for them to stop worrying about the transcendent dimension of life; it's only when those goals become too obviously unreachable that the majority will raise their eyes to other possibilities and, as Augustine of Hippo phrased it, perceive a difference between the City of Man and the City of God. Efforts to turn this religious impulse to foster the survival of today's cultural heritage will succeed or fail, I think, on their willingness to let go of the assumptions of contemporary culture, and to make peace with religious forms that offend modern sensibilities. Thus, for example, there seems to be little hope in the suggestion made now and then that today's scientific thought ought to redefine itself as a religion for this purpose. The raw material of religion certainly exists in modern science, or rather scientism, the belief system that has grown up around the simple but powerful logic of the scientific method; Carl Sagan, who did more than any other recent thinker to cast that belief system in religious terms, is arguably one of the significant theologians of the 20th century. Yet scientism as it exists today, certainly, embodies the attitudes and values of the dominant minority at least as well as any of the more obviously religious forms mentioned above. From its long struggle to seize intellectual authority from religious institutions, too, the culture of contemporary scientism embraces a bitter hostility to more explicitly religious belief systems. This no man's land of the Western mind forms perhaps the single most troublesome barrier to the survival of science in the deindustrial world of the future. The prospects of crossing it, and transmitting the modern world's greatest intellectual adventure to the future, will be the focus of next week's post. _____ ?John Michael Greer has been active in the alternative spirituality movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of a dozen books, including The Druidry Handbook (Weiser, 2006). He lives in Ashland, Oregon. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/06/religion-and-survival-of-culture.html#links TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Jun 8 23:04:33 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:04:33 -0700 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Iraq_War_commander_named_head_of_Canada=92?= =?windows-1252?q?s_military?= Message-ID: Iraq War commander named head of Canada?s military By Keith Jones 9 June 2008 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/cana-j09.shtml Canada?s Conservative government has announced that a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) officer who helped direct the US-British occupation of Iraq for a year, beginning in January 2004, will become the next head of the Canadian Armed Forces. While seconded to the US Army?s Third Corps, Lieutenant-General Walter Natynczyk served first as the Deputy Director of Strategy, Policy and Plans and then as the Deputy Commanding General of the Multinational Corps??the tactical unit responsible for command and control of operations? of the US military and its allies ?throughout Iraq.? According to the Globe and Mail, for much of Natynczyk?s deployment to Iraq, he was the deputy commander of 35,000 US and allied troops; that is, the second in command of a force ?far larger and wielding far more combat power than the entire Canadian army? and one ?waging a fierce counterinsurgency? war. Interviewed by Maclean?s magazine in 2004, Natynczyk faithfully peddled the Bush administration?s justifications for the carnage wrought by US imperialism on the Iraqi people. ?There?s a heck of a lot of people,? asserted Natynczyk, ?who will have a better life and a better future because of what we are doing here today.? Like his predecessor as CAF chief, General Rick Hillier, Natynczyk is a graduate of the US Army War College. Natynczyk?s appointment was not unexpected. He is currently the vice- chief of defence staff, Hillier?s deputy. Nevertheless, Natynczyk?s promotion, which does not follow the standard practice of rotating the top CAF post among the army, navy, and air force, was clearly meant to send a strong message to the Canadian elite, the military, and Washington. The Conservative government is determined to make good on its pledges to expand the CAF to the point where the world?s great powers take notice and to use Canada?s military to aggressively assert ?Canadian interests??that is, the interests of Canada?s capitalist elite?on the world stage. Prime Minster Stephen Harper, who has brought Canada?s foreign policy even more closely in line with that of the Bush administration while championing the leading role the CAF is playing in the Afghan counter- insurgency war, said Natynczyk?s ?service record includes a broad range of achievement at home and abroad. The Canadian Forces are a vital institution making a tremendous contribution to our country. Walter Natynczyk is the ideal person to lead the Canadian forces forward.? Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Natynczyk himself stressed the extent to which the new CAF chief, who is to assume his command at the beginning of next month, will continue the transformation of the CAF undertaken by Hillier. ?This will bring great continuity within the Canadian Forces,? declared MacKay. Speaking of Hillier, Natynczyk said, ?In many ways, we are the same person.? ?We have to look at the huge success we have had over there in Afghanistan,? added Natynczyk. ?We?re hearing from allies how much they recognize the quality of our men and women?we don?t take back seat to anybody. Hillier and the Armed Forces have done a great job of putting us on the right path. The question is, how do we accelerate that?? In late 2003-2004, the outgoing CAF head pressed the then Liberal government to deploy more than 2,000 CAF troops to Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, where they have taken a leading role in the US- NATO counter-insurgency war. For Hillier, and this was subsequently fervently embraced by the Conservative government and corporate media, the CAF expedition to Afghanistan has served as a means to bury the notion, associated with Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, of the CAF as a peace-keeping force and revive, in fact and public image, Canada?s military as an instrument of war. Hillier also flouted the notion of the subordination of the military to the civilian government, famously declaring at one point that his responsibility as CAF head was as much to the men and women in uniform as it was to the government and people of Canada. Yet he was the object of gushing tributes from the government and media when he announced his impending retirement in April. Natynczyk said that one of his first priorities will be to visit Afghanistan: ?I?ve got to get back over there pretty soon. I was just there in February.? The CAF top brass, the government, and media have trumpeted the Afghan mission as a great success. But 85 CAF personnel have lost their lives in Afghanistan, proportionately the highest casualty rate of any foreign army in Afghanistan. The CAF has repeatedly been forced to deploy more men and equipment, including tanks, to Afghanistan, and it faces much opposition from the local population because of its support for a corrupt US-imposed government and readiness to call in air strikes, which inevitably result in heavy civilian casualties, and propensity to kill civilians who stray too close to CAF vehicles or roadblocks. At Friday?s press conference at which his appointment was announced, Natynczyk touted the relevance of his Iraq experience for the CAF?s counter-insurgency war in southern Afghanistan ?recently extended by a bi-partisan Conservative-Liberal motion till the end of 2011. Said Natynczyk, ?The tactics and techniques and procedures? for pacifying Iraq and Afghanistan ?are exactly the same. So are the risks.? Natynczyk will also have responsibility for overseeing a Conservative plan to greatly expand the CAF?s firepower and overseas deployment capabilities. Last month the government announced its Canada First Defence Strategy under which Ottawa will spend upwards of $40 billion on re-equipping the CAF over the next 20 years. While Natynczyk?s appointment underscores the current government?s plans to revive Canadian militarism, it also serves to expose the hypocritical character of the Liberals? refusal to deploy the CAF alongside US and British troops in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Under Liberal government orders, the CAF was intimately involved in the Pentagon?s planning for the invasion of Iraq. Only at the eleventh hour did the Chretien Liberal government?to the consternation of Harper and his Conservatives and much of Canada?s corporate elite? decide to pull the CAF out of the invasion. It did so for two reasons: the mass anti-war sentiment, which was manifested in some of the biggest demonstrations in Canadian history and, secondly, apprehension over Washington?s willingness to trash the system of multilateral alliances through which the Canadian bourgeoisie had long sought to contain US power. Nevertheless, Canada was completely complicit in the illegal US invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has led to some one million Iraqi fatalities, as well as 4,000 US war dead. Natynczyk was one of several dozen CAF officers who participated in the war while on exchanges with the US military. Moreover, the Canadian navy was helping to blockade the Persian Gulf. And from the beginning of the war, Chretien made clear that Canada supported a rapid US victory, while dismissing the question of the legality of the war as essentially irrelevant. In 2004, as the anti-US insurgency was gathering force, the Liberal government, now headed by Paul Martin, agreed to assist the US by deploying Canadian forces to the center of the Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan. Except when stumping for votes, the Liberals have since sought to downplay their decision to keep Canada officially out of the Iraq War. In late 2006, they came close to selecting an enthusiastic supporter of the war, Michael Ignatieff, as party leader. Ignatieff is now deputy Liberal leader. Earlier this year, the Liberals rallied behind their ostensible Conservative government opponents to ensure a further 34-month extension of the Canadian military intervention in southern Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, Liberal defence critic Bryon Wilfert welcomed Natynczyk?s appointment, noting his long experience, especially working with US military forces. ?I think it?s the right choice at the right time,? said Wilfert. From tchilds at resist.ca Mon Jun 9 00:26:00 2008 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 23:26:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Workers of the World Relax - short video documentary Message-ID: <62283.64.85.36.244.1212992760.squirrel@mail.resist.ca> My friend Conrad Schmidt (Five Ring Circus) has produced another short doc. See it at: http://www.workersoftheworldrelax.org/ Don't miss his book: _Workers of the World, Relax_, The concepts in the book provide the solutions to all that ails the planet today. I kid you not! It's a winner. TC From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Jun 9 07:01:34 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:01:34 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Nothing Left to Fight For Message-ID: <484D29AE.7040601@attglobal.net> The most rightwing government Britain has had since the Second World War does not deserve to be re-elected. by George Monbiot Published in the Guardian (May 20 2008) You can hear the wringing of hands and tearing of cloth all the way down Farringdon Road. Dismayed by the results of the local elections, convinced that Labour will be crushed in the byelection on Thursday, afraid that this will presage disaster in the next general election, my fellow columnists are predicting the end of the civilised world. But I can't understand why we should care. Yes, I worry about what the Tories might do when they get in. I also worry about what Labour might do if it wins another term. Why should anyone on the left seek the re-election of the most rightwing government Britain has had since the second world war? New Labour's apologists keep reminding us of the redistributive policies it has introduced: Sure Start children's centres, reductions in child poverty, raising the school leaving age, the national minimum wage, flexible hours for parents and carers, better conditions for part-time workers, the Decent Homes programme, free museums, more foreign aid. All these are real achievements and deserve to be celebrated. But the catalogue of failures, backsliding and outright destruction is much longer and more consequential. One fact alone should disqualify this government from office: we have a cabinet of war criminals. The Nuremberg Tribunal characterised a war of aggression as "the supreme international crime". It is not just that Britain's Labour government launched and has sustained an unprovoked war, it also sabotaged all means of achieving a peaceful resolution. In April 2002 it helped the Bush administration to sack Jose Bustani, the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in order to prevent him from settling the dispute over Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction {1, 2}. In two separate offers before the invasion began, Saddam Hussein agreed to meet the terms the US and Britain were demanding. But they slapped him down and concealed his offers from their electorates {3}. Cluster bombs can be legally used because the British government helped to block an international ban in 2006 {4}: it is still holding out against an outright ban at the current talks in Dublin {5}. The government has undermined another international peace agreement - the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - by deciding to renew the Trident missile programme. It was the first administration to announce a policy of pre-emptive nuclear attack {6}: even the great nuclear enthusiast Harold Macmillan never went this far. In 2007, the defence secretary, without parliamentary debate, revealed that the US would be allowed to use the listening station at Menwith Hill for its missile defence system {7}. Labour appears to be prepared to meet any demand, however outrageous, the Bush administration makes. In 2003 the government signed a one-sided extradition treaty, permitting the US to extract our citizens without producing prima facie evidence of an offence. In the same year the defence secretary announced that he would restructure the British armed forces to make them "inter-operable" with those of the United States, ensuring for the first time in British history that they became functionally subordinate to those of another sovereign power {8}. Labour's foreign policy is as unethical as Margaret Thatcher's. It provides military aid to the government of Colombia, whose troops are involved in a campaign of terror against the civilian population. It granted an open licence for weapons exports to the government of Uzbekistan, and sacked the British ambassador when he tried to draw attention to the regime's human rights abuses. It has collaborated with the US programme of extrajudicial kidnapping and imprisonment, left our citizens to languish in Guantanamo Bay, and made use of Pakistani torture chambers in seeking to extract testimony from British suspects {9}. Until 2005 it tied its foreign aid programme to the privatisation of public utilities in some of the world's poorest countries {10, 11}. Last year it held out against reform of the International Monetary Fund's unfair allocation of votes {12}. The proportion of the British population in prison has risen by a fifth since the Tories left office. Today Britain locks up 151 out of every 100,000 people {13}. The Chinese judiciary, by contrast, which is notorious for its willingness to bang up anyone and everyone, jails 119 people per 100,000; Myanmar imprisons 120, Saudi Arabia 132 {14}. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, passed in 2005, contains clauses which permit the police to ban any demonstration, however peaceful {15}. It is one of a long series of bills the Labour government has passed which restrict the right to protest. The citizen has been re-regulated; business has been deregulated. Last year deaths caused by serious injuries at work rose by eleven per cent {16}: a predictable result of the sacking of 1000 staff at the Health and Safety Executive and a 24% reduction in workplace inspections {17}. In 2006 the government instructed the Serious Fraud Office to drop its corruption case against the arms manufacturer BAe. It has obstructed efforts by other states to investigate the company {18,19}. Labour has shifted taxation from the rich to the poor, cutting corporation tax from 33% to 28% and capital gains tax from forty per cent to eighteen per cent, and introducing a new Entrepreneurs' Relief scheme, taxing the first million of capital gains at just ten per cent. It tried to raise the income tax paid by the poorest earners from ten per cent to twenty per cent. Labour has lifted the inheritance tax threshold from GBP 300,000 to GBP 700,000, and maintained the cap on the highest rates of council tax. While vigorously prosecuting benefits cheats, it has allowed tax avoidance, mostly by the very rich, to reach an estimated GBP 41 billion {20}. Inequality today is slightly worse than it was when Labour took power (the Gini coefficient which measures it has risen from 0.33 to 0.35) {21}. Both as Chancellor and as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has forced the private finance initiative into almost all public services. His privatisation schemes have crept into places where the Conservative government never dared to tread. Labour has waged war against our planning system and overseen a disastrous decline in social housing: under Margaret Thatcher's tenure an average of 46,600 social homes were built every year; under Tony Blair the average rate was 17,300 {22}. Labour is closing post offices, small schools and GPs' surgeries, while overseeing a doubling of the UK's airport capacity and the construction of 4000 kilometres of new trunk roads {23}. These developments ensure that even the modest targets in the climate change bill are likely to be missed. Carbon dioxide pollution fell faster under the Conservatives than it has under Labour {24}. Above all, the Labour government has destroyed hope. It has put into practice Margaret Thatcher's dictum that "there is no alternative" to a market fundamentalism that subordinates human welfare to the demands of business. It has created a political monoculture which kills voters' enthusasism, and delayed the electoral reforms which would have given smaller parties an opportunity to be heard. All we are left with is fear: the fear that this awful government might be replaced with something slightly worse. Fear has destroyed the Labour party: people keep supporting it, whatever it does, in trepidation of letting the other side win. Save this government? I would sooner give money to the Malarial Mosquito Conservation Project. Of all the causes leftist thinkers might support, New Labour must be the least deserving. www.monbiot.com References: 1. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/04/16/a-war-against-the-peacemaker/ 2. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/04/23/diplomatic-impunity/ 3. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/11/11/dreamers-and-idiots/ 4. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/11/07/asserting-our-right-to-kill-and-maim-civilians/ 5. BBC Online, 19th May 2008. Forum seeks to ban cluster bombs http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7407631.stm 6. Geoff Hoon, 24th March 2002. The Jonathan Dimbleby Show, ITV 1. 7. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/07/31/drumming-up-a-new-cold-war/ 8. Geoff Hoon, 26th June 2003. Britain's Armed Forces for Tomorrow's Defence. Speech to the Royal United Services Institute. 9. Ian Cobain, 29th April 2008. MI5 accused of colluding in torture of terrorist suspects. The Guardian. 10. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/01/06/on-the-edge-of-lunacy/ 11. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/05/18/this-is-what-we-paid-for/ 12. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/17/the-emperor-of-africa/ 13. Kings College, London, 2008. Prison Brief - Highest to Lowest Rates. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poptotal 14. ibid. 15. Sections 125-127. 16. Health and Safety Executive, 2008. Fatal injury statistics. http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm 17. SchNEWS, 11th April 2008. Issue 628. http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news628.htm 18. Rob Evans, Ian Traynor, Luke Harding and Rory Carroll, 12th June 2003. Politicians' claims put BAE in firing line. The Guardian. 19. Rob Evans and Ian Traynor, 12th June 2003. US accuses British over arms deal bribery bid. The Guardian. 20. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80327-0002.htm 21. Mike Brewer et al, 2008. Poverty and inequality in the UK: 2007. IFS Briefing Note No. 73. The Institute for Fiscal Studies. http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn73.pdf 22. DCLG, August 2007. Table 244. Housebuilding: permanent dwellings completed, by tenure, England, historical calendar year series. www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/140912 23. Department for Transport, July 2004. The Future of Transport White Paper. 24. www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/download/xls/ghg_annex_a_20080327.xls Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05/20/nothing-left-to-fight-for/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Jun 9 09:03:12 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:03:12 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Evo y el futbol Message-ID: FULL TEXT: Luis Hern?ndez Navarro Evo y el futbol Tiene 47 a?os pero no pierde oportunidad de participar en cuanto partido de futbol puede. Ha jugado al lado o contra cracks como Diego Armando Maradona, H?ctor Chumpitaz y Diego Latorre. Forma parte del Litoral, un equipo semiprofesional que aspira a ascender a la liga mayor. Se llama Evo Morales y, adem?s, es presidente de Bolivia. -- Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Jun 9 09:23:59 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:23:59 -0400 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Jason_Rezaian=2C_=22Iran=92s_Brain_Drain_M?= =?windows-1252?q?ore_of_a_Flow=2C_Really=22?= Message-ID: The Warwick Review Vol.1 No.3 Sept 2007 Iran's Brain Drain More of a Flow, Really by Jason Rezaian When I first began travelling to Iran in early 2001 one of my initial impressions was how intimate a place it was. Although there were clear divides between what one did in public and behind closed doors, there was also a closeness that was hard to ignore. Six strangers piled into a makeshift Peykan taxi, large families picnicking on a roadside stretch of grass next to a clogged five lane highway, and the crush of pilgrims on holy days in Mashhad are all very common occurrences within the Islamic Republic. With camaraderie comes laughter and dialogue, both welcome sounds that can be rare in many parts of the Middle East. Toward the end of my first journey to Iran, after being passed around from each extended relative's home to the next, as I put my life in God's hands one afternoon, and tried to cross at a busy intersection, I had a realization: This is the first time I've been alone in two months. Many trips later much about Iran looks and feels exactly the same as it did then. The tastes, smells, superstitions and jokes haven't changed, nor have the living conditions and struggles of most Iranians. Still, it feels evermore confusing. To Westerners who only know Iran through our own admittedly limited media coverage, it can seem like the land of statistics: 60% of university students are women, two thirds of the population is under 30, Tehran is one of the most populous (and polluted) cities in the world. We've all heard them and for good reason; they're true and easily observed. Less visible, however, are other striking phenomena, including Iran's high attrition rate among its talented youth, the Brain Drain. If you go looking for signs of these people in Tehran you won't find them because, well, they're gone. Head to Pune or Budapest or Vancouver and you'll discover legions of young Iranians constructing makeshift communities around their customs and traditions, sprinkled with the liberal and public consumption of beer, something they can't do back home. For me, though, their exodus is making my times in Iran much lonelier. Furthermore, the Iranian public's increasing infatuation with Western popular culture and unparalled access to it, through the internet and satellite television, is having a deep impact on young Iranians' images of who they are. Increasingly they are identifying with international ideals of youth through consumption, rather than the local culture and it is making it harder than ever to define what it means to be Iranian. It took me several trips to realize that these were very real trends and not just coincidences, and by that time I had already become hooked on Iran. What was initially a sad fact about regular visits to a place, whose inhabitants have very real objections to how they are ruled, has become part of my own Shiite reality. In true Iranian form, I am resigned to the idea that with each arrival there will be fresh loss. It's now becoming a jarring aspect of every visit, calling familiar phone numbers only to hear a strange voice at the other end, or a recorded message telling me that the "mobile set is off" over and over again. Like so many of these emigrants though, I now have the feeling of being stuck between two very different worlds, with affection and abhorrence for both. In America I'm continually drawn back to Iran, geographically one of the furthest places in the world from home, and once I'm there, I quickly long for some of the mundane freedoms I've come to take for granted. I've formed my own ragtag crew of Iranian friends who've recently exiled themselves to the West. Although I was born and raised in the United States, they, like me, feel no connection to the by-product of revolution that is the Iranian American community, with its never evolving pop music and outdated and empty political slogans spouted on satellite television. I'm thinking now of so many tired pop songs produced in Los Angeles, then imposed on Iranians everywhere. Recently they've even turned to writing "protest" songs like 'Some Day', the hollow freedom anthem by Nazanin, an Iranian Canadian beauty queen, turned actress/singer and political activist, who is lauded by Iranians all over the world for her commitment to liberty in Iran. I always wonder how people who haven't set foot in a country for decades can presume to know what's best for the place, and furthermore have their rants treated like trusted opinions by Western governments often deemed worthy of funding. These folks have long since lost touch with the reality in Iran, and everyday that they spread their unrefined messages, the concept of Iranian identity becomes more confused, both for non-Iranians, but more destructively to those in Iran aspiring for something more. Just as many Iranians leave and find themselves in new and unfamiliar lands so different than the ones they had imagined before their departure, our western perceptions of Iran are fatally limited, lacking texture and color. We are all guilty of believing the myths about the other, and for the young Iranian stepping into their new lives and can be an extreme letdown. Iran bursts with so much possibility that one can become exhausted with anticipation. There is a unique brand of chaos best witnessed in Tehran at night. Pulsating traffic jams, make it impossible to move, but provide young people the opportunity to flirt between car windows, trading SMS messages and suggestive glances. You may be offered to buy beer from a guy on a motorbike; a small thing to us, but Islam's take on alcohol makes drinking more thrilling than it ever was in high school. Strangers spark conversations with each other, covering all conceivable topics. Contrary to popular belief, no subject is off limits. Ultimately, it's never boring, with the potential for every sort of imaginable encounter looming around all corners. It is a place that, although officially very repressed emotionally, sexually and creatively, feels alive and vital in the most meaningful way: in terms of human energy. When they go abroad, especially to the US, many young Iranians are simply bored by the pace of social interaction. Sure, they can drink when and where they want, but so what? Baywatch made an incredible impression on the Islamic Republic and realizing that it's not really like that here can be difficult to swallow. The courting of the opposite sex, for example, takes on a much greater sense of urgency when a mutual attraction is uncovered. The where, when and how become imperative, and as one of my cousins memorably told me, "Haji, it's like a jungle here. You must be ready and act fast. Get her or someone else will." When I returned to San Francisco recently I was invited to join the birthday party of another recent Iranian arrival. His girlfriend had called me last minute and told me to meet the group at 7:30 the next evening at Asia SF, a famous restaurant and club that does an all Asian, all transsexual song and dance routine every night. Interesting choice, I thought. The group consisted of eight people, five of whom had come from Iran to study at UC Berkeley. We drank and laughed, and I loved watching their unsure interaction with the performers. Is it ok to be turned on by these people? was the look on most of their faces. They were a bit shell shocked, I think, by this completely sanctioned sin fest, but not unwilling to participate. Somehow, though, it seemed boring compared to a night out in Iran, where everything exists as it does here, but in a much rawer, un-institutionalized form. There is no system of public dialogue for hedonism or alternative sexual expression although it exists of course; another example of repression, but also another possibility for true experience. Just a couple of weeks earlier late one evening in Tehran, I was driving the streets with a good friend Saeed. I find Iran to be most alive when the sun goes down. We were headed north on Valiasr Street, named after the Hidden Imam, an avenue that runs from Tehran deep south to the posh neighborhoods at the foothills of the Alboorz Mountains. At the large intersection still known as "The Peacock Throne" young prostitutes stood around waiting for customers and hopping into the cars of johns, speeding off to locations unknown. A real problem here, but no one seems to be doing much about it. I started to assume that every girl was working and would sometimes ask, "Is she one, too?" Locals seemed to have developed a radar for them. Saeed laughed at my naivet?. Sometimes, though, when he would point one out I'd tell him, "Maybe. But that one's a guy." Tranny spotting is not yet their forte. Still, there are many advantages to the new lives most Iranians find abroad. I'm consistently surprised to see the "reality" shows on state run television that showcase the misfortunes of Iranians who have left and then come home, expressing the harshness and disappoint of their experiences in the West. These are clearly propaganda plays, and there is no denying how successful many Iranians have become, as it has been identified as one of the immigrant groups in the US with the highest level of education and income. I wonder to what extent these skills are honed in Iran, living under a nightmarish bureaucracy that seems to mimic purgatory. It becomes very tiring, but it also provides one with a heightened sense of awareness, the ability to follow rules with precision and a knack for quickly identifying how individuals that have something you desire need to be interacted with to achieve the best possible outcome. It's a never-ending series of finding connections, fortifying relationships with them, gauging when to make bribes and when not to, judging who can be helpful in which situations. It's a complicated dance, and the public bureaucracy in most Western countries is so much simpler to navigate. Perhaps it this makes it easier for them to get ahead, too. It's also quite possible some of the same factors point to their absence from Western political life. By the time they get to the US or Europe they've had enough with bureaucracy and would prefer to stay on the sidelines. Another theory I have, though, is that many Iranians seem to be living in a now nearly 30 year long dream; the kind that takes place somewhere they don't know well, yet is vaguely familiar. Despite the tension between governments, and the lingering ill well by Diaspora Iranians against the current regime, there has never been so much flow of people, money and information than there is right now. With many western educated Iranians returning to Iran I see a great potential for redefining what being Iranian really means; shedding the bold attachments to conflicting ideologies, while maintaining the subtle curious about that which is different. For Iran the age of extremes has ended. -- Yoshie From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Jun 9 17:02:55 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:02:55 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Citizen Journalism: In With the New Message-ID: <484DB69F.30507@attglobal.net> by Bill Boyarsky Truthdig (May 22 2008) In the world of conventional journalists - my old world - the idea of a non-journalist, a "civilian", doing our work is an outrage. No matter that one of the best editors I know says writing a good straight news story is nothing more than a "parlor trick". No matter that one of the best young reporters of my acquaintance learned to write news stories not in journalism school but by copying and rewriting stories from The New York Times and other papers. In our minds, journalism is a high-church mixture of complex rules, codes, practices, skills, traditions and taboos. If not exactly a religion in our minds, we certainly consider it a "calling", open only to those who receive and accept the mysterious call. But with the rise of the Internet, no call is necessary. Spurred on by a historic presidential election, an increasing number of people are engaged in journalism on the Web. They are changing journalism for the better. Their impact will be felt in not only national politics but in something often more important: the coverage of city councils, mayors, neighborhoods, schools, crime, health care, poverty and other important aspects of life in America's cities and towns. Some are amateurs, as in the case of contributors to OffTheBus, a presidential campaign site sponsored by The Huffington Post and NewAssignment.net. Truthdig, on the other hand, is produced largely by pros. The diversification of the media is a welcome development, especially in the coverage of the presidential campaign. Political journalism has become rooted in the obvious. It's boring and mind-numbingly conventional. When I was a young political writer for the Associated Press, then a bastion of conventional journalism, I used to escape its restrictions by writing part time for a small liberal magazine in Los Angeles called Frontier. It was against AP rules, but I correctly figured my bosses would never read the magazine. The late Phil Kerby, the Frontier editor who later won a Pulitzer Prize as an editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times, urged me to stick it to those crooked lobbyists and legislators. These lectures were followed by his cautionary advice to be correct and careful. Kerby was a colleague of the late Carey McWilliams, a great historian and editor of The Nation. When Frontier folded, The Nation took it over. From working for Kerby and from reading and knowing McWilliams, I learned to deal with ideas, to develop my opinions and to back them up with solid reporting and direct, straight-ahead writing. A much less positive experience occurred at the Los Angeles Times when I was covering the 1976 presidential campaign. The industrial belt was turning into the rust belt, and I reported on what was obviously the decline of American heavy industry. I'd arrive in a city knowing nobody and then would dig out my story. I loved the work, and the stories were played on Page 1. But a friendly editor told me I was making a big mistake, that my colleagues were getting more notice in the office by riding the campaign bus. I switched to covering Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign and spent the fall in the campaign cocoon. After election day, I quit political writing and returned to Los Angeles as a general assignment reporter for the Times. My family was a big reason for abandoning something I had done full time for many years. But another reason was that I no longer respected the work. I didn't think riding the bus was real reporting. I made it to columnist and then city editor, jobs I had always wanted, and retired from the Times. When I began blogging for LA Observed, a site featuring local news and comment, and writing about politics for Truthdig, I saw their potential and compared it to what Carey McWilliams and Phil Kerby accomplished outside journalism's mainstream with their gutsy and well-reported publications. I sometimes think of McWilliams and Kerby when trying to live up to the freedom I have been given on the Internet. As I immersed myself in the Internet, OffTheBus, an effort to harness the energy and intelligence of interested amateurs in covering the campaign, attracted my attention. Such amateurs are called "citizen journalists". As a traditionalist, I was skeptical and was reminded of an old anti-Ronald Reagan speech, given when he was an actor-citizen politician running for governor, that included a line that went something like: "Hi. I'm your citizen pilot. I've never flown a plane before, but I have always had a deep interest in aviation." But the editorial director of OffTheBus is my friend and USC faculty colleague, Marc Cooper, a Nation contributing editor and definitely a Carey McWilliams-Phil Kerby kind of journalist. Having stepped off the bus myself years ago, the name of the project intrigued me. OffTheBus was started by Jay Rosen, an NYU journalism professor and Internet communications pioneer, and Arianna Huffington, founder of the Web's Huffington Post. She was interested in a project for the 2008 campaign. He wanted to mobilize large numbers of "people who are not professional reporters". They would devote much of their attention to finding out what was happening on the ground and what concerned voters. Directing the project is Amanda Michel, an Internet organizing veteran of the Howard Dean presidential campaign, the first such successful political effort on the Web. She also worked John Kerry's campaign later that year and with Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Michel, editorial director Cooper and managing editor John Tomasic compose the project's paid staff. Everyone else is a volunteer. "We rely on the wisdom of the mass [the volunteers]", Cooper told me. "But it is mediated and edited by professionals. We get the best of both worlds." The most notable OffTheBus contribution to the campaign came from citizen journalist Mayhill Fowler. She is an unpublished fiction and nonfiction writer and a Senator Barack Obama supporter who, according to the Federal Elections Commission, has given the senator $2,000. She volunteered for OffTheBus when she heard of it. Fowler first wrote about grass-roots Obama campaigning within driving range of her home on the Oakland-Berkeley border. Soon, with two grown daughters away at Princeton and a lawyer-husband at home, she took off on the campaign trail, following the Obama bus in a rented car. She has a great eye and a unique style. After returning to the Bay Area from her travels, she was alerted to an Obama fundraiser in San Francisco's rich Pacific Heights neighborhood. She called two Obama supporters she knew for permission to attend, which was granted. "They knew I was a reporter", she told me. She heard Obama say something that has caused him trouble ever since she reported it: "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Traditionalists in the press thought Fowler had somehow broken some of the craft's rules. One deals with what is off the record. This rule is so loose and confusing that I have never been able to completely understand it. The traditional press wasn't invited to the fundraiser, meaning it was closed to the press but apparently not off the record. (I have never heard of this variation of the rule). Nobody stopped Fowler from taking and recording notes. Nor did anyone stop other attendees who brought video and audio recorders. The second rule deals with contributing to campaigns. Traditionalists say Fowler should not write about Obama because she is one of his contributors. I don't agree with that. I'm not one of those journalists who brag about never voting. I never miss an election. What's the difference between, on the one hand, voting, and defending my choices at dinner parties, and, on the other, contributing? When I covered the conservative movement and Ronald Reagan, I made it a point to tell my right-wing sources that I was a liberal Democrat. I wanted to be honest. They accepted that, and some sources became drinking companions. After Reagan was elected governor, an aide offered me a job as a press secretary. I said no, I was just starting to get ahead in my job at the Associated Press. "Anyway, " I added, "you know I don't agree with a thing he believes in". The aide dismissed the point, saying Reagan liked me and thought I was a straight shooter. Individual journalism, such as Fowler's, is just part of the OffTheBus report. Its most significant contribution is assembling groups of citizen journalists for special projects. Project director Michel, experienced in political organization, puts these projects together. Early in the campaign, she assigned volunteers to accompany Obama canvassers on a national canvassing day. As a matter of fact, she said, some of the OffTheBus volunteers were also Obama canvassers. They asked the same questions and turned in the answers on forms that Michel tabulated. The OffTheBus crew found that contrary to what most journalists were reporting, the economy rather than the war was the biggest concern. How could Michel trust the Obama volunteers as reporters? All the reports had the same findings, she said, whether they came from plain reporters or Obama canvasser reporters. Another project was an in-depth look at the backgrounds of the superdelegates. The information is available on the OffTheBus Web site. I read OffTheBus every day and see it as a work in progress, breaking new ground and old rules, and producing analyses that can be as tired as anything in the traditional media. But in general, OffTheBus offers a fresh and imaginative look at the campaign. "We are learning as we are going", said editorial director Cooper. "We are trying to make up the rules as we go along. We really don't have a guide ... We found in our early work that it is not so easy to get people to do good journalism. We don't want to downplay or discard the old skills." The model of a professional staff reading and fact-checking the work of amateurs is something that newspapers, with their increasingly small staffs and growing inability to connect with readers, should consider. When I was city editor of the Times, we had a hard time figuring out how to cover our huge area. I think something like this would have helped. Most of all, it's imaginative. It dares to challenge old ways. The presidential campaign is historic for a few reasons, not the least of which is the opening up of that mysterious "calling", journalism. _____ A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Copyright (c) 2008 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080522_citizen_journalism_in_with_the_new/TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Jun 10 00:12:32 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:12:32 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Lack of Trust Lurks at the Heart of Banking Trouble Message-ID: Lack of trust lurks at the heart of banking trouble By Tony Jackson Published: June 2 2008 03:00 | Last updated: June 2 2008 03:00 Investors are getting twitchy about the banks again. Several UK bank stocks, for instance, are at multi-year lows. But in a wider and more global sense, the twitchiness never really went away. The gap between official policy rates and those at which banks lend to each other has been widening for several months. At the start of the year, it had subsided almost to normal levels. Now, although a little off the peak, it is still a good deal wider than when the crisis first struck. There has been nothing quite like this before. A crisis of confidence in the banking system is scarcely new. But on this measure it has never been so acute, nor has it lasted so long. Four reasons are commonly adduced. First, the banks do not trust each other, so will not lend. Second, they do not trust themselves either, so are hoarding their liquidity against future emergencies. Third, outside lenders - the money market funds especially - are no longer buying bank paper as they used to. And fourth, the banks are allegedly playing games with Libor, the interbank rate used in the US and UK. Let us get the last two out of the way first. The money market funds are certainly lending a much smaller proportion of their money to the banks. But in absolute terms, the amount of bank paper they hold has risen. In the US, the latest figure I have seen puts the year-on-year increase at some $175bn. International money market funds, according to their trade body, the IIMFA, have increased their holdings by close to $100bn. The snag is that this nowhere near covers the explosion in the banks' assets caused by dodgy loans and securities stranded on their balance sheets. Hence the hundreds of billions lent by central banks lately in an attempt to meet the shortfall. The timing is important here. In response to the original funding gap, the cost of interbank borrowing went up. But when the central banks stepped in, the cost did not go down again. It seems logical to infer that the underlying situation has got worse in the meantime. As for the reliability of Libor, this is for our purposes a red herring. It may be that banks are understating their cost of borrowing. If so, the real situation is worse again. But it is worth noting that Euribor, the eurozone equivalent of Libor, is calculated in a different manner, and yet has been behaving lately in a very similar way. That leaves us with our two opening hypotheses - lack of trust between and within the banks themselves. Again, there are two possible reasons for this. The more benign one has to do with the real economy. Loan default rates are still low, but in any lending cycle - let alone the last one - are bound to turn up eventually. In some economies this applies particularly to housing - the immediate cause of the weakness in UK bank stocks, along with impending cash calls designed to rebuild balance sheets. The more worrying possibility, because less quantifiable, is that the banks have not yet disclosed or recognised all the toxic stuff on their books. In the case of the investment banks this seems unlikely, because they are obliged by the nature of their operations to mark to market. But in the case of some commercial banks, in Europe and the UK especially, the level of writedowns still seems perplexingly low. One subsidiary factor I have heard suggested is that interbank lending used to be in effect free money - a very low return, but riskless. Now that lending is risky, it is a headache the average bank treasurer does not need, whatever the return. Better to pull the horns in and stick to internal financing. That is no doubt true, but only restates the essential problem in another way. So where does this leave us? Professor Richard Portes of the London Business School is cautiously optimistic. Granted, the interbank market has never behaved like this before, he says. But the market has developed immensely in the past couple of decades. Cross-border exposures, for instance, have been rising by maybe 15-20 per cent a year. More important, measures of volatility and risk aversion - in interest rates, foreign exchange and so forth - may have spiked lately, but no more than on half a dozen occasions in the past 15 years. Each crisis in the financial markets, says Prof Portes, takes a different form. So it is this time. But it will wear off like the others. A comforting thought, at least in the long run. But in the short term, recall that while some were claiming recently that the crisis was over, this particular warning light was still flashing. The bankers themselves have been worried all along. And after all, they ought to know. tony.jackson at ft.com -- Yoshie From tchilds at resist.ca Tue Jun 10 00:29:47 2008 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 23:29:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] My latest video work shot at Burnaby South High School Message-ID: <50591.24.87.34.192.1213079387.squirrel@mail.resist.ca> For Shaw Community TV cable 4 and online at the link below. COUNTRY AT WAR In Afghanistan... (features Jeff Schutts of the Douglas College History Dept.) In the last decades of the Twentieth Century, the Canadian military defined itself as a peace-keeping force. After 2002, processes of continental integration following 9/11 began to influence the self-definition of the Canadian Forces. Our military now presents itself as a fighting, not a peace keeping force. http://pasifik.ca/node/870 TC "The greatest form of sanity that anyone can exercise is to resist that force that is trying to repress, oppress, and fight down the human spirit." -Mumia Abu-Jamal From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Jun 10 08:49:30 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:49:30 -0400 Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?Ch=E1vez_a_las_FARC=3A_La_guerra_de_guerrill?= =?iso-8859-1?q?as_pas=F3_a_la_historia=3B_es_hora_de_liberar_a_tod?= =?iso-8859-1?q?os_los_rehenes?= Message-ID: Ch?vez a las FARC: La guerra de guerrillas pas? a la historia; es hora de liberar a todos los rehenes TeleSUR 08/06/08 Seg?n el presidente suramericano, la situaci?n que viven Am?rica Latina y Estados Unidos, ''pareciera crear condiciones favorables a un proceso de paz en Colombia'' por lo que la liberaci?n de todos los rehenes ''pudiera ser el primer paso'' para lograrlo. El presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Ch?vez, se dirigi? este domingo al nuevo jefe de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), Alfonso Cano, a quien le pidi? la liberaci?n incondicional de todos los retenidos en poder del grupo armado, pues asegur? que en Am?rica Latina "la guerra de guerrillas pas? a la historia". "Lleg? la hora de que las FARC liberen a todos lo que tienen en la monta?a", pidi? Ch?vez a Cano, al tiempo que agreg? que "ser?a un gran gesto, a cambio de nada". Seg?n el presidente suramericano, la situaci?n que viven Am?rica Latina y Estados Unidos, "pareciera crear condiciones favorables a un proceso de paz en Colombia" por lo que la liberaci?n de todos los rehenes "pudiera ser el primer paso" para lograrlo. "La liberaci?n de todos los que tiene en la monta?a pudiera ser el primer paso hacia lo que aqu? ahnelamos, que se acabe la guerra interna en Colombia", reiter?. Sugiri? que con un grupo de pa?ses e instituciones del mundo se podr?an garantizar los acuerdos de paz entre el Gobierno colombiano y las guerrillas, "como ocurri? en Centroam?rica", refiri?. "Con un grupo de pa?ses, estoy seguro que Argentina, (el presidente de Brasil Luiz In?cio) Lula, me llaman a cada rato, (el presidente de Nicaragua, Daniel) Ortega, (el presidente de Ecuador, Rafael) correa, (de Francia) Nicol?s Sarkozy, (presidente del Gobierno espa?ol) Jos? Luis Rodr?guez Zapatero, estoy seguro que ayudar?a, (hasta) el de Portugal S?crates, el mismo rey de Espa?a, a lo mejor el mismo Vaticano, comisiones de la OEA, a una paz que se respete", asegur?. "Pido ayuda desde aqu? al mundo, porque yo me siento grancolombiano. Ya basta de tanta guerra, lleg? la hora de sentarse a hablar de paz, llamamos al mundo a buscar ese camino", repiti?. El presidente venezolano, que fue mediador entre las FARC y el Gobierno de ?lvaro Uribe hasta noviembre del a?o pasado cuando este ?ltimo termin? abruptamente con su labor, se puso a la orden de Cano "para buscar los mecanismos" que permitan la liberaci?n de los prisioneros "que tienen en la monta?a". Guerrilas obsoletas Ch?vez insisti? en que, en la actualidad, los grupos armados no se justifican. "A estas alturas est? fuera de orden un movimiento guerrillero armado. Eso hay que dec?rselo a las FARC, eso era lo que quer?a decirle a Marulanda", afirm? Ch?vez al recordar las invitaciones que le hiciera el ex l?der del principal grupo armado colombiano, Manuel Marulanda, quien muri? el 26 de marzo a causa de un paro card?aco pero fue el pasado 25 de mayo cuando la guerrilla lo confirm?. Lament? nuevamente no haber podido reunirse con el l?der guerrillero a quien, se?al?, quer?a expresarle su petici?n de liberar a todos los retenidos. "Yo nunca le escrib?, (porque) eso se lo quer?a decir (en persona). ?Vamos suelten toda a esa gente, le quiero decir a Cano", manifest?. Las FARC una excusa para atacar El presidente venezolano asever? que la existencia de las guerrillas se han convertido en una excusa del imperio, refiri?ndose a Estados Unidos, "para amenazarnos a todos nosotros". "El d?a que se haga la paz en Colombia se acab? la excusa en el imperio, la principal que tienen (es) el terrorismo", dijo Ch?vez. Para Ch?vez las pretensiones del Gobierno estadounidense de querer instalar una base militar en Colombia, como lo ha sugerido el embajador de ese pa?s en Bogot?, William Brownfield, representa una amenaza contra Venezuela. "Ahora lo que han dicho es que van a montar una base militar en Colombia, esa es una amenaza contra Venezuela", se?al?. TeleSUR / av - AV -- Yoshie From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Jun 10 09:17:54 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:17:54 -0700 Subject: [R-G] McCain and the International Republican Institute Message-ID: June 9, 2008 Promoting Iraqi Occupation for "a Million Years" McCain and the International Republican Institute By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF http://counterpunch.com/kozloff06092008.html Though Arizona Senator John McCain seldom talks about it, he has gotten much of his foreign policy experience working with a cloak and dagger operation called the International Republican Institute (IRI). Since 1993, McCain has served as Chair of the outfit, which is funded by the U.S. government and private money. The group, which receives tens of millions of taxpayer dollars each year, claims to promote democracy world-wide. On the surface at least, IRI seems to have a rather innocuous agenda including party building, media training, the organization of leadership trainings, dissemination of newsletters, and strengthening of civil society. The hottest country in which IRI currently operates is Iraq. According to the IRI?s own web site, since the summer of 2003 the organization ?has conducted a multi-faceted program aimed at promoting the development of democracy in Iraq. Toward this end, IRI works with political parties, indigenous civil society groups, and elected and other government officials. In support of these efforts, IRI also conducts numerous public opinion research projects and assists its Iraqi partners in the production of radio and television ads and programs.? By law, IRI must operate independently of the Republican Party. However, a former institute grant recipient, Ghassan Atiyyah, the Director of the Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy, said he parted ways with the IRI over his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the war. In 2004 Atiyyah, who pressed for a secular, liberal government in Iraq, received $116,448 from IRI. "Instead of promoting impartial, better understanding of certain ideas and concepts, they [the IRI] are actually trying to further the cause of the Republican administration," Atiyyah said. Though Atiyyah said IRI never asked him to censor his views, it became clear to the Iraqi that the two parties disagreed politically. When his funding ran out, neither pursued the relationship. "It is a civilized divorce," he said. (Atiyyah eventually fled Iraq for Britain after his life was threatened). Who is Running IRI? Such criticisms aside however, IRI?s overall mission statement on its Web site fundamentally strains credibility. How can the IRI, which is caught up in an incestuous political web with the power elite in Washington and U.S. corporations, claim to be an agent of positive change in Iraq? Although officially non-partisan, IRI is closely aligned with the Republican Party. Dick Cheney received the organization?s Freedom Award in late 2001. Other winners have included Condoleezza Rice, Ronald Reagan, Lynne Cheney, Colin Powell, and Afghanistan?s Hamid Karzai. IRI's leadership spans the spectrum of center right, far right, and neoconservative factions of the GOP. Most of the organization?s staff and board have links to right-wing think tanks, foundations, and policy institutes. Former Iraq proconsul Paul Bremer, the disastrous colonial administrator who used to wear a blue blazer and hiking boots, sits on IRI?s Board of Directors. Also sitting on the board is Randy Scheuneman, a former member of the neo-conservative outfit Project for the New American Century. Scheuneman had long-standing ties to the Iraqi National Congress or INC, a loose coalition of Iraqi dissidents and opposition groups headed by the Iraqi flim-flammer , Ahmed Chalabi. Shady Scheuneman?s ties to McCain go way back even before IRI. In 2000, he served on the Arizona Senator?s foreign policy team during McCain?s unsuccessful presidential bid. Like McCain, Scheuneman was also active in the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which helped push for official government as well as public support for the invasion of Iraq after the 9/11 terror attacks. Meanwhile, a who?s who of corporate America chips in to IRI including Blackwater Training Center, part of Blackwater USA. In 2005-6 the company donated $30,000 to IRI. Though Blackwater has fallen under scrutiny as a result of the company?s shooting of 17 people including women and children, the State Department recently decided to renew the firm?s contract. For Blackwater, the benefits of supporting McCain and IRI are clear: already the Arizona Senator has declared his intention to stay in Iraq ?for a thousand years or a million years? if necessary. Behind the scenes, Blackwater is surely praying for a McCain victory in November: Charlie Black, McCain?s chief adviser and a successful Washington lobbyist, has represented the mercenary outfit as well as Chalabi. Black?s connection to Chalabi began in 1999 and continued up until the invasion of Iraq in 2003. McCain, IRI and Chevron Though George Bush has scoffed at suggestions that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with oil, recent press reports give some credence to such claims. In April, Chevron announced that it was involved in discussions with the Iraqi Oil Ministry to increase production in an important oil field in southern Iraq. The discussions were aimed at finalizing a two-year deal, or technical support agreement, to boost production at the West Qurna Stage 1 oil field near Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. It turns out that Chevron, like Blackwater, has donated to McCain?s IRI. What?s more, since McCain solidified his position as the GOP?s nominee, Chevron Chairman David O'Reilly gave $28,500 to the GOP. Meanwhile lobbyist Wayne Berman, McCain?s National Finance Co- Chairman, counts Chevron as one of his principal clients. According to Progressive Media USA, a Washington, D.C.-based non- profit, the Arizona Senator has benefited handily from Big Oil. McCain has taken in at least $700,000 from the oil and gas industry since 1989. In Congress, the Arizona senator has worked tirelessly to advance the interests of the oil industry. For example, McCain?s tax plan gives the top five oil companies $3.8 billion a year in tax breaks. McCain meanwhile has voted against reducing dependence on foreign oil, has twice rejected windfall profits tax for Big Oil, and has voted against taxing oil companies to provide a $100 rebate to consumers. McCain, IRI and Lockheed Martin As if these corporate ties were not enough, IRI has also accepted money from Lockheed Martin, the world?s #1 military contractor. The firm has been a McCain donor, giving more than $13,000 through its PAC to the Arizona Senator in 2006. According to the Center for Public Integrity, lobbyist Vin Weber, one of McCain?s top political advisers, counted Lockheed Martin as one of his most important clients. Early on, Lockheed saw that it could benefit from the war in Iraq. The company?s former vice president, Bruce Jackson, even chaired the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. There, he found common cause with Scheuneman, the group?s President, and McCain, the ?honorary co- chair.? Jackson also worked with Scheuneman through The Project for the New American Century, a group that the Lockheed man directed personally. Jackson goes way back in GOP circles. Between 1986 and 1990, when he was working in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, he served under Dick Cheney. He also worked under prominent neo-conservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. In 2000, he chaired the Republican Party Platform's subcommittee for National Security and Foreign Policy when George W. Bush ran for president. Jackson was also involved in corralling support for the Iraq war from Eastern European countries, and even went so far as to help to write their letter of endorsement for military intervention. Not surprisingly, Lockheed also had business relations with these countries. In 2003 Poland shelled out $3.5 billion for 48 F-16 fighter planes which it was able to purchase with a $3.8 billion loan from the U.S. During the start of the Iraq invasion, Lockheed Martin?s F-117 stealth attack fighters were used to ?shock and awe? the population. Jackson is now working on McCain?s 2008 presidential campaign, serving on the Senator?s foreign policy advisory team. The mainstream press has completely failed to analyze McCain?s long term involvement in the Iraq imbroglio. If they were to delve too deeply, the corporate pundits would have to confront the uncomfortable truth that the military-industrial complex and the oil industry have played an integral role in the invasion and occupation. Surrounding the whole affair are shady figures such as Black, Scheuneman and Jackson and unscrupulous companies like Chevron, Blackwater and Lockheed Martin. At the center of the vortex are none other than IRI and John McCain. Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan) From critical.montages at gmail.com Tue Jun 10 09:41:34 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:41:34 -0400 Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?Petras_desencantado_con_Ch=E1vez_sobre_las_F?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ARC?= Message-ID: Petras is unhappy, but Chavez did the right thing. FARC, as it is, has no future. In Venezuela, some former guerrillas went into barrios and did community organizing and others took the electoral road: ; In El Salvador, FMLN has a good chance of ousting the ARENA government electorally: and . Iran can't, and shouldn't, do what Venezuela just did with Hezbollah, Hamas, the Mahdi Army, etc., however. Disarm yourself in the hot spots of the Middle East, and you are history. But even there the ticket to victory is a combination of guns, ballots, streets, _and_ services. -- Yoshie Am?rica Latina - Colombia - Venezuela - Guerra / Criminalizaci?n / Represi?n - Opini?n - Rel. Internacionales / Geopol?tica Petras desencantado con Ch?vez sobre las FARC Decir que un grupo insurgente de 40 a?os de lucha est? haciendo el juego del imperialismo es pura bober?a, dice Petras sobre Ch?vez James Petras (CX 36 Radio Centenario) [10.06.2008 14:31] - 123 lecturas - 2 comentarios Chury: Buen d?a Petras como te va... Petras: Es un buen d?a aqu? en la naturaleza pero me parece un d?a no muy alegre en relaci?n a las ?ltimas declaraciones del presidente Ch?vez Chury: Esa era la pregunta que ten?a para plantearte justamente... Petras: Aqu? toda la gran prensa burguesa est? dando mucha importancia y muy favorable a las denuncias de las FARC y las exigencias e intervenciones que el presidente Ch?vez est? haciendo y es un choque imagino para mucha gente frente a la agresividad que est? persiguiendo esta pol?tica Chury: Concretamente si yo te pregunto desde aqu?, desde el sur y la interpretaci?n que se hace a trav?s de los distintos canales de informaci?n uno dir?a que no puede obviar una pregunta que est? destacada en todos los diarios y en todos los medios, y es que Ch?vez le pide a las FARC que entregue todos los rehenes y se desmovilicen a cambio de nada y que ellos son la excusa adem?s, las FARC, de la presencia imperialista en la regi?n. Yo no s? si esa lectura es la que se hace realmente... Petras: Es puro estalinismo, eso de decir que un grupo insurgente de 40 a?os de lucha est? haciendo el juego del imperialismo es pura bober?a, el imperialismo funciona bastante bien en Venezuela sin necesidad de un movimiento guerrillero, como sabes debe entender precisamente por el papel que juegan en el golpe del 2002 y todas las pol?ticas desde este momento y est?n funcionando en muchas partes del mundo donde hay cualquier gobierno guerrillero o lo que sea y decir que la lucha armada de las FARC es un pretexto para el imperialismo es pura estupidez y tengo que decirlo. Y otra cosa m?s, Ch?vez no explica c?mo las FARC puede entregar los presos cuando tiene 500 guerrilleros pudri?ndose, torturados, mal nutridos, enfermos en los s?tanos de las prisiones de Uribe, yo creo que mi pregunta es por qu? el presidente Ch?vez quiere sacrificar las vidas de los presos guerrilleros para tomar las banderas de Uribe, Sarkozy, etc?tera, una entrega total unilateral. Segunda pregunta, es si Ch?vez entiende que la ?ltima vez que guerrilleros de las FARC bajaron a la lucha electoral fueron masacrados y quiero preguntar si ?l est? dispuesto a garantizar la vida de guerrilleros que tratan de entrar a la vida pol?tica electoral frente a los paramilitares y militares que siguen en esta semana pasada matando sindicalistas no guerrilleros. Y tercero, quiero saber si lo que Ch?vez pide es que los guerrilleros imiten la pol?tica de Centroam?rica donde en El Salvador y Guatemala y otros firmaron pactos de paz abandonaron la lucha armada y no cambiaron nada, la miseria en El Salvador y Guatemala es tan peor que antes que la mitad del pa?s han salido para Europa, se han ido para Norteam?rica, a M?xico, lo que sea, mientras el proceso de paz satisface la burgues?a, las grandes mayor?as quedan con todas sus exigencias y sacrificios no cumplidos y lo que es peor, el n?mero de muertos en Guatemala y El Salvador desde el acuerdo de paz supera los muertos en la guerra de guerrillas, es decir que cada a?o hay ocho o nueve mil homicidios en estos pa?ses porque los desmovilizados no encuentran trabajo, muchos entraron en la delincuencia y hay cruce de tiros entre diferentes bandas. No s? si Ch?vez est? preocupado por los muertos como producto de la miseria que surge despu?s de los pactos de paz, pero uno debe tomar estos hechos en cuenta. Y finalmente creo que la pol?tica de Ch?vez es exactamente, exactamente el discurso que Felipe P?rez Roque el canciller de Cuba, me han contado, hace cuatro a?os y quiero preguntar si este an?lisis y estas declaraciones realmente vienen del pensamiento de Ch?vez o est? repitiendo la l?nea cubana que hace muchos a?os, m?s de una d?cada, est? en contra de las FARC, est? por la reconciliaci?n y est? en la b?squeda de aliados burgueses en todo el continente, incluso en los ?ltimos 6 a?os con Uribe y que tiene la misma ideolog?a de Fidel Castro que dice se acab? la guerrilla y eso hace 5 a?os que Fidel lo declar?. Entonces no s? si Fidel o cubanos influyen en Ch?vez o ha tomado la iniciativa propia, pero en todo caso hay una gran coincidencia sobre eso. Y finalmente eliminando las FARC no va a eliminar el imperialismo, incluso va hacer un efecto bumerang, una vez que se consolide en Colombia la posici?n es m?s f?cil para las bases militares norteamericanas ocupar espacios en Colombia, m?s agresivo va a ser Uribe frente a las fronteras con Venezuela, entonces estrat?gicamente detener un enemigo con ambas manos libres para presionar y atacar Venezuela es un desastre, mientras las FARC ten?an alg?n peso tiene peso en Colombia una porci?n de las tropas en Colombia est? orientadas hacia este conflicto, mientras si no existe las FARC es mucho mas f?cil concentrar todos los esfuerzos contra Venezuela. O sea que creo que Ch?vez cree que Uribe va a darle un abrazo porque va a atacar a las FARC, s?, va a dar un abrazo con un cuchillo en la mano derecha. Yo creo que es un desastre porque va a fortalecer la l?nea de los gobiernos liberales y de centro izquierda en Am?rica Latina que han mostrado su incapacidad y creo que no hay ning?n beneficio ni para los pueblos ni para los venezolanos, incluso se va a perjudicar Ch?vez muy r?pidamente Chury: Bush est? recorriendo toda Europa, recorre toda Europa como despedida y comienza por Eslovenia y algunos lugares que hace imposible de imaginar que visitar?a, ?qu? busca Bush con esto?... Petras: Bush es un presidente que no tiene nada que decir dentro de Estados U nidos, imposible para Bush aparecer en ning?n lado p?blico con libre entrada porque hay tanta bronca contra su gobierno, ahora muy extendida con la crisis econ?mica con el precio del petr?leo, hay mucha imposibilidad de aparecer Bush dentro de Estados Unidos, el ?nico lugar donde s? puede reunirse con menos oposici?n p?blica es en Europa y lo que busca es finalmente algunas pol?ticas de salvar la econom?a norteamericana, tratar de conseguir algunas concesiones de los pa?ses petroleros, fortalecer alg?n apoyo por las guerras perdidas en Irak, amenazar Ir?n, etc?tera, pero en ning?n lado podr?amos decir efectivamente han conseguido en los viajes lo que buscaba. Los petroleros del medio Oriente, sus amigos monarcas, rechazan los pedidos de Bush, incluso han culpado a Bush mismo por los precios, por la pol?tica agresiva militarista, por sobre demanda de petr?leo, por debilitamiento del d?lar que han subido el precio, los rusos han atacado a Washington por las enormes desequilibrios econ?micos, Europa un socio m?s silencioso, no tiene nada que ofrecer Bush para fortalecer o ayudar la econom?a norteamericana. Entonces, son viajes que muestran la impotencia del gobierno y la ausencia de algo para ofrecer como concesi?n a conseguir concesiones de otras partes del mundo, no tiene nada que ofrecer y los gobierno tampoco est?n dispuestos a seguir haciendo sacrificios por una econom?a tan militarizada, tan llena de crisis especulativas y corrompidas, etc?tera, plenamente es un viaje que no tiene ning?n futuro, ning?n sentido. Chury: Hay un tema que aqu? necesitamos que t? lo analices. Se llama Barack Obama, ?cu?les ser?n los cambios, cu?les pueden ser los cambios en EE.UU. respecto a la influencia del sionismo, respecto a la guerra primero y Latino Am?rica despu?s? Petras: Bueno, aqu? tenemos varios factores, hay una unificaci?n de la derecha del Partido Dem?crata alrededor de Obama con el apoyo de Hillary Clinton. En el otro lado hay se?ales de desencanto entre algunos sectores minoritarios que apoyaban a Obama, particularmente con este discurso tan servil frente a la poderosa configuraci?n sionista en Washington donde declar? cosas que ni la derecha Norte Am?rica ha dicho. Cuando dijo que Jerusal?n debe ser totalmente jud?a bajo el control de Israel, donde apoy? las agresiones militaristas contra Ir?n. Muestra una cosa que es el poder de las organizaciones jud?as sobre toda la pol?tica norteamericana presidencial. Todos los candidatos menos la izquierda estaban presentes, Obama, Hillary, McCain dando una visi?n de servilismo inimaginable en el mundo. Diciendo las cosas m?s sucias contra los palestinos, contra Hamas, mas no mencionando ni una vez el mill?n quinientos mil palestinos sin agua, sin electricidad, sin comida, la mal nutrici?n, c?mplices del terrorismo israelita, incre?ble. Ni uno de estos candidatos criticando y todas las organizaciones ,los dentistas, los grandes financistas que asisten a esta conferencia, ocho mil jud?os clase media, clase media-baja, ricos, millonarios, multimillonarios aplaudieron a pie con todas las declaraciones m?s militaristas mostrando su poder. Y mire, Brecha nunca ha escrito nada sobre el poder que tiene el sionismo en la pol?tica norteamericana. Nunca explican a la audiencia uruguaya c?mo todos los presidentes est?n arrodillados frente al poder jud?o en EE.UU. Tengo muchos conocidos que son progresistas jud?os pero son impotentes, cuando hay grandes acontecimientos hay media docena que critican lo que est? pasando adentro del auditorio pero realmente no tiene ning?n (...) que afecte a la pol?tica. Y es uno de las grandes tragedias que tenemos que una minor?a que representa a menos del 2% de la poblaci?n en Norte Am?rica, tiene tanto poder en los medios de comunicaci?n... Chury: ?Es un poder econ?mico ese? Petras: S?, pero no es simplemente econ?mico, est?n organizados, tienen presencia en todos los medios de comunicaci?n, est?n bien ubicados en el Congreso, tienen oficiales en la presidencia, en el Ejecutivo, no es simplemente que hay millonarios jud?os sino que es toda una configuraci?n que ocupa puestos important?simos en los medios de comunicaci?n, en el Congreso, en el Ejecutivo, en todos los gobiernos locales, en las comunidades, aldeas, dentistas, m?dicos, abogados, profesionales, acad?micos que est?n unidos en una cruzada, todo por Israel. Cuando dice Israel "vamos a atacar Ir?n" los activistas estos, respetables jud?os son los primeros en apoyarlo. No todos ,porque hay muchos jud?os que no les interesa ni Israel ni la pol?tica de las organizaciones comunales, pero los que est?n activos y presentes s? han tomado posiciones m?s b?licas. Apoyan a un gobierno que tortura, encarcela a miles de palestinos. Me recuerda a cuando los jud?os hablan de la complicidad de los alemanes, ?qu? son ellos mismos que son c?mplices con los grandes cr?menes salvajes del Estado de Israel? ?Qu? diferencia hay entre los c?mplices alemanes, los profesores y los m?dicos? Y lo mismo que est? pasando aqu?, exactamente la misma cosa y mire c?mo los medios de comunicaci?n no cuestionan el hecho de que los presidentes en este congreso de la asociaci?n a favor de Israel, que ocho mil delegados representando a ciento veinte mil afiliados en el pa?s que est?n los super activos. Hay una cosa que uno puede preguntar y es por qu? el p?blico norteamericano no reacciona frente a la manipulaci?n de esta minor?a. Es porque los jud?os controlan los medios de comunicaci?n y presentan los discursos de Obama en favor de Jerusal?n e Israel como algo normal, como un discurso m?s. Y no hay ning?n comentario cuando Israel dice que va a tirar bombas sobre Ir?n. No hay ninguna editorial criticando a Israel. ?Por qu?? Porque el poder de Israel, y fijate Noam Chomsky, un h?roe de los brechistas y de los izquierdistas, ?Silencio! durante la conferencia de las organizaciones sionistas. Cuando los candidatos presidenciales norteamericanos se someten al lobby de Israel, Chomsky no dice nada cr?tico a las organizaciones jud?as. ?l es c?mplice tambi?n porque con su silencio busca desviar la atenci?n de algunos inversionistas norteamericanos en Israel y trata de culparlos a ellos cuando no tienen ninguna influencia sobre la pol?tica exterior de Israel y no tienen ning?n peso frente al lobby jud?o en Washington. Chomsky es un c?mplice a pesar de su posici?n moralista, el gran tema de nuestros d?as, la guerra contra Ir?n, la guerra contra Palestina disculpa Israel con su silencio sobre las organizaciones jud?as en EE.UU. que es la principal fuerza apoyando a Israel. Chury: Petras, simplemente nos queda agradecerte este profund?simo an?lisis que has hecho de varios temas que est?n en el tapete. Mandarte un abrazo en nombre de la audiencia y la promesa de encontrarnos el lunes... Petras: Muchas gracias y saludos a todos. Espero este d?a porque tenemos que reflexionar sobre nuestros apoyos pol?ticos a estos l?deres. Yo por lo menos siento un algo de desencanto con el presidente Ch?vez despu?s de eso me recuerda tanto los pactos pol?ticos entre supuestamente grandes l?deres de izquierda con pol?ticos de la derecha y utilizan los movimientos en el exterior simplemente como presi?n para mejorar su pol?tica diplom?tica. Yo creo que nuestro compromiso siempre debe ser hacia nuestros propios movimientos en nuestros propios pa?ses con nuestros propios luchadores de clase en vez de buscar grandes salvadores en el exterior. Chury: Muy bien Petras, un abrazo muy grande como siempre, que pases muy bien... Petras: Un abrazo, chau... Chury: Chau, chau. -- Yoshie From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Jun 10 10:51:20 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 09:51:20 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Dope Poet Society Video Message-ID: <5C2EC06E-EECF-40A6-BDE1-9E6E8E6231DF@shaw.ca> "Freedom in Haiti": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3852722832907064706&pr=goog-sl From the "Hands OFF Haiti" CD: http://www.thac.ca/node/3 From aaron.doncaster at gmail.com Wed Jun 4 10:52:19 2008 From: aaron.doncaster at gmail.com (aaron doncaster) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:52:19 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Vote in parliment says war resisters can stay!!!!!!!!! Message-ID: <164236a30806040952k69885641qb34d5f1dae061a48@mail.gmail.com> House of Commons votes to let U.S. War Resisters stay in Canada OTTAWA, June 3 /CNW/ - The Opposition parties in the House of Commons joined together today to adopt a recommendation which, if implemented, would make it possible for U.S. Iraq War resisters to obtain Permanent Resident status in Canada. The recommendation was adopted by a majority of Members of Parliament from the Liberal, Bloc Qu?b?cois, and New Democratic Parties. The Conservatives voted against the motion. The motion, which originated in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in December 2007, calls on the government to "immediately implement a program to allow conscientious objectors and their immediate family members...to apply for permanent resident status and remain in Canada; and...the government should immediately cease any removal or deportation actions...against such individuals." Corey Glass, 25, a war resister who came to Canada in 2006 and was recently told to leave Canada by June 12 or face removal to the United States, welcomed the vote. "I'm thankful that the MPs voted to let me and the other war resisters stay in Canada. I'm also thankful to all the Canadians who urged their MPs to support us." "This is a great victory for the courageous men and women who have come to Canada because they refuse to take part in the illegal, immoral Iraq War, and for the many organizations and individuals who have supported this campaign over the past four years," said Lee Zaslofsky, Coordinator of the War Resisters Support Campaign and a Vietnam War deserter who came to Canada in 1970. The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on the Conservative government to respect the democratic decision of the Canadian Parliament and immediately implement the motion and cease deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other war resisters. For further information: Michelle Robidoux, (416) 856-5008; Lee Zaslofsky, (416) 598-1222 or (415) 369-0864 From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Jun 10 14:40:36 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:40:36 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Chavez Revising, Not Revoking Venezuela's New Intelligence Law Message-ID: <3E0AE191-185E-4F47-9DA5-B46EB87A50B6@shaw.ca> Chavez Revising, Not Revoking Venezuela's New Intelligence Law June 10, 2008 By Stephen Lendman http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticlea/17883 Over the weekend, Chavez showed his mettle as a democratic leader. He acknowledged "errors" in the newly enacted Law on Intelligence and Counterintelligence and will fix them to assure it fully complies with Venezuela's Constitution. He gave examples and cited Article 16 that cites the possibility of prison terms for persons not cooperating with intelligence services. It's a "mistake," said Chavez and "not a small (one)." The new intelligence services won't oblige anyone to inform on others. Doing so is "overstepping," and "I assume responsibility" for the error and will fix it. He continued: "Where we make mistakes, we must accept this and not defend the indefensible....I guarantee to the country, in Venezuela (this law will assault) no one! And no one will be obliged to say more than they want to say....(We) will never attack the freedom of Venezuelans, independently of their political positions. Liberty....is one of the slogans of our socialism." Other articles will also be amended: -- Article 19 prohibiting non-state agencies from using spy technologies; -- Article 20 regarding search and wiretap provisions; and -- Article 21 regarding secret evidence. The new law will be reviewed in its entirety. Whatever is potentially unconstitutional will be removed or amended. Chavez guarantees it. He's a man of his word, but the corporate media took full advantage of the moment to jump all over him. As usual, The New York Times' Simon Romero led the assault. He headlined: "Chavez Suffers Military and Policy Setbacks" with the front end of his lead referring to Colombia's (unsubstantiated) claim about capturing a Venezuelan national guard officer carrying assault rifles "believed to be intended for leftist guerrillas." Once again Romero fumbles with the facts as he always does on Venezuela. He now states: "President Hugo Chavez....said Saturday he would 'withdraw' a decree overhauling intelligence policies that he had made earlier that week." He called it "a rare act of self- criticism" while hammering on the "capture" issue and filling paragraphs with inaccuracies. Even Al Jazeera got it wrong on intelligence law changes. It headlined: "Chavez revokes controversial law." Near the end of its report, however, it acknowledged that Chavez promised to "rewrite the law (after) listening to the criticism." AFP also misreported by stating "Hugo Chavez on Saturday revoked a law he decreed last month creating four spy agencies and a Cuban-style national informants' network, saying the measure contained errors." Errors - yes, revocation - no, revisions - coming before the new law is implemented. For its part, AP was more accurate but barely in its headline stating: "Chavez backtracks on Venezuela spy law." The report's lead does say: "President Hugo Chavez said....that his government will rewrite a new intelligence law to calm fears....that (it) could be used to stifle dissent." BBC was more accurate than usual in its headline: "Chavez agrees to change 'spy' law." It continued: "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said he will amend a controversial new law that would have required people to co-operate with intelligence agencies." BBC's report was mostly critical, but it ended on a high note with an accurate Chavez quote that "No one will be forced to say anything (to authorities) they don't want to." For his part, Romero wasn't as gracious. He stressed how Chavez is "Reeling from the defeat of a constitutional reform in December (and) is facing multiple challenges as a reinvigorated opposition fields candidates in (November's) regional elections and Venezuela's economic growth slows despite record oil prices." Slower growth - yes, still impressive - very much so. Where does Romero acknowledge this - nowhere. He and others in the dominant media never miss a chance to misreport on Venezuela and attack its model democracy. Try imagining George Bush admit an error and promise to fix it. Try imagine George Bush promise anything except continued war and maybe more of it. Try imagine if America had a leader like Hugo Chavez. Try imagine if Romero & Co. might imagine it. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net . Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Jun 10 14:46:08 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:46:08 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: Letter to Brazil from Mr. Eusi Kwayana of Guyana concerning safe return of Lovinsky Pierre-Antoine in Haiti = Appeal from Guyana independence leader and distinguished elder References: <10fa01c8cb30$baea5fd0$6801a8c0@david639b77440> Message-ID: LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL CONCERNING THE SAFE RETURN OF LOVINSKY PIERRE-ANTOINE, BY MR. EUSI KWAYANA, A DISTINGUISHED ELDER FROM GUYANA, KNOWN BY MANY THROUGHOUT THE CARIBBEAN REGION. HE WAS CENTRAL IN BRINGING TOGETHER AFRO AND INDO PEOPLE IN GUYANA?S INDEPENDENCE STRUGGLE. 20 May 2008HIS EXCELLENCY MR. ANTONIO DE AGUIAR PATRIOTA, Brazilian Ambassador to the United States 3006 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 90008 HER EXCELLENCY, MS. THERESA MARIA M. QUINTELLA, Consul General of Brazil 8484 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 YOUR EXCELLENCY, It is time, after nine months of uneasy anxiety, that some authority charged in the name of the international community with responsibility for security in Haiti, advise the international community, that is, the international public, of its findings in regard to the scandalous kidnapping or disappearance of Haitian citizen and patriot, MR. LOVINSKY PIERRE-ANTOINE. The date of MR. PIERRE-ANTOINE?S disappearance is well established. It is also known that he had been helping human rights delegations from two countries the USA and Canada, countries with famous courts and parliaments. Please do not misunderstand this appeal. It has great hope in the United Nations as a peacekeeping agency and much hope in the evolution of democracy in Brazil, which holds a leading position in the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti. My disappointment is therefore considerable. Every son and daughter of Haiti deserves the protection of the law and of special international arrangements. LOVINSKY PIERRE- ANTOINE is a son of Haiti, one who is well-known in the region and is becoming better known in the world. His international reputation is a standard of judgment of the peacekeeping force. Their reputation will rise or fall with his fortunes. In the present day world, news of violations is highly saleable. The world knows of no position by the official agencies in Haiti, whether domestic or international, on this important instance of inhumanity. When this matter was raised from the floor at a Conference on Haiti?s children at a University in San Diego, USA, the Ambassador of Haiti to the USA made a spirited response. Not only did he establish the non-involvement of the government of Haiti in the kidnapping of LOVINSKY PIERRE-ANTOINE, but he effectively defended the government, assuring the audience that it had no hand in the unfortunate affair. No one had even suggested that it had. He said that Mr Pierre-Antoine was probably a rival candidate of some other person and hinted that in such circumstances disappearances have sometimes occurred. I do not have a record of his statement before the gathering, and I am open to any correction he or any other party may wish to offer. All the Ambassador was able to do was to vindicate the Haitian government. But MR. PIERRE-ANTOINE?S lawyer was present and rose to rebuke the government for its silence and its alleged failure to exercise its national responsibility. The government of Haiti being ruled out as complicit in MR. PIERRE- ANTOINE?S absence, the hemisphere to which Haiti has always been central turns its searchlight on that multinational force considered to be of vital assistance to a historically crippled domestic government, and on the leadership of that force, the Republic of Brazil, a major hemispheric partner. Their presence there leads the uninformed to presume that they are there to supply the kind of expertise and clout which cannot be expected of the government in Haiti?s present circumstances. In these times of secretly employed but widely known intrusive surveillance, satellite observation on land, sea and air, clandestine wiretapping and other equipment useful in both offence and defense, there is a credibility gap. The public is not inclined to believe that a few thugs in Haiti have so completely baffled the humane capacity of the leading States of the hemisphere. This matter of the disappearance of MR. LOVINSKY PIERRE-ANTOINE must therefore be taken to the bemused population of the hemisphere and the world at present waiting with impatience for some word of encouragement from the United Nations and its peacekeeping forces. These forces must be aware of the kidnapping and disappearance of Haiti?s first Prime Minister, TOUSSAINT L?OUVERTURE. The French regime of that time, a regime of soldiers, treated TOUSSAINT?S fate with a silence similar to that with which MR. PIERRE-ANTOINE?S kidnapping is now being treated. Is this French model the model for the UN troops and its officials? Questions rush to mind. The hemisphere certainly and the international community wish to know what task force has been set up to track the disappearance of LOVINSKY and other persons, regardless of their political attachment, who may be less well-known but in similar circumstances. It is possible to have wrong notions about what happened to LOVINSKY. It is possible to make statements and then find the need to revise them. Is it possible in an age such as this, known for invasive surveillance, for criminal secrets to be so well-kept? In the military context of a peacekeeping force, silence for two weeks on the part of the Commanding Authority may be advisable, after it has made an initial statement of concern assuring the public of its active pursuit of the offenders. Silence for three weeks may be cause for concern, yet understandable if it had given the necessary assurances. Silence for nine months becomes its opposite, and is no longer silence but an eloquent confession of incapacity, or worse, lack of concern. If a citizen of LOVINSKY PIERRE-ANTOINE?S prominence and popularity can be ?caught up in the air?: then the fate of the unknown citizen in Haiti under the aegis of the United Nation?s force is not an enviable one. Questions persist: When did the authorities first hear of this kidnapping? What specific steps have they taken? Who is keeping PIERRE- ANTOINE?S wife and their children informed? Are there no suspects? Is the kidnapping seen as self-inflicted? Have the suspects, if any, evaded the UN?s multi-national capacity? Were there secret landings of aircraft unknown to the official guardians? Was he spirited away in a small boat and have all suspects been called in? Has LOVINSKY PIERRE- ANTOINE been rendered? Where are the international media, famous for increasing effectiveness? Have state and media conspired not to investigate the fate of this man? Is he held by the forces of law and order, and if so where are his rights? If he is held, on what allegations or reasonable suspicion? Was this man, who was well known for his committed to non-violence and aimed to become a senator, suspected of planning to blow up the parliament? Your Excellency, MS. THERESA MARIA M. QUINTELLA, I ask you to transmit this letter to your government in Brazil without delay. Out of respect for President Lula as an elected Head of State the author shall release it to the international media in the Region and in all continents not before the end of the second day of its dispatch to the Head Consulate Officer of Brazil in Los Angeles. Yours sincerely, EUSI KWAYANA Cc: United Nations Secretary-General Congresswoman Maxine Waters Amnesty International Pax Christi Global Women's Strike, Los Angeles Haiti Action Committee From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Jun 10 18:08:18 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:08:18 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Is Obama Turning Right? Message-ID: <484F1772.4000500@attglobal.net> From tchilds at resist.ca Wed Jun 11 01:21:30 2008 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:21:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Published June 9th: Letters to the editor - Vancouver Sun Message-ID: <65215.64.85.36.244.1213168890.squirrel@mail.resist.ca> This got published yesterday in the local city rag here in B.C. TC Editor, Vancouver Sun Newspaper, We hope that government will act on the will of parliament and the people of Canada to allow US Iraq war resistors to stay in Canada with the parliamentary motion passed on Tuesday. Canadians overwhelmingly oppose the war in Iraq, a war launched on lies and deception that continues to take the lives of innocent Iraqis. Canada has a tradition of peace-making and support for war resistors. Mr. Harper should honor that tradition and listen to the MPs that represent 60 percent of those that voted in the last election. If he doesn't honor the courageous men and women war resistors and allows them to be deported, jailed and possibly executed in their homeland for their actions of peace betrays Canadian democracy. Sincerely 'Let Them Stay!' Tom Childs Richmond, B.C. Canada 604 524-9316 tchilds at resist.ca From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Jun 11 07:47:48 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:47:48 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] From Kennedy to Obama Message-ID: <484FD784.6040108@attglobal.net> Liberalism's last fling by John Pilger www.johnpilger.com (May 29 2008) Writing in the New Statesman, John Pilger refers back to his travels with Robert Kennedy to describe the false hopes offered by those, like Barack Obama, who exploit the appeal of liberalism then present a very different reality. In this season of 1968 nostalgia, one anniversary illuminates today. It is the rise and fall of Robert Kennedy, who would have been elected president of the United States had he not been assassinated in June 1968. Having travelled with Kennedy up to the moment of his shooting at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on 5 June, I heard The Speech many times. He would "return government to the people" and bestow "dignity and justice" on the oppressed. "As Bernard Shaw once said", he would say, "'Most men look at things as they are and wonder why. I dream of things that never were and ask: Why not?'" That was the signal to run back to the bus. It was fun until a hail of bullets passed over our shoulders. Kennedy's campaign is a model for Barack Obama. Like Obama, he was a senator with no achievements to his name. Like Obama, he raised the expectations of young people and minorities. Like Obama, he promised to end an unpopular war, not because he opposed the war's conquest of other people's land and resources, but because it was "unwinnable". Should Obama beat John McCain to the White House in November, it will be liberalism's last fling. In the United States and Britain, liberalism as a war-making, divisive ideology is once again being used to destroy liberalism as a reality. A great many people understand this, as the hatred of Blair and new Labour attest, but many are disoriented and eager for "leadership" and basic social democracy. In the US, where unrelenting propaganda about American democratic uniqueness disguises a corporate system based on extremes of wealth and privilege, liberalism as expressed through the Democratic Party has played a crucial, compliant role. In 1968, Robert Kennedy sought to rescue the party and his own ambitions from the threat of real change that came from an alliance of the civil rights campaign and the anti-war movement then commanding the streets of the main cities, and which Martin Luther King had drawn together until he was assassinated in April that year. Kennedy had supported the war in Vietnam and continued to support it in private, but this was skilfully suppressed as he competed against the maverick Eugene McCarthy, whose surprise win in the New Hampshire primary on an anti-war ticket had forced President Lyndon Johnson to abandon the idea of another term. Using the memory of his martyred brother, Kennedy assiduously exploited the electoral power of delusion among people hungry for politics that represented them, not the rich. "These people love you", I said to him as we left Calexico, California, where the immigrant population lived in abject poverty and people came like a great wave and swept him out of his car, his hands fastened to their lips. "Yes, yes, sure they love me", he replied. "I love them!" I asked him how exactly he would lift them out of poverty: just what was his political philosophy? "Philosophy? Well, it's based on a faith in this country and I believe that many Americans have lost this faith and I want to give it back to them, because we are the last and the best hope of the world, as Thomas Jefferson said." "That's what you say in your speech. Surely the question is: How?" "How?... by charting a new direction for America". The vacuities are familiar. Obama is his echo. Like Kennedy, Obama may well "chart a new direction for America" in specious, media-honed language, but in reality he will secure, like every president, the best damned democracy money can buy. As their contest for the White House draws closer, watch how, regardless of the inevitable personal smears, Obama and McCain draw nearer to each other. They already concur on America's divine right to control all before it. "We lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good", said Obama. "We must lead by building a 21st-century military ... to advance the security of all people [emphasis added]". McCain agrees. Obama says in pursuing "terrorists" he would attack Pakistan. McCain wouldn't quarrel. Both candidates have paid ritual obeisance to the regime in Tel Aviv, unquestioning support for which defines all presidential ambition. In opposing a UN Security Council resolution implying criticism of Israel's starvation of the people of Gaza, Obama was ahead of both McCain and Hillary Clinton. In January, pressured by the Israel lobby, he massaged a statement that "nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people" to now read: "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel [emphasis added]". Such is his concern for the victims of the longest, illegal military occupation of modern times. Like all the candidates, Obama has furthered Israeli/Bush fictions about Iran, whose regime, he says absurdly, "is a threat to all of us". On the war in Iraq, Obama the dove and McCain the hawk are almost united. McCain now says he wants US troops to leave in five years (instead of "100 years", his earlier option). Obama has now "reserved the right" to change his pledge to get troops out next year. "I will listen to our commanders on the ground", he now says, echoing Bush. His adviser on Iraq, Colin Kahl, says the US should maintain up to 80,000 troops in Iraq until 2010. Like McCain, Obama has voted repeatedly in the Senate to support Bush's demands for funding of the occupation of Iraq; and he has called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan. His senior advisers embrace McCain's proposal for an aggressive "league of democracies", led by the United States, to circumvent the United Nations. Like McCain, he would extend the crippling embargo on Cuba. Amusingly, both have denounced their "preachers" for speaking out. Whereas McCain's man of God praised Hitler, in the fashion of lunatic white holy-rollers, Obama's man, Jeremiah Wright, spoke an embarrassing truth. He said that the attacks of 11 September 2001 had taken place as a consequence of the violence of US power across the world. The media demanded that Obama disown Wright and swear an oath of loyalty to the Bush lie that "terrorists attacked America because they hate our freedoms". So he did. The conflict in the Middle East, said Obama, was rooted not "primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel", but in "the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam". Journalists applauded. Islamophobia is a liberal speciality. The American media love both Obama and McCain. Reminiscent of mating calls by Guardian writers to Blair more than a decade ago, Jann Wenner, founder of the liberal Rolling Stone, wrote: "There is a sense of dignity, even majesty, about him, and underneath that ease lies a resolute discipline ... Like Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama challenges America to rise up, to do what so many of us long to do: to summon 'the better angels of our nature'." At the liberal New Republic, Charles Lane confessed: "I know it shouldn't be happening, but it is. I'm falling for John McCain." His colleague Michael Lewis had gone further. His feelings for McCain, he wrote, were like "the war that must occur inside a fourteen-year-old boy who discovers he is more sexually attracted to boys than to girls". The objects of these uncontrollable passions are as one in their support for America's true deity, its corporate oligarchs. Despite claiming that his campaign wealth comes from small individual donors, Obama is backed by the biggest Wall Street firms: Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse, as well as the huge hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. "Seven of the Obama campaign's top fourteen donors", wrote the investigator Pam Martens, "consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages". A report by United for a Fair Economy, a non-profit group, estimates the total loss to poor Americans of colour who took out sub-prime loans as being between $164 billion and $213 billion: the greatest loss of wealth ever recorded for people of colour in the United States. "Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign", said Obama in January, "they won't run my White House and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president". According to files held by the Centre for Responsive Politics, the top five contributors to the Obama campaign are registered corporate lobbyists. What is Obama's attraction to big business? Precisely the same as Robert Kennedy's. By offering a "new", young and apparently progressive face of the Democratic Party - with the bonus of being a member of the black elite - he can blunt and divert real opposition. That was Colin Powell's role as Bush's secretary of state. An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent. America's war on Iran has already begun. In December, Bush secretly authorised support for two guerrilla armies inside Iran, one of which, the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, is described by the state department as terrorist. The US is also engaged in attacks or subversion against Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Bolivia and Venezuela. A new military command, Africom, is being set up to fight proxy wars for control of Africa's oil and other riches. With US missiles soon to be stationed provocatively on Russia's borders, the Cold War is back. None of these piracies and dangers has raised a whisper in the presidential campaign, not least from its great liberal hope. Moreover, none of the candidates represents so-called mainstream America. In poll after poll, voters make clear that they want the normal decencies of jobs, proper housing and health care. They want their troops out of Iraq and the Israelis to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbours. This is a remarkable testimony, given the daily brainwashing of ordinary Americans in almost everything they watch and read. On this side of the Atlantic, a deeply cynical electorate watches British liberalism's equivalent last fling. Most of the "philosophy" of new Labour was borrowed wholesale from the US. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were interchangeable. Both were hostile to traditionalists in their parties who might question the corporate-speak of their class-based economic policies and their relish for colonial conquests. Now the British find themselves spectators to the rise of new Tory, distinguishable from Blair's new Labour only in the personality of its leader, a former corporate public relations man who presents himself as Tonier than thou. We all deserve better. http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=489 TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Jun 11 09:52:24 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:52:24 -0700 Subject: [R-G] BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions Message-ID: BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions By Jane Corbin BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm Henry Waxman Waxman: "It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history." A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (?11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq. For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC's Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources. A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations. The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies. War profiteering While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted. To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq. The president's Democratic opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq. Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious. "It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history." In the run-up to the invasion one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth seven billion that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company, which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice- president. Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won. Missing billions The search for the missing billions also led the programme to a house in Acton in West London where Hazem Shalaan lived until he was appointed to the new Iraqi government as minister of defence in 2004. Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi Judge Radhi al Radhi: "I believe these people are criminals." He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2 billion out of the ministry. They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top class weapons. Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts. Judge Radhi al-Radhi of Iraq's Commission for Public Integrity investigated. He said: "I believe these people are criminals. "They failed to rebuild the Ministry of Defence , and as a result the violence and the bloodshed went on and on - the murder of Iraqis and foreigners continues and they bear responsibility." Mr Shalaan was sentenced to two jail terms but he fled the country. He said he was innocent and that it was all a plot against him by pro- Iranian MPs in the government. There is an Interpol arrest out for him but he is on the run - using a private jet to move around the globe. He stills owns commercial properties in the Marble Arch area of London. From aaron.doncaster at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 10:28:31 2008 From: aaron.doncaster at gmail.com (aaron doncaster) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:28:31 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: Globe and Mail editorial on Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement In-Reply-To: <8c507f6e0806110918o6c3a3e4bp7f34d98e372a1196@mail.gmail.com> References: <8c507f6e0806110918o6c3a3e4bp7f34d98e372a1196@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <164236a30806110928m5e5482a4h4f42deebc19c1612@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jay Hartling Date: Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:18 PM Subject: Fwd: Globe and Mail editorial on Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement To: ARSN at googlegroups.com ARSN members - I encourage you to 1) write a response to the Globe and Mail's editorial as soon as possible; and 2) start to write and organize meetings with your MPs to discuss opposing this deal when it comes to a vote in parliament. Saludos, Jay ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Megan Morrissey Date: Jun 11, 2008 10:59 AM Subject: Globe and Mail editorial To: ajgrant at rogers.com Hey friends ? perhaps you could write letters to the Globe and Mail in response to this editorial. Send (probably 200 words or less) to Letters at globeandmail.com May also want to cc foreign at globeandmail.com Thanks! Call me if you want to talk? Megan Morrissey Media Analyst Venezuela Information Office 2000 P St. NW, Suite 240 Washington, DC 20036 202-347-8081 x602 202-365-6900 www.veninfo.org http://venworld.org http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080611.wecolombia11/BNStory/specialComment/home From aaron.doncaster at gmail.com Wed Jun 11 12:56:58 2008 From: aaron.doncaster at gmail.com (aaron doncaster) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:56:58 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: Re from Emerson to Chavez In-Reply-To: <164236a30806111137l6a2e8534idc8cf7748da0a8b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <164236a30806111137l6a2e8534idc8cf7748da0a8b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <164236a30806111156y478ee5abodefac132ca9ef99a@mail.gmail.com> I was not planning on writting anything for Davis Day but after reading a letter in the Globe and mail, I could not sit on my ass, I had to respond. It is about twice as long as the average size of a letter to the editor and probably will not be published but who knows. Regardless, I am sharing it with you all and I am hoping that all NovaScotians will continue to resist the tyranny of Emera and the all canadians will work to stop the trade pact with Colombia. Please feel free to forward widely and if you wish to edit it for publication in spots that enforce the idea of grammatical imperialism, if you have to edit it, do not change the content, just the punctuation. Aaron ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: aaron doncaster Date: Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 2:37 PM Subject: Re from Emerson to Chavez To: Letters at globeandmail.com What a coincidence you should publish your article about the possible Canadian trade agreement with Columbia on June 11. I am originally from Cape Breton and the majority of Cape Bretoners know what June 11 means to them. June 11 to me is about resisting corporate domination and oppression and asserting the right to self determination; the right to be free of corporate control. The year was 1925 and the miners of New Waterford, Cape Breton were out on strike to protest against deplorable Wages,working conditions and living conditions. Many were indebted to the company store,(the miners called them "pluck me stores") and were so poor that they were sending their children to school in clothing made from flour sacks. The workers were demanding better wages so they could feed their malnourished families. Vice-president of BESCO, the company that owned the mine and the town of New Waterford, Had no sympathy for the miners and their families. He was quoted as saying, "Let them stay out for 2 months or 6 months, it matters not, Eventually they will have to come back to us, They can't stand the gaff." The vice-president of the company could not have been more wrong. When the company thugs shut off the electricity and water to the town for a full week, the miners decided to act. The miners and their families marched to the plant and confronted the company thugs who fired indiscriminately on the miners.Even though Davis was shot dead, the miners managed to knock the thugs from their horses, beat them and cart them off to their own jail. The miners then proceeded to the company store where they looted it and burnt it to the ground. Besco was eventually forced to dissolve and a new company was formed. Let's fast forward 83 years to the present, where here in Nova Scotia we find ourselves controlled by a greedy tyrannical energy company much in the same way that New Waterford in the early 1900's was controlled by a greedy, tyrannical company. Nova Scotia Power, a company that was stolen from the people of Nova Scotia by Emera, a private American company,now wants to raise our energy rates again, this time by 13%. I guess the huge profits they make from burning Colombian blood coal is not enough. That is right, I said blood coal!! The coal from Colombia is dripping with the blood of assassinated union leaders and other poor colombians who Have been shot by government connected Death squads. At this very moment in Colombia, many members and former members of Uribe's Government are being investigated for having ties to right-wing death squads. This is not just a case of "a few bad apples", this scandal reaches the top with former senator, Mario Uribe, The presidents cousin, also being investigated. As we in Nova Scotia look for inspiration from the tactics used by the miners of Cape Breton in 1925 to fight our own battle against Nova Scotia Power, I hope the rest of Canadians can look to the example of Nova Scotia Power and their profiting from Colombian blood coal when they decide weather or not it will be good for Canadians to have a trade pact with Colombia. The trade in coal between Nova Scotia Power and Colombia has only seen exploitation and oppression for the poor of Colombia and Nova Scotia while it has seen the profits of Nova Scotia power and companies like the cerrejonn mine company in Colombia, skyrocket. I think we in Nova Scotia would be better off appealing to Hugo Chavez to add poor Nova Scotians to his growing list of poor communities recieving humanitarian aid vis-a-vis discounted oil. Maybe Canada would be better off signing a trade agreement with the government of Venezuela. When you look at chavez and see his governments connections to community councils and community cooperatives and compare that to Uribes connections to death squads and unscrupulous multinational corporations, I think it is easy to see who we should be doing bussiness with in South America Aaron Doncaster, Halifax, Nova Scotia From shimogamo at attglobal.net Wed Jun 11 17:57:45 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:57:45 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Reflections by Comrade Fidel Message-ID: <48506679.3080902@attglobal.net> The Empire's Hypocritical Politics by Fidel Castro Ruz www.cuba.cu/gobierno/reflexiones (May 25 2008) It would be dishonest of me to remain silent after hearing the speech Obama delivered on the afternoon of May 23 at the Cuban American National Foundation created by Ronald Reagan. I listened to his speech, as I did McCain's and Bush's. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor. I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him and about expressing my points of view on his words frankly. What were Obama's statements? "Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy ( ... ) This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century - of elections that are anything but free or fair ( ... ) I won't stand for this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba", he told annexationists, adding: "It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime ( ... ) I will maintain the embargo". The content of these declarations by this strong candidate to the US presidency spares me the work of having to explain the reason for this reflection. Jos? Hernandez, one of the Cuban American National Foundation directives who Obama praises in his speech, was none other than the owner of the fifty-calibre automatic rifle, equipped with telescopic and infrared sights, which was confiscated, by chance, along with other deadly weapons while being transported by sea to Venezuela, where the Foundation had planned to assassinate the writer of these lines at an international meeting held in Margarita, in the Venezuelan state of Nueva Esparta. Pepe Hern?ndez' group wanted to renegotiate a former pact with Clinton, betrayed by Mas Canosa's clan, who secured Bush's electoral victory in 2000 through fraud, because the latter had promised to assassinate Castro, something they all happily embraced. These are the kinds of political tricks inherent to the United States' decadent and contradictory system. Presidential candidate Obama's speech may be formulated as follows: hunger for the nation, remittances as charitable hand-outs and visits to Cuba as propaganda for consumerism and the unsustainable way of life behind it. How does he plan to address the extremely serious problem of the food crisis? The world's grains must be distributed among human beings, pets and fish, which become smaller every year and more scarce in the seas that have been over-exploited by the large trawlers which no international organization could get in the way of. Producing meat from gas and oil is no easy feat. Even Obama overestimates technology's potential in the fight against climate change, though he is more conscious of the risks and the limited margin of time than Bush. He could seek the advice of Gore, who is also a democrat and is no longer a candidate, as he is aware of the accelerated pace at which global warming is advancing. His close political rival Bill Clinton, who is not running for the presidency, an expert on extra-territorial laws like the Helms-Burton and Torricelli Acts, can advice him on an issue like the blockade, which he promised to lift and never did. What did he say in his speech in Miami, this man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the US presidency? "For two hundred years", he said, "the United States has made it clear that we won't stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different ;kind of struggle - not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and despair. That is not a future that we have to accept - not for the child in Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We must do better ( ... ) We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of the empty stomach." A magnificent description of imperialist globalization: the globalization of empty stomachs! We ought to thank him for it. But, 200 years ago, Bolivar fought for Latin American unity and, more than 100 years ago, Mart? gave his life in the struggle against the annexation of Cuba by the United States. What is the difference between what Monroe proclaimed and what Obama proclaims and resuscitates in his speech two centuries later? "I will reinstate a Special Envoy for the Americas in my White House who will work with my full support. But we'll also expand the Foreign Service, and open more consulates in the neglected regions of the Americas. We'll expand the Peace Corps, and ask more young Americans to go abroad to deepen the trust and the ties among our people", he said near the end, adding: "Together, we can choose the future over the past". A beautiful phrase, for it attests to the idea, or at least the fear, that history makes figures what they are and not all the way around. Today, the United States have nothing of the spirit behind the Philadelphia declaration of principles formulated by the thirteen colonies that rebelled against English colonialism. Today, they are a gigantic empire undreamed of by the country's founders at the time. Nothing, however, was to change for the natives and the slaves. The former were exterminated as the nation expanded; the latter continued to be auctioned at the marketplace - men, women and children - for nearly a century, despite the fact that "all men are born free and equal", as the Declaration of Independence affirms. The world's objective conditions favored the development of that system. In his speech, Obama portrays the Cuban revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights. It is the exact same argument which, almost without exception, US administrations have used again and again to justify their crimes against our country. The blockade, in and of itself, is an act of genocide. I don't want to see US children inculcated with those shameful values. An armed revolution in our country might not have been needed without the military interventions, Platt Amendment and economic colonialism visited upon Cuba. The revolution was the result of imperial domination. We cannot be accused of having imposed it upon the country. The true changes could have and ought to have been brought about in the United States. Its own workers, more than a century ago, voiced the demand for an eight-hour work shift, which stemmed from the development of productive forces. The first thing the leaders of the Cuban revolution learned from Mart? was to believe in and act on behalf of an organization founded for the purposes of bringing about a revolution. We were always bound by previous forms of power and, following the institutionalization of this organization, we were elected by more than ninety percent of voters, as has become customary in Cuba, a process which does not in the least resemble the ridiculous levels of electoral participation which, many a time, as in the case of the United States, stay short of fifty percent of the voters. No small and blockaded country like ours would have been able to hold its ground for so long on the basis of ambition, vanity, deceit or the abuse of power, the kind of power its neighbor has. To state otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of our heroic people. I am not questioning Obama's great intelligence, his debate skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. I feel sympathy for his wife and little girls, who accompany him and give him encouragement every Tuesday. It is indeed a touching human spectacle. Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record. 1. Is it right for the president of the United States to order the assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext may be? 2. Is it ethical for the president of the United States to order the torture of other human beings? 3. Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the United States as an instrument to bring about peace on the planet? 4. Is an Adjustment Act, applied as punishment on only one country, Cuba, in order to destabilize it, good and honorable, even when it costs innocent children and mothers their lives? If it is good, why is this right not automatically granted to Haitians, Dominicans, and other peoples of the Caribbean, and why isn't the same Act applied to Mexicans and people from Central and South America, who die like flies against the Mexican border wall or in the waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific? 5. Can the United States do without immigrants, who grow vegetables, fruits, almonds and other delicacies for US citizens? Who would sweep their streets, work as servants in their homes or do the worst and lowest-paid jobs? 6. Are crackdowns on illegal residents fair, even as they affect children born in the United States? 7. Are the brain-drain and the continuous theft of the best scientific and intellectual minds in poor countries moral and justifiable? 8. You state, as I pointed out at the beginning of this reflection, that your country had long ago warned European powers that it would not tolerate any intervention in the hemisphere, reiterating that this right be respected while demanding the right to intervene anywhere in the world with the aid of hundreds of military bases and naval, aerial and spatial forces distributed across the planet. I ask: is that the way in which the United States expresses its respect for freedom, democracy and human rights? 9. Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks on sixty or more dark corners of the world, as Bush calls them, whatever the pretext may be? 10. Is it honorable and sound to invest millions and millions of dollars in the military industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over? Before judging our country, you should know that Cuba, with its education, health, sports, culture and sciences programs, implemented not only in its own territory but also in other poor countries around the world, and the blood that has been shed in acts of solidarity towards other peoples, in spite of the economic and financial blockade and the aggression of your powerful country, is proof that much can be done with very little. Not even our closest ally, the Soviet Union, was able to achieve what we have. The only form of cooperation the United States can offer other nations consist in the sending of military professionals to those countries. It cannot offer anything else, for it lacks a sufficient number of people willing to sacrifice themselves for others and offer substantial aid to a country in need (though Cuba has known and relied on the cooperation of excellent US doctors). They are not to blame for this, for society does not inculcate such values in them on a massive scale. We have never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements. We offered the United States our help when hurricane Katrina lashed the city of New Orleans. Our internationalist medical brigade bears the glorious name of Henry Reeve, a young man, born in the United States, who fought and died for Cuba's sovereignty in our first war of independence. Our revolution can mobilize tens of thousands of doctors and health technicians. It can mobilize an equally vast number of teachers and citizens, who are willing to travel to any corner of the world to fulfill any noble purpose, not to usurp people's rights or take possession of raw materials. The good will and determination of people constitute limitless resources that cannot be kept and would not fit in a bank's vault. They cannot spring from the hypocritical politics of an empire. http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/reflexiones/2008/ing/f250508i.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Jun 11 20:59:24 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:59:24 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Ali: Nato's lost cause Message-ID: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/11/pakistan.nato Nato's lost cause The west's 'good war' in Afghanistan has turned bad. A local solution, rather than a neocolonial one, is what's needed Tariq Ali Wednesday June 11 2008 In the latest clashes on the Pakistan-Afghan border, Nato troops have killed 11 Pakistani soldiers and injured many more, creating a serious crisis in the country and angering the Pakistan military high command, already split on the question. US failure in Afghanistan is now evident and Nato desperation only too visible. Spreading the war to Pakistan would be a disaster for all sides. The Bush-Cheney era is drawing to a close, but it is unlikely that their replacements, despite the debacle in Iraq, will settle the American giant back to a digestive sleep. The temporary cleavage that opened up between some EU states and Washington on Iraq was resolved after the occupation. They could all unite in Afghanistan and fight the good fight. This view has been strongly supported by every US presidential candidate in the run up to the 2008 elections, with Senator Barack Obama pressuring the White House to violate Pakistani sovereignty whenever necessary. He must be pleased. That the "good war" has now turned bad is no longer disputed by a number of serious analysts in the US, even though there is no agreed prescription for dealing with the problems. Not least of which for some is the future of Nato, stranded far away from the Atlantic in a mountainous country, the majority of whose people, after offering a small window of opportunity to the occupiers, realised it was a mistake and became increasingly hostile. The "neo-Taliban" control at least 20 districts in the Kandahar, Helmand and Uruzgan provinces where Nato troops replaced US soldiers. It is hardly a secret that many officials in these zones are closet supporters of the guerrilla fighters. As western intelligence agencies active in the country are fully aware, the situation is out of control. The model envisaged for the occupation was Panama. The then US secretary of State, Colin Powell, explained that: "The strategy has to be to take charge of the whole country by military force, police or other means". His knowledge of Afghanistan was limited. Panama, populated by 3.5 million people, could not have been more different to Afghanistan, which has a population approaching 30 million and is geographically quite dissimilar. To even attempt a military occupation of the entire country would require a minimum of 200,000 troops. A total of 8000 US troops were dispatched to seal the victory. The 4000 "peacekeepers" sent by other countries never left Kabul. The Germans concentrated on creating a police force that could run a police state and the Italians, without any sense of irony, were busy "training an Afghan judiciary" to deal with the drugs mafia. The British were in Helmand amidst the poppy fields. As for the new satellite states involved ? Czechs, Slovenes, Poles, Estonians, Slovakians and Romanians ? it was useful training for the future. Five years later, in September 2006, an attempted bombing of the US embassy came close to hitting its target. A CIA assessment that same month painted a sombre picture, depicting Karzai and his regime as hopelessly corrupt and incapable of defending Afghanistan against the Taliban. Ronald E Neumann, the US Ambassador in Kabul supported this view and told an interviewer that the US faced "stark choices" and defeat could only be avoided through "multiple billions" over "multiple years". The repression, striking blindly, leaves people with no option but to back those trying to resist, especially in a part of the world where the culture of revenge is strong. When a whole community feels threatened it reinforces solidarity, regardless of the character or weakness of those who fight back. Many Afghans who detest the Taliban are so angered by the failures of Nato and the behaviour of its troops that they are hostile to the occupation. Nato itself has stopped pretending that its occupation has anything to do with the needs of the Afghan people and acknowledge it as an open-ended American military thrust into the Middle East and Central Asia. As the Economist summarises, "Defeat would be a body blow not only to the Afghans, but" ? and more importantly, of course ? to the Nato alliance". As ever, geopolitics prevail over Afghan interests in the calculus of the big powers. The basing agreement signed by Washington with its appointee in Kabul in May 2005 gives the Pentagon the right to maintain a massive military presence in Afghanistan in perpetuity. That Washington is not seeking permanent bases in this fraught and inhospitable terrain simply for the sake of "democratisation and good governance" was made clear by Nato's secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer at the Brookings Institution in February this year: the opportunity to site military facilities, and potentially nuclear missiles, in a country that borders China, Iran and Central Asia was too good to miss. More strategically, Afghanistan has become a central theatre for uniting, and extending, the west's power-political grip on the world order. On the one hand, it is argued, it provides an opportunity for the US to shrug off its failures in imposing its will in Iraq and persuading its allies to play a broader role there. In contrast, as one report (pdf) suggests, America and its allies "have greater unity of purpose in Afghanistan. The ultimate outcome of Nato's effort to stabilise Afghanistan and US leadership of that effort may well affect the cohesiveness of the alliance and Washington's ability to shape Nato's future." There are at least two routes out of the Khyber impasse. The first and the worst would be to Balkanise the country. This appears to be the dominant pattern of imperial hegemony at the moment, but whereas the Kurds in Iraq and the Kosovans and others in the former Yugoslavia were willing client-nationalists, the likelihood of Tajiks or Hazaris playing this role effectively is more remote in Afghanistan. The second alternative would require a withdrawal of all US/Nato forces, either preceded or followed by a regional pact to guarantee Afghan stability for the next ten years. Pakistan, Iran, India and Russia could guarantee and support a functioning national government, pledged to preserving the ethnic and religious diversity of Afghanistan and creating a space in which all its citizens can breathe, think and eat every day. It would need a serious social and economic plan to rebuild the country and provide the basic necessities for its people. Nato's failure cannot be simply blamed on the Pakistani government. It is a traditional colonial ploy to blame "outsiders" for internal problems. If anything, the war in Afghanistan has created a critical situation in two Pakistani frontier provinces and the use of the Pakistan army by Centcom has resulted in suicide terrorism in Lahore with the federal intelligence agency and a naval training college targeted by supporters of the Afghan insurgents. The Pashtun majority in Afghanistan has always had close links to its fellow Pashtuns in Pakistan. The present border was an imposition by the British empire, but it has always remained porous. It is virtually impossible to build a Texan fence or an Israeli wall across the mountainous and largely unmarked 2500km border that separates the two countries. The solution is political, not military. And it should be sought in the region not in Washington or Brussels. From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Jun 11 21:21:54 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:21:54 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Disaster in the Making: Canada Concludes Its Free Trade Agreement With Colombia Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( T h e B u l l e t ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A Socialist Project e-bulletin .... No. 112 .... June 11, 2008 ________________________________________________ Disaster in the Making: Canada Concludes Its Free Trade Agreement With Colombia Todd Gordon What's the monetary value of a Colombian trade unionist's life? As it turns out, it depends on how many are killed in a given year since the potential fines the Colombian government will have to pay as penalty under its free trade agreement (FTA) with Canada whenever a union activist is killed is capped at $15 million. If this sounds like a sick joke I apologize, but this is in effect what the Canadian government actually negotiated. On June 7th, Canada proudly proclaimed that it had successfully concluded its trade deal with the human rights-troubled Andean country. Negotiated with an efficiency that must make the Bush administration -- whose own trade agreement with Colombia has stalled because of Congressional opposition -- jealous, the deal was concluded less than a year after negotiations began. With four Canadian cabinet ministers visiting Colombian president Alvaro Uribe and other members of his cabinet between July 2007 and February 2008, it's clear the Harper Tories had made the trade deal a major priority despite Colombia's appalling human rights record (see, for example, my article on Canada and Colombia). As new Foreign Affairs minister (and ex-Liberal), David Emerson, declared, "The Government of Canada is delivering on its commitment to open up opportunities for Canadian business in the Americas and around the world." The agreement, which still hasn't been made public, will now undergo a legal review by Canadian and Colombian lawyers. After the review is completed, it'll be brought to the House of Commons for ratification, which should not be a problem for the Tories despite their minority government since the Liberals have said they'll support it if it contains language on human rights. It does -- but I'll come back to that in a moment. Let the Canadian Capitalist Onslaught Begin Like the trade deals before it (NAFTA, Israel, Chile, Costa Rica and most recently Peru), the Canada-Colombia FTA will significantly reduce tariffs on exports between the participating countries across a whole range of industries. But like the trade deals before it, it perhaps more importantly opens another country up to Canadian investment. As a press release from Foreign Affairs states, "Once implemented, the agreement will lock in market access for Canadian investors and provide them with greater stability, transparency and protection for their investments." Since NAFTA, Canadian-negotiated free trade deals have included chapters that provide extremely strong corporate investment rights (the infamous chapter 11 in NAFTA). That's the "stability, transparency and protection" Foreign Affairs is talking about. Canadian multinationals will now be given privileged access to the Colombian market and its resources, backed up by the right to sue Colombian governments if they feel their rights under the trade agreement haven't been fulfilled -- as might be the case, for instance, if local community opposition halts a mining project. Canadian companies have in fact been actively litigious under the other trade agreements; they are more likely to sue foreign governments than their foreign counterparts are to sue Canadian governments. Add to the new FTA the aggressive neoliberal restructuring Colombia has already undergone in the last several years, including the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA)-funded rewriting of its mining code (which allows corporations access to indigenous land) and the ridiculously low royalty rate imposed on foreign investors (as low as 5% in the oil sector and 0.4% in mining), and Canadian corporations could have a field day. Colombia is rich in petroleum, natural gas, coal, iron ore, nickel, gold, copper, emeralds, and hydropower -- and Canada has the largest mining industry in the world, and not insignificant oil and hydropower sectors. The Colombian FTA is part of Canada's so-called Global Commerce Strategy, a significant part of which is increasing Canada's economic influence in the Americas. According to the Foreign Affairs press release announcing the conclusion of the trade negotiations, "The Strategy includes an aggressive trade negotiation agenda that aims to secure competitive terms of access in markets that offer significant potential for our products and expertise." This strategy has clearly been a success in Colombia. Continue reading: www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet112.html#continue ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( T h e B u l l e t))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Bullet is produced by the Socialist Project. Readers are encouraged to distribute widely. Comments, criticisms and suggestions are welcome. Write to info at socialistproject.ca If you wish to subscribe: www.socialistproject.ca/lists/?p=subscribe The Bullet archive is available at www.socialistproject.ca/bullet For more analysis of contemporary politics check out 'Relay: A Socialist Project Review' at www.socialistproject.ca/relay From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Jun 11 21:47:37 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:47:37 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Whatever Happened to "Democracy Now? Message-ID: <935AF085-BD83-4A09-906F-8C6BB9A1CB59@shaw.ca> June 11, 2008 http://counterpunch.org/ahmad06112008.html When AIPAC Went Missing Whatever Happened to "Democracy Now?" By MUHAMMAD IDREES AHMAD It is with some alarm and dismay that I watched Amy Goodman?s ?Democracy Now? provide platform to right-wing Paksitani journalist Ahmad Rashid, long an apologist for Bush's war-on-terror, to recycle propaganda from British tabloid press and other discredited sources. His tale about al-Qa'ida recruiting white converts for terrorist acts in Europe originated with the British security services as part of their fearmongering campaign to build support for the 42-day detention without charge plan. No shred of evidence was ever offered. Equally bogus are his claims of organized al-Qa'ida 'training camps', where recruits are offered foreign language training etc. Once again, these claims are the products of the vivid imaginations of the terrorologists proliferating in the war on terror fear factory. I suggest Goodman ask Rashid to substantiate claims, or issue a retraction. (When he claims 'Iraq is an Arab problem' and that it would be resolved when its neighbours 'stop interfering', I would have liked Goodman to at least ask if he was aware the country is under U.S. occupation.) He suggests the truce negotiated by the Pakistani government is tantamount to 'supporting the Taliban'. Quoting U.S. military officials in Kabul he alleges that Pakistan is 'funding' the 'resurgence' of the Taliban. He faults Pakistan for not cooperating more enthusiastically in Bush's war on terror. Rashid appears to be living in a timeless world where the realities of 10 years past substitute for the present. Pakistani military's intervention in the FATA region has been brutal, now extending to the frontier heartland of Swat. Tactics have included Israeli-style collective punishment; wholesale demolition of recalcitrant villages; disappearing of opponents (mostly of the tribal homines sacri, not wealthy media figures of Rashid's stripe); bombing raids; extrajudicial killings. The response of the tribesmen -- all swept under the handy label of 'the Taliban' by the government and hacks like Rashid -- is as brutal as it is predictable. Only a few months back three rockets landed in the very safe neighborhood where my sister resides in the frontier city of Peshawar. Kidnapping for ransom has become a common phenomenon. Suicide attacks on the military have been frequent. The Pakistani military death toll now numbers in the hundreds. So when a guest on Goodman?s show starts claiming that the Pakistani government is funding and encouraging the slaughter of its own soldiers I am forced to demur despite my disdain for the regime. When I hear Goodman?s guest fault Pakistan for not allowing US forces on its territory, and refusing CIA a base in the tribal regions, its your judgment I must question Goodman for letting this pass without challenge. The government for some time has shown a preference for a negotiated political settlement, only to be thwarted every time by unauthorized US assaults renewing the conflict. Other times the government has caved under pressure and resumed the assaults itself to fend off accusations that it is 'not doing enough' in the fight against the Taliban. This is the same twaddle Goodman has allowed Rashid to recycle on her show. There is no reason why Pakistan should be cooperating with the US ?war on terror?. Under this rubric, the Musharraf regime has already devastated much of the tribal belt and created enemies where there were none. Contrary to Rashid's claim that the new government is 'willing to follow the US agenda', it has promised to open dialogue with the tribals in order to end hostilities. This is a positive development that makes the US apprehensive, as it does Uncle Toms like Rashid who have wedded their careers to the 'war on terror' as its sanctioned cheer leaders. I hope Goodman shows more care in the future in vetting her guests. She certainly could not have been unaware of the political leanings of this guest as on her very show he had declared his preferred outcome for the region's conflicts: a NATO 'victory' in Afghanistan. This is the second time in a week where Goodman?s editorial judgment has left me deeply disappointed. First was the refusal to cover -- yet again -- the AIPAC conference, with all its implications for US politics and the Middle East. In a year when even the mainstream media was finally forced to take notice (with Jon Stewart of the Daily Show going so far as to refer to the lobby group as the 'Elders of Zion', Democracy Now appeared alone in missing the irony of three presidential candidates pledging to fight the domination of lobbyists in Washington genuflect to the most powerful of them all. Amy, what happened to Democracy Now's promise to speak truth to power? Did you not say once that your aim was to go where the silence is? How is it that the Washington Post was able to break the silence even as Democracy Now remained AWOL? Why did Democracy Now join MSM in denying Mearsheimer and Walt a voice, instead allowing their views to be misrepresented by critics without a chance of rebuttal? How well placed are you to criticize the mainstream for refusing to stand up to power when you can yourself be considered guilty of the same? Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is at the Department of Geography and Sociology, University of Strathclyde. He can be reached at m.idrees at gmail.com From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Jun 11 21:53:18 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:53:18 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The First Signs of "Peak Gas"? Message-ID: <92FFF1A8-03A1-487B-B64A-30474767E700@shaw.ca> The First Signs of "Peak Gas"? http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4963/8/ Andy Rowell, 4th June 2008 Consumers the world over are beginning to protest at the huge gasoline prices they are paying at the pump. But whilst the world goes crazy over the oil prices, there are worrying signs about what is happening in the gas market that could also spell disaster. But it?s the oil price that is currently attracting all the attention. Last month, the Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono postponed an official visit to Europe amid nationwide protests against fuel prices increases. In Europe, French fishermen continued to blockade several strategic ports, whilst their counterparts in Spain and Portugal also threatened protests. In the UK, truckers converged on London to ask for a reduction in fuel duty, whilst Prime Minster Gordon Brown held urgent talks with the oil industry. Over in America, the oil price was said to have forced many trucking companies to the verge of bankruptcy. But as oil continues to hover just under record levels, there are daily warnings that the days of cheap oil have gone forever and the price of oil may soon be $150 or even $200 a barrel by next year. There is also a daily debate as to what is actually causing these unprecedented prices. An increasing number of influential voices are saying it has nothing to do with the actual supply of oil but it is down to speculators exploiting the volatile market. OPEC, which is under fire from many commentators for not increasing production more, argues that the market is already adequately supplied and that $35 per barrel of the recent increase can be put down to speculation. Other voices agree, such as Jeroen van der Ver, head of global oil giant, Shell, who argues that the record oil prices are due to ?market sentiment? rather than a shortage of supply. ?What we say and what we see is there are no physical shortages," he says. ?There are no tankers waiting in the Middle East, there are no cars waiting at gasoline stations because they are out of stock. This has to do with psychology in the markets and you cannot forecast psychology.? His view is shared by George Soros, the multi-billion dollar financier, known as the man who nearly "broke the Bank of England", in the early nineties. Soros argues that it is financial speculators that are largely responsible for driving the crude oil price. ?Speculation... is increasingly affecting the price,? he said. ?The price has this parabolic shape which is characteristic of bubbles,? he said. Political action on speculators is increasing. Last week a senior German politician proposed a worldwide ban on oil trading by speculators. Uwe Beckmeyer, the head of transport for the Social Democratic party, the junior partner in Chancellor Angela Merkel?s ruling coalition, argued that the recent 25 per cent rise in oil price had nothing to do with underlying supply and demand. ?It?s pure speculation,? he said, adding that his party would be calling for joint measures by the G8 to prohibit leveraged trading on energy contracts. Also last week, in America, Senator Jeff Bingaman, the chairman of the influential Senate Energy Committee, asked the top futures market regulator in the US, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, for more information about how much impact speculation was having on the oil futures market. Bingamen then complained he had been given ?glaringly incomplete? data by the CFTC, which argued that speculative trading was not to blame for recent price rises. If speculation is not to blame, what is? Some argue that it is the weak dollar. Steve Hanke, professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University in the US argues that ?Twenty-five percent of the increase in oil prices is strictly due to the fact that the dollar has gone down by 25 percent, because oil all over the world is priced in dollars.? However, others are now arguing that the high oil price is down to good old simple economics. Demand has outstripped supply over the last couple of years and so the price has increased, on the back of roaring demand, especially from China and the Middle East. ?The high-priced energy environment is being driven by the fact that demand has outstripped supply," President George Bush's Energy Secretary, Samuel Bodman, said this month: ?We have sopped up all the available spare oil production capacity in the system.? Others concur. One of the authoritative arbiters of how much oil there is the International Energy Agency, that is currently in the middle of its first attempt to comprehensively assess the condition of the world's top 400 oil fields. Although the findings will not be published until November, according to the Wall Street Journal the IEA is ?preparing a sharp downward revision of its oil-supply forecast, a shift that reflects deepening pessimism over whether oil companies can keep abreast of booming demand.? Fatih Birol, the International Energy Agency?s chief economist, said the oil industry had entered ?a new energy world order? where it was harder to keep supply and demand in equilibrium. ?What has happened in the last few years has not been in line with economic theory,? he says. For years the IEA predicted that supplies of crude would gently increase in line with demand increasing to some 117 million barrels per day by 2030. But not anymore. Buried in the IEA website are figures that up the theory that the supply of oil is in real trouble. Since the beginning of 2004, oil?s price has gone from $33 per barrel to over $130 per barrel. In the same period, demand has increased by some 4.3 million barrels per day to 86.5 million barrels per day, whereas supply has increased by only 2.2 million barrels per day to 85.6 million. Supply is already struggling to keep up with demand, let alone reach over 100 million barrels a day. The bottom line is that demand is now outstripping supply, giving credence to the peak oil pundits that the days of cheap oil over, and the global economy could be heading for a nasty shock. From fentona at shaw.ca Wed Jun 11 23:57:19 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:57:19 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: TORONTO, CANADA - Need for Solidarity === Another Mining Related Struggle === Metallica Resources Inc. in Mexico References: Message-ID: <1DC30489-6D57-457B-8965-8067B59F6A68@shaw.ca> METALLICA RESOURCES Inc. mining struggle coming home to Toronto, Canada, where the investors and beneficiaries are ? (* As of March 2007, the CPP (Canadian Pension Plan) had over Cdn $11,000,000 invested in Metallica Resources Inc.) === THE METALLICA RESOURCES ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING: PICKET AND CREATIVE ACTION Date: June 17th. Time: 10:00 am. Place: Sutton Place Hotel, 955 Bay St., Toronto, ON. (http://www.toronto.suttonplace.com/). === Dear friends of Rights Action, * Folks not in Toronto, Canada area: Please read and pass on this information. * Folks in Toronto area: please read and contact the people mentioned below if you can help. ACTION NEEDED FOR POLICY CHANGE IN CANADA & UNITED STATES: All of these mining and resource extraction struggles (Rights Action is quite involved in struggles in Central America related to gold and nickel mining) are ?our? issues in Canada and United States. More critical education is needed in North America to understand how our governments promote and assist the expansion of our resource extraction corporations and investors across the globe, despite well documented environmental harms and human rights violations. More citizen and investor activism is needed in Canada and the United States, to challenge our unjust corporate and investor relations with countries and communities across the globe. * * * METALLICA RESOURCES Inc. IN MEXICO From: Nadia Hausfather [mailto:activistresearcher at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:49 AM To: info at rightsaction.org Subject: Need your help! Mexican delegation coming to T.O. Hello folks at Rights Action, The FAO (Spanish for Broad Opposition Front) Mexico and Montreal, a movement against illegal mining operations in Cerro de San Pedro, Mexico, has decided to send a delegation to Canada, because Metallica Resources Inc. (the Canadian mining company there) - which is ravaging the earth illegally in Cerro de San Pedro - is having its AGM in Toronto on June 17th (more details in official callout below!). THE METALLICA RESOURCES ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING: PICKET AND CREATIVE ACTION Date: June 17th. Time: 10:00 am. Place: Sutton Place Hotel, 955 Bay St., Toronto, ON. (http://www.toronto.suttonplace.com/). Although the timeline is short, we are at a really critical moment in the struggle right now and both collectives (in Mexico and Montreal) decided to move forward. We made a call to Metallica and found out that we can bring delegates from Mexico into the shareholders' meeting and ask questions. We are also going to try to organize some street theatre and a picket outside, but seeing as we are in Mexico and Montreal, we are hoping that the word gets out in Toronto and that people take interest. The three delegates from Mexico will be: 1- Armando Barreiro - a federal elected parliamentarian 2- Carlos Covarrubias - a lawyer and government 'regidor' or advisor with the opposition party (PRD) who works on the Agrarian Tribunal legal case for Cerro de San Pedro 3- Don Mario Martinez - a retired mineral engineer, resident of Cerro de San Pedro and Frente Amplio Opositor (FAO) activist The delegates will be accompanied by Lorena Gil and Enrique Rivera, who is seeking refugee status in Canada due to repression surrounding the Cerro de San Pedro case. Members of FAO Montreal will also be traveling to Toronto. The delegates are available to meet with any interested organizations before the 17th. I have attached below a "callout" that we're circulating. Lorena Gil will be in Toronto the week before the action, and can be reached at Loregil_26 at yahoo.com. We are hoping to set up meetings with Barreiro and Canadian parliamentarians (who, of course, will not necessarily be in Ottawa). Any advice, names or ideas would also be welcome. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with either myself or Lorena with any questions, tips, etc. In solidarity, Nadia Hausfather :-) (see callout below) (514) 585-6489 ----------------------------- ???CERRO DE SAN PEDRO: MEXICAN MINE BATTLE COMES TO TORONTO!!! Since 1997, residents of the Mexican village of Cerro de San Pedro and the surrounding area have been fighting a large-scale open-pit gold and silver mine. Canadian corporation Metallica Resources Inc. has backed the project since its inception. [As of March 2007, the Canadian Pension Plan has over Cdn$11,000,000 invested in this company.] Mining operations began in 2006 without required environmental permits and despite the repression of dissent, a political assassination, and widespread allegations of corruption. In July 2008, Metallica Resources will merge with two other junior mining firms to form New Gold Inc. Join Mexican anti-mine activists at the site of Metallica Resource's shareholder meeting as they bring the resistance to Canada and give future New Gold shareholders a preview of the battle ahead. CALL FOR SUPPORT AND SOLIDARITY The Frente Amplio Opositor (FAO), the anti-mine movement located in Mexico and Montreal, is urgently seeking organizers and solidarity activists to spread the word and support our mobilization in Toronto. We are looking for people who can help with outreach and mobilization, and who may be interested in organizing other events with the Mexican delegates. Please contact us at cerrodesanpedro at gmail.com for more information. Members of FAO Montreal are available for trips to Toronto to organize actions in the coming weeks. For photos of an anti-Metallica action in Montreal in 2007: http://photos.cmaq.net/v/fao/ For more information on the struggle in Cerro de San Pedro, Mexico: http://faomontreal.wordpress.com/ or http://cerrodesanpedro.org To get in touch: cerrodesanpedro at gmail.com * * * Please forward this info on down the line. If you want on-off this elist: info at rightsaction.org From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Jun 12 05:17:55 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:17:55 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] No, I Can't! Message-ID: <485105E3.80909@attglobal.net> Obama, Israel and AIPAC by Uri Avnery www.counterpunch.com (June 09 2008) After months of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world. And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning. That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked. IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen. The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday. The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon. The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large. WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected? The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor. Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions. True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival. But in a presidential race? THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates. Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles. And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how! The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime. And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas. OK he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.) But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous. NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict. On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner. Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements. In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests. Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great. But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president. SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.) What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust? The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel. The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the Zionists immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be God's chosen people. Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as "pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a land without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other. True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power. HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible. Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself." I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world. Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people. If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!" _____ Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism (2003). http://www.counterpunch.com/avnery06092008.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 05:55:16 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:55:16 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Iran Makes the Sciences a Part of Its Revolution Message-ID: Iran Makes the Sciences A Part of Its Revolution By Thomas Erdbrink Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, June 6, 2008; A01 TEHRAN -- As Burton Richter, an American Nobel laureate in physics, entered the main auditorium of Tehran's prestigious Sharif University, hundreds of students rose to give him a loud and lengthy ovation. But Richter, wearing a white suit and leaning on a cane, said he was the one who should be awed. "The students here are very impressive," Richter said, lauding the high level of education at Sharif. "I expect to hear a lot more from you all in the future." The students, young men and women with laptops and smart briefcases, giggled in their seats. A woman took pictures of the Stanford professor emeritus, whose visit last month was part of a privately funded academic program run by the National Academies of the United States and universities in Iran. "Mr. Richter is an example for us," explained Ismael Hosseini, a 23-year-old electrical engineering student who had managed to get a seat near the stage. "But soon I will be able to listen to an Iranian scientist who has received a Nobel Prize for his or her work," he said. "We are all studying and researching hard to receive this honor." Iran's determination to develop what it says is a nuclear energy program is part of a broader effort to promote technological self-sufficiency and to see Iran recognized as one of the world's most advanced nations. The country's leaders, who three decades ago wrested the government away from a ruler they saw as overly dependent on the West, invest heavily in scientific and industrial achievement, but critics say government backing is sometimes erratic, leaving Iran's technological promise unfulfilled. Still, Iranian scientists claim breakthroughs in nanotechnology, biological researchers are pushing the boundaries of stem cell research and the country's car industry produces more cars than anywhere else in the region. "Iran wants to join the group of countries that want to know about the biggest things, like space," Richter said to the students during his speech at Sharif University, which draws many of the country's best students. Every year, 1.5 million young Iranians take a national university entrance exam, or "concours." Of the 500,000 who pass and are entitled to free higher education, only the top 800 can attend Sharif, considered Iran's MIT. At Sharif, students work in fields including aerospace and nanotechnology. While some end up advancing Iran's nuclear program or finding work in other technological fields in Iran, many, especially PhD candidates, are lured by employers or universities in Australia, Canada and the United States. "Our visitors are flabbergasted when they come to our modern laboratories and see women PhD students. Often they had a completely different image of Iran, not as an academic country," said Abdolhassan Vafai, a professor at Sharif. "Here, we educate our students to solve problems that affect all humanity, like hunger, global warming and water shortages." But in Iran, scientists are also expected to serve ideological goals. Iran's leaders hold up their inventions as proof that the country's 1979 revolution has made it independent and self-sufficient. When President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad opened Iran's first space center in February, he issued a launch order sending a test missile into space and proclaimed that "no power can overcome Iran's will." Iran hopes to launch its second satellite -- the first was launched commercially by a Russian company -- within weeks, using a locally made rocket. Iran's advances in this field cannot be independently verified. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has encouraged scientific breakthroughs for geopolitical reasons. "If you are in pursuit of a science, you bring dissatisfaction and displeasure to the enemy of the revolution's aspirations," Khamenei said during a visit to Iran's stem cell research center in 2006. In 1979, revolutionaries accused Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the country's U.S.-backed autocrat, of having made Iran dependent on other states for technology, military equipment and industrial hardware. During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the country faced an enemy supported by superpowers that isolated Iran. Squadrons of U.S.-made F-4 fighter jets were grounded because of U.S. sanctions that barred Iran's access to spare parts. "In the war, the whole world was against us. We learned that we had to stand on our own two feet," said Manoucher Manteqi, chief executive of Iran's largest carmaker, Iran Khodro. The state-run company produced more than 600,000 cars in 2007 and has no equivalent in the Middle East. India's Tata Motors produced just over 400,000 vehicles in 2007; French automaker Peugeot Citroen -- with which Iran Khodro has a joint venture -- makes about 3.5 million vehicles a year worldwide. "The sanctions forced us to use our full potential. We are now commercializing what we learned back then," explained Manteqi, who wore a worker's coat to show unity with his assembly-line colleagues during an interview in March. Iranians worry about the impact of U.N. sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. "They will lead to limitations in our cooperation with other countries," Manteqi said. "But they also mean that others cannot use Iran's potential, like foreign carmakers we want to cooperate with. Iran needs 1.5 million cars a year -- this is an interesting market. Under sanctions, we might have to do things ourselves, but we are used to that." "If the West refuses Iran nuclear technology, it means they might pressure us in the future over development of other technologies," said Nasser Aghdami of the Royan stem cell institute in Tehran. The state-sponsored facility does research on human embryonic stem cells. "Our religious authorities have decided that we can do research on fetuses until 4 months old," he explained. "We exchange information with scientists in the U.S. I feel science should be above politics," Aghdami said. But when he wanted to order a new ultracentrifuge machine needed for research, he found that his foreign counterparts weren't allowed to send the equipment to Iran because it was considered "dual use" -- technology that could be applied to Iran's nuclear program. The nuclear centrifuges that Iran produces cannot be used for stem cell research. "This shows that we still need a lot of willpower to achieve our goal," Aghdami said. Iranian stem cell scientists are already involved in efforts to reprogram skin cells into embryonic cells in order to bypass ethical problems, he said. "Only three other countries -- Germany, the U.S. and Japan -- are involved in this. We are proud to compete with the best." Persia, as Iran was known until the 19th century, made discoveries in the natural sciences, mathematics and philosophy. After the Arab-Islamic invasion in the 7th century, Persian scientists developed medical alcohol and made important contributions in algebra and chemistry. "Everybody wants their kids to study here. Step into a taxi in Tehran and the driver will tell you this is his second job to support his kids in university," said Hashem Rafii-Tabar, a professor at a research institute in Tehran. He returned to his homeland six years ago to set up a department for nanotechnology for a consortium of nine Iranian universities. His students are making conceptual designs for nanodevices that can identify and destroy individual cancer cells. "We have high ambitions," Rafii-Tabar explained. "Already we are the number one in nanotechnology in the region, maybe only equaled by Israel. Iran produces more papers on this subject in international scientific indexed publications than any other country in the region. However, Iran has not yet submitted patents, official new inventions. Its regional competitors have also not reached this stage." The Iranian government supports the nanotechnology project. Last month a nanotechnology supercomputing center was opened, financed by the government. Rafii-Tabar observed that science projects in Iran often take off with a flying start but later run aground. "When a new field of research comes to Iran, it incubates, goes on to be taught at the famous universities, but revolutions and changes of government have stopped projects in the past," he said. "We used to be big in IT, but we still need foreign software for our ATM machines." At Iran Khodro's factory west of Tehran, the day shift had just ended. But Manteqi, the CEO, was not leaving. "I should work harder than everyone else, because many things still go wrong," he explained with a smile. "As the late Ayatollah Khomeini said: 'If we want it, we can do it.' We have more experts and professionals in Iran than in any of the neighboring countries. If they are managed properly, we can fulfill our ambitions. Iran can do this in cooperation with the rest of the world, but, if needed, we can also do it by ourselves." -- Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 07:39:30 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:39:30 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Danish TV Elects Iraqi-born Teenager as Miss Headscarf 2008 Message-ID: Danish TV elects Iraqi-born teenager as Miss Headscarf 2008 The Associated Press Tuesday, June 10, 2008 COPENHAGEN, Denmark: A Danish TV station said Tuesday it has chosen an Iraqi-born woman as winner of the Miss Headscarf 2008 competition, as the Nordic country debates Islamic traditions in the aftermath of a deadly attack on its embassy. Judges picked 18-year-old Huda Falah from photographs of 46 contestants in an Internet-based pageant organized by public broadcaster DR1's teenage show. Falah was chosen because the light blue Islamic headscarf was "a fantastic and shocking color," said Uffe Buchhardt, one of the judges. The contest highlights a continuing debate over Islamic traditions in Denmark, which drew world attention in 2006 when Danish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad triggered violent protests in Muslim countries. A June 2 bombing, claimed by al-Qaida, outside the Danish Embassy in Pakistan killed six people. An al-Qaida commander said it was carried out to fulfill the promise of Osama bin Laden to avenge the Feb. 13 reprinting in Danish papers of a cartoon depicting Islam's Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban. Organizers of the monthlong TV competition said they started it as "an alternative way of encouraging young people to participate in the debate, by addressing them on their terms," DR1 said, adding it was a fashion ? not a beauty ? contest. First prize in the contest included an iPod, a headscarf designed by a Danish fashion boutique and a one-year subscription to the English-language Muslim Girl Magazine. Falah, who is studying to become a social worker, moved to Denmark with her family in 1997. She started wearing a headscarf at age 9. She said by participating in the contest she hoped to help remove barriers between young Muslims and Danes "who don't talk easily because of the image (of Muslims) created by the media." The contest has sparked little debate in Denmark where the government has said it will introduce laws to bar judges in court from wearing religious attire or insignia, including Islamic head scarves, crucifixes, Jewish skull caps and turbans. But the Islamic Faith Community, a small Copenhagen-based Muslim organization, had advised young women not to participate in the contest. "The whole point of the headscarf is that it's a symbol of chastity," the group's spokeswoman, Bettina Meisner, told The Associated Press. "We don't wish young women to expose themselves as objects." -- Yoshie From critical.montages at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 08:24:53 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:24:53 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Turkey's AKP Faces Closure Message-ID: Noah Feldman wrote in February that "In Turkey, starting with the head-scarf amendment -- a case study of religious freedom against coercive secularism -- is perfectly fine," but it was a mistake on the part of the AKP to think that the party could win more freedom for its Muslim base to practice their religion without insisting, at the same time, on other rights and freedoms of liberal democracy (such as workers' freedom of assembly) -- all the while pushing for more economic freedom for the bourgeoisie. But the closure will also be a setback for the rest of Turkey, as it once again narrows the scope of democracy by making the largest political party disappear judicially. -- Yoshie TURKEY'S AKP FINALLY BEGINS TO PREPARE FOR THE INEVITABLE By Gareth Jenkins Tuesday, June 10, 2008 Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has finally begun to prepare for what now appears to be its almost inevitable closure by the country's Constitutional Court, according to reports in the Turkish media. On March 14 Public Prosecutor Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya applied to the Constitutional Court for the closure of the AKP on the grounds that it had become a focus for activities designed to undermine the principle of secularism, which is enshrined in the country's constitution as one of the unchangeable defining characteristics of the Turkish Republic (see EDM, March 17). The alleged anti-secular activities listed in Yalcinkaya's indictment included two constitutional amendments passed by the AKP on February 9 to try to create the legal framework for lifting the headscarf ban in Turkish universities. On June 5 the Constitutional Court annulled the amendments on the grounds that they were a violation of secularism (see EDM, June 6). As a result, it is now difficult to see how the court can do anything but rule in Yalcinkaya's favor when it issues a decision on his application for the AKP's closure later this year. When Yalcinkaya first issued his indictment, AKP officials, led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, refused to contemplate preparations for the formation of a new party, arguing that it would be a public admission of defeat. To Erdogan, who prides himself on his political machismo, such an attitude probably appeared to make sense. The AKP failed, however, to develop a coherent strategy to counter the closure case or simply to ignore it and concentrate on the country's many problems, not least the growing signs of an economic slowdown. The AKP thus became reactive rather than pro-active, focusing primarily on protesting its innocence, thereby effectively handing the initiative to the Constitutional Court. Frustration among AKP members over the party's inertia in the face of its apparently impending closure has been exacerbated by Erdogan's management style. Like most Turkish political parties, the AKP is poorly institutionalized and almost all power inside the party is concentrated in the hands of the leader, who not only approves all the party's candidates for parliamentary elections but effectively also chooses the delegates to the party congresses, which elect the party leader. Decisions in the AKP are made by Erdogan himself in consultation with a coterie of trusted advisors in a process that is usually as opaque to the majority of AKP members of parliament as it is to the rest of the country. The lack of communication between Erdogan and the rest of the party was clearly demonstrated in the wake of the Constitutional Court's ruling of June 5. On June 7 Koksal Toptan, the AKP speaker of parliament, announced that one solution to the current standoff between the AKP and the judiciary would be a completely new constitution and a second chamber, or Senate, in addition to the current unicameral parliament (Radikal, Hurriyet, Yeni Safak, Milliyet, Cumhuriyet, June 8). The announcement took the members of the AKP by surprise, forcing senior officials to note that Toptan was just expressing a personal opinion. On June 9 Ahmet Iyimaya, an AKP member of parliament for Ankara and chair of the Parliamentary Justice Committee, held a press conference to propose giving parliament the authority to veto any decision by the Constitutional Court (Hurriyet, Radikal, Zaman, Vatan, June 10). Once again, the announcement took the rest of the AKP by surprise. Government Spokesperson Cemil Cicek subsequently issued a statement distancing the AKP from what he described as Iyimaya's personal opinion and reassuring the public that the government had no such plans (Hurriyet, Radikal, Zaman, Vatan, June 10). On June 10, writing in the liberal daily Radikal, Murat Yetkin, who is one of the most reliable journalists in Turkey, quoted unnamed AKP officials as admitting that they had now begun making plans for the creation of a new political party to replace the AKP if, as expected, it is eventually closed. They said that they had yet to decide on a name for the new party but had already begun to draw up a list of possible candidates to oversee its regional organization (Radikal, June 10). There was no indication, however, as to whether there had been any discussions about the possible composition of the new party's leadership. Yalcinkaya's indictment calls for 71 current and former members of the AKP, including Erdogan, to be banned from membership in any political party for five years. As the result of a loophole in Turkish law, Erdogan would still be able to run for parliament as an independent and, if asked to form a government by President Abdullah Gul, could even once again become prime minister. But if he is banned from being a member of any political party, Erdogan would not able to lead the successor party to the AKP. There are several precedents in Turkey for prominent politicians attempting to control parties of which they were not members through a proxy, normally a close associate whom they ensured would be elected to head the party. But such parties have never been as successful as when the politicians in question have been the de jure as well as the de facto leaders. The confusion in the AKP since the case for its closure was filed has already demonstrated one of the drawbacks of Erdogan's authoritarian management style. If the successor party to the AKP ever comes under pressure, maintaining internal cohesion is likely to be even more of a challenge if Erdogan is attempting to run the party apparatus from outside through a proxy. Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research Erdogan's AKP Leads All in Turkey June 09, 2008 Abstract: (Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Turkey's Justice and Development Party (AKP) remains the dominant political force in the country, according to a poll by A&G Research. 39.7 per cent of respondents would vote for the governing party in the next legislative election. (Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Turkey's Justice and Development Party (AKP) remains the dominant political force in the country, according to a poll by A&G Research. 39.7 per cent of respondents would vote for the governing party in the next legislative election. The Republican People's Party (CHP) is second with 19.4 per cent, followed by the National Action Party (MHP) with 17.1 per cent. Turkish voters renewed the Great National Assembly in July 2007. Final results gave the AKP 46.6 per cent of the vote and 341 seats in the legislature. Parties require at least 10 per cent of the vote to earn seats under the country's proportional representation system. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a member of the AKP, has served as prime minister since March 2003. In March, Abdurrahman Yalcinkaya, Turkey's chief prosecutor of the Court of Appeals, filed a lawsuit in the country's Constitution Court demanding the closure of the AKP for allegedly jeopardizing Turkey's secularist nature by trying to implement Islamic rule. The case was brought to the Court after lawmakers approved a constitutional amendment to lift a ban on university students wearing the Muslim headscarf, viewed by secularists as a symbol of political Islam. Erdogan has denied the accusations, saying that his party?which does have Islamist roots?is not trying to instate Islamic rule in the country. The AKP submitted its defence to the court on Apr. 30. On Jun. 5, the Constitutional Court ruled against the government's proposed constitutional amendment to allow the use of the Muslim headscarf in universities. AKP legislators had tried to allow the garments as a matter of personal and religious freedom, but the court considered this to be against the country's secularist mandate. Senior AKP lawmaker Bekir Bozdag declared: "The Constitutional Court has overstepped its power and interfered in democracy. However, this verdict is binding and will be obeyed." Polling Data What party would you support in the next parliamentary election? Justice and Development Party (AKP) 39.7% Republican People's Party (CHP) 19.4% National Action Party (MHP) 17.1% Source: A&G Research Methodology: Interviews with 2,386 Turk adults in 33 provinces, conducted on May 24 and May 25, 2008. No margin of error was provided. Cf. 8.6.08 Turkey Political Poll A political poll commissioned by the Swiss bank Credit Suisse depicts a discernible level of fallout from the tumult, which has surrounded Turkey's governing AK Party. According to the poll conducted by A&G Research, support for the AKP has fallen to 39.7% from a mid-summer 2007 election result of 47%. If there is indeed truth to the findings of this poll, their most significant message is not that the AKP is losing support among the Turkish public, but rather which political group is benefiting from this slide. Turkey's right-wing nationalist MHP has apparently improved its standing by three percentage points to 17.1%. Also of note, Turkey's mainstream secular party, the CHP, continues to lose ground. As this Bosphorus Watch post from several months ago demonstrates, there is little surprise that Turkey is experiencing a shift toward the right and nationalism. In addition to the link between an economic downturn and nationalism, it is equally significant that the CHP has been unable fill the small void left by the AKP. The secularist party's failure to generate traction among Turkish voters is most likely due to its particularly stale vision. There is little about the CHP that is fresh or that represents a radical departure other than its steady dose of reactionary squabbling with the AKP. In this respect, the sacking the CHP's long-time leader, Deniz Baykal, would be a good first step toward creating momentum for the secularist cause. Economic growth to hit speed bump Thursday, June 12, 2008 Turkish PM's Alevi advisor resigns Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's advisor and AKP MP Reha Camuroglu, who was also the architect of the AKP's policy towards Turkey's Alevi community, resigned from his post. Camuroglu, himself an Alevi, said the AKP did not keep the promises it made to Alevis. Turkish PM's Alevi advisor resigns The AKP started an a new policy towards Alevis in Turkey after July 22 elections, stepping in to meet the expectations of the Alevi community. Alevis are the second largest religious community in Turkey, although there is no official statistics available. The Alevis' interpretation of Islam differs from Sunnis, such as they pray in assembly houses (cemevi), not in mosques. Alevis demand equal treatment with Sunnism and to be recognized as a unique faith allowing free religious expression. Erdogan, who gave place to some Alevi MPs in his party in the elections, wanted Camuroglu to prepare a democratization package including the rights of Alevi community. Within the party's new policy toward the Alevis, the AKP decided to take some tangible steps, including to form an institution attached to the Prime Ministry, to represent Alevism, and to open more places of worship. However the AKP has shelved its initiatives regarding the issue, not implementing its decisions. "Mr. President, we wanted the discrimination against Alevis to end. Did it? Can I ask; how many Alevis have high level positions in the bureaucracy or are among the governors? Is there just one Alevi governor? Is that enough? What about the police commissioners? And during the AKP's six-year rule; how many Alevi investors have won tenders? Maybe there are none," Camuroglu wrote the resignation letter submitted to Erdogan. Photo: Hasan Tufekci February 8, 2008 Op-Ed Contributor Veiled Democracy? By NOAH FELDMAN Cambridge, Mass. THE West doesn't know quite what to think of Turkey's Islamic-oriented ruling party: does it envision a liberal, European future for Turkey or an Islamist one? A vote this week on the seemingly minor issue of whether head scarves should be allowed at universities will help us begin to answer that question. The ban on women covering their heads on campus has long been a thorn in the side of the Justice and Development Party. The rule has the perverse effect of keeping devoutly religious women out of higher education. A few years ago, while on a trip to lecture about Islam, I met a daughter of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan ? not in Istanbul, but at Indiana University, which she was attending at least in part so she could cover her head while getting an education. The ban ? a relic of the aggressive secularism enforced by modern Turkey's founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk ? can be repealed only by a constitutional amendment. Such an amendment was just one of dozens of changes that the Justice and Development Party was expected to propose a few weeks ago as part of a comprehensive overhaul of Turkey's state-centered, ethnically narrow Constitution. The description of the package of draft amendments that was leaked to the press would put Turkey on a decidedly liberal constitutional course. Reports said that it would vest sovereignty in the people, not the state, and acknowledge that the category "Turkish" in reality encompasses people of all ethnicities ? implicitly including Kurds, whose separate identity has long been suppressed. The new Constitution would give parents increased control over their children's education, allowing them to opt out of state-mandated religious instruction. In this context, lifting the head-scarf ban could be seen as just another step toward the religious liberty that liberal, Western states claim to prize. But before the amendment package could be formally introduced, a minority secularist party, the Nationalist Movement Party, introduced an amendment limited to ending the head-scarf ban. Support from that party essentially guarantees passage for any initiative the government favors ? and, indeed, it passed a preliminary vote on Thursday and is likely to get final approval tomorrow. Apparently, Prime Minister Erdogan felt he could not turn down the opportunity to get the head scarf ban revoked. Unfortunately, the passage of the head-scarf amendment casts doubt on whether the rest of the constitutional package will be introduced at all. Some hard-liners within the ruling party seem to be questioning whether it is worth the fight over liberal constitutional ideals if the gains to religion like lifting the head scarf ban can be achieved other ways. They have a point: the party must always be careful about provoking the military, which sees itself not only as the protector of secularism but of traditional Turkish nationalism, and is wary of any major liberalizing changes. The issue raises a big question about Mr. Erdogan: is he dedicated to his party's plans for comprehensive constitutional reform, or is he simply serving the interests of religion? The latter would be a grave error ? if Turkey is to continue its integration into European and Western civilization, it needs to show that liberal values and Islam are not only compatible but complementary. The audience for this message includes Europe, which for historical reasons is skeptical ? perhaps too skeptical ? about bringing a non-Christian nation into the orbit of the European Union. Yet there is a more important audience: the Muslim world at large. The rising global Islamist movement is embroiled in its own epochal debate about whether an authentically Islamic government can and must respect individual freedoms and the equality of all citizens. The best possible refutation of the claim that Islam and democracy are incompatible would be to point to an existing government where liberal and Islamic values work together. In Turkey, starting with the head-scarf amendment ? a case study of religious freedom against coercive secularism ? is perfectly fine. Liberalism, after all, has its roots in the desire to protect Christian religious liberty. But the historical staying power of liberal democracy has come from expanding citizenship and extending constitutional protections to minority groups and others vulnerable to government coercion. Turkey has the chance to blaze that trail in the Muslim world ? it's up to Mr. Erdogan to keep moving ahead. Noah Feldman, a contributing writer for The Times Magazine, is a professor at Harvard Law School and a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Alarm spreads over Turkey's troubles By M K Bhadrakumar -- Yoshie From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Jun 12 09:12:13 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:12:13 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Energy-hungry public turning its back on nature Message-ID: <5444F8B8-EC0F-437C-AE76-ED78DB0053E3@shaw.ca> fyi Trees are good but oil is better Energy-hungry public turning its back on nature Claudia Cattaneo, Financial Post Published: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=073f28a8-d537-4686-9daf-6f5c8b481608 SURVEY GAUGES OILSANDS ATTITUDES: Generally speaking, do you think that future development of the oilsands is a good thing or bad thing? Flieshman-Hillard Oilsands Survey, Andrew Barr, National Post A year ago, the federal Cabinet would have bellyached for a while before giving its blessing to an oilsands project such as Kearl, owned by Imperial Oil Ltd. and its parent, Exxon Mobil Corp., facing a high- profile assault from the green lobby. But oil then was at US$60 a barrel, gasoline sold for around a buck a litre and climate change was front and centre in a still-robust economy. With oil prices now more than double year-ago levels, outrage over the high cost of gasoline in a slumping economy part of the daily news diet, rising food prices blamed on high energy costs, and greater public awareness about the tightness of global oil supplies, the recent behind-the-scenes federal government approval of permits to allow the continuation of Kearl, an $8-billion project delayed by court challenges from four green organizations, seemed like the right thing to do. What's increasingly apparent is that the national mood is changing in favour of the continuation of oilsands development, despite an expanding effort by the green lobby to derail projects because of their environmental impact, confirming once again that the environment tends to take a back seat when its protection hits the pocketbook. According to a poll of 500 Canadians and 500 Americans conducted in May and June for its clients by the Calgary and Dallas offices of U. S.-based Fleishman-Hillard International Communications, 75% of Canadians and 68% of Americans said future development of the oilsands is "a good thing." The poll also found: -A high level of awareness of the oilsands in both countries, with 67% of Canadians and 47% of Americans saying they were somewhat to very aware of the deposits in Northern Alberta. -When asked how important the oilsands are to the overall security of the North American energy supply, 83% of Americans and 73% of Canadians said it is very important. -Among those who believe that oilsands development is a bad thing, only 43% in Canada and 31% in the United States said it should be stopped even if it means paying more for oil and gas. -Canadians have greater concern about the impact of oilsands development on the environment than about security of oil supplies, while Americans are more concerned about the oilsands as a secure supply of oil than about their environmental impact. Linda Smith, Fleishman-Hillard executive vice-president, said she was surprised by how much Canadians and Americans are aware of and support oilsands development given the prominence of the environmental agenda in the media. A survey on Canadian attitudes toward the oil-and-gas industry conducted recently by Ipsos Reid for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers came to similar conclusions. While CAPP is still interpreting the extensive survey, conducted in February and March for its members, vice-president Brian Maynard said, "Opposition to the industry wasn't as high as I was expecting." Mr. Maynard said even based on anecdotal evidence in the past couple of months, there has been a noticeable spurt in interest in the oilsands as an answer to tight oil supplies, while environmental concerns have been softening. The public-opinion results are encouraging for the oil industry, which recently stepped up its efforts to communicate why oilsands development is needed, whether through advertising campaigns (the approach taken by Total SA), or meetings in the community (as done by ConocoPhillips). What's also apparent is that the green community's efforts to paint the oilsands as an undesirable source of dirty oil aren't hitting the mark with an increasingly energy-sophisticated public. ccattaneo at nationalpost.com From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Jun 12 09:45:47 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:45:47 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Mumia: Obama's Victory Ours? Message-ID: <427CFF80-1BC9-4EF9-ADEA-497AE343DE78@shaw.ca> Obama's Victory Ours? Jun 12, 2008 By Mumia Abu-Jamal Mumia Abu-Jamal's ZSpace Page / ZSpace With the attainment of the required delegates to claim the Democratic Party's nomination for U.S. president, Sen. Barack H. Obama (D. ILL.) has written a new page in American history. For by so doing he succeeds where Channing Phillips, Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Sr., and Al Sharpton could not-by gaining the necessary delegates to demand nomination. Of course, there have been numerous Black candidates for president, but these have been third party efforts designed more to raise issues, to organize or protest than to actually win elections. Some of the best known have been Eldridge Cleaver (former Black Panther Minister of Information), Dick Gregory, Dr. Lenora Fulani, and the former congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney. But this is a different kettle of fish, for Obama's candidacy is the closest to make it to the winner's circle. What also distinguishes Obama from his predecessors is he doesn't come from civil rights, Black liberation, socialist or anti war movements. (He often remarks at speeches, "I'm not against all wars, I'm just against dumb wars") Indeed, although his detractors may try to paint him as a leftist liberal this is hardly true. On issues both foreign and domestic he would've been more at home in the Republican Party of his senatorial forebear, Edward Brooke of Massachusetts. For though he is Black by dint of his African father, he has studiously avoided Black political groups in his long, harrowing climb to the rim of the White House. He has studiously avoided the very real and long standing grievances of Black America. In fact, he tried to run a "post-racial" campaign until Sen. Hillary R. Clinton (D.N.Y.) (and her rambunctious husband, former Pres. Bill), brought race front and center during the Super Tuesday February primaries, by trying to pigeonhole him as "the Black candidate." This primary wounded Obama, and as he won in the delegate count, he also lost a number of primary states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, which are necessary for a win in November. Politics is the art of making people believe that they are in power when in fact, they have none. It is a measure of how dire is the hour that they've passed the keys to the kingdom to a Black man. As in many American cities, Black Mayors were let in when the treasuries were almost barren, and tax bases were almost at rock-bottom. With the nation's manufacturing base also a thing of history, amidst the socioeconomic wreckage of globalization, with foreign affairs in shambles, the rulers reach for a pretty, brown face to front for the Empire. "Real change that you could believe in" would be an end to Empire, and an end to wars for corporate greed, not just a change of the shade of the political managers. That change, I'm afraid, is still to come. Mumia Abu-Jamal is an acclaimed American journalist and author who has been writing from Death Row for more than twenty-five years. Mumia was sentenced to death after a trial that was so flagrantly racist that Amnesty International dedicated an entire report to describing how the trial "failed to meet minimum international standards safeguarding the fairness of legal proceedings." Mumia is author of many books, including Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners vs. The USA, forthcoming from City Lights Books. From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives URL: http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/3521 From shimogamo at attglobal.net Thu Jun 12 19:37:03 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:37:03 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control Message-ID: <4851CF3F.8070706@attglobal.net> Bush wants fifty military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors by Patrick Cockburn The Independent, London (June 05 2008) A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November. The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country. But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November. The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq - a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal. America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 - 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than fifty bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government. The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty", said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn. The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge". Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 feet and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation. Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans". Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing. The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq. Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005. The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence. The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord. The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html _____ New agreement lets US strike any country from inside Iraq by Basil Adas Gulfnews.com, Dubai (June 03 2008) Baghdad: A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned. Senior Iraqi military sources have told Gulf News that the long-term controversial agreement is likely to include three major items. Under the agreement, Iraqi security institutions such as Defence, Interior and National Security ministries, as well as armament contracts, will be under American supervision for ten years. The agreement is also likely to give American forces permanent military bases in the country, as well as the right to move against any country considered to be a threat against world stability or acting against Iraqi or American interests. The military source added, "According to this agreement, the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border". The sources confirmed that the American army is in the process of completing the building of the military facilities and runways for the permanent bases. He added that the American air bases in Kirkuk and Mosul will be kept for no longer than three years. However, he said there were efforts by the Americans to include the Kirkuk base in the list of permanent bases. The sources also said that a British brigade was expected to remain at the international airport in Basra for ten years as long as the American troops stayed in the permanent bases in Iraq. Iraqi analysts said that the second item of the controversial agreement which permits American forces on Iraqi territories to launch military attacks against any country it considers a threat is addressed primarily to Iran and Syria. Iran has raised serious concerns in the past few days over the Iraqi-American security agreement and followed it with issuing religious fatwas and called for demonstrations, mainly by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr movement, who is close to Iran, against the agreement. http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/08/06/03/10218150.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Jun 12 22:06:39 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:06:39 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Farmers Put 220 Acres Under Glass to Create Vast Artificial Environment Message-ID: Welcome to Thanet Earth: is this a taste of future for UK agriculture? Cucumbers and peppers for eight months, tomatoes all year round in seven giant Kent glasshouses * Esther Addley * The Guardian, * Wednesday June 11 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/11/greenbuilding.food/print Inside a Thanet Earth greenhouse at Birchington, Kent. The lighting will be so bright that workers will have to wear sunglasses Inside a Thanet Earth greenhouse at Birchington, Kent. The lighting will be so bright that workers will have to wear sunglasses. Photograph: Henry Browne From the A299 Thanet Way there is not a great deal to be seen - just some low white structures on the brow of the hill, and a discreet little sign. But that is because fewer than 15 of the 80 football pitches' worth of greenhouse have so far been constructed. Once this development is fully operational it will be rather harder to ignore. The low hill on the Isle of Thanet in Kent will be home to 1.3 million plants, growing in seven greenhouses, each up to 140m in length and fed by its own reservoir. Seven power generating stations on site will heat the glasshouses, and generate, as a byproduct, enough electricity to supply half of Thanet, an area in north-east Kent incorporating the towns of Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs. The crops themselves will be suspended from the 8m ceiling in huge hydroponic rows, their roots never touching the chalky Kent soil beneath. This is Thanet Earth, Britain's biggest greenhouse development, which will increase by 15% the UK's crop of salad vegetables. Cucumbers and peppers will be picked continuously from February to October, tomatoes harvested every day of the week, 52 weeks a year. Link to this audio Esther Addley visits Thanet Earth This kind of industrial agriculture is relatively common in the Netherlands and elsewhere but has never been attempted on this scale in the UK. But with British consumers increasingly demanding British salad vegetables, all year round, a consortium of Dutch growers approached Fresca, the UK's largest fresh produce supplier, with a plan to develop a site in Britain. Thanet Earth was born. "We wanted Planet Thanet but in hindsight it's a bit lacking in sophistication," said Steve McVicars, the site's MD. The advantages of the model to growers are self-evident. The vegetables' growing season is hugely extended in a sheltered climate of perpetual summer, with every nutritional need attended to and artificial lighting for part of the night. Growing hydroponically, in nutrient-enriched water rather than soil, allows the suspension of the crops at waist height rather than ground level, for ease of picking. "Financially, commercially, in terms of sustainability and [ease of] growing, this has become more and more the model," said McVicars. Not every rural community would welcome the glazing over of 92 hectares (220 acres) of prime farmland, but for the local council at least, the prospect of 550 new jobs has sweetened the pill. Roger Latchford, deputy leader of Thanet district council, describes the development as "eye-popping" in scale. "It's absolutely awesome, and very significant. In deprived areas the creation of 500 jobs is a major success story." He hopes the comparatively pleasant working conditions, in a heated greenhouse so bright workers will have to wear sunglasses, will attract locals, though others have suggested that the jobs may go overwhelmingly to migrant labour, with little impact on local employment rates. Alastair Bruce, an environmental and geological consultant who also represents south Birchington on the council, agrees that the positive aspects of the development, which will be complete in August 2010, could outweigh the environmental impact. "Had I had a way of influencing where it was sited, I wouldn't necessarily have chosen where it is. It's on high land, and we've taken out a fair acreage of good quality agricultural land. Having said that, it's a unique venture in the UK, I'm extremely pleased to have it here in Thanet, and even more pleased to have it called Thanet Earth." While some locals had early suspicions, he notes, the project has not attracted significant levels of opposition at any stage. It's a familiar theme, too, in the village. "If it leads to the destruction of more hedgerows to make way for the greenhouses then I wouldn't be too happy about it, but if it's providing lots of jobs for local people then I can't see that is a bad thing," says Taffina Jenkins, behind the till in a newsagents in Birchington. The site's developers say they have taken steps to ensure the environmental impact, considering the scale of the operation, will be minimised. The huge reservoirs, which will capture rainwater and recycle the water in which the crops grow, will allow the site to be self-sufficient from May to September, draining nothing from the local utilities. The 32MW generated by the combined heat and power system, uploaded to the National Grid, will offset significant costs from the site, while some of the CO2 produced by the burning gas will used to enrich the glasshouse atmosphere. Even the night-time lighting of the tomatoes will have minimal visual impact, said McVicars, with shades on the sides and roof keeping 95% of the light inside. "We need to let the plants have a natural sleep, so we like to put them to bed in the afternoon naturally, then we just wake them up early, at around midnight." At night the site will appear no brighter than a street-lit road, he said. Despite its claimed advantages, McVicars argued that the Thanet Earth model was unlikely to be widely replicated across Britain. "We don't believe you can go north of the Thames in terms of winter light. We've got 17% more light down here than you would have towards the Midlands, and that is really crucial." But it's also about finding sites big enough to make industrialised farming on this scale practical, and large tracts of land, with the necessary gas, electricity and transport connections are not abundant in sunny, southern England. Having broken the seasonality of salad vegetable production in Britain, McVicars believes that clear regional branding is the way forward, and he hopes the site's produce will be clearly marked with their provenance. The first Thanet Earth products will appear on supermarket shelves from October. From dn.rath at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 22:25:16 2008 From: dn.rath at gmail.com (dn.rath) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:55:16 +0530 Subject: [R-G] GUJARAT STATE LEVELCONFERENCE ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Message-ID: <005101c8cd0d$7ef3b970$00fcfea9@dnrx98d0mxid36> GUJARAT STATE LEVELCONFERENCE ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION The assault on freedom of expression , which has become a normal practice in Gujarat , has reached it's zenith. Now . the charge of SEDITION. is being framed for freedom of expression.(Recently charge of Sedition has been framed against Times of India). On eve of the 34th.year of .Emergency in the country, GUJARAT STATE LEVELCONFERENCE ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION will be held on 22nd June.organised jointly by the JP Centenary Committee, PUCL, Movement for Secular Democracy, PRASHANT which will be attended by concerned citizens, journalists, writers, artists, activists, students and youths from all over the state to uphold the freedom of expression. The conference will be Presided by Sri Chunibhai Vaidya, Known veteran Sarvoday Leader. The Chief Guest of the conference will be Sri Kuldip Nair, the veteran journalist and other distiguished speakers are Justice Rajendra Sachar and Sri Kannabhiran- Pesident, All India P.U.C.L. Date- 22-6-08 Day -Sunday ,Time- 5 P.M. Place- Bhaikaka Bhavan, LawGarden, Ahmedabad Invitees- Mahadev Vidrohi- JP Centenary Committee Gautam Thaker- P.U.C.L. Dwarika Nath Rath- Movement for Secular Democracy(MSD) Fr. Cedric Prakask, PRASHANT Prakash N. Shah, Editor, Nirikshak Indukumar Jani,Editor, Nayamarg Digant Oza,Editor,Jalseva Rajani Dave, Editor, Bhumiputra. . From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Jun 12 23:02:05 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:02:05 -0700 Subject: [R-G] INTERPOL Clarifies it Never Determined Authenticity of Laptops that Implicate Venezuela Message-ID: <5A9134D7-BE83-4EFB-9362-58099F0BEB4F@shaw.ca> INTERPOL Clarifies it Never Determined Authenticity of Laptops that Implicate Venezuela June 12th 2008, by James Suggett - Venezuelanalysis.com M?rida, June 12, 2008 (venezuelanalysis.com)-- Representatives of the International Police Organization (Interpol) told Ecuadorian Presidential Adviser Fernando Bustamante in a meeting last week that its investigation of laptop computers which Colombia claims belonged to the FARC ?does not determine if the computers provided were found in the guerrilla camp of the FARC during the incursion on March 1st, if they effectively belonged to Ra?l Reyes, and even less so their contents,? according to a recent missive released by the Ecuadorian Foreign Relations Ministry. Bustamante, the chief advisor to Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, met with INTERPOL representatives last Tuesday during a United Nations conference in New York. At the meeting, INTERPOL ?confirmed that their forensic informational analysis does not imply the validity or the exactitude of the user files that [the computers] contain,? the Ecuadorian government disclosed. Today, Venezuela?s Vice-President, Ram?n Carrizalez, echoed Bustamante?s evaluation when he said about the computer files, ?This is an information that no serious person can validate. Anyone who knows how to read and write and who has some common sense will notice that these are proofs that cannot be used anywhere in the world.? The Colombian government claims the files prove that Venezuela financed the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, and that Ecuador provided refuge for the insurgents. Colombia also claims to have found the computers in the wreckage of a FARC camp inside Ecuador that the Colombian armed forces bombarded last March 1st, killing FARC second-in-command Ra?l Reyes, to whom Colombia says the computers belonged. INTERPOL clarified to Bustamante that the report was an act of ?independent technical assistance? and that it only confirmed that after March 3rd, Colombia complied with international standards for the treatment of evidence. Proper handling of the evidence could not be determined for the period between the attack and March 3rd. ?Between March 1st and 3rd... there are no indications that user files have been created, modified, or eliminated, but neither is there evidence that demonstrates that this has not been done,? INTERPOL told Bustamante. Based on this clarification, the Ecuadorian government reiterated Tuesday its ?position of not granting any legal validity to the information found in the computers supposedly belonging to Ra?l Reyes.? Ecuadorian Foreign Relations Minister Mar?a Isabel Salvador previously set this policy in mid-May when the INTERPOL report was first released. The Ecuadorian government also reiterated its concern over Colombia?s manipulation of the results of INTERPOL?s report to make it look like the report proved the accusations against Venezuela and Ecuador, a falsity that has been perpetuated by the mainstream international media. Bustamante suggested that Ecuador should have been allowed to participate in the investigation, to which the INTERPOL delegates replied that Ronald Noble, the General Secretary of INTERPOL, would be willing to visit Ecuador to discuss the details of the report. Meanwhile, President Correa echoed Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez?s recent call for the liberation of all FARC hostages yesterday after meeting with the father of a Colombian soldier who has been held prisoner by the FARC for 10 years. Correa also asserted that Ecuador ?is not going to ask anybody?s permission [to continue with] the humanitarian action that is incomplete,? referring to the process of humanitarian hostage releases underway before Colombia?s March 1st attack, which ended the humanitarian exchange. FARC: Uribe is Planning to Assassinate Chavez FARC leader Iv?n M?rquez, who had met with Ch?vez to discuss hostage release last year, alleged in a communiqu? last weekend that President Uribe ?attempted and continues trying to kill? Ch?vez and Correa with the help of the United States. The Colombian Department of Security Administration (DAS) has already infiltrated Caracas with 100 paramilitary forces to assassinate Ch?vez, and a similar plan exists for Correa, M?rquez alleged. In the statement, M?rquez also railed that the laptops examined by INTERPOL are fake and used by Uribe to threaten neighbors and to cover up the political scandal in Colombia in which Uribe allies have recently been convicted of contracting paramilitaries to perform politically motivated assassinations. Ecuador and Colombia expressed their willingness to renew diplomatic relations last Friday with arbitration by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter?s Carter Center, which commented that both presidents were open to ?the possibility of immediately re-establishing diplomatic relations between both governments without preconditions.? From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Jun 12 23:02:58 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:02:58 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Transparency International's wall of silence Message-ID: <29A17E3E-F26A-4105-80D8-EF7EB93B4F0F@shaw.ca> http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/transparency_internationals_wall_of_silence_01676.html Transparency International's wall of silence What would you call an organisation that when caught making false allegations, refuses to answer legitimate questions or hold an investigation? Answer: Transparency International! The facts are straightforward. Last April, TI published a report about the global oil industry which ranked oil companies according to whether they were of high, medium or low transparency. Venezuela ?s state-owned oil company, PDVSA, was given the lowest possible ranking on the basis that it did not produce properly audited accounts and was withholding basic financial information about revenues, taxes and royalties. The Chavez government says that it spends the proceeds of its oil industry on providing a free health and education system, and on raising the living standards of the working class and poor. The opposition counters that Chavez is mismanaging PDVSA and cooking the books in order to cover up inefficiency and corruption. Unsurprisingly, TI?s report was seized upon by the opposition as evidence in support of their claims. PDVSA was a ?company of low transparency?, and although TI did not directly suggest that PDVSA was corrupt, they do say that companies that withhold basic information from the public ?leave the door open to corruption?. But TI?s report was wrong. Not just any old wrong. But completely, utterly, glaringly wrong. All the information that TI claimed PDVSA was refusing to disclose was freely available in their Report and Accounts and published on their website and in the press. TI?s financial involvement with the oil industry stretches back over many years. ?TI gratefully acknowledges the generous contributions of... Shell and ExxonMobil,? they say on their website. Generous contributor ExxonMobil is no friend of Venezuela's socialist government. Earlier this year they took PDVSA to the British High Court in a bid to seize their assets, and lost. So how did this ?non-partisan? NGO (which also received a million pounds from the British Government last year) get it so wrong? The one organisation that could provide a definitive answer is maintaining a wall of silence. On May 14, I phoned Transparency International?s headquarters in Berlin and spoke with their senior press officer, a lady called Gypsy Kaiser. Ms Kaiser insisted that their report was accurate and that PDVSA had only disclosed basic financial information after they went to print. I checked the dates. Ms Kaiser was wrong. The missing information had been published months earlier in PDVSA?s 2006 accounts, and was also available in their recently released 2007 accounts. I called back and left two messages on Ms Kaiser?s answer- phone. My calls were not returned. A few days later, I wrote a piece for the Guardian's 'Comment is free' section, debunking TI?s report. In the course of my investigations, I came across something very funny, and something very disturbing. The funny thing was a newspaper photograph of of the head of PDVSA holding up a copy of their Report and Accounts, containing all the information TI said didn?t exist. The disturbing thing was that a document released under the Freedom of Information Act showed that during the 2002 coup, a lady called Mercedes de Freitas had emailed the US Government?s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to defend the newly installed military dictatorship. At the time, Ms de Freitas was director of a NED funded opposition organisation called Fundacion Momento de la Gente. She is now head of Transparency International?s Venezuela bureau, and according to TI it was her who was entrusted with the task of compiling the data on PDVSA. I called Gypsy Kaiser again, and asked if she had read my article. She had. I wanted to know whether TI would be withdrawing their report and holding an investigation into the partisan affiliations of their Venezuela bureau. Ms Kaiser declined to say, and instead invited me to put my questions in writing. I did. After two more days of silence, I called Ms Kaiser?s boss, Andr? Doren, Director of Communications. Perhaps he would be more communicative? He told me that he had people working on the answers and promised to call me back the following day. He didn?t. I emailed him to ask why. He didn?t reply. I left a message on his answer-phone. He didn?t respond. Presumably he was too busy exposing opaque organisations. Another week passed, and still no answers from TI. I tried their regional office for the Americas . An official told me that they ?stand by their report?. Even though it?s wrong? ?That?s your opinion,? she replied. ?But the information that you say doesn?t exist, does exist.? ?Talk to our press office,? she advised. Despite having a strong sense of d?j? vu, I phoned the press office and spoke once again with Gypsy Kaiser. She was positively seething. ?Calling our staff is inappropriate behaviour,? she barked at me, like an angry school teacher. ?But you won?t answer my questions,? I protested. ?We will,? she responded. ?But when? I?ve already waited three weeks. ? ?I?m not giving you a date. Let?s just say it will be sooner rather than later.? A week on and I?m still waiting. Obviously her definition of ?sooner? is my definition of ?later?. In the meantime, TI are busy mailing their inaccurate report on Venezuela to businesses, NGOs and governments all over the world. No investigation has been held into what went wrong. And their Venezuela bureau continues to be run by a person who backed the 2002 coup against democracy. Transparency International doesn?t like answering questions. But I have one more for them. Isn?t it about time they changed their name? From fentona at shaw.ca Thu Jun 12 23:50:35 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:50:35 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Anti-Terror Bill Passes In Britain Message-ID: Anti-Terror Bill Passes In Britain http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103360.html By Kevin Sullivan Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, June 12, 2008; Page A17 LONDON, June 11 -- Prime Minister Gordon Brown won passage of a key piece of anti-terrorism legislation in Parliament on Wednesday, but analysts said the victory was too narrow to revive Brown's sagging public approval figures. Brown's controversial proposal to allow police to hold terrorism suspects for up to 42 days without charge, up from the current 28-day limit, was approved by the House of Commons on a vote of 315 to 306. Passage of the bill, one of Brown's most important challenges since he took office just under a year ago, was imperiled by 36 members of his ruling Labor Party who sided against him. It scraped by only on the strength of nine votes from the Democratic Unionist Party, a Northern Ireland party that is rarely a decisive factor in the halls of Westminster, home of Britain's Parliament. To take effect, the measure must also be approved by the House of Lords, the upper chamber of Parliament. But analysts and legislators said the Lords will almost certainly reject it and send it back to the Commons -- dooming Brown to more months of political wrangling. "If this was meant to be a relaunch, he's still sitting on the trampoline," said John Curtice, a professor of politics at Strathclyde University in Glasgow. In his view, the slim victory was unlikely to change Brown's approval ratings of 25 or 26 percent in recent polls. ad_icon Though surveys have also shown that a majority of the public favors the 42-day limit, Britons are unhappy with Brown over a broad collection of other issues, including a sagging economy and perceptions of a leadership vacuum. "Recent years have shown how forgetting Britain's moral compass has left our country less safe; so, on to the House of Lords -- once more the guardian of fundamental rights," said Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil liberties group Liberty. Brown has staked much political capital on the anti-terrorism measure. He has campaigned for it publicly and passionately, describing it as a critical tool for law enforcement in an era of increasingly complex terrorism cases. "Our first duty is the protection of national security. We fail in our duty if we do not take preventative measures," he told legislators Wednesday at the start of a debate in the House of Commons. David Cameron, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, called the bill unnecessary and noted that Ken Macdonald, Britain's top prosecutor, has said current law is sufficient to handle even major cases. Cameron also suggested that Brown was sacrificing British traditions in a push aimed more at improving his political standing than protecting national security. "Isn't it clear that terrorists want to destroy our freedom, and when we trash our liberties, we do their work for them?" Cameron said. "This is not about the future of our prime minister. This is about our liberties." But Tony Lloyd, a leading Labor member of Parliament, told reporters the vote "leaves the Labor government very much in tune with what the British public wants and what the needs of this nation are." From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Jun 13 03:57:34 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:57:34 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] A Harsh Season Message-ID: <4852448E.3040008@attglobal.net> Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005) www.kunstler.com (June 09 2008) My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at all booksellers. ____________________________________ The banking "industry" slept like a dog through the climax of the political primary season. Meanwhile, the banks sucked in scores of billions in cheap loans from the Federal Reserve, using bundles of devalued-to-worthless "innovative" securities as collateral. This dodge has worked for about three months, allowing them to pay their employees and cover their electric bills, and is now collapsing because American society can't maintain the flow of repayment on current debts and can't take on any additional debt - meaning both the regular "churn" of revenue flowing to the banks is impaired at the same time that fees for originating new loans cannot be generated. Uh Oh. Out there in the cul de sacs and the strip malls, people are months behind in their mortgage payments, maxed out on their plastic, handing over their car keys to the lien-holders, and feeding their kids Spam fillets. Truckers get paid less for their loads than the cost of transporting the load. The airlines have financial cancer and will be dead in eighteen months. Container ship costs are heading out of sight. Municipalities are going broke. A weekend flood just destroyed part of the Midwest corn crop. And, of course, oil prices took a jagged turn upward last Friday en route to their next stop: $150-a-barrel. The New York Times reported Monday that rural Americans are being hit hardest by the rise in gasoline prices. Duh. It's worst, naturally, in the big southern states where wages are low and the distances are vast. There's a reason why Nascar is the second-biggest religion down there: the automobile rescued southerners from the tyranny of geography. Cheap gas allowed them to build a "new" economy based mainly on the construction of suburban sprawl. In the process it deified the pickup truck. Guess what? The rural South made a big mistake. The Dukes of Hazard show is now drawing to a close. They are about to take a turn back to being what they were before the Second World War: an agricultural backwater. God knows what will happen to asteroid belts of "production housing" and big box shopping outside the relatively tiny pre-automobile cores of places like Houston and Atlanta. The New York Times made a particularly inane point in their lead business section story today ("Rural US Takes Worst Hit as Gas Tops $4 Average") saying: "... Sociologists and economists who study rural poverty say the gasoline crisis in the rural South, if it persists, could accelerate population loss and decrease the tax base in some areas as more people move closer to urban manufacturing jobs". Is it possible, nobody informed the reporters (and editors!) that (A) America has already hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs; and (B) That much of the little manufacturing that remains is not located in any cities per se? So we now head into the general election. One thing the pundits of the mainstream media seem to miss is how much more room for economic carnage there is in the months remaining. They seem to be laying their current odds on the idea that McCain and Obama are starting on a "level playing field". In fact, McCain is already up to his hips in trouble from his sheer association with the Republican establishment, which will be so badly discredited by the shattered economy that it may actually go the same route as the 19th century whig party and dissolve in a putrid vapor of fecklessness. By November, the Republicans will be viewed as the party that wrecked the nation, and McCain will be in a hole so deep (still on the twenty-yard-line by the way) that nobody will be able to see his lips move. It was a relief, at long last, to see the odious Hillary step aside on Saturday - though she could not have engineered a more self-glorifying exit. There is talk, all of a sudden, about a President Obama perhaps stashing Hillary in the Supreme Court seat currently occupied by Ruth Badar Ginsburg, whose health is failing. I'd like to see Hillary packed off there. It would get her out of the senate. You can't really grandstand on the Supreme Court. The nation - if it remains a nation - could forget about her. Well, here we are about twenty minutes from Wall Street's Monday open. I imagine it's going to be quite a day. Over ninety degrees and oil cutting its overnight losses. Praise the lord and pass the Xanax. http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2008/06/a-harsh-season.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Fri Jun 13 05:42:03 2008 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:42:03 -0600 Subject: [R-G] FLDS Update -- And A Couple of Personal Notes Message-ID: <005901c8cd4a$833f0b00$0400a8c0@computer> As the subject title indicates, this is a brief update on the Texas raids/aftermath situation -- plus a couple of personal notes. I'll do the latter first. Medically, I continue to feel better than I have since the SLE attacked full-scale five years ago. It's a deadly foe and there are still problems, We take nothing for granted -- but we are greatly encouraged and the doctors are, as I mentioned a few days ago, pleasantly surprised. Our recent family addition, Sky Gray, is a major asset -- and, as the most wild and lively entity that I've encountered for many years, is solid preventative medicine in her own right against any tendencies toward depression. After five years of basic "confinement to quarters" I am now becoming very restless in a most healthy way. I wouldn't mind at all a return to formal academic teaching but that mostly likely is not in the cards -- given the still prevailing paranoid hostility in certain Idaho State University administrative quarters. For Sky, see http://hunterbear.org/sky_gray_comes_home.htm Although the Internet seems in my corner to be in a brief lull, I have been having some cordial correspondence with a well established labor historian back east, himself a "red diaper baby" from the 1950s, who is doing what promises to be a good book. He has visited our website extensively over the years. Part of this quite recent correspondence has involved my pleasant recollections of the first-rate left literary magazine, Mainstream, which published in 1960 two pieces of mine, a short story [The Destroyers]; and a long article on the 1959-into early1960 Mine Mill copper strike and the accompanying "Mine Mill Conspiracy Case", itself an obvious strike-breaking frameup by the Feds and the copper companies. [See this well visited website page of ours, http://hunterbear.org/Mine-Millconspiracycase.htm This travesty and all other Federal cases against Mine-Mill were eventually thrown out by Federal appellate courts.] In those days, Mainstream was most capably edited by Charles Humboldt, an ecumenical and out-reaching Communist, who I describe thusly: " Charles, who I never met personally, but with whom I did correspond, struck me as a highly principled and committed person, sensitive, very much interested in good literature [prose and poetry] and nicely done illustrative sketches. His instincts and behavior were persuasive, not coercive. At that point, Mainstream was, in my opinion and that of many, a first rate left literary publication. When Dr.Annette Rubinstein [who worked with Charles on the magazine] came to the Phoenix area in Spring '60 to speak at a Morton Sobell support event, it was my privilege to serve as her guide [and, in a sense, body-guard] in that genuinely threatening city. [She was much impressed with the fact that I, an ASU grad student, looked like a football player.] During our time together, Dr Rubinstein alluded somewhat to problems Charles was facing as editor." Charles Humboldt was ousted as Mainstream editor in the latter summer of 1960, and an obviously political placement was installed in that role. The magazine then went into relatively rapid demise and eventually died; Charles went on to write for the National Guardian but passed away himself; and there has been nothing quite like Mainstream in the American Left since then. Recently, Political Affairs, the CP journal, has feathered out in impressive fashion and, a couple of years or so ago, reprinted my Mainstream short story which deals with lethal racism in the context of a raging Northern Arizona forest fire. [Soon after The Destroyers appeared in Mainstream, it was selected as one of the 50 best published that year by Martha Foley's Yearbook of the American Short Story [1961] and widely reprinted abroad -- including within the Soviet Union by writers' unions. Beba [our oldest son] and some other UND grad students included it in a well done annual anthology, North Country.] To the Texas debacle: As I've indicated a couple of times before, the Salt Lake papers provide a continual update on all of that. I have tried to avoid over-posting on the matter but the following short and contemporary posts provide a sort of Keeping Up. The Federal "Task Force" re polygamyists endorsed by Harry Reid appears to be having rough sledding. Texas is considering "criminal charges" but continues to drag its feet in the matter of formally dealing with the disturbed young woman at Colorado Springs, CO who has no FLDS connections of any kind -- and who made the very obvious [and recognized by all, everywhere] hoax calls that sparked this whole tragedy, and which could fundamentally impeach any effort by Texas to conjure up effective "criminal charges." A local Utah sheriff's department sent, apparently in an ostensibly covert fashion, denigrating material to Texas authorities re certain FLDS leaders -- but this leaked out pronto and has been refuted by FLDS spokesmen and their attorneys. All of the seized children have been returned to their parents -- and families, including about 150 of the children, are now trickling back to their ranch near Eldorado [El Dorado.] These two pieces give current flavor: Lawyers for FLDS may sue over raid But collecting on any court suit may be tough By Ben Winslow Deseret News Published: June 13, 2008 Lawyers for the Fundamentalist LDS Church are preparing for what could become a series of lawsuits against Texas authorities for the raid on the YFZ Ranch. "There is a desire and a need for compensation, so I think you will see something come," said Rod Parker, a Salt Lake attorney who is acting as a spokesman for the FLDS people. The lawsuits would likely focus on the removal of the children, the raid itself and damage to the FLDS Church's first-ever temple on the Eldorado property. "They kicked in the door. They tore it up," Parker told the Deseret News Thursday. "More importantly, it was defiled. It's not usable as a temple." The children taken in the raid and placed in foster care have returned to their families with "problems," he said. "They're looking at counseling." The raid on the Yearning For Zion Ranch began April 3 when Texas child welfare authorities and police responded to a call about a 16-year-old girl who said she was pregnant and in an abusive marriage to an older man. Once there, authorities say they saw signs of other abuse, including underage mothers. That prompted a judge to order the removal of all of the children from the FLDS property. All 440 children were returned to their parents following a pair of rulings by an appeals court and the Texas Supreme Court that said the state acted improperly. Criminal investigations are still under way, and the original call that sparked the raid is being investigated as a hoax. A Dallas attorney who represented a number of young women whom Texas alleged were minors - but were really adults - told the Deseret News she is still considering a lawsuit on their behalf, alleging civil rights violations. "We're still in the research and drafting process," Laura Shockley said Thursday. Collecting on any possible court victory may not be easy. Texas has immunity laws protecting itself against certain types of civil litigation, but government officials could be named individually. There is also a cap on the amount of damages that could be collected. "It depends on if they sue in state court or federal," Shockley said. "If they sue in state court, there's all kinds of immunity. There may be some immunity issues in federal court. We're all researching that issue." The Deseret News first reported in April that letters had been sent out, putting Texas authorities on notice to preserve any and all communications and documentation, should it become evidence in civil litigation. A series of follow-up letters were recently sent out, Parker said. "There are a lot of different ways to pursue this and look at it," he said. "We want to be smart about it and not be reckless." E-mail: bwinslow at desnews.com Mueller questions need for panel on FLDS, says FBI won't take lead By Geoffrey Fattah Deseret News Published: June 12, 2008 FBI Director Robert Mueller says his agency will not take the lead in investigating polygamist groups but will rather support any local law enforcement effort if asked to. Speaking to reporters during a brief trip to the FBI's Salt Lake Field Office, Mueller said the FBI's focus remains on counterterrorism, child exploitation and financial fraud cases - but polygamy was not among those priorities. At a time when federal and state law enforcers from several states, including Utah, have converged in Las Vegas to form a task force on polygamy, Mueller on Wednesday said he did not see the need for it. "I'm not sure a task force is necessary," Mueller said. With that said, Mueller said the FBI will continue to assist state and local law enforcement in any polygamy-related investigation if asked to. When asked if the FBI has any current investigations into polygamist groups, Mueller said he could not comment on any ongoing investigations. Mueller did praise the Salt Lake Field Office for breaking up a variety of criminal enterprises, including its success in dismantling the violent street gang known at the Tiny Oriental Posse. More than 12 members of the gang recently entered guilty pleas in federal court under charges of racketeering. HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm See Personal Narrative: http://hunterbear.org/narrative.htm And see Outlaw Trail: The Native as Organizer: http://hunterbear.org/outlaw_trail1.htm In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and remembering way. From critical.montages at gmail.com Fri Jun 13 09:32:56 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:32:56 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Ireland: Lisbon Treaty Now Certain to Be Rejected Message-ID: Last Updated: 13/06/2008 16:25 Lisbon Treaty now certain to be rejected Irish Times Reporters The Lisbon Treaty is certain to be rejected by the Irish people as counting of votes comes to an end around the country this evening. With only four of 43 constituencies left to declare a result, the No vote is leading by 53.6 per cent to 46.4 per cent. All but seven constituencies have rejected the treaty, with a national running total of 672,000 voting in favour of Lisbon and 776,603 votes against. Tallies from early on in the count this morning showed the No campaign appeared to be winning in most constituencies across the State, with significant majorities emerging from rural and urban working class areas in particular. -- Yoshie From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Jun 13 10:38:00 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:38:00 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Canada-Colombia FTA: When Democracy Gets in the Way, Just Sign It, eh? Message-ID: Canada-Colombia FTA: When Democracy Gets in the Way, Just Sign It, eh? By: Mich?al ? Tuathail On June 7 2008, less than one year after Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the beginning of bilateral free trade talks with Colombia, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade announced the conclusion of negotiations. While the US-Colombia free trade agreement has been stalled in the US, due mainly to the grave human rights situation in Colombia and, some say, a US election campaign, Canada has offered transnational capital an opening through the back door. Canada-style, eh? "The Government of Canada is delivering on its commitment to open up opportunities for Canadian business in the Americas and around the world," stated the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade David Emerson, revealing the true beneficiaries of this agreement. Emerson went on to note that "the free trade agreement will expand Canada-Colombia trade and investment, and will help solidify ongoing efforts by the Government of Colombia to create a more prosperous, equitable and secure democracy." Many Colombians might ask just what "efforts" for a "prosperous, equitable and secure democracy" Emerson is referring to. It seems obvious that Canadian officials don't understand what those "ongoing efforts" look like in Colombia. In a feeble and superficial attempt to understand the situation in Colombia, several Canadian members of parliament made a short and very limited trip to Bogot? last month. The delegation didn't leave Bogot?, on the advice of the Canadian embassy, but they did meet with trade unionists and Colombian president ?lvaro Uribe V?lez. After this very limited foray into Colombia, without further investigation into the situation on the ground for communities affected by the ongoing armed conflict in Colombia, and also without waiting for the completion of a report about the deal being prepared by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the negotiations have concluded, and the agreement is heading for ratification. NDP International Trade critic Peter Julian told the Toronto Star that the Harper government has made "a horribly bad move by signing the agreement rather than respecting the procedure, rather than respecting the opinion of the committee." The truth is that the negotiations and the agreement remain shrouded in absolute secrecy. All Canadians and Colombians are told is that Canadian business will have greater access to Colombian markets and, perhaps more crucially, to their resources. Even if Canadians overlook the current occupations of Afghanistan and Haiti, as well as the flaring conflicts between indigenous peoples and extractive industries across the country, the latest phase of Canadian imperialism also falls short in terms of Canadian democracy. The Canadian public will get not so much as a debate, as Harper et al. open the back door for capital that has no national allegiances. The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is seen as a cornerstone in the Harper government's policy of "re-engagement in the Americas," where Canada fancies itself as a "third way" for Latin American countries seeking to break the United States' historical grip on the region. Hardly a superpower itself, the Canadian government mascarades around the world as an altruistic superhero and human rights defender. Tell that to the Haitians, the Afghans, the victims of genocide within Canada, and now to the Colombians whose brutal regime the Canucks are shaking hands with, taking them under their wing and showing them how to "do" democracy. I have to wonder what kind of democratic lessons Canada has in mind for the Colombians when there are no conditions for serious debate on free trade, among a slough of other issues, in Canada itself? Uribe's Colombia: a country for sale Colombia, the greatest recipient of US military 'aid' in the hemisphere, is widely considered one of the last bastions of US power in Latin America. In the context of the so-called 'war on drugs' and more recent 'war on terror,' there is 'Plan Colombia', implemented in 2001, marketed as an anti-drug strategy that has at its heart a counterinsurgency strategy. Colombia is home to Latin America's longest-surviving leftist guerrilla group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. The Harper government sees increasing economic 'partnerships' with the country as part of the road to peace. However, a trade deal with Colombia in the context of a 60-year armed conflict has been controversial to say the least. The Colombian state is the greatest perpetrator of violence against civilians in the conflict, and the country remains the most dangerous place in the world for trade unionists (year after year, more Colombian trade unionists are murdered than in the rest of the world combined), the much-lauded Colombian democracy is of dubious legitimacy, at best. Claims that Uribe has toned down political violence in the country are contradicted by the increase of 'false positives,' whereby civilians murdered by the Colombian armed forces are dressed up as guerrillas in order to "gain points." President Uribe has been condemned for his human rights record by international observers in the country, whom he has referred to in the press as guerrilla collaborators. The 'demobilization' of paramilitary death squads, the same terrorist groups that Uribe himself had a hand in creating, have been applauded just as new groups such as the Nueva Generaci?n and Aguilas Negras (Black Eagles) emerge, continuing the dirty war on civilians, trade unionists (and their family members), and Uribe's political opposition across the country. Death squad activity is often in response to Uribe's statements in the media and in so-called 'community consultations.' In short, a mafia runs the country. I recall one particular election issue that brought Harper's Conservative government to power not too long ago: the corruption of the long-ruling Liberal Party in the 'sponsorship scandal' that Canadians didn't hear the end of. Liberal arrogance had overcome their legitimacy to govern, and the answer was, we were told by Harper and the media, the 'transparency' of the Conservatives. But in the context of an FTA with Colombia, the scandals of Canada's so-called 'friends and allies' is conveniently overlooked. Scandals have shrouded the Colombian government in recent years, penetrating to levels as high as Uribe's closest political supporters and a family member. At least 65 of Uribe's allies (the number rises almost weekly) in the Colombian Congress are being investigated for links to right-wing paramilitary death squads, a scandal known in Colombia as "para-pol?tica." Of that number, 29 are currently in jail for proven links. Another recent scandal has called into question the legitimacy of the Uribe regime altogether. The "Yidis-pol?tica" scandal involves allegations that the president bought the votes of several Colombian congress members for constitutional reforms that paved the way for Uribe's re-election in 2006. Former Colombian House Representative Yidis Medina, who made the scandal public last month, is now in jail, and Uribe is under investigation for his role in soliciting Medina's vote in exchange for political favours. Previously, consecutive presidential terms had been constitutionally forbidden, and the constitutional reforms, rejected in a national referendum in October 2003, were pushed through the pro-Uribe Colombian Congress. Media Complicity in Colombia The Canadian mainstream press will no doubt be reporting on Uribe's 84% approval rating in the country. This distorted figure is a product of the gross media concentration in the country, a media owned and controlled by Uribe's friends and allies that duplicates on a daily basis the message that the FARC are the only problem in the country. The famous 4th of February mobilizations against the FARC and for the release of the hostages they are holding are emblematic of the propaganda process in the country. While the release of hostages is a position that many Colombian agree with, many sectors of the population did not participate because Uribe used the march ? organized partly through Facebook and supported by the Colombian business community by granting workers a day off to attend the march ? to his political advantage. Just over a month later, on March 6th, mobilizations were held in Colombia in support of the victims of state and paramilitary crimes but were largely ignored by the national and international media. Six trade unionists and organizers of that march were murdered in their homes in the days that followed, more facts ignored by the mainstream press. These were seen as messages to the opposition and victims seeking reparations and justice: "do not oppose your own extermination." The approval of a supranational constitution such as an FTA by a government that came to power through support from paramilitaries, influence peddling, and propaganda indicates the shadowy and shaky character of Colombian democracy frequently applauded in Ottawa. The country's 4 million internally displaced people (nearly 10% of the population) is referred to by the United Nations as the greatest humanitarian crisis in the hemisphere. Systematic forced displacement occurs largely in territories where transnational megaprojects are in the works. The link between displacement and megaprojects has led Colombian activists, such as economist Hector Mondrag?n, to conclude that "it is not that there is displacement because there is a war; there is a war so that there can be displacement." In any other context, displacement for profit would be called armed robbery. A Backdoor Agreement Canadian-Colombian trade relations are nominal in comparison to other countries, barely surpassing $1 billion in trade each year. However, in terms of sectors engaged in megaprojects, such as mining, oil and gas, Canadian multinationals are among the major players. The all out war on guerrilla groups, handshakes with paramilitaries and narcotics traffickers, and the dirty war on trade unionists, the political left, and human rights defenders are construed as "stability" and "security" for Canadian investors. DFAIT reports that, now that negotiations have been concluded, a legal review of the texts will be carried out. These negotiations have occurred in complete secrecy, and the texts have not been released to the public. This begs the question, "if the FTA is so good for the Canadian and Colombian people, why aren't they telling us all about it?" Following the legal review, the FTA will be signed by the Colombian and Canadian governments and brought to each country's legislative bodies for ratification. In spite of the serious legitimacy crisis of the Colombian government, there is little doubt that the FTA will be signed there. The Uribe government is in a desperate situation in terms of legitimacy, and Canada's endorsement is essential to deflect international criticism. Clearly, the Canadian government has nothing to offer Colombia in terms of democracy other than a veneer of credibility unduly enjoyed by Canada in the world. But just as real democracy means much more than elections every few years, the vitality of debate in any country must be viewed from the bottom up, from what is going on in communities and among social movements. Whose resistance is it, anyways? One day after Democrats in the US House of Representatives froze the Bush Administration's attempt to push the US-Colombia FTA through Congress, the Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca (ACIN) sent an open letter to US House Representative Nancy Pelosi. In that letter, they outlined clear lessons destined for the US public, lessons that are no doubt relevant for Canadians as well. The indigenous communities of Northern Cauca do not politely ask to be heard, they demand it. On the 5th of March 2005, six municipalities in the department of Cauca held the first Popular Consultation on free trade in Colombia*. The referendum was monitored by national and international observers and included a process of popular consciousness-raising, reflection, decision and action. Ninety-eight percent of the people responded NO to the following question: "Are you in favour of the FTA between Colombia and the United States?" Since that popular consultation, others have been carried out in different parts of Colombia. In short, an illegitimate regime is progressively being replaced by direct democracy in communities in resistance. Imagine the bravery of people who continue to resist and seek alternatives in the context of a brutal war, a plan of integral aggression directed at displacing them from the territories where they live for the benefit of transnational corporations, who seek resources and cheap, 'flexiblized' labour from a population living in a state of permanent shock. The Colombian government attempted to discredit the referendum in Cauca, taking a position that is racist by inferring that those who voted are incapable of understanding and consciously deciding for themselves, that they could not understand the fruits of 'free trade.' Imagine their bravery, and then look in the mirror. What have Canadians done? How have they engaged in this issue, or any issue for that matter, and taken matters into their own hands? Many Canadians may never know the difficulties of people resisting the military imposition of an economic model that is ultimately intended for the entire planet, or for 'our Mother Earth' as the indigenous peoples in Cauca call it. Many Canadians may not know the extent to which they are kept in the dark through the entrenched telling and retelling of the "Canada the good" mythology. In some ways, the victims are not only those in Colombia who have claimed political agency for themselves at high costs, but also those of us in Canada who cannot see the extend to which the atrocities of our own history provide the backbone for the perpetuation of war and suffering for the benefit of a tiny few. The Canada-Colombia FTA is just a part of the latest chapter in that history. The alarm bells rang generations and generations ago, but have we heard them? It's time to wake up, eh? *Read more about the Popular Consultation held in Cauca, Colombia, in March 2005: http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1224/61/ Mich?al ? Tuathail is a member of the La Chiva Collective (www.canadacolombiaproject.blogspot.com ), a group of people working in solidarity with Colombian and Canadian social movements and communities. From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 13 12:50:40 2008 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Arden Acts: Indigenous Nations & Peoples~ Elders Gather; etc.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <850131.96659.qm@web50810.mail.re2.yahoo.com> FW: The One Nation/Positive Things First: All: She:kon: Please note and pass along that the Greenbelt Campsite (all 174 campsites there) are reserved for July 8 & 9 for The Longest Walkers (us). No shortage of room. i will report on local lodgings for those requiring room service (you know who you are - ha ha). Below, i pass along, first, an e-mail forwarded by Harvey Arden (google his name and you will see that he is a true champion for the red road) to his enormous e-mail list worldwide. Second, an e-mail from Iron Thunderhorse which is self- explanatory and my heartfelt reply to his. Amazing how the Creator operates! *<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>* < ~PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE WORLDWIDE~ *<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>* < PRESS RELEASE FOR "THE ONE NATION" < on: June 06, 2008, 09:47:58 PM > > > SEE NEW WEBSITE http://www.onenationvision.com/ For more info contact Tony P at tonyplaw at optonline.net > > Hundreds of Indigenous Sovereign Nations who live and prosper in the > traditional ways within the current borders of Canada, the United > States, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and the Caribbean have agreed to > sign The Declaration of Sovereignty of The One Nation (being a Nation > consisting of all Sovereign Indigenous Nations of the World), by which > these Indigenous Sovereign Nations unite as ONE to re-assert their > inherent sovereignty as ONE, inviting all other Indigenous Sovereign > Nations from all around the world to join. > > This "happening" was foretold in the Prophesies thousands of years ago. > On April 20, 2008, The Algonquin Nation from Northern Quebec held a > sacred ceremony, at which time the traditional Elders signed the > Declaration, thereby giving birth to The One Nation. The signing was > done by the Algonquin to "light the torch" to be passed along to other > Indigenous Sovereign Nations. The Cree followed soon thereafter. The > Mi'kmaq Nation is to follow up in June of 2008 with its own signing > ceremony. Two (2) Choctaw Bands have also signed. Other Nations are > welcome to hold their own ceremony in their own way in their own time > to effectuate their own signing. > > Otherwise, the next major gathering for the purpose of signing is > currently scheduled to take place on July 8-9, 2008, at Greenbelt Park > (campground) > (301-344-3944) (174 campsites available), Maryland, 12 miles North of > Washington, D.C., 2 days prior to the conclusion of The Longest Walk, > when many Elders and Nations from around the world will be present. > It is hoped that the Dalai Lama will also be present for this sacred > event. The Australian and New Zealand Sovereign Indigenous Nations > have now begin to effectuate their own signing across their sacred > lands at their sacred "Dreamtime" sites. The torch will be passed > across The Australian and New Zealand Continent at this time. This > signing may take a couple of months to be accomplished, but it will > be accomplished. > > As most of you know, on September 13, 2007, the United Nations' > General Assembly approved the much touted United Nations' Declaration > on The Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the "UN Declaration"). Although > this UN Declaration, importantly, recognizes the right of our Nations > to seek self-determination, it does not, in and of itself, take the > next step to advance the cause of Indigenous Sovereign Nations around > the world. The One Nation IS that next step, the necessary next step > to lead us forward. > > Again, those who know will understand that the traditional governing > systems and the traditional cultures of these Indigenous Sovereign > Nations were and continue to be decimated by laws enacted by their > "host" countries, including Canada, the United States, Australia, New > Zealand, Fiji, the Caribbean and numerous others, which laws, among > other things, impose false > (proxy) (foreign) governments and laws on our peoples, and force our > Nations to bow before the colonizing courts to resolve inter- nation > disputes with them. This Declaration of true Sovereignty has the > blessing of the Creator, the one true Law. > > The creation of The One Nation "immediately" frees the Indigenous > Sovereign Nations to re-assert their sovereignty, an inherent sovereignty granted by the Creator to each human at birth, which was > never surrendered and never could have been surrendered. It has taken > the Indigenous Sovereign Nations over 200 years to regroup and arrive > at this crucial point in history to re-commence performing their > sacred duties to care for Mother Earth, all Her creatures, great and > small (and, hence, all humans too). It is no accident and no > coincidence that the Creator has chosen this time to arrange for the > re-assertion of these ancient Nations. The air, the water, the land > and all living things are in danger now as never before. The One > Nation is born from all things positive, not from anger for past > oppression and atrocities undeniably committed. These things are > forgiven. When the colonizers arrived, as predicted in the > Prophesies, our ancestors welcomed them and cared for them, as the > Creator instructed, when they could not care for themselves. They > were like children sitting at our feet in need of sustenance, which > many of our ancestors gladly provided. The children grew up steadily > over the course of several hundred years, only to rebel against their > caregivers, reacting with greed and forgetfulness of all that was done > for them and all that we tried to teach them, harming our Mother the > Earth in the process. For this they must also be forgiven. The time > has come, however, when these now young adults must realize and admit > the error of their youthful and frivolous ways and turn once again to > the wisdom and care of those who raised them. Unwittingly, they > developed along the way the technological and linguistic means for all > Indigenous Sovereign Nations to now join together with one good mind > and one pure heart for the good of all humans. To keep in mind a > message from Hereditary Chief Gary Metallic, Mi'Kmaq; "This > Declaration must be signed by not only representing Chiefs but also by > the elders, women, men, children who will validate the legitimacy of > our new nationhood." > > In conclusion, The One Nation extends an open invitation to all > Indigenous Sovereign Nations to join on this historic and epic > peaceful path into the future and also to convey this all- important > message to all colonizing > states: "The One Nation extends, once again, its open hand in > friendship and in good faith as our gesture of our desire to continue > to coexist for the benefit and respect of all living creatures and our > one true Mother, the Earth herself." > > Contact Information: > > wigibiwajak at hotmail.com (Elder, Algonquin) gmetallic at hotmail.com > (Hereditary Chief, Mi'kmaq) tonyplaw at optonline.net (Attorney, Mohawk) > nazlabo1 at bigpond.net.au (Ivan Mabbett, Maori Nation & Australia/New > Zealand Nations) > > FW'd by harveyarden at starpower.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Iron Thunderhorse Date: Monday, June 9, 2008 6:48 pm Subject: Acknowledgement & Plans: The Declaration of Sovereignty of the One Nation To: gkisedtanamoogk , "Elder, Algonquin" , "Hereditary Chief, Mi'kmaq" , "Attorney, Mohawk" , "Ivan Mabbett, Maori Nation" > > From "biwabiko paddaquahas"ironthunderhorse at yahoo.com > > Kwe/Aque/Bosu/Boozhoo Netompoag quah/kah Netchirawemaoag !!!!!!! > > neen attabowa youh wikhegan umskommenwungansh Keen rame > werregoassummassowunk quah rashawandooag (i pray this note finds > You in good health and spirits). > > This note will acknowledge your messages of Reokkechan- > kesos/Planting-moon (mid-May 2008) concerning The Declaration of > Sovereignty of the One Nation....Arumshemocke/Tabuttomish. > > As this finds its way to you, please rest assured i am already > taking steps to alert, organize, inform, and plan for a > traditional signing of the documentation by our long-house > Chiefs/Sakemaoag, and Stump-Chiefs/Sagamoreoag who hold seats > within our maweomi and kitchi-maweomi. Once this is > accomplished this will be forwarded to you and those on the > master email list we are in the process of developing for this > occasion. > i estimate this will be accomplished by the end of Ashuant- > kesos/Lobster-moon/July 2008. During Neeshuoag-kesos/Eel-run- > moon/October 2008, our annual gathering will be part of a > broader festival sponsored by "Friends of the Hammonassett" at > Hammonassett State Park in Madison, CT. One of the main > organizers is Dale Carson (Abenaki) and i will be sure to send > her copies via our elder Sachem of the Totoket Bank in Branford. > At that time, our elders will conduct an official/traditional > ceremony to solidify this event with a Wohpretewunk wutche > Wetampaddawunk (Bond of the Covenant). At that time we will > have many men, women, and children sign a support document > joining their elders in all this. > > i also plan to write a discourse on this to inform everyone of > our history and traditions that apply here. All of this will be > passed along to our Lenape and Tsa-la-gi relatives within the > Wampano-Quiripi (Wappinger-Mattabesec) Confederacy so that they > too can participate, plan, and organize locally/regionally. > > Sometime in June or July (depending on our son Tony's schedule, > who is our web-master), i will be sure to post a special > bulletin on our website at http://www.ACQTC.com, so look for > this under our NEWS/Events Section soon. This will include news > of the conclusion of The Longest Walk at Washington, D.C. on > July 11th, 2008, so that other Nations upon Torupe-Munhun/Turtle- > Island may be informed. > > You have my word, my bond, my love and respect and, again, rest > assured that the Wampano-Quiripey/Wappinger-Mattabesec > Confederacy is honored and in full agreement to carry the Torch > onward. > For now, neechee, this note is merely to let you and the others > know that i/we plan to proceed on this and what is forth coming > from the CT/NY/MA/PA/NJ/RI region. > > May our Grandfather smile upon us and guide us in the coming > months as the Torch is carried onward as we stand tall and > strong in re-asserting the indigenous sovereignty AND autonomy > of The One True Nation of the World. > > Keenauwe Sunkambauwe (Yours Faithfully), > > Biwabiko Paddaquahas/Iron Thunderhorse > Quiripey Arkeis Kitchi-Sachemauwunk > Wappinger-Mattabesec Confederacy > > P.S.: Ohomousiz and i send our love to You, Miigam'agan and the > kids.... Iron Thunderhorse: A thousand generations from now, the stories will be told around the sacred campfires of this moment in time when their courageous ancestors followed the Instructions and led all true humans back onto the one true path, the path to true freedom and freedom for our Mother Earth and our sacred Grandmother and Grandfather. Your words are strong and true and the world will listen to our One Voice when it joined together as The One Nation as Prophesied in the beginning. i acknowledge you and your strength. It will not be easy. Everything worthwhile is worthy of sacrifice. Onenkiwahi! Tony P. Anthony J. Pasquariello, Esq. Anthony J. Pasquariello & Associates, P.C. 305 E. Main Street Rockaway, New Jersey 07866 (973) 784-4515 (phone and fax)(201)410-8253(cell) TonyPLaw at optonline.net FW: ~To All Indigenous Nations & Peoples~ Elders Gathering for One Nation Vision PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE WORLDWIDE~ *<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>* <+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>*<+>* PRESS RELEASE: ELDERS GATHERING FOR "THE ONE NATION" < on: June 06, 2008, 09:47:58 PM > SEE NEW WEBSITE http://www.onenationvision.com/ Hundreds of Indigenous Sovereign Nations who live and prosper in the traditional ways within the current borders of Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and the Caribbean have agreed to sign The Declaration of Sovereignty of The One Nation (being a Nation consisting of all Sovereign Indigenous Nations of the World), by which these Indigenous Sovereign Nations unite as ONE to re-assert their inherent sovereignty as ONE, inviting all other Indigenous Sovereign Nations from all around the world to join. This "happening" was foretold in the Prophesies thousands of years ago. On April 20, 2008, The Algonquin Nation from Northern Quebec held a sacred ceremony, at which time the traditional Elders signed the Declaration, thereby giving birth to The One Nation. The signing was done by the Algonquin to "light the torch" to be passed along to other Indigenous Sovereign Nations. The Cree followed soon thereafter. The Mi'kmaq Nation is to follow up in June of 2008 with its own signing ceremony. Two (2) Choctaw Bands have also signed. Other Nations are welcome to hold their own ceremony in their own way in their own time to effectuate their own signing. Otherwise, the next major gathering for the purpose of signing is currently scheduled to take place on July 8-9, 2008, at Greenbelt Park (campground) (301-344-3944) (174 campsites available), Maryland, 12 miles North of Washington, D.C., 2 days prior to the conclusion of The Longest Walk, when many Elders and Nations from around the world will be present. It is hoped that the Dalai Lama will also be present for this sacred event. The Australian and New Zealand Sovereign Indigenous Nations have now begin to effectuate their own signing across their sacred lands at their sacred "Dreamtime" sites. The torch will be passed across The Australian and New Zealand Continent at this time. This signing may take a couple of months to be accomplished, but it will be accomplished. As most of you know, on September 13, 2007, the United Nations' General Assembly approved the much touted United Nations' Declaration on The Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the "UN Declaration"). Although this UN Declaration, importantly, recognizes the right of our Nations to seek self- determination, it does not, in and of itself, take the next step to advance the cause of Indigenous Sovereign Nations around the world. The One Nation IS that next step, the necessary next step to lead us forward. Again, those who know will understand that the traditional governing systems and the traditional cultures of these Indigenous Sovereign Nations were and continue to be decimated by laws enacted by their "host" countries, including Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, the Caribbean and numerous others, which laws, among other things, impose false (proxy) (foreign) governments and laws on our peoples, and force our Nations to bow before the colonizing courts to resolve inter-nation disputes with them. This Declaration of true Sovereignty has the blessing of the Creator, the one true Law. The creation of The One Nation "immediately" frees the Indigenous Sovereign Nations to re-assert their sovereignty, an inherent sovereignty granted by the Creator to each human at birth, which was never surrendered and never could have been surrendered. It has taken the Indigenous Sovereign Nations over 200 years to regroup and arrive at this crucial point in history to re-commence performing their sacred duties to care for Mother Earth, all Her creatures, great and small (and, hence, all humans too). It is no accident and no coincidence that the Creator has chosen this time to arrange for the re-assertion of these ancient Nations. The air, the water, the land and all living things are in danger now as never before. The One Nation is born from all things positive, not from anger for past oppression and atrocities undeniably committed. These things are forgiven. When the colonizers arrived, as predicted in the Prophesies, our ancestors welcomed them and cared for them, as the Creator instructed, when they could not care for themselves. They were like children sitting at our feet in need of sustenance, which many of our ancestors gladly provided. The children grew up steadily over the course of several hundred years, only to rebel against their caregivers, reacting with greed and forgetfulness of all that was done for them and all that we tried to teach them, harming our Mother the Earth in the process. For this they must also be forgiven. The time has come, however, when these now young adults must realize and admit the error of their youthful and frivolous ways and turn once again to the wisdom and care of those who raised them. Unwittingly, they developed along the way the technological and linguistic means for all Indigenous Sovereign Nations to now join together with one good mind and one pure heart for the good of all humans. To keep in mind a message from Hereditary Chief Gary Metallic, Mi'Kmaq; "This Declaration must be signed by not only representing Chiefs but also by the elders, women, men, children who will validate the legitimacy of our new nationhood." In conclusion, The One Nation extends an open invitation to all Indigenous Sovereign Nations to join on this historic and epic peaceful path into the future and also to convey this all-important message to all colonizing states: "The One Nation extends, once again, its open hand in friendship and in good faith as our gesture of our desire to continue to coexist for the benefit and respect of all living creatures and our one true Mother, the Earth herself." Contact Information: wigibiwajak at hotmail.com (Elder, Algonquin) gmetallic at hotmail.com (Hereditary Chief, Mi'kmaq) tonyplaw at optonline.net (Attorney, Mohawk) nazlabo1 at bigpond.net.au (Ivan Mabbett, Maori Nation & Australia/New Zealand Nations) FW'd by harveyarden at starpower.net From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Jun 13 15:15:58 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:15:58 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Insurgent attack frees hundreds from Kandahar prison Message-ID: <379EB0F5-5049-45F6-A2DA-55081E51DE56@shaw.ca> Insurgent attack frees hundreds from Kandahar prison Last Updated: Friday, June 13, 2008 | 4:31 PM ET Comments30Recommend43 CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/13/afghanistan-prison.html Militants have attacked the main prison in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, killing an unspecified number of police officers and setting all prisoners free, Afghan officials said Friday. Around 10 p.m., Taliban insurgents drove a car filled with explosives up to Sarposa prison's main gate and detonated it, destroying the gate and killing all police officers in the vicinity, CBC's Paul Hunter reported from Kandahar. Afghan officials also said Taliban insurgents fired several rockets at parts of the prison. "All the prisoners escaped. There is no one left," said Wali Karzai, president of Kandahar's provincial council and the brother of President Hamid Karzai. About 1,170 inmates were believed to have been in the prison and may now be roaming the streets of Kandahar City, said Hunter. Witnesses reported seeing Canadian tanks roll into the city about an hour after the incident. Canadian Forces are in command of Kandahar and most of the roughly 2,500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan are stationed there. The prison, the largest detention facility in Kandahar province, housed both common criminals and captured Taliban militants who had been fighting NATO troops and the Afghan government. Officials with NATO's International Security Assistance Force said they are aware of the attack, but had no details. Canadian Forces officials are expected to provide further details at a media briefing at Kandahar Airfield later in the day. From mstainsby at resist.ca Fri Jun 13 15:17:59 2008 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:17:59 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Racism in the Tar Sands: exploiting foreign workers and poisoning indigenous people Message-ID: <4852E407.3060104@resist.ca> Racism in the Tar Sands: exploiting foreign workers and poisoning indigenous people June 12, 2008 By Macdonald Stainsby The giant corporations that are determined to exploit the Alberta tar sands face a major problem ? a serious shortage of local labour to do the actual work. So the Canadian and Albertan governments have a plan, ideal in their eyes, to solve the crunch. Currently, employers desperate to find needed hands, backs and minds for the vast production targets of the ?Gigaproject? are flying workers from the Maritimes from their homes for shift stretches and then back again, but that effort faces limits in terms of workers available. Nary a day goes without a business page article somewhere in Alberta bemoaning the lack of workers. Many of the Newfoundlanders who would have come out this way in the past will now work in Newfoundland premier Dany Williams? new off shore oil and gas ventures, using skills learned in Fort McMurray, Alberta. Besides, flying around people within Canada and luring them in with the promise of vast wages is not the best business decision, is it? Why not use the real labour shortage for the simply un-real goals of the tar sands to make unbelievable profits sending mock oil to the United States, mock oil that is leaving behind already one of the greatest environmental crimes in history. The solution ? the Alberta Federation of Labour reports that in 2006, for the first time, more people under came to Alberta under Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) programs than as landed immigrants. As of late January 2008, the program had expanded from 12 to 33 available positions, mostly in construction and trades, that were ?ready? for hiring in this fashion. What is a temporary foreign worker? In a word ? disposable. They are brought in by employer, and at any time the employer can send them back to their country of origin ? most commonly Mexico, the Philippines and China. The ones who work deep in the tar sands (most notably at the Canadian Natural Resources Limited [CNRL] Horizon plant) are kept under lock and key, away from the unions that have some members working in the tar pits and upgrading facilities. We do not know what these TFWs are being paid, nor much about their working conditions. We do, however know that those conditions have already begun killing people: last year two workers sent over from China were crushed when a container fell over on them due to poor construction and rushed conditions. Nameless to the world, the two men were sent home to China after a quick meeting between the Chinese consul general from Calgary and CNRL executives. No harm, no foul seems to be the message ? neither CNRL nor the People?s Republic official had a public word of anything other than passing regret. These men and women, moved around as products to be used by giant energy corporations, do not have the right or means to apply for landed status in Canada, let alone for citizenship. They are rightless and economically desperate. The program has come under heat in recent months for acting as the TFW equivalent of Snakeheads, demanding outlandish and illegal fees from prospective workers in the global South in exchange for helping them find placement. TFWs are being used to undermine unions, bring down costs, escalate production, decimate basic human rights levels and assign an entirely new category of worker to the workforce, driving down both safety and union rights across the country. Escalating racism in hyper fashion will suit the Canadian state quite nicely, both in terms of population control and divided resistance. With the Security and Prosperity Partnership [SPP] slowly being hammered out, efforts to take this modern slave pool to new heights are gathering new momentum. As well, under the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement [TILMA] between Alberta and BC, what happens in Fort McMurray also happens in Vancouver. TFW?s are ?helping? to construct much of infrastructure for the Olympics being held in 2010. With the 2010 Games being opposed in as colonial programs in the westernmost province, so too should the tar sands see opposition in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Panama Canal killed thousands of workers who toiled to make the canal flow for shipping commercially across a continent where Christopher Columbus of Spain ran aground centuries before, setting into motion a colonial genocide continuing today. In Alberta and B.C. today, the same kind of sacrificial workforce is being established, using the very same racist weapon that characterized the entire colonial period in North America. This time, the goal is to establish a racialised under-class of sub-workers to carry out major projects, a workforce that will employ tens of thousands of human beings to create the most Dr. Stangelovian ecological nightmare imaginable. This same constructed racism targets those whose lands are being dug out, flipped over, spun around and dumped back in toxic form. The often timid Alberta Fed has this to say about the whole process: ?Alberta unions oppose racism in all of its forms ? both overt and structural. We have and will continue to speak out against any attempts to demean, demonize or discriminate against any identifiable group.? ?We believe the labour movement has a responsibility to defend these workers. We believe they deserve the same rights as any Canadian worker. In particular, we believe they should have the right to a fair wages and a safe workplace, the right to join a union, and the right to remain in Canada and apply to become citizens - independent of the wishes of the employer that brought them here.? In the last year, the community of Fort Chipewyan has finally been able to scrape its way into a small corners of public consciousness. Their 1200-person hamlet is. downstream from the seven operating tar sands plants, Rates of cancers and other disorders for the Cree and Dene population of Fort Chipewyan are statistically off the charts. The racism that has been able to ignore their plight for over a decade of pleas is now unable to tell us the names of Chinese men exterminated in the same hyperdrive to get mock oil from the ground, and send it south. The racism directed against TFWs and the racism against indigenous people are closely interlinked ? so too must the fight to shut down the tar sands interlink in non-patronizing solidarity, across national lines, whether the originate in nation states or Treaty 8. The temporary foreign worker program is a capitalist?s dream come true, but our mobilized response has to possibility to be their worst nightmare. Writer and activist Macdonald Stainsby is coordinator of oilsandstruth.org http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=458 From dn.rath at gmail.com Thu Jun 12 22:25:56 2008 From: dn.rath at gmail.com (dn.rath) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:55:56 +0530 Subject: [R-G] : GUJARAT STATE LEVELCONFERENCE ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Message-ID: <005801c8cd0d$996e49f0$00fcfea9@dnrx98d0mxid36> GUJARAT STATE LEVELCONFERENCE ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION The assault on freedom of expression , which has become a normal practice in Gujarat , has reached it's zenith. Now . the charge of SEDITION. is being framed for freedom of expression.(Recently charge of Sedition has been framed against Times of India). On eve of the 34th.year of .Emergency in the country, GUJARAT STATE LEVELCONFERENCE ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION will be held on 22nd June.organised jointly by the JP Centenary Committee, PUCL, Movement for Secular Democracy, PRASHANT which will be attended by concerned citizens, journalists, writers, artists, activists, students and youths from all over the state to uphold the freedom of expression. The conference will be Presided by Sri Chunibhai Vaidya, Known veteran Sarvoday Leader. The Chief Guest of the conference will be Sri Kuldip Nair, the veteran journalist and other distiguished speakers are Justice Rajendra Sachar and Sri Kannabhiran- Pesident, All India P.U.C.L. Date- 22-6-08 Day -Sunday ,Time- 5 P.M. Place- Bhaikaka Bhavan, LawGarden, Ahmedabad Invitees- Mahadev Vidrohi- JP Centenary Committee Gautam Thaker- P.U.C.L. Dwarika Nath Rath- Movement for Secular Democracy(MSD) Fr. Cedric Prakask, PRASHANT Prakash N. Shah, Editor, Nirikshak Indukumar Jani,Editor, Nayamarg Digant Oza,Editor,Jalseva Rajani Dave, Editor, Bhumiputra. . From shimogamo at attglobal.net Fri Jun 13 19:29:00 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:29:00 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] What is NATO Doing in Afghanistan? Message-ID: <48531EDC.5060207@attglobal.net> NATO, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Pakistan by Faheem Hussain CounterPunch (June 06 2008) What is NATO doing in Afghanistan? What are the true aims of NATO intervention in the region? These are the questions that I mean to address in this article. To understand what is happening in Afghanistan one has to go back to the attack on Yugoslavia by NATO forces in February 1999. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO lost its raison d'?tre given that Western Europe and the United States were no longer threatened by an invasion from Eastern Europe. NATO thus had the choice between disbanding itself or developing a new reason for its existence. This gave the opportunity to the United States to reshape NATO in ways that would serve its imperial interests. It is very important to remember that its founding documents clearly say that NATO was a defensive organisation, which would go into action only when one of its member states was attacked. The first step in the US strategy of changing the nature of NATO was the attack on Yugoslavia on the pretext of preventing ethnic cleansing. Clearly Yugoslavia had not attacked a NATO member state thus excluding a response from NATO. Whatever one can say about Kosovo, it was internationally recognised as an integral part of Yugoslavia (and is still internationally recognised as part of Serbia) and Yugoslavia did not attack or even threaten a NATO member state. As was clear right from the beginning of the Kosovo crisis in the 1990s, and as was confirmed at the NATO Fiftieth Anniversary Celebrations in Washington in April 1999, one of the aims of the United States in attacking Yugoslavia at that time on the pretext of preventing ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was to present to the European states a fait accompli as an example of the future role of NATO as an offensive organisation whose aim was to act as the world's policeman, or more rightly thug, in the defence of perceived United States interests. It was clear that the US was intent on provoking a war with Yugoslavia and its subsequent bombardment. How was this achieved? One of the final steps in the American strategy in attacking a sovereign state, Yugoslavia, which had not attacked any NATO member state, was the proposed Rambouillet Accords, February 23 1999. These show clearly that the Americans had no intention of pursuing a peaceful settlement of the Kosovo problem and that they intended to push Milosevic into a situation that he could not accept. In the words of Lamberto Dini, the then Italian Foreign Minister, the Rambouillet Accords were made deliberately to "humiliate the Serbs" so that they could not accept them. Here I reproduce some of the worst points of the proposed Rambouillet Accords, Appendix B: Status of Multi-National Military Implementation Force: 3. The Parties recognize the need for expeditious departure and entry procedures for NATO personnel. Such personnel shall be exempt from passport and visa regulations and the registration requirements applicable to aliens. At all entry and exit points to/from the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, F H), NATO personnel shall be permitted to enter/exit the FRY on production of a national identification (ID) card. NATO personnel shall carry identification which they may be requested to produce for the authorities in the FRY, but operations, training, and movement shall not be allowed to be impeded or delayed by such requests. ... 6. a. NATO shall be immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative, or criminal. 6. b. NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times, shall be immune from the Parties, jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal, or disciplinary offenses (sic) which may be committed by them in the FRY. The Parties shall assist States participating in the operation in the exercise of their jurisdiction over their own nationals. ... 7. NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY. NATO personnel erroneously arrested or detained shall immediately be turned over to NATO authorities. 8. NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver (sic), billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations. 9. NATO shall be exempt from duties, taxes, and other charges and inspections and custom regulations including providing inventories or other routine customs documentation, for personnel, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, equipment, supplies, and provisions entering, exiting, or transiting the territory of the FRY in support of the Operation. ... 15. The Parties recognize that the use of communications channels is necessary for the Operation. NATO shall be allowed to operate its own internal mail services. The Parties shall, upon simple request, grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, needed for the Operation, as determined by NATO. This shall include the right to utilize such means and services as required to assure full ability to communicate, and the right to use all of the electromagnetic spectrum for this purpose, free of cost. In implementing this right, NATO shall make every reasonable effort to coordinate with and take into account the needs and requirements of appropriate authorities in the FRY. ... 17. NATO and NATO personnel shall be immune from claims of any sort which arise out of activities in pursuance of the operation; however, NATO will entertain claims on an ex gratia basis. ... 21. In carrying out its authorities under this Chapter, NATO is authorized to detain individuals and, as quickly as possible, turn them over to appropriate officials. I have here only given some of the articles of the infamous Appendix. The others are more of the same ilk. The whole appendix is worth reading. These are some of the privileges which are for example enjoyed by US troops in Italy. (The new secret agreements being proposed between the US government and the Maliki puppet government in Iraq go much further). It was clear that the Rambouillet Accords were attacks on the sovereignty of Yugoslavia and that NATO wanted to completely take over Yugoslavia. The above conditions were obviously entirely unacceptable to a sovereign state and it was clear that these conditions were put so that Milosevic could not accept them and that the bombing of Serbia could start. In fact that is exactly what happened. It should be clear and there is ample evidence of this, which I cannot reproduce here without making this article too long, that the attack on Yugoslavia had absolutely nothing to do with preventing ethnic cleansing and all to do with punishing a state that did not accept US diktat and was a crucial step towards reinventing the role of NATO. Attentive readers in Pakistan will note the uncanny similarities between the proposed Rambouillet Accords of 1999 preceding the 78 day NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia and what Shirin Mazari, a Pakistani defence analyst and former head of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad (ISSI), revealed as a set of demands that the USA recently made to the Pakistan government (The News March 08 2008). Although one can never be sure, I hope that the Musharraf government at that time and the present government have rejected these demands which negate Pakistani sovereignty. I wonder if the new "democratic" dispensation has given in to US pressure to remove Ms Mazari from her position as head of the ISSI given her opposition to NATO presence in Afghanistan and her criticisms of US policy in the region. It is relevant to point out that although the Serbian Parliament had agreed to an accord a day before the bombardment was started, this was deliberately ignored. Also significant is the fact that the final accord sanctioning Yugoslav withdrawal from Kosovo after 78 days of bombing achieved much less than what was being pushed in the Rambouillet Accords. So what was the point of bombardment if much less was acceptable? It was clear then and it is clearer now that the main idea was to change the nature of NATO as part of a broader strategy to dominate the Eastern Mediterranean and the oil routes from Central Asia. The aim of reinventing the role of NATO into an aggressive arm of US foreign policy was achieved at the Washington meeting. The birth of the new NATO was sanctioned by the following words of the nineteen heads of state and government on 24th April 1999: "This new alliance will be bigger, more capable and more flexible, involved in collective defence and capable of undertaking new missions, among which is the active commitment in the management of crises, including the operations of responding to crises". (Washington Summit Communiqu?, 24/4/1999) The newly born creature is the fruit of an operation of genetic engineering: from an alliance that, on the basis of Article 5 of the Treaty of 4 April 1949, authorised its member countries to assist (also with armed force) any member state that was attacked in the North Atlantic area, was transformed into an alliance that, on the basis of the new "strategic concept", commits the member countries also to conduct operations outside the territory of the Alliance (non-Article 5 operations). This was stressed several times in the document "The Alliance's Strategic Concept" approved by the Heads of State and government on April 24, 1999. For example in Article 31 it says "NATO will seek, in co-operation with other organisations, to prevent conflict, or should a crisis arise, to contribute to its effective management, consistent with international law, including through the possibility of conducting non-Article 5 crisis response operations". (The Alliance's Strategic Concept, 24/4/1999; Defence Capabilities Initiative, 24/4/1999) Remove the fig leaf of respect for international law and here you have the real intentions of NATO, to conduct operations throughout the world as it pleases. To remove any doubt about the intentions of NATO, President Clinton clarified, during the press conference on 24 April 1999, that the North Atlantic Allies ".. have reaffirmed their readiness to affront, in appropriate circumstances, regional conflicts beyond the territory of the members of NATO". (Transcript: Clinton Says NATO May Intervene Beyond Its Borders, 24/4/1999) To the question on what was the geographical area in which NATO was ready to intervene, "the President refused to specify to what distance NATO intended to project its force, saying that it was not a question of geography". In other words, NATO intended to project its military force beyond its borders not only in Europe, but also in other regions, like the Middle East, Africa and the Indian Ocean. NATO gave itself the right to intervene anywhere in the world whenever it feels its interests are threatened, without consulting the United Nations. Led by the biggest and most dangerous rogue state, the United States, NATO was set to become the gravest threat to peace throughout the world. One of the amazing and disgusting spectacles to watch in Europe in those days was that these so-called democracies accepted the new NATO without discussion in any of the European Parliaments. It is as if loyalty to NATO (which means in effect obedience to US diktat) has been put above all other considerations of national sovereignty and democracy. The Italian Prime Minister at that time, Massimo D'Alema, an ex-communist, said that Italy had to go to war because of its commitments and loyalty to NATO. He perhaps forgot that the principle of obeying orders while committing acts against humanity was not accepted at the Nuremberg trials as an attenuating circumstance. It is worth remembering in these times, when one tends to blame Bush and his gang for all US aggressive imperialist policies, that all the above took place under the falsely admired Clinton and his Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, famous for her remark that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children as a consequence of the then embargo on Iraq was a justified price to pay to remove Saddam. We tend to forget that all US presidents follow such policies. As was obvious Bush and his gang whole-heartedly accepted the new role of NATO. If fact this was reemphasised in the recent NATO heads of states meeting in Romania where Bush explicitly said that the role of NATO was that of a "global expeditionary force". These are terrible words that bode ill for the future of the world. Yugoslavia of course could not and did not accept the demands made in the Rambouillet Accords and was therefore subject to savage bombing. The bombing of Serbia sanctioned NATO out of area operations and was a prelude to NATO involvement in Afghanistan as the handmaiden of the USA. NATO should never have been in Afghanistan in the first place and it is good to see that many European countries are reluctant to send their troops to die there. What is happening in Afghanistan is tragic with hundreds of innocents dying at the hands of indiscriminate bombing by US and NATO forces and by the retaliatory Taliban and resistance bombings but one thing is clear and that is that NATO will lose the war in Afghanistan. This is good because, I hope, that it will lead NATO to rethink its role in the post-cold war world and perhaps, if we are lucky, it may even be disbanded in the future. A NATO victory in Afghanistan will be disastrous for the region and for the world. It will encourage it in its Bush-designated role of a global "expeditionary alliance". At the NATO summit in Bucarest in April Bush said about NATO: "It is now an expeditionary alliance that is sending its forces across the world to help secure a future of freedom and peace for millions". In other words to interfere in and invade other poor countries of the south with the pretext of the new white man's burden: promoting freedom and peace. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan have enough of this so-called freedom and peace. It is therefore necessary that NATO loses in Afghanistan. A total withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan followed by a negotiated settlement between Afghan forces is the only way forward there. There are those who say that the withdrawal of NATO forces will lead to chaos, more deaths and re-talibanisation of Afghanistan. But the truth is that the presence of foreign troops is one of the major factors of violence there. What more chaos and destruction can there be in Afghanistan? All the touted aims of the USA and NATO are dead. There is no democracy there, Karzai is a US puppet, the warlords are in power and the level of insecurity is increasing, car bombs are becoming a norm. Pushtuns, as other peoples, never tolerate foreign occupation of their soil and to me it seems clear that the Taliban have mobilised Pushtun national sentiment in combating foreign troops. Following the failure of NATO to defeat Afghan insurgents, the US blames Pakistan for providing sanctuary and training camps for Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the border region of Pakistan. But we have heard this before. When they cannot control the insurgency in Iraq they blame Iran or Syria for providing training and weapons to Iraqi insurgents. But this is an even older story. Those with a long memory will remember that when the US could not defeat the Vietnamese revolutionaries they said that there were training camps and sanctuaries in neighbouring Laos and Cambodia. One remembers the savage bombing of Cambodia from 1969 to 1973. It did not help the US to defeat the Vietnamese nationalists but lead to over a 100,000 Cambodian deaths to add to the three million Vietnamese killed during the war. Now they are bombing so-called Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Waziristan on dubious "actionable intelligence" in which hundreds of innocents are killed and this without a word of protest, if not connivance, on the part of our elected representatives. It is a good sign that, in spite of continued US pressure, one of the first tasks that the new government in Islamabad has undertaken is a review of Pakistan's involvement in America's "war on terror". An involvement that has already caused death and destruction in the frontier, disillusionment in the army and suicide bombings in major cities. There are reports of secret deals, made in January, between the USA and Musharraf's government providing Predator bases inside Pakistan and changing rules of engagement of these aircraft whose controllers are now authorised to fire on suspicion rather than "hard" intelligence. One would like to know from the elected government whether there were such secret deals and if there were does it intend to repudiate them. Already the CIA and the FBI operate freely inside Pakistan and the Americans are demanding that we now accept ground troops in the guise of trainers for the Army and militia. They want to teach the Pakistan Army about counterinsurgency. If it were not so ominous it would be really quite hilarious given the singular failure of the US army in fighting guerrillas in Vietnam and now in Iraq and Afghanistan. What methods are they going to teach the Pakistan Army? Massive bombing and collective punishment in the best traditions of Vietnam? Although the present government has taken some timid steps in distancing itself from the so-called "war on terror" and has rightly started to talk to the people of Waziristan, it has not gone far enough. It has to clearly tell the USA that its policies in Afghanistan and in Pakistan's frontier are a failure. They have only led to death, destruction and the spread of terrorism. The only way out is for all foreign forces to get out of Afghanistan and for the US to stop interference in Pakistan. Once these forces are out of the region then and only then will one be able to come to a political solution, as there is no purely military solution neither to the problems of Afghanistan nor to the rising phenomena of Islamic militancy in Pakistan. Pushtuns have clearly voted against the mullahs and the militants but at the same time the rejection of Musharraf is also a sign that the people of Pakistan reject Pakistan's forced marriage with the disastrous US policies in the region. It is time for a clean divorce. _____ Faheem Hussain is Visiting Professor of Physics at the School of Science and Engineering, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan. http://www.counterpunch.org/hussain06062008.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Jun 13 21:11:16 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:11:16 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Oceania's new Airstrip One Message-ID: Oceania's new Airstrip One National security editor Patrick Walters | June 14, 2008 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23858974-31477,00.html THE US is building a new permanent aircraft carrier and its name is Guam. The US island territory is destined to become the key hub for American maritime power in the western Pacific with the start of a long, $15billion construction boom. The strategic importance of Guam to Washington's long-term presence in East Asia was a point hammered home by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates in Singapore a fortnight ago. Gates's speech to the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual gathering of Asian defence ministers and military chiefs, was his most complete exposition of future US defence strategy in the region since he took over from Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon 18 months ago. Gates's key theme to his East Asian interlocutors was that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the US was not about to begin a long, slow, historic withdrawal from the region. Instead he outlined the concept of the US as a "resident power" in addition to its longstanding roles as an ally, partner, friend and routine offshore presence. Critical to its long-term focus as a resident power will be Guam, the site of the largest US military build-up in the Mariana Islands since World War II. As the Pentagon chief pointed out, sovereign US territory in the western Pacific stretches all the way from the Aleutian Islands to Guam. For US defence planners aiming for a nimbler, more flexible US global military posture across the globe, Guam is an ideal staging post. And for close allies of the US in the western Pacific, led by Japan and Australia, the island promises to become a vital facility as it hosts exercises and training with allied air and naval forces. Earlier this month en route to Singapore, Gates made a flying visit to the island, 6000km west of Hawaii and 2000km southeast of Japan, to look at planned defence infrastructure. Acquired from Spain in 1898 following the Spanish-American War, Guam became a refuelling station for the US Navy. In December 1941, Japan overran the island, but it was recaptured by US forces after bitter fighting in 1944. Since then it has been an important logistics base. During the next six years the Pentagon will spend billions on a new port capable of berthing a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, air bases, schools, hospitals and houses for US military and their families. Guam's Anderson air base will soon be home to a detachment of unmanned, long-range Global Hawk surveillance aircraft able to track Chinese warships and submarines emerging from their home ports into the Pacific Ocean or the South China Sea. The US Air Force's newest fighter, the F-22 Raptor, will also be periodically flying on exercises from the island. By 2014 Guam will receive about 8000 US marines who will transfer from their present base in Okinawa, the Japanese Government helping pay the $10 billion-plus relocation costs. With a population of about 170,000, Guam is already home to 12,000 US military personnel and the heavy build-up promises to put further strain on local communities. Its naval base hosts three attack submarines and the air force rotates its strategic bombers through Guam. "Our Asian friends, whether or not they are formally allied to us, welcome our growing presence on Guam. As the island's new facilities take shape in coming years, they will be increasingly multilateral in orientation, with training opportunities and possible pre-positioning of assets," Gates said in Singapore. Gates's Shangri-La Dialogue speech was designed to convey a message of reassurance to the US's close allies in East Asia that talk of the gradual diminution of the US's military posture in the face of a renascent China was misplaced. Questioned how the US could guarantee that it would not lose interest in Asia, Gates was blunt: "We will not lose interest because we are an Asian power," he said. "People would have been surprised, perhaps, in 1945 to see the US, 60 years later, still engaged in a larger way and a broader front in Asia than we were even at the end of the war ... nobody should have any worries on that score." The Defence Secretary argues forcefully Washington's presence has been an essential element in assisting Asia's economic revival, "opening doors, protecting and preserving common spaces on the high seas, in space and more and more in the cyber world". "This presence has offered other nations the crucial element of choice and enabled their entry into a globalised international society," he said. "As someone who has served seven US presidents, I want to convey to you with confidence that any future US administration's Asia security policy is going to be grounded in the fact that the United States remains a nation with strong and enduring interests in the region, interests that will endure no matter which political party occupies the White House next year." Gates went on to say that any speculation in the region about the US losing interest in Asia struck him as "preposterous or disingenuous, or both". "America's status in Asia rests on longstanding interests and deeply held notions about the basic character of the United States. However, we understand that our friends, partners and allies need reassurance at times. We will offer that consistently." He stressed US military ties with East Asia, even with its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, were more constructive than at any time in US history. Recently Gates inaugurated a direct defence phone hotline with his Chinese counterpart, Liang Guanglie, and the two sides have also begun regular dialogues on strategic issues to improve bilateral co- operation. Last week Liang thanked the US for its relief aid sent to China's Sichuan province and said there had been "stable progress" on defence ties between the Beijing and Washington. In Singapore, Gates - in an implicit reference to China - stressed the US wanted to work with every Asian country and "deepen our understanding of their military and defence finances and larger national security decisions". "We do so in a sincere and open effort to avoid misreading intentions and so that we can continue our work as strategic partners," he said to an audience that included Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief of the general staff of China's People's Liberation Army. Gates did not give any hint that he had been briefed in advance on Kevin Rudd's novel concept of an Asia-Pacific community by 2020. He said Washington welcomed the search for a new security architecture and frameworks that could moderate interstate competition. But the Pentagon did have some benchmarks. East Asia should avoid an approach that treated the quest for a new security body as some kind of zero- sum game. According to Gates it can only succeed if the region is treated as a single entity with no room for a separate East Asian order. That means the US must be part of any new security framework. Washington would be willing to work with friends and partners to assist the evolution of "security arrangements suitable to common needs", he said. The clear message was that the US would be there to help shape any new longer-term Asian-Pacific security forum. "We certainly share an interest in institutionalising various forums to deal with region-specific problems and we intend to participate in their evolution," was Gates's parting message. From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Jun 13 21:33:41 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:33:41 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Aipac's role in American politics Message-ID: <096E4616-5397-4AC6-BBE6-179201BA447D@shaw.ca> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/027002CD-C965-42A7-A3A8-56D39E608294.htm About 7000 members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), America's largest pro-Israeli lobby group, gathered at this week's annual conference. On the agenda was Iran's nuclear program, the current Israeli- Palestinian negotiations, and the strengthening of US-Israeli ties. Speakers included three presidential hopefuls, Barak Obama, Hilary Clinton, and John McCain. But AIPAC-US relations have not always been as close as many would believe. In 2004 a top Pentagon analyst was suspected of handing over classified information to Aipac. Is Aipac merely a lobbying group, or is it an intelligence-gathering network? Inside Story, with presenter Darren Jordon, discusses the role of one of America's largest lobbying group. Watch part one of this episode of Inside Story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXkb7Xm2SJs Watch part two of this episode of Inside Story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAQgPoqr9NU From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sat Jun 14 05:45:10 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:45:10 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Coal in the United States Message-ID: <4853AF46.9010904@attglobal.net> by Richard Heinberg MuseLetter #194 (June 2008) Note: The HTML version of this article contains several graphic illustrations not included in this text-only version. See http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_194_coal_in_the_united_states Because the US has the world's largest coal reserves, it has sometimes been called "the Saudi Arabia of coal". It is the world's second-largest coal producer, after China, but surpasses both the number three and four producer nations (India and Australia) by nearly a factor of three. Wood was this nation's primary fuel until the mid-1880s, when deforestation necessitated greater reliance on abundant coal resources. Coal then remained America's main energy source until the 1930s, when it was overtaken by oil. Today coal fuels about fifty percent of US electricity production and provides about a quarter of the country's total energy. The US currently produces over a billion tons of coal per year, with quantities increasing annually. This is well over double the amount produced in 1960. However, due to a decline in the average amount of energy contained in each ton of coal produced (that is, declining resource quality), the total amount of energy flowing into the US economy from coal is now falling, having peaked in 1998. This decline in energy content per unit of weight (also known as "heating value") amounts to more than thirty percent since 1955. It can partly be explained by the depletion of anthracite reserves and the nation's increasing reliance on sub-bituminous coal and even lignite, a trend that began in the 1970s. But resource quality is declining even within each coal class. While there are coal resources in many states, the main concentrations are in Appalachia, Illinois, Wyoming, and Montana (see map below). The 53 largest coalmines in the US, located in just a few states, account for almost sixty percent of total production. Three states (Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia) produce 52 percent of the higher-quality coal in the US. All three of these states seem to be in decline or plateau. Since the Northeast was the area of the nation earliest settled and was long a primary center for industrial manufacture, it is not surprising that the coal of this region was exploited preferentially. Today, Pennsylvania's anthracite is almost gone. Mining companies there are now exploiting seams as thin as 28 inches. West Virginia, the second largest coal-producing state (after Wyoming), where much coal is surface mined in an environmentally ruinous practice known as mountaintop removal, is nearing its maximum production rate and will see declines commence within the next few years, according to a recent USGS report. (www.byronwine.com/files/coal.pdf) The interior region - consisting of Illinois, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Western Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas - is the smallest coal producer of the three main producing regions. The Illinois basin boasts large reserves of bituminous coal, but production has fallen there since the mid-1990s. Its coal generally has a high sulfur content (three to seven percent), which runs afoul of US environmental laws, especially the Clean Air Act of 1990. Prior to this legislation, power plants burning high-sulfur coal released emissions resulting in acid rain that decimated forests throughout much of the nation. The lignite steam coal of Louisiana is an exception within the region: its sulfur content is low and so production has risen substantially in recent years. After 2018, sulfur scrubbers will be mandatory for coal-fired power plants in the US, perhaps facilitating a move to increase production of coal from the Illinois Basin. Wyoming has some bituminous coal, but most of its reserves consist of sub-bituminous and lignite. Production from the state (primarily from the Powder River Basin) has increased sharply since 1970, because its coal is abundant, cheaply surface-mined, and low in sulfur. Wyoming is currently responsible for eighty percent of coal production west of the Mississippi. Montana also has large deposits of lower-quality coal (sub-bituminous and lignite), but these have not been tapped. The current state governor, Brian Schweitzer, is pushing for development of these resources using gasification and carbon sequestration technologies, but there are reasons to doubt whether this will occur soon or on a meaningful scale. Montana's coal contains salts that will almost inevitably find their way into the environment if widespread surface mining occurs, contaminating rivers and creating problems for cattle ranching - the state's economic engine and a locus of considerable political clout. For the nation as a whole, future supply hinges on the question of how long rising production of lower-quality coal from Wyoming - supplemented in the future perhaps by coal from Montana and the Illinois Basin - can continue to compensate for declining amounts of high-quality coal from the East. Clearly, the US has the potential to produce enormous quantities of coal. But the gradual depletion of coal with higher heating value is already necessitating the mining of larger quantities of lower-quality coal to yield an equivalent amount of energy, and as coal is sourced more from Montana and the Illinois this will require the building of more rail transport infrastructure and the overcoming of environmental problems and regulatory hurdles. Over sixty percent of coal mined in the US is dug from the surface. This is a higher percentage than in most nations, and it is largely due to the contribution of Wyoming. In the eastern states, most coal still comes from deep mines, which are moving toward the recovery of ever-thinner seams. Highwall mining systems and new technologies for longwall mining may lead, ultimately, to remote-control mining involving few or no personnel working underground. These new and more efficient technologies will enable some coal to be mined that would otherwise be left behind, but they are unlikely to be applied throughout the entire industry due to high up-front investment costs. In surface mining, the largest extraction cost is often incurred in removing overburden (soil and rock). Over the years, the coal industry has introduced ever-larger earth-moving machines for this purpose. However, truck size has probably reached a practical maximum, as the biggest vehicles cannot be maneuvered on roads. However coal is mined, the industry must always confront the bottom line: the cost of getting coal out of the ground cannot exceed the market price for produced coal. Thus the current price determines whether marginal coals will be mined profitably, or simply left in the ground. On the other hand, however, as the costs of bringing coal to market rise, this can cause the price of coal to increase - unless and until higher prices suppress demand. Given that demand for electricity continues to expand, and that cheap alternatives to coal for power generation do not exist in sufficient quantity in the short run, there seems to be no near-term cap to coal prices. As a result, marginal coalfields are now more likely to be mined. During the two-year period from January 2006 to January 2008, prices rose from about $100 a ton to $250 a ton for high-quality metallurgical grades of US coal. Central Appalachian steam coal is currently selling for about $90 a ton, up from $40 two years ago. During this time production costs have risen as well, though not at the same pace. The cost of producing coal is related to the price of oil. Consider the case of Massey Energy Company, the nation's fourth-largest coal company, which annually produces forty million tons of coal using about forty million gallons of diesel fuel - about a gallon per ton (the company also uses lubricants, rubber products, and explosives, all made from petroleum or natural gas). If the price of diesel goes up one dollar, this translates directly to $40 million in increased costs; indirectly related costs also climb. These costs and prices need to be seen in proportion: while coal generates half of America's electricity, in effect providing much of the essential basis for all economic activity within the country, US coal industry revenues are only about $25 billion - one-tenth those of WalMart. During some recent years, the US was a net coal importer, since coal brought by ship from South America was often cheaper to supply to coastal cities than US coal moved there by rail. This was partly a result of rail transport bottlenecks that are now being addressed with the laying of more rails and the construction of more coal cars. Now, however, with coal prices high and imports growing in China and India, the US has begun exporting larger quantities. Mines are employing more workers and production is booming. History of Reserves Estimates The US has seen a long controversy between coal resource optimists and pessimists - a controversy that is somewhat mirrored in the global coal resource picture. In 1907, Marius R Campbell, Director of the USGS, headed the first attempt at a scientific survey of US coal, concluding that ultimately recoverable reserves amounted to 3157.2 billion tons. Since production in that year was 570 million tons, simple arithmetic yielded an R/P ratio of 5500/1, which was interpreted as meaning that the nation had a 5,500-year supply. That implied an effectively limitless amount for the practical purposes of economic planning. Campbell did hedge his estimate by pointing out that much of this coal was not minable, or was inaccessible for other reasons. He also wrote that "... the bulk of coal being mined today is the best in the country, and before long, perhaps before fifty years [that is, by 1959], much of the high-rank coals will be exhausted". (Putnam 234) Still, Campbell's figure for total reserves was for many years taken at face value. Soon, state surveys began gathering more detailed and accurate information, which resulted in the downgrading of regional reserves. Thus when the US Coal Commission mounted a new survey in 1923, it reduced all state reserves figures and dropped some states entirely from its list of active or likely coal producers. Yet through the early decades of the 20th century, the USGS and the Bureau of Mines stuck to the position that America would have plenty of coal for several millennia. Shortly after World War Two, Andrew B Crichton (a coal engineer and mine operator in Johnstown, Pennsylvania) undertook a state-by-state informal review of existing reserves estimates, publishing his results in an article titled "How Much Coal Do We Really Have? The Need for an Up-To-Date Survey", in Coal Technology (August 1948). Crichton minced no words: "It was asserted at the Denver [USGS] meeting last October that no one should have the temerity to question the Government figures unless they submitted maps and records proving their statements. Well, that is quite a burden to impose upon an individual to justify an opinion regarding our coal reserves. But that is exactly what could be done in many cases in the east where many have knowledge of the wide discrepancy between the Government figures and private records based on prospecting and actual development. It is these wide differences that prompt the fears and lead to the belief that these fantastic and unbelievable figures of the United States Geological Survey are wrong and dangerously misleading and should be corrected promptly." Citing instance after instance in which USGS reserves figures for well-mined regions had turned out to be highly inflated, Crichton went on to offer his own estimate of national coal reserves as 223 billion tons - a number not that much smaller than the current official estimate. Crichton's article, while causing understandable consternation and embarrassment for the USGS, could not be ignored. It was cited repeatedly in Palmer Putnam's authoritative book Energy In the Future (1953), which also offered pessimistic assessments of US oil and natural gas supplies. Indeed, Putnam demonstrably erred on the conservative side, forecasting that America's oil production would peak between 1955 and 1960 (the actual peak was in 1970); and that coal production would begin to decline by 1990 - whereas, as we have seen, actual produced amounts continue to grow annually. The USGS and the Bureau of Mines, which was later absorbed into the Department of Energy, responded by gradually reducing estimates of coal reserves figures for many states and the nation as a whole. Yet through the 1950s, national reserves remained at well over 500 billion tons - still above 1,000 years in terms of R/P forecasting. In the 1960s, concerned that reserves figures were not making sufficient allowances for factors that would prevent much of the resource from ever being produced, the USGS commissioned surveys by geologist Paul Averitt, culminating in the publication, in 1975, of Coal Resources of the US. By now the official estimate of recoverable reserves had been whittled down to the current range of 260 to 275 billion tons. This was seen as no cause for alarm, as the reserves-to-production ratio forecast remained at comfortably above 200 years; also, it was believed that new technologies (such as longwall mining and underground gasification) would eventually be able to convert substantial quantities of resources back into reserves. In 1995, the USGS began work on the National Coal Resource Assessment (NCRA), a multi-year effort to create a digital assessment on a region-by-region basis, which is still in process, with few of the crucial results currently publicly available. According to the EIA website, as of January 1 2007 the Estimated Recoverable Reserves for the US amounted to 267 billion tons. Since production for 2006 was 1,162,750 tons, that would indicate an R/P ratio of about 230/1. A graphic from the Department of Energy (EIA), using 2005 data, is helpful in visualizing the various categories within the overall coal resource base. See http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_194_coal_in_the_united_states As we are about to see, the long process of revising national coal reserves figures downward may not be at an end. New Studies 1. Coal: Research and Development to Support National Energy Policy (National Academy of Sciences [NAS], July 2007, http://books.nap.edu/). This book-length report concluded that "there is no question that sufficient minable coal is available to meet the nation's coal needs through 2030", and also that "there is probably sufficient coal to meet the nation's needs for more than 100 years at current production levels" - though this latter judgment does not appear to be based on a peaking analysis. In sum, however, the report is a plea for better, more realistic reserves estimates: "[I]t is not possible to confirm that there is a sufficient supply of coal for the next 250 years, as is often asserted. A combination of increased rates of production with more detailed reserve analyses that take into account location, quality, recoverability, and transportation issues may substantially reduce the estimated number of years supply. This increasing uncertainty associated with the longer-term projections arises because significant information is incomplete or unreliable. The data that are publicly available for such projections are outdated, fragmentary, or inaccurate." These doubts about current reserves figures were based upon recent Coal Recoverability Studies undertaken in Kentucky, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming - in effect, spot checks to determine whether reserves figures were indeed reliable within restricted areas where coal recoverability could be determined with some accuracy as the result of mining experience. "A total of 65 areas in 22 coal fields have been analyzed, and these studies suggest that eight to 89 percent of the identified resources in these coal fields are recoverable and five to 25 percent of identified resources may be classified as reserves. Because they are based on site-specific criteria, these studies provide considerably improved estimates compared to the ERR [Estimated Recoverable Reserves]." One such study, of the Matewan quadrangle of eastern Kentucky, concluded: "a strong argument can be made that traditional coal producing regions may soon be experiencing resource depletion problems far greater and much sooner than previously thought". (http://pubs.usgs.gov/) The NAS report enumerates the problems that the US coal industry will face in coming decades: "Almost certainly, coals mined in the future will be lower quality because current mining practices result in higher-quality coal being mined first, leaving behind lower-quality material (for example, with higher ash yield, higher sulfur, and/or higher concentrations of potentially harmful elements). The consequences of relying on poorer-quality coal for the future include (1) higher mining costs (for example, the need for increased tonnage to generate an equivalent amount of energy, greater abrasion of mining equipment); (2) transportation challenges (for example, the need to transport increased tonnage for an equivalent amount of energy); (3) beneficiation challenges (for example, the need to reduce ash yield to acceptable levels, the creation of more waste); (4) pollution control challenges (for example, capturing higher concentrations of particulates, sulfur, and trace elements; dealing with increased waste disposal); and (5) environmental and health challenges." 2. Coal: Resources and Future Production (Werner Zittel and J?rg Schindler, Energy Watch Group [EWG], March 2007, www.energywatchgroup.org/). This report contains ten pages of analysis specific to US coal supplies. The EWG authors note, "Until the year 2000, productivity [the amount of coal produced per worker hour] steadily increased for all types of coal produced covering surface and subsurface mining. But since then productivity has declined by about ten percent ... The decline in productivity can only be explained by the necessity of rising efforts in production. This might be due to deeper digging and/or to a higher level of waste production. Are these already indications for the era of 'easy coal' drawing to a close?" The EWG report offers several peaking scenarios for US coal. The most optimistic shows a peak in 2070. However, the authors warn that "Even if volumetric production rates can be increased by about sixty percent until 2070 to 2080 before decline sets in, the corresponding energy production will increase only by about 45 to fifty percent due to the increased share of sub-bituminous coal and lignite". Like the National Academy of Sciences, the EWG authors believe that the official estimated recoverable reserves figure is too large. They offer two alternative scenarios for future production: one in which only recoverable reserves at existing mines are considered producible (peak in 2015), and the other in which reported estimated recoverable reserves are all producible, but regional production trends are taken into account (peak in 2040). They suggest that "The real profile will be somewhere between these two extremes". A third peaking forecast is based on an LBST (German renewable energy consultancy Ludwig B?lkow Systemtechnik) analysis, which is itself based on USGS production forecasts in 2000 using 1995 data. The USGS forecast is corrected for actual production in the intervening years, and a future production profile is chosen in accordance with past production trends and likely production growth (Montana and Illinois are assumed to provide only marginally increased amounts). It is this fourth scenario, with a peak around 2025, that the EWG authors appear to consider most reasonable. The authors conclude: "Considering the insights of the regional analysis it is very likely that bituminous coal production in the US has already peaked, and that total (volumetric) coal production will peak between 2020 and 2030. The possible growth to arrive at peak measured in energy terms will be lower, only about twenty percent above today's level ... [T]he 250 billion ton figure [the current official estimate of recoverable reserves] should not be the basis for energy planning." The various EWG scenarios suggest that if Montana and Illinois can resolve their production blockages, or the nation becomes so desperate for energy supplies that environmental concerns are simply swept away, then the peak will come somewhat later, while the decline will be longer, slower, and probably far dirtier. 3. Lignite and Hard Coal: Energy Suppliers for World Needs until the Year 2100 - An Outlook(Thomas Thielemann, Sandro Schmidt, and J Peter Gerling, German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources [BGR], International Journal of Coal Geology Volume 72, Issue 1, 3 September 2007, http://www.sciencedirect.com/). This paper forecasts no bottleneck in coal supplies and a large potential for expanding coal-to-liquids (CTL) production. It offers relatively little detail for individual producing countries and makes no attempt at a peaking analysis. For the US, the explicit conclusion is that there will be no coal supply problems this century. 4. A Supply-Driven Forecast for the Future of Global Coal Production (H??k, Zittel, Schindler, and Aleklett; Energy Policy, in press, www.tsl.uu.se/). Much of this report repeats data and arguments from the prior EWG publication. The conclusions for the US are also similar: "It is reasonable that USA with its huge energy consumption will be among the first in the Big Six to peak in coal production. All major coal-producing states, except Wyoming, seem to be near or past peak production. It should however be noticed that environmental laws and other socioeconomic restrictions probably prevent a significant amount of coal from being produced in the near future, especially high-sulfur coals. A relaxation of the restrictions will therefore probably be able to increase the reserves, but whether this relaxation will happen or not is hard to tell and not considered in the forecast ... The decline in heat value shows that the best American coals are gone and that poorer and poorer coals are exploited each year. The decrease in mining productivity is an also in line with the fact that the most easy-accessible coal is gone." "A Supply-Driven Forecast" contains two new charts, one a high-case and the other a low-case scenario. The higher case "depicts a continued rapid expansion of Wyoming together with a build-up of the capacity in Montana". The lower case "does not envision a dramatic increase of the Montana coal production and consequently the production level from Montana remains at its current level". In the higher case, production peaks around 2040; in the lower case, which the authors regard as "more realistic", the decline commences around 2030. 5. Hubbert linearization and curve-fitting (Rutledge and Laherr?re). David Rutledge, Tomiyasu Professor of Electrical Engineering at the California Institute of Technology and Director of Caltech's Lee Center for Advanced Networking, in a presentation at Caltech in October 2007, used Hubbert linearization analysis to estimate future global coal production (http://rutledge.caltech.edu/). Rutledge argues that, in any region for which we have something close to a complete production history (that is, production has declined substantially due to resource depletion - for example, British coal or US lower-48 oil), historic reserves estimates typically have turned out to be too high. As we have seen, this position is now in effect supported by NAS on the basis of recent site-specific case studies. Rutledge goes on to argue that Hubbert linearization often yields a more accurate forecast of ultimately recoverable reserves. Rutledge applies linearization to North American coal producing regions, "with trends for the East (40Gt), West (25Gt), reserves for Montana (68Gt), and trends for Canada and Mexico (2Gt total)". This results in an estimate of total ultimately recoverable reserves of 135 billion tons, roughly half the reserves figure now used by official agencies. Veteran petroleum geologist Jean Laherr?re has charted two Hubbert curves for US coal ("Combustibles fossiles: quel avenir pour quel monde?" http://aspofrance.viabloga.com/), one assuming an ultimate production of 150 billion tons (which is roughly in line with Rutledge's conclusion just cited), and the other assuming 300 billion tons (which is somewhat more than the current official ERR). The production peak in the former case occurs in 2025; in the latter case, decline commences after 2060. Implications With oil and natural gas prices rising at alarming rates, the return of the US to a greater reliance on coal might seem inevitable. The nation is currently paying over $620 billion per year for petroleum imports, and this ongoing transfer of wealth abroad cannot help but have a substantial negative impact on the domestic economy. There are three ways to moderate that impact: reduce consumption of liquid fuels through conservation; produce more fuels domestically; or electrify transport, which will require more electricity. Coal could help with either of the latter two strategies. Given that the nation possesses so much coal, and that energy from coal is still relatively cheap, it would seem inevitable that strong arguments will be made for a dramatic increase in coal production to help solve the nation's energy problems. Yet if most of the recent analyses cited here are correct, this strategy has a short shelf life. Within the planning horizon for any coal plant proposed today lie much higher coal prices and perhaps even resource scarcity. The sheer amounts of coal that will be needed in order to offset any significant proportion of oil (and perhaps also natural gas) consumption, and to meet the projected increased demand for electricity, are mind-boggling. Coal is a lower-quality fossil fuel in the best case, and America is being forced to use ever lower-quality coal. Just to offset the declining heating value of US coal while meeting EIA forecasts for electricity demand growth by 2030, the nation will then have to mine roughly eighty percent more coal then than it is doing currently. If carbon sequestration and other new technologies for consuming coal are implemented, they will increase the amount of coal required in order to produce the same amount of energy for society's use, since the energy penalty for capture and sequestration is estimated at up to forty percent. A broad-scale effort to produce synthetic liquid fuels from coal (CTL) will also dramatically increase coal demand. If the current trend to expand coal exports continues, this would stimulate demand even further. Altogether, there is a realistic potential for more than a doubling, perhaps even a tripling, of US coal demand and production by 2030 - which would hasten exhaustion of the resource from many current mining regions and draw the inevitable production peak closer in time. Assuming this higher demand scenario (from CTL, increased exports, and growing electricity consumption), by 2030 the nation's dependence on coal will be much greater than is currently the case, and coal's proportional contribution to the total US energy supply will have grown substantially. But at the same time, prices for coal are likely to have increased precipitously because of transport bottlenecks and higher transport costs (due to soaring diesel prices), falling production trends in many current producing regions, and the lack of suitable new coalfields. The interactions of high and rising coal prices with efforts to maximize output are hard to predict. As limits to domestic coal production appear, exports could diminish and there could instead be efforts to import more coal, probably from South America. But in that case the US economy would suffer increasingly from economic dependencies and geopolitical vulnerabilities that already hobble the nation as a result of its oil imports. It may be tempting to think of coal as a transitional energy source for the next few decades, while a longer-term energy strategy emerges. But in that case, an important question arises: Will there be sufficient investment capital and technical resources in three or four decades to fund the transition to the next energy source, whatever it may be? By that time (assuming EIA projections are reasonably accurate), demand for energy will be higher. The price of oil, gas, and coal will be higher - perhaps much higher - and so the nation will be spending proportionally much more of its GDP on energy than it does now. Meanwhile, the energy cost of building new infrastructure of any kind will be higher. Therefore it is likely that insufficient investment capital will be available for the large number of new energy projects required. The transition if deferred will thus be more expensive and difficult than it would be now. Indeed, the longer a transition to an ultimate (and sustainable) energy regime is put off, the harder that transition becomes. Coal currently looks like a solution to many of America's fast-growing energy problems. However, this is a solution that, if applied on a broad scale, seems certain only to exacerbate the nation's energy dilemma in the long run, as well as contributing to an impending global climate catastrophe. _____ Note: This article is a draft chapter from a forthcoming book, currently titled Coal's Future/Earth's Fate, to be published by Post Carbon Press in spring 2009. The author wishes to thank Werner Zittel, David Rutledge, Jean Laherr?re, David Strahan, Julian Darley, and Jason Brenno for assistance with this article. Previous MuseLetters on global coal supply issues are archived on Global Public Media (www.globalpublicmedia.com): * MuseLetter #193: It's Happening, * MuseLetter #190: The Great Coal Rush (and Why It Will Fail), and * MuseLetter #179: Burning the Furniture. http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_194_coal_in_the_united_states TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From aaron.doncaster at gmail.com Sat Jun 14 14:57:24 2008 From: aaron.doncaster at gmail.com (aaron doncaster) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:57:24 -0300 Subject: [R-G] Taliban jail break frees 1,200 prisoners Message-ID: <164236a30806141357q77ac4870mc145e0d343cb162f@mail.gmail.com> Taliban Free 1,200 in Attack on Prison - Sign In to E-Mail or Save This - Print - Reprints - Share - Digg - Facebook - Mixx - Yahoo! Buzz - Permalink [image: Article Tools Sponsored By] By CARLOTTA GALL Published: June 14, 2008 In a brazen attack, Talibanfighters assaulted the main prison in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar on Friday night, blowing up the mud walls, killing 15 guards and freeing around 1,200 inmates. Among the escapees were about 350 Taliban members, including commanders, would-be suicide bombers and assassins, said Ahmed Wali Karzai, the head of Kandahar's provincial council and a brother of President Hamid Karzai. Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image Ismail Sameem/Reuters The main prison in Kandahar was heavily damaged in an assault by Taliban fighters. Reach of WarGo to Complete Coverage ? "It is very dangerous for security. They are the most experienced killers and they all managed to escape," he said by telephone from Kandahar. A Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, said that the attack was carried out by 30 insurgents on motorbikes and two suicide bombers, and that they had freed about 400 Taliban members, The Associated Press reported. The breakout from Sarposa Prison will present enormous security challenges for Afghan and NATOforces surrounding Kandahar, President Karzai's home city but also the spiritual capital of the Taliban. Traditionally, Kandahar is home to the rulers of Afghanistan, and control of it is seen as critical to the government's hold on the entire country. The city has been in a precarious situation since Taliban forces massed in the nearby district of Panjwai in 2006. Since then Canadian forces have struggled to secure the area, and the Taliban have repeatedly sought to gain a foothold in the districts surrounding the town. The prison break is also likely to increase pressure on President Karzai, who is coming under increasing criticism at home and abroad for his faltering leadership and his inability to manage the country. Even as international donors pledged $21 billion in aid for Afghanistan this week, many of them have criticized his failure to tackle the problems of security and corruption. The attack began at 9:20 p.m., when two truck bombs exploded at the prison gates, breaking down a part of the mud walls, Ahmed Karzai said. It seemed to be well planned, officials said. After the bombings, a group of fighters armed with rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles mounted an attack, said a spokesman for the provincial governor. They then ran through the prison, breaking open the cell doors. The prison lies on the west side of the city. Residents living about a half mile away in the center of town said the explosions broke windows in their street and that they could hear fighting raging for an hour after that. Mr. Karzai said that the attackers focused their efforts on the political section of the prison, where the Taliban suspects were being held. There is also a section for ordinary criminals and one for some 80 female prisoners. Mr. Karzai said that the police and prison guards managed to prevent around 200 prisoners from escaping, but other officials contacted in the town said that every last prisoner had escaped. While there were also ordinary criminals in the jail, families of many of the prisoners have said their relatives were swept up in military operations and wrongly imprisoned. Villagers living near the prison said they saw prisoners running along the roads, and scattering into nearby villages, generally heading north and east to the districts of Dand and Argandab outside the city, a security official in the city, Abdul Haleem, said. He warned that the Taliban could be sheltering very close to the city. Canadian troops, part of the NATO force that is based outside Kandahar, were deployed to the prison but arrived after the prisoners had escaped. Afghan Army, police and intelligence personnel were pursuing the prisoners in the surrounding villages, Mr. Karzai said. The prison was recently the scene of unrest, with some 400 prisoners staging a hunger strike in May to protest their long detention without trial. Some had been held for as long as two years without trial, and some were being refused the right to appeal very harsh sentences, they said. More than 40 of the prisoners stitched their lips together with needle and thread to demonstrate their determination. Some 300 women who came to protest outside the prison at the time said their relatives inside had been picked up by NATO and American military sweeps and were innocent but nevertheless held without trial for months and even years. Local elders and government officials negotiated an end to the protest and promised better conditions and justice. Yet, the jailbreak is likely to prove popular with many local families. Taliban prisoners staged another escape from the prison several years ago by digging a tunnel from a cell. Officials at the time said some of the guards had been bribed to look the other way. Carlotta Gall reported from Islamabad, Pakistan, and Abdul Waheed Wafa contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan. From fentona at shaw.ca Sat Jun 14 15:51:03 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:51:03 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Canadian Workers Demand Immediate End to War in Afghanistan Message-ID: ~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( T h e B u l l e t ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A Socialist Project e-bulletin .... No. 113 .... June 14, 2008 ________________________________________________ Canadian Workers Demand Immediate End to War in Afghanistan Michael Skinner On 29 May 2009, the delegates at the national convention of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), representing more than three million workers from every region of Canada and Quebec, voted overwhelmingly to demand that the Government of Canada immediately end its participation in the illegal war in Afghanistan. This CLC demand represents a significant consolidation of labour power. Several national unions, notably the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) had already adopted policies to oppose Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan. However, some powerful unions whose members work in the rapidly expanding Canadian military and development industries could profit from continuing the war. The women and men of these unions made the difficult decision to stand in solidarity with the working people of Afghanistan rather than act on self-interest. The Afghan War and the Canadian Military The ongoing war in Afghanistan continues to kill uncounted thousands of Afghan civilians and cause immeasurable suffering due to horrendous injuries, the displacement of people from their homes and livelihoods, home invasions, arbitrary arrests and torture, sexual abuse, and the general humiliation of Afghans. This is an illegal war that cannot be justified by a few extra jobs for Canadian workers. Since the war in Afghanistan began, Canada has become the sixth largest military exporter in the world, according to data collected by the U.S. Congressional Research Service. Canada is now behind only the USA, Russia, the UK, Germany, and China in export volume. The U.S. manufactures more than all other military manufacturers combined, so comparing Canada's military industrial complex to the American mega- industry is ridiculous. But, Canada trails China -- number five on the list -- by only a hundred million dollars worth of exports in an industry that brings billions of dollars into Canada. No one knows exactly how many billions of dollars military exports bring into Canada though. Why not? Because, for the past four years, the Canadian government, citing security concerns, has refused to release much of the data regarding the export of military products to the U.S. -- our biggest customer. Canada's own military spending has risen considerably. Since the war began in 2001, Canada rose from the position of 16th to 13th biggest military spender in the world, and from 7th to 6th within NATO, according to a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report. Canada's defence budget projects a 37 percent increase in spending from 2001 to 2010. The Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) represents more than five hundred companies. In an interview with a CBC journalist, the CADSI president, Tim Page, claimed his industry represents about 70,000 jobs in over 177 federal ridings. This may not seem like a large number of workers, but it represents significant political power. Many of these high-tech jobs are among the best in the country. However, the workers who build the weapons and everything else needed for warfare, as well as the service workers who make the Canadian state function, recognise that it is the shareholders who profit most from the rising fortunes of the companies in Canada's military industrial complex. Corporations such as GM Canada, Bombardier, Bell Helicopter, SNC-Lavalin, CAE Electronics, Pratt & Whitney Canada, Canadian Marconi, and Colt Canada are only a few of the Canadian based military suppliers profiting from the war in Afghanistan. Continue reading: www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet113.html#continue ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( T h e B u l l e t))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Bullet is produced by the Socialist Project. Readers are encouraged to distribute widely. Comments, criticisms and suggestions are welcome. Write to info at socialistproject.ca If you wish to subscribe: www.socialistproject.ca/lists/?p=subscribe The Bullet archive is available at www.socialistproject.ca/bullet For more analysis of contemporary politics check out 'Relay: A Socialist Project Review' at www.socialistproject.ca/relay From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sat Jun 14 18:36:02 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:36:02 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Peak Oil Crisis: On Slowing Down Message-ID: <485463F2.8090009@attglobal.net> by Tom Whipple Falls Church News-Press (June 05 2008) As gasoline prices pass $4 per gallon and begin to eat away at our well-being and the fabric of our civilization, the realization is slowly growing that indeed there is something we can do - slow down. Currently this concept has less than zero traction in Congress. Recent polls show that, in overwhelming numbers, the American people It is now 34 years since Congress passed the National Maximum Speed Law requiring states to establish a 55 miles per hour ("mph") speed limit as a condition for receiving federal highway funds. It is 21 years since the Congress permitted states to raise the speed limit to 65 mph on rural interstate highways and thirteen years since states were given the authority to set any speed limits they like. After oil became plentiful again, lower speed limits were seen as a way to save lives by reducing the seriousness of accidents, but public clamor soon overcame concerns. As the interstate system grew, and cars became faster and quieter, the "double nickel" limit came to be seen as an intrusion on people's rights. Studies showed that by the early 1980s 83 percent of the motorists on New York interstates were cruising above the posted limit. Speed limits soon became an ideological issue when the Heritage Foundation put out a report saying that speed limits were only saving trivial amounts of gasoline. In 1999, Cato Institute concluded that deaths from car accidents did not increase after the speed limits were raised and there was a net economic benefit of two to three billion dollars a year from everybody driving faster. A review of comments on web sites advocating a return to the 55 mph limit suggests that the idea is vastly unpopular. Slowing down is not going to come easily. The issue of course is not one of ideology, but of physics and economics. The resistance of the air to a moving vehicle increases roughly with the square of the speed. There are numerous factors besides drag such as vehicle weight, rolling resistance, and terrain gradient that go into determining an optimum speed for the best fuel economy. Studies from thirty years ago suggest that 35-40 mph might be the optimum speed for best economy while more recent studies on more current cars show 50-55 mph might be better. All studies, however, show that getting speed down from the current flow of 70-75 mph to 50-55 mph is going to be good for about a twenty percent fuel savings with the current vehicle fleet. At any given time of course, most moving vehicles are not going with the 75 mph flow, but are stuck in traffic, waiting at traffic lights, and creeping around parking lots. Slowing down the Interstates and rural roads by twenty mph will not save much fuel in those massive suburban traffic jams called commuting. This, of course, is the heart of the argument against reducing speed limits. Excessive gasoline consumption should be a personal decision. "I paid for the gasoline and should be allowed to waste it by driving fast as much as I can afford". There is more to this story than personal freedoms however. Try driving at economical speeds on most interstates these days and you will quickly realize that you are a menace to your fellow motorists. It is only a question of time until somebody gets killed weaving around to avoid you. Going with, or close to, the flow becomes an act of kindness to our fellow motorists. The moral is that we are all going to have to slow down together - or not at all. Our truckers, who bring us perhaps seventy percent of our food and other stuff, are being done in by the cost of diesel which is approaching $5 a gallon. Now I have no idea what the optimum speed for an eighteen wheeler might be, but I suspect it is going to be well south of sixty mph, especially if the manufacturers adjusted the gear ratios a bit. Remember that eighteen wheelers are most frequently found a few feet off your bumper on the Interstate and rarely stuck in a suburban traffic jam. We are going to need our trucks as our railroads are at capacity and will take decades to build more. In Ontario, where they don't fool around, they have already imposed a 100 kph (60 mph) speed limit on the eighteen wheelers and have placed governors on their engines to keep errant drivers under control when the law isn't around. The Canadians have saved so much on their fuel bills that the American Trucking Association now is proposing we do the same thing right here in America and institute a 65 mph speed limit. I doubt if they really want the governors on their engines, but they like the savings on the diesel bill. Interestingly enough, the truckers want everybody else to slow down to 65 mph with them, presumably to avoid obscene gestures from the little four wheeler drivers who would otherwise have to spend the day passing them. There will come a day in the not-too-distant future when it will become obvious that we have to save every last drop of motor fuel just to keep ourselves and our economy going. Even the most red-blooded American Congressman will swallow his love of freedom to go fast and vote to impose some sort of fuel-saving speed limit. We may have to wait until there are wide-spread shortages of motor fuel such as we had in 1973. However, as seems increasingly likely, lobbyists from diesel consuming industries may just convince some Congressional committee that slowing down is what it will take if we want to continue to eat. I suspect that by the time Congress votes new speed limits, most drivers will get the idea and you won't find eighty plus percent breaking the law. If not, we could always sentence them to drive only cars with 55 mph governors for life. http://www.fcnp.com/national_commentary/the_peak_oil_crisis_on_slowing_down_20080605.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Sat Jun 14 22:00:48 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:00:48 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Is It Time for Gay Arranged Marriages? Message-ID: Is It Time for Gay Arranged Marriages? By Sandip Roy, New American Media Posted on June 10, 2008 When I left India for America, my aunts worried about who I might end up marrying. "I hope you'll marry another Bengali," an aunt told me. Over the years that relaxed to, "I hope she's a Hindu, even if she's not Bengali." Then it became, "At least another Indian," until finally we reached, "I hope you'll get married to someone before we all die." She probably didn't mean another man. But now it might just happen. Same-sex marriage is on a roll in California. First a Republican-dominated Supreme Court said there was no reason gays and lesbians couldn't get married. Now there comes a new Field poll that says that, for the first time ever, a majority of Californians think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. As the pink confetti settles around us, I'm left wondering how immigrants are going to come out anymore. Many of us come from countries that really don't have a word for "gay." India certainly doesn't. There are epithets and some rather technical terms. Coming out in India is usually about marriage. This is the default coming out line: "Mom, Dad, I don't think I am going to get married." Now the California Supreme Court has yanked that line away. Perhaps it's time. After all, the Oxford English Dictionary has apparently had to recalibrate its definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage. The Field poll shows that Californians support the right of same-sex couples to marry by a margin of 51 to 42 percent. In a state where one in four Californians is foreign-born, that seems to be an astonishing change. When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom started issuing same-sex wedding licenses in 2004, some of the first protests came from Chinese churchgoers. After all, immigrant families are supposed to be socially conservative. But that might be part of the reason why the tide is finally shifting on gay marriage. (Of course a younger, more socially liberal state helps.) For my immigrant friends, being gay in California is not much of an issue. Being unmarried in their 30s and 40s is the real issue, the conversation-stopper at Indian potlucks, the thing that makes them stick out at Chinese banquets. My friend said that when a heterosexual but unmarried Chinese friend of his told his parents that at least he wasn't gay, the parents retorted "We'd rather you were gay with kids." Immigrant families just understand marriage, even same-sex marriage more easily than singlehood. Singleness means you never grew up. It's the biggest failing of parenthood -- the incompleteness of the unmarried child. It leads to acts of desperation. I've seen the ads for marriages of convenience -- 29 year old professional Indian gay, 5'9", good job, looking for Indian lesbian facing similar family pressures. There was even a website devoted to Assisting Matrimonial Arrangements for Lesbians and Gays from India, complete with a "gaylerry" of posted ads [URL: ]. In 1993 my friend Aditya Advani went to India with his boyfriend Michael Tarr and complained to his mother that no one would ever come to his wedding. She promptly organized a ceremony. The family priest presided over it. "Openly gay and married in my parents' drawing room at the age of thirty," marveled Aditya. "Right on schedule as a good Indian boy should be!" I recently watched their wedding video again at their home in Berkeley while their cats purred on the couch. It still felt like a fairy tale, a lump-in-the-throat act of domestic revolution. In 2004 when San Francisco started issuing the same-sex wedding licenses Arvind Kumar and Ashok Jethanandani rose at 5:30 am to drive from their home in San Jose to San Francisco to stand in line to get married. The couple were already married in a sense. Arvind's mother, who had once adamantly rejected her son's sexuality, presided over a Hindu ceremony for the two after they had been together for more than a decade. They are registered as domestic partners in Palo Alto and the state of California. The registration licenses hang on the wall where other couples might have pictures of their children. Arvind and Ashok couldn't get married in 2004. Despite getting up so early they were behind 300 other couples in line. They finally got an appointment but by then the Supreme Court had halted the marriages. At that time Arvind was philosophical. He knew it was going to be a long fight. "We are just fighting to simplify our lives," says Arvind. "I don't want a Palo Alto date, a state of California date, a Hindu ceremony date. I just want one date, one wedding anniversary like everyone else." Now Arvind and Ashok can get their one date after all. On June 17 California counties will start issuing marriage licenses to couples like them. The next generation of gays and lesbians will have to come up with some other coming out line. And the revolution will have to find some new frontier. Imagine this ad in the local Indian weekly - Hindu very well-established Los Angeles family invites professional match for daughter, 25, 5'3", slim, wheatish complexion, U.S. born, Senior Executive in Fortune 500 company. Loves music and dance. Prospective brides encouraged to reply in confidence with complete biodata and returnable photo. Must be professional, under 30, caste no bar. It might just be time for the gay arranged marriage. Sandip Roy (sandip at pacificnews.org) is host of "Upfront," the Pacific News Service weekly radio program on KALW-FM, San Francisco. -- Yoshie From fentona at shaw.ca Sat Jun 14 23:02:40 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:02:40 -0700 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Gore_Vidal=92s_Article_of_Impeachment?= Message-ID: Gore Vidal?s Article of Impeachment http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080612_taking_back_the_republic/ Posted on Jun 11, 2008 Kucinich [AP photo / Stephan Savoia Fightin? words: Rep. Dennis Kucinich brandishes his pocket Constitution on the campaign trail in New Hampshire last January.] By Gore Vidal On June 9, 2008, a counterrevolution began on the floor of the House of Representatives against the gas and oil crooks who had seized control of the federal government. This counterrevolution began in the exact place which had slumbered during the all-out assault on our liberties and the Constitution itself. I wish to draw the attention of the blog world to Rep. Dennis Kucinich?s articles of impeachment presented to the House in order that two faithless public servants be removed from office for crimes against the American people. As I listened to Rep. Kucinich invoke the great engine of impeachment?he listed some 35 crimes by these two faithless officials?we heard, like great bells tolling, the voice of the Constitution itself speak out ringingly against those who had tried to destroy it. Although this is the most important motion made in Congress in the 21st century, it was also the most significant plea for a restoration of the republic, which had been swept to one side by the mad antics of a president bent on great crime. And as I listened with awe to Kucinich, I realized that no newspaper in the U.S., no broadcast or cable network, would pay much notice to the fact that a highly respected member of Congress was asking for the president and vice president to be tried for crimes which were carefully listed by Kucinich in his articles requesting impeachment. But then I have known for a long time that the media of the U.S. and too many of its elected officials give not a flying fuck for the welfare of this republic, and so I turned, as I often do, to the foreign press for a clear report of what has been going on in Congress. We all know how the self-described ?war hero,? Mr. John McCain, likes to snigger at France, while the notion that he is a hero of any kind is what we should be sniggering at. It is Le Monde, a French newspaper, that told a story the next day hardly touched by The New York Times or The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal or, in fact, any other major American media outlet. As for TV? Well, there wasn?t much?you see, we dare not be divisive because it upsets our masters who know that this is a perfect country, and the fact that so many in it don?t like it means that they have been terribly spoiled by the greatest health service on Earth, the greatest justice system, the greatest number of occupied prisons?two and a half million Americans are prisoners?what a great tribute to our penal passions! Naturally, I do not want to sound hard, but let me point out that even a banana Republican would be distressed to discover how much of our nation?s treasury has been siphoned off by our vice president in the interest of his Cosa Nostra company, Halliburton, the lawless gang of mercenaries set loose by this administration in the Middle East. But there it was on the first page of Le Monde. The House of Representatives, which was intended to be the democratic chamber, at last was alert to its function, and the bravest of its members set in motion the articles of impeachment of the most dangerous president in our history. Rep Kucinich listed some 30-odd articles describing impeachable offenses committed by the president and vice president, neither of whom had ever been the clear choice of our sleeping polity for any office. Some months ago, Kucinich had made the case against Dick Cheney. Now he had the principal malefactor in his view under the title ?Articles of Impeachment for President George W. Bush?! ?Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.? The purpose of the resolve is that he be duly tried by the Senate, and if found guilty, be removed from office. At this point, Rep. Kucinich presented his 35 articles detailing various high crimes and misdemeanors for which removal from office was demanded by the framers of the Constitution. Update: On Wednesday, the House voted by 251 to 166 to send Rep. Kucinich?s articles of impeachment to a committee which probably won?t get to the matter before Bush leaves office, a strategy that is ?often used to kill legislation,? as the Associated Press noted later that day. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Jun 15 05:53:31 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:53:31 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Small Is Bountiful Message-ID: <485502BB.9070509@attglobal.net> Peasant farmers offer the best chance of feeding the world. So why do we treat them with contempt? by George Monbiot Published in the Guardian (June 10 2008) I suggest you sit down before you read this. Robert Mugabe is right. At last week's global food summit he was the only leader to speak of "the importance ... of land in agricultural production and food security". {1} Countries should follow Zimbabwe's lead, he said, in democratising ownership. Of course the old bastard has done just the opposite. He has evicted his opponents and given land to his supporters. He has failed to support the new settlements with credit or expertise, with the result that farming in Zimbabwe has collapsed. The country was in desperate need of land reform when Mugabe became president. It remains in desperate need of land reform today. But he is right in theory. Though the rich world's governments won't hear it, the issue of whether or not the world will be fed is partly a function of ownership. This reflects an unexpected discovery. It was first made in 1962 by the Nobel economist Amartya Sen {2}, and has since been confirmed by dozens of further studies. There is an inverse relationship between the size of farms and the amount of crops they produce per hectare. The smaller they are, the greater the yield. In some cases, the difference is enormous. A recent study of farming in Turkey, for example, found that farms of less than one hectare are twenty times as productive as farms of over ten hectares {3}. Sen's observation has been tested in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Malaysia, Thailand, Java, the Phillippines, Brazil, Colombia and Paraguay. It appears to hold almost everywhere. The finding would be surprising in any industry, as we have come to associate efficiency with scale. In farming, it seems particularly odd, because small producers are less likely to own machinery, less likely to have capital or access to credit, and less likely to know about the latest techniques. There's a good deal of controversy about why this relationship exists. Some researchers argued that it was the result of a statistical artefact: fertile soils support higher populations than barren lands, so farm size could be a result of productivity, rather than the other way around. But further studies have shown that the inverse relationship holds across an area of fertile land. Moreover, it works even in countries like Brazil, where the biggest farmers have grabbed the best land {4}. The most plausible explanation is that small farmers use more labour per hectare than big farmers {5}. Their workforce largely consists of members of their own families, which means that labour costs are lower than on large farms (they don't have to spend money recruiting or supervising workers), while the quality of the work is higher. With more labour, farmers can cultivate their land more intensively: they spend more time terracing and building irrigation systems; they sow again immediately after the harvest; they might grow several different crops in the same field. In the early days of the Green Revolution, this relationship seemed to go into reverse: the bigger farms, with access to credit, were able to invest in new varieties and boost their yields. But as the new varieties have spread to smaller farmers, the inverse relationship has reasserted itself {6}. If governments are serious about feeding the world, they should be breaking up large landholdings, redistributing them to the poor and concentrating their research and their funding on supporting small farms. There are plenty of other reasons for defending small farmers in poor countries. The economic miracles in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan arose from their land reform programmes. Peasant farmers used the cash they made to build small businesses. The same thing seems to have happened in China, though it was delayed for forty years by collectivisation and the Great Leap Backwards: the economic benefits of the redistribution that began in 1949 were not felt until the early 1980s {7}. Growth based on small farms tends to be more equitable than growth built around capital-intensive industries {8}. Though their land is used intensively, the total ecological impact of smallholdings is lower. When small farms are bought up by big ones, the displaced workers move into new land to try to scratch out a living. I once followed evicted peasants from the Brazilian state of Maranhao 2000 miles across the Amazon to the land of the Yanomami Indians, then watched them rip it apart. But the prejudice against small farmers is unshakeable. It gives rise to the oddest insult in the English language: when you call someone a peasant, you are accusing them of being self-reliant and productive. Peasants are detested by capitalists and communists alike. Both have sought to seize their land, and have a powerful vested interest in demeaning and demonising them. In its profile of Turkey, the country whose small farmers are twenty times more productive than its large ones, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation states that, as a result of small landholdings, "farm output ... remains low". {9} The OECD states that "stopping land fragmentation" in Turkey "and consolidating the highly fragmented land is indispensable for raising agricultural productivity". {10} Neither body provides any supporting evidence. A rootless, half-starved labouring class suits capital very well. Like Mugabe, the donor countries and the big international bodies loudly demand that small farmers be supported, while quietly shafting them. Last week's food summit agreed "to help farmers, particularly small-scale producers, increase production and integrate with local, regional, and international markets". {11} But when, earlier this year, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge proposed a means of doing just this, the US, Australia and Canada refused to endorse it as it offended big business {12}, while the United Kingdom remains the only country that won't reveal whether or not it supports the study {13}. Big business is killing small farming. By extending intellectual property rights over every aspect of production; by developing plants which either won't breed true or which don't reproduce at all {14}, it ensures that only those with access to capital can cultivate. As it captures both the wholesale and retail markets, it seeks to reduce its transaction costs by engaging only with major sellers. If you think that supermarkets are giving farmers in the UK a hard time, you should see what they are doing to growers in the poor world. As developing countries sweep away street markets and hawkers' stalls and replace them with superstores and glossy malls, the most productive farmers lose their customers and are forced to sell up. The rich nations support this process by demanding access for their companies. Their agricultural subsidies still help their own, large farmers to compete unfairly with the small producers of the poor world. This leads to an interesting conclusion. For many years, well-meaning liberals have supported the fair trade movement because of the benefits it delivers directly to the people it buys from. But the structure of the global food market is changing so rapidly that fair trade is now becoming one of the few means by which small farmers in poor nations might survive. A shift from small to large farms will cause a major decline in global production, just as food supplies become tight. Fair trade might now be necessary not only as a means of redistributing income, but also to feed the world. www.monbiot.com References: 1. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/foodclimate/statements/zwe_mugabe.pdf 2. Amartya Sen, 1962. An Aspect of Indian Agriculture. Economic Weekly, Vol 14. 3. Fatma G?l ?nal, October 2006. Small Is Beautiful: Evidence Of Inverse Size Yield Relationship In Rural Turkey. Policy Innovations. http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/policy_library/data/01382 4. Giovanni Cornia, 1985. Farm Size, Land Yields and the Agricultural Production function: an analysis for fifteen Developing Countries. World Development. Vol 13, pages 513-34. 5. For example, Peter Hazell, January 2005. Is there a future for small farms? Agricultural Economics, Vol 32, pages 93-101. doi:10.1111/j.0169-5150.2004.00016.x 6. Rasmus Heltberg, October 1998. Rural market imperfections and the farm size? productivity relationship: Evidence from Pakistan. World Development. Vol 26, pages 1807-1826. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00084-9 7. See Shenggen Fan and Connie Chan-Kang , 2005. Is Small Beautiful?: Farm Size, Productivity and Poverty in Asian Agriculture. Agricultural Economics, Vol 32, pages 135-146. 8. Peter Hazell, ibid. 9. http://www.new-agri.co.uk/00-3/countryp.html 10. OECD Economic Surveys: Turkey - Volume 2006 Issue 15, page 186. This is available online as a Google book. I was led to refs 9 and 10 via Fatma G?l ?nal, ibid. 11. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/foodclimate/HLCdocs/declaration-E.pdf 12. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), 2008. Global Summary for Decision Makers. www.agassessment.org 13. IAASTD, viewed 9th June 2008. Frequently Asked Questions. www.agassessment.org 14. For example, Terminator seeds. Copyright (c) 2006 Monbiot.com http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/06/10/small-is-bountiful/ Bill Totten http://www.ashisuto.co.jp/english/index.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Sun Jun 15 07:02:12 2008 From: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org (Hunter Gray) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:02:12 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Things Message-ID: <000001c8cee8$6c2c8290$0400a8c0@computer> Thanks very much, Steve [McNichols], for passing along the e-mail tally link [attached]. Honored to be #7 among your many recipients! As you know, that's frequently viewed as a "lucky number" by much of Humanity. At some point, we will probably seek to install the Link but we learned long ago that it can be technologically risky to try to implement some of those creative little pieces in my machine. This computer is large, fairly new [less than two years old] but has challenges when it comes to external down-loads. Part of the problem is most likely power ebbs-and-flows up here -- it took years for DSL to reach us -- but another obvious problem is outside interference, in all great probability because of "monitoring" motives. [In addition there are a number of security risk assaults, some deemed high level, and duly repelled and recorded by our full-scale Norton.] The external monitoring is -- and this has occurred in various ways since we came here eleven years ago -- due to local bird-dogs operating via Federal funding and its umbrella. I doubt that the FBI, which has shown considerable interest in our doings over the decades, is especially involved in this. Its crudity reminds us of Dixie cops and the related and nefarious old Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission. But, other than that, about the only thing we have to worry about in this generally very pleasant region might be an earthquake. But we shall attempt your tally link in due course. We have lived in both Cedar Rapids and Iowa City [we like Iowa] and it's tough to see their current situation. We saw all of this first hand, of course, at Grand Forks in the spring of '97 when the Red River of the North spilled over in spectacular fashion [and, in addition, there were destructive fires] -- driving the total population of over 50,000 into drier parts of North Dakota, other states, and several provinces in the Canadian West. [We personally escaped this Horror only because, a few years earlier, never trusting the River, we had moved far to the west of town -- but, as I've noted on other occasions -- the Thing missed us by only 300 yards in that delta-flat region. [Until the Army came, we got drinking water from the Buffalo Farm, further west.] Bill Clinton made an appearance, promised to fix everything "100 %" and then left and never returned -- and the Fix never came. FEMA and various charities from around the country did their best. But the town has never really recovered. I rescued Maria and the kids and pets from her in-town apartment -- water was flowing around as we left. Later, we returned and cleaned out her apartment, including her basement which was then sprouting medically dangerous "black mold" on the walls and ceiling. It was absolutely the filthiest situation I've ever helped muck out. The small city looked like a garbage dump for many weeks. Maria et al. have lived with us ever since, but Thomas now, of course, with Mimie, lives in Minneapolis where he's a Fourth Year med student. Interesting, in a sick kind of way, to see our alleged President strutting in his self-perceived monarchial role across much of Europe and environs, from one "regal" photo op to another -- while the country and much of the world go down. But most of us will make it -- no thanks to most politicians. Assuming we don't have a repeat of some of the sanguinary '60s episodes, I am convinced that Obama will make it. [McCain is certainly sinking.] But we hope, along with many indeed, that the high idealism generated by the Obama campaign will continue, transcending both himself and Congress, and feeding and fueling more systemic approaches. I do think we can be optimistic -- but it's going to take, obviously, a vast amount of solid grassroots organizing work. On a personal note, I'm -- as I've quite recently indicated -- doing much better. In late 2003, hovering pretty close to the Beyond, I wrote my piece, Ghosts, a kind of near-death and extraordinarily vivid and detailed dream vision involving a trek down Sycamore Canyon. It was the first substantive thing I had written since mid-July of that year. I wasn't sure how it would be received, but posted it widely. You immediately wrote a very favorable comment about it, followed by various others -- among them, Sam Friedman, Bill Mandel, Kass Fleisher, Alice Azure, Dale Jacobson, Clyde Appleton. Those boosted my spirits beyond measure and sparked my current wave of still continuing writing. And "Ghosts" will in due course be published in an anthology of Native writing -- a work which will, intriguingly, focus on quantum physics. All best, Hunter [Hunter Bear] ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven McNichols To: hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 8:47 PM Subject: Our recent email volume Hi Hunter, Just wanted to let you know: I've sent you 103 emails recently, so you hold my #7 Xobni rank. Steven --- You can download Xobni here: http://www.xobni.com/download/share/6C716A70617666656066616576446C716A706176666165762A6B7663 Steven recently installed Xobni for Outlook. Xobni, the reverse spelling of inbox, uses powerful email analytics to reveal previously unknown facts like the one above. Xobni also makes it easier to find email, contacts, and attachments in Outlook. Learn more at http://www.xobni.com/learnmore/share or download Xobni now to see where Steven ranks in your inbox. HUNTER GRAY [HUNTER BEAR/JOHN R SALTER JR] Mi'kmaq /St. Francis Abenaki/St. Regis Mohawk Protected by Na?shdo?i?ba?i? and Ohkwari' Check out our Hunterbear website Directory http://hunterbear.org/directory.htm [The site is dedicated to our one-half Bobcat, Cloudy Gray: http://hunterbear.org/cloudy_gray.htm See Personal Narrative: http://hunterbear.org/narrative.htm And see Outlaw Trail: The Native as Organizer: http://hunterbear.org/outlaw_trail1.htm In our Gray Hole, the ghosts often dance in the junipers and sage, on the game trails, in the tributary canyons with the thick red maples, and on the high windy ridges -- and they dance from within the very essence of our own inner being. They do this especially when the bright night moon shines down on the clean white snow that covers the valley and its surroundings. Then it is as bright as day -- but in an always soft and mysterious and remembering way. From shimogamo at attglobal.net Sun Jun 15 17:02:15 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:02:15 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Saving Science Message-ID: <48559F77.6040505@attglobal.net> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (June 11 2008) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society Last week may just find its place in the history books as the point in time when peak oil became a social fact. Combine a drastic spike in oil prices - up US$16 in two days for one widely watched benchmark grade of crude oil - with an announcement by General Motors that the Hummer, that overblown icon of an era of excess, will no longer be manufactured, and you've got a snapshot of the transformation now hitting an unprepared and unwilling world. As this particular milestone takes its place in the rear view mirror of contemporary history, it's important that we try to glimpse the upcoming milestones on the road ahead. The one I'd like to address here, as I suggested at the end of last week's post, is the need to preserve the heritage of modern science through the challenges of the coming deindustrial age. From fentona at shaw.ca Sun Jun 15 20:39:57 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:39:57 -0700 Subject: [R-G] A line not to be crossed Message-ID: <308C5E8B-CBCE-4950-9AC8-ED9C68B5C621@shaw.ca> A line not to be crossed American-led war on terror cannot be allowed to spread into Pakistan's Pashtun tribal area By Eric Margolis http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/06/15/pf-5880581.html The killing of 11 Pakistani soldiers by U.S. air and artillery strikes last week shows just how quickly the American-led war in Afghanistan is spreading into neighbouring Pakistan. Pakistan's military branded the air attack "unprovoked and cowardly." There was outrage across Pakistan. However, the unstable government in Islamabad, which depends on large infusions of U.S. aid, later softened its protests. The U.S., which used a B-1 heavy bomber and F-15 strike aircraft in the attacks, called its action, "self-defence." This latest U.S. attack on Pakistan could not come at a worse time. Supreme Court justices ousted by the Pervez Musharraf dictatorship staged national protests this week, underscoring the illegality of Musharraf's continuing presidency and its unseemly support by the U.S., Britain, Canada and France. Asif Zardari, head of the ruling Pakistan People's Party, shamefully joined Musharraf in opposing restoration of the justice system out of fear the reinstated judges would reopen long-festering corruption charges against him Attacks by U.S. aircraft, Predator hunter-killer drones, U.S. Special Forces and CIA teams have been rising steadily inside Pakistan's autonomous Pashtun tribal area known by the acronym, FATA. The Pashtun, who make up half Afghanistan's population and 15% of Pakistan's, straddle the border, which they reject as a leftover of Imperial Britain's divide and rule policies. Instead of intimidating the pro-Taliban Pakistani Pashtun, U.S. air and artillery strikes have ignited a firestorm of anti-western fury among FATA's warlike tribesmen and increased their support for the Taliban. The U.S. is emulating Britain's colonial divide and rule tactics by offering up to $500,000 to local Pashtun tribal leaders to get them to fight pro-Taliban elements, causing more chaos in the already turbulent region, and stoking tribal rivalries. The U.S. is using this same tactic in Iraq and Afghanistan. This week's deadly U.S. attacks again illustrate the fact that the 60,000 U.S. and NATO ground troops in Afghanistan are incapable of holding off the Taliban and its allies, even though the Afghan resistance has nothing but small arms to battle the West's hi-tech arsenal. U.S. air power is almost always called in when there are clashes. In fact, the main function for U.S. and NATO infantries is to draw the Taliban into battle so the Afghan "mujahidin" can be bombed from the air. Without 24/7 U.S. airpower, which can respond in minutes, western forces in Afghanistan would be quickly isolated, cut off from supplies, and defeated. But these air strikes, as we saw this week, are blunt instruments in spite of all the remarkable skill of the U.S. Air Force and Navy pilots. They kill more civilians than Taliban fighters. Mighty U.S. B-1 bombers are not going to win the hearts and minds of Afghans. Each bombed village and massacred caravan wins new recruits to the Taliban and its allies. OPEN WARFARE The U.S. and its allies are edging into open warfare against Pakistan. The western occupation army in Afghanistan is unable to defeat Taliban fighters due to its lack of combat troops. The outgoing supreme commander, U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill, recently admitted he would need 400,000 soldiers to pacify Afghanistan. Unable to win in Afghanistan, the frustrated western powers are turning on Pakistan, a nation of 165 million. Pakistanis are bitterly opposed to the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and their nation's subjugation to U.S. policy under dictator Musharraf. "We just need to occupy Pakistan's tribal territory," insists the Pentagon, "to stop its Pashtun tribes from supporting and sheltering Taliban." But a U.S.-led invasion of FATA simply will push pro-Taliban Pashtun militants deeper into Pakistan's Northwest Frontier province, drawing western troops ever deeper into Pakistan. Already overextended, western forces will be stretched even thinner and clashes with Pakistan's tough regular army may be inevitable. Widening the Afghan War into Pakistan is military stupidity on a grand scale, and political madness. But Washington and its obedient allies seem hell-bent on charging into a wider regional war that no number of heavy bombers will win. From critical.montages at gmail.com Sun Jun 15 20:46:37 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:46:37 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Toward a Naval Blockade of Iran? Message-ID: Tracing an Iran Oil Blockade Meme On Wednesday, Wall Street Journal opinion editors proposed [LINK: ] a plan for a naval blockade on Iran of refined gasoline imports. But they don't say where they got the idea. The Journal [LINK: ]: The Administration would do better to withdraw from this international charade and consider means by which the mullahs might be persuaded that their regime's survival is better assured by not having nuclear weapons. A month-long naval blockade of Iran's imports of refined gasoline ? which accounts for nearly half of its domestic consumption ? could clarify for the Iranians just how unacceptable their nuclear program is to the civilized world. Here was Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz [LINK: ] in January explaining the idea of thirty year Israeli intelligence veteran Shmuel Bar: Dr. Shmuel Bar, a researcher at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center and one of the discussion's initiators, believes that the U.S. can still prevent Iran from reaching the next stage in its program of nuclear development. In place of economic sanctions imposed by the UN, which he feels are ineffective, he proposes imposing a naval blockade on all refined petroleum products imported to Iran. Sound familiar? (Bar led a closed session at the Herzliya conference [LINK: ] in January that brought together US and Israeli intelligence analysts to discuss the December U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. You can find more of his writings here [LINK: ]). More recently, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert reportedly proposed [LINK: ] the blockade idea in a meeting with House speaker Nancy Pelosi, as noted [LINK: ] by Judah Grunstein. On its face while not as overtly militaristic a proposal as air strikes, which some hawks advocate, such a blockade may constitute the kind of provocation that would force international conflict just the same -- which may be some of its proponents' intention. (It may also constitute an act of war.) Worth observing how the blockade idea has worked its way into Washington's public policy discourse, and paying attention to see if becomes a more frequent talking point in right leaning national security circles in coming months. Posted by Laura Rozen on 05/30/08 at 6:44 AM May 30, 2008 DISPATCHES FROM AMERICA Now it's a blockade against Iran By Jim Lobe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In the lead editorial, entitled "Punxsutawney Condi", [1] the newspaper [Wall Street Journal] called for the US to drop its diplomatic efforts to get Tehran to freeze its uranium-enrichment program and instead mount a "month-long naval blockade of Iran's imports of refined gasoline" - a clear act of war - in order to, in its words, "to clarify for the Iranians just how unacceptable their nuclear program is to the civilized world". Last update - 10:33 21/05/2008 Olmert to U.S.: Impose naval blockade on Iran By Barak Ravid and Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondents and AP Tags: Iran, Nancy Pelosi, Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has proposed in discussions with the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, that a naval blockade be imposed on Iran as one of several ways to pressure Iran into stopping its uranium enrichment program. Risk of new sanctions as Iran rejects latest UN nuclear deal ?Tehran spokesman calls proposal unacceptable ?Diplomats hope offer will split conservative regime * Julian Borger, diplomatic editor * The Guardian, * Monday June 16 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Russia and China are resistant to tougher sanctions, arguing that they risk driving Iran deeper into isolation and defiance. As a consequence, the US may seek to assemble a "coalition of the willing" for direct action, possibly including a naval blockade of Iranian shipping in the Persian Gulf or a ban on exports of equipment and technology for Iran's oil industry. Solanas ?Anreizpaket? f?r Teheran USA und EU planen Versch?rfung der Konfrontation mit Iran. Diskussionen ?ber Milit?rblockade Von Knut Mellenthin Im Streit um Irans ziviles Atomprogramm steht eine weitere Versch?rfung des US-amerikanisch-europ?ischen Konfrontationskurses bevor. Unter den Ma?nahmen, die jetzt diskutiert werden, steht eine internationale Seeblockade durch eine ?Koalition der Willigen? ganz obenan. ?hnlich wie in der ersten H?lfte der 90er Jahre die Adria-Blockade gegen Jugoslawien k?nnte die Abriegelung der iranischen K?sten als kollektive Aktion der NATO-Kriegsmarinen durchgef?hrt werden. Dadurch w?rden ?unsichere Kantonisten? wie Deutschland, anders als vor dem Irak-Krieg, fr?hzeitig in gemeinsame Milit?roperationen gegen Iran eingebunden. Ein sp?terer Ausstieg aus der kriegerischen Eskalation w?re dann kaum noch m?glich. Eine solche Blockade wird von der israelischen Regierung und von neokonservativen Medien der USA wie dem Wall Street Journal bef?rwortet. -- Yoshie From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Jun 16 01:05:39 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:05:39 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Publicly available document stamped 'secret' by military Message-ID: <7732869F-D00D-4130-9662-3FD6E3BDD931@shaw.ca> http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=ae71b937-cc06-4a8f-9d2c-bf6c0cddd593 Publicly available document stamped 'secret' by military David Pugliese , Canwest News Service Published: Sunday, June 15, 2008 The Canadian Forces' counter-insurgency manual, already widely distributed among military units as well as to some members of the public and with at least one draft version available on the Internet, is now deemed to be secret by the Defence Department. The department is remaining silent on why it considers the document, which does not discuss specific tactical information, to now be out of bounds for the public. Last year the Canadian Forces distributed the manual, which is not classified as secret, to those members of the public who asked for it under the Access to Information law. The NDP also obtained a draft version of the manual last year and that is available to be downloaded on at least one website. The 2005 draft version became controversial after media reports outlined how the manual included radical native groups with the Tamil Tigers, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad as potential military opponents. Native leaders protested that aspect of the counter-insurgency manual, alleging the Canadian Forces were trying to criminalize the efforts of Aboriginal Peoples to demonstrate in an effort to draw attention to poverty and land claims. It's not clear if the move by the Defence Department to withhold the final version of the manual is linked to that issue. The department did not answer questions about what it intends to do about the copies of the manual already in public hands. In contrast, the U.S. army has posted its manual on its website to be downloaded for free by anyone. The U.S. Marine and U.S. army manuals were also combined into a book that is sold on Amazon.com. Those manuals highlight examples from wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam as well as past campaigns to deal with insurgents in the Philippines, Malaysia and South America. Since the Defence Department already released its manual on several occasions in the last year to the public, the move to stop its distribution has puzzled some observers. "There are copies of this manual out there already and numerous copies of the draft version made, so why all of sudden is it secret?" asked NDP defence critic Dawn Black, whose office obtained the draft version of the document last year. "It's impossible to understand this government's continuing obsession with secrecy." The Canadian manual does not focus entirely on Afghanistan, according to its author. It details the basic guiding principles of how to fight a guerrilla war, such as emphasizing the importance of gaining the trust of the people. "It aims at the philosophy and principles and overall concepts within which your lower level tactics and procedures are conducted," Maj. David Lambert said last year in an interview with the Citizen. "Whether you're doing an attack against a Soviet defence position or an attack against an insurgent strongpoint the principles are still the same but the context (is different)." Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said the decision by the Defence Department to make a once publicly available document now secret doesn't make sense. "This appears to be secrecy for secrecy's sake," said Kenny, chairman of the Senate defence and security committee. "There seems to be a fundamental lack of judgment here." Lambert, who has written army doctrine and procedures, said the focus of the manual wasn't centred on Afghanistan because many of the principles outlined in the manual can be applied to any type of military campaign. "Even in major combat you're still doing major humanitarian relief, you're still doing some other aspects other than the offensive and defensive, and you're certainly building up ideally for when you do need to make that transition," he said. The decision to withhold the manual was made by the military's Strategic Joint Staff. A special unit of the Strategic Joint Staff examines information being released by the military so that it doesn't put Canadian troops at risk, according to Canadian Forces officials. But some defence officials have acknowledged privately they view the unit as being involved in political damage control. While the Strategic Joint Staff has concentrated on reviewing documents related to Afghanistan, it has also examined files that could be potentially embarrassing to the government and the military. Among those were files on contracts awarded to lobbyists, some alleged to have special access to defence chief Gen. Rick Hillier, the navy's practice of throwing garbage into the ocean, the deployment of a Canadian general to Iraq, the number of soldiers used to protect the 1976 Montreal Olympics, the mysterious death of Royal Military College cadet Joe Grozelle, the military's exclusion of personnel because of their race or gender and the death of a Canadian peacekeeper in Lebanon. The SJS team has also already ordered previously public details about Afghanistan detainees to be withheld, prompting claims by opposition MPs the review is designed to protect the Conservative government and stifle debate on allegations prisoners might have been abused. Ottawa Citizen From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Jun 16 07:05:23 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:05:23 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Paradise Lost Message-ID: <48566513.9010506@attglobal.net> Climate change forces South Sea islanders to seek sanctuary abroad by Kathy Marks, Asia-Pacific Correspondent Independent.co.uk (June 06 2008) After years of fruitless appeals for decisive action on climate change, the tiny South Pacific nation of Kiribati has concluded that it is doomed. Yesterday its President, Anote Tong, used World Environment Day to request international help to evacuate his country before it disappears. Water supplies are being contaminated by the encroaching salt water, Mr Tong said, and crops destroyed. Beachside communities have been moved inland. But Kiribati - 33 coral atolls sprinkled across two million square miles of ocean - has limited scope to adapt. Its highest land is barely six feet above sea level. Speaking in New Zealand, Mr Tong said i-Kiribati, as his countrymen are known, had no option but to leave. "We may be beyond redemption", he said. "We may be at the point of no return, where the emissions in the atmosphere will carry on contributing to climate change, to produce a sea level change so in time our small, low-lying islands will be submerged". President Tong, a London School of Economics graduate, said emigration needed to start immediately: "We don't want to believe this, and our people don't want to believe this. It gives us a deep sense of frustration. What do we do?" Kiribati - a former British colony called the Gilbert Islands - is home to 97,000 people, most of them squeezed into the densely populated main atoll, Tarawa, a chain of islets surrounding a central lagoon. Along with other low-lying Pacific island nations such as Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands and Vanuatu, it is regarded as one of the places most vulnerable to climate change. Erosion, caused partly by flooding and storms, is a serious problem in Kiribati, which straddles the Equator and International Dateline. Most of the land is as flat as a table. "We have to find the next highest spot", said Mr Tong. "At the moment there's only the coconut trees". But even the coconut trees are dying - casualties of an unprecedented drought. The country has had next to no rain for the past three years and meanwhile the freshwater table is being poisoned. Mr Tong was in New Zealand - which was chosen to host the UN's World Environment Day after committing itself to becoming carbon neutral - for talks with Helen Clark, the Prime Minister, whom he hopes to persuade to resettle many of his people. But he also appealed to other countries to help relocate i-Kiribati. Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, said of Kiribati's plight: "It's a humbling prospect when a nation has to begin talking about its own demise, not because of some inevitable natural disaster ... but because of what we are doing on this planet". The world must find the "collective purpose" to combat climate change, Mr Steiner said. "Unless everyone ... on this planet takes their responsibility seriously, we will simply not make a difference". New Zealand already has a substantial population of Pacific Islanders, but absorbing another 97,000 would strain its generosity. Besides, that is just Kiribati. A report by Australian government scientists in 2006 warned of a flood of environmental refugees across the Asia-Pacific region. New Zealand is already experiencing significantly increased levels of migration from affected countries. President Tong said he was accustomed to hearing national leaders argue that measures to combat climate change would jeopardise their economic development. But he pointed out that for Kiribati "it's not an issue of economic growth, it's an issue of human survival". And while scientists were still debating the degree to which the seas were rising, and the cause of it, he said, the changes were obvious in his country. "I am not a scientist, but what I know is that things are happening we did not experience in the past ... Every second week, when we get the high tides, there's always reports of erosion". Villages that had occupied the same spot for up to a century had had to be relocated. "We're doing it now ... it's that urgent", he said. "Where they have been living over the past few decades is no longer there. It is being eroded." The worst case scenario suggested that Kiribati would become uninhabitable within fifty to sixty years, Mr Tong said. "I've appealed to the international community that we need to address this challenge. It's a challenge for the whole global community." Leading industrialised nations pledged last month to cut their carbon emissions by half by 2050. But they stopped short of setting firm targets for 2020, which many scientists argue is crucial if the planet is to be saved. For Kiribati, it may already be too late. Copyright (c) independent.co.uk http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/paradise-lost-climate-change-forces-south-sea-islanders-to-seek-sanctuary-abroad-841409.html TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From critical.montages at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 07:56:46 2008 From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:56:46 -0400 Subject: [R-G] Students Protest Sexual Harassment in Iran University Message-ID: Students protest sexual harassment in Iran university 5 hours ago TEHRAN (AFP) ? Thousands of university students in an Iranian city have held a protest against the attempted sexual harassment of a female colleague by a top university official, the press reported on Monday. About 3,000 students at the university in the northwestern city of Zanjan staged the sit-in protest over the weekend at a sports hall on campus, the reports said. They demanded that the board of directors resign and an apology from the higher education minister following the alleged offence committed by the vice chancellor, the reformist Etemad newspaper said. The vice chancellor is alleged to have sexually harassed the girl while she was in his office to resolve a problem with the committee of conduct -- a disciplinary body which monitors students' activities, the reports said. "Students broke into the vice president's office and handed him over to security after finding out that he had sought to (sexually) harass a student," Etemad said. Its report said the unnamed official had on several occasions tried to shut down the students' Islamic association "under the pretext that its members have moral problems and do not have an Islamic behaviour." ISNA news agency reported later on Monday that the official in question had been suspended until investigations were completed. "We have asked the students to present relevant evidence because this issue needs further examination," Zanjan university director Ali Reza Naddaf told ISNA. Naddaf called on the students to keep calm and pursue the matter legally "as some students are after their political aims." "Unfortunately some hardline students today forcefully prevented entry of the staff and academics and did not allow exams to be held," he added. Etemad newspaper said it had received a film of "the details of university incidents" while a video of the students breaking into the vice-chancellor's office has appeared on YouTube. Iranian universities are a hotbed of student activism and protests are common despite stricter control on campus since the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005. In April, students at a university in the northwestern city of Tabriz held a week-long protest against strict rules and 17 were hospitalised after going on a hunger strike. Scores of pro-reform student activists have been detained and in the most high profile case three students were sentenced to jail terms of up to three years on charges of publishing anti-Islamic images in student newspapers. The trio studied in Tehran's prestigious Amir Kabir university where Ahmadinejad was famously heckled during a speech in 2006. -- Yoshie From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Jun 16 10:55:29 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:55:29 -0700 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Fidel=92s_Heir?= Message-ID: <7BAB5A6F-A279-4A9F-89BC-F3CD132694B3@shaw.ca> THE NEW YORKER A Reporter at Large Fidel?s Heir The rising influence of Hugo Ch?vez. by Jon Lee Anderson June 23, 2008 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/23/080623fa_fact_anderson Venezuela?s oil money has brought better living standards for the country?s poorest citizens. It has also given Ch?vez the means to buy influence with his neighbors, usually at the expense of the United States. Photograph by Chris Anderson. Venezuela?s oil money has brought better living standards for the country?s poorest citizens. It has also given Ch?vez the means to buy influence with his neighbors, usually at the expense of the United States. Photograph by Chris Anderson. A few years ago, when Hugo Ch?vez, the President of Venezuela, said that he wanted a new jet to replace the nearly thirty-year-old Boeing bequeathed to him by his predecessor, his critics raised an outcry. But Ch?vez went ahead with his plans. His new plane, which cost sixty- five million dollars, is a gleaming white Airbus A-319, with a white leather interior, seating for sixty passengers, and a private compartment. The folding seat-back trays have gold-colored hinges, and there is plenty of legroom. Ch?vez has spent more than a year altogether on trips abroad since taking office, in February, 1999, and so the jet is a kind of second home. His seat bears an embossed leather Presidential seal. Paintings of nineteenth-century Latin-American independence heroes hang on the walls, including a prominent one of Sim?n Bol?var, known as El Libertador. Bol?var led military campaigns to free large parts of South America from Spanish rule, and in 1819 he helped create a vast nation called Gran Colombia, which encompassed the present-day republics of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Panama. But political rivalries and internecine warfare frustrated Bol?var?s dream of a United States of South America, and Gran Colombia fell apart soon after his death, in 1830. Bol?var is Ch?vez?s political muse; Ch?vez quotes and invokes him constantly, and is unabashed about his desire to resuscitate Bol?var?s dream of a united Latin America. In his first year in office, Ch?vez held a successful referendum to draft a new constitution, which officially renamed the country the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. More remarkably, he has adopted Fidel Castro as his contemporary role model and socialism as his political ideal, and, a decade and a half after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is leading a left-wing revival across Latin America. Ch?vez?s hemispheric ambitions have made him one of the most compelling, audacious, and polarizing figures in the world? one of a number of post-Cold War leaders trying to form regional power blocs. A generation ago, Castro sought to undermine United States authority by supporting armed guerrilla forces; Ch?vez has pursued that goal mainly by using money?thanks, in large measure, to U.S. oil purchases. Venezuela is the fifth-largest supplier of oil to the U. S., providing around a million barrels a day, and its proved oil reserves are among the world?s largest. One recent Sunday, I flew with Ch?vez to La Faja del Orinoco, an oil- rich belt of land in eastern Venezuela. In May, 2007, Ch?vez ordered the nationalization of pumping and refining facilities in La Faja owned by foreign oil companies. The move was one of a series of measures that Ch?vez had taken to increase Venezuela?s share of oil revenues, including increases in royalty payments from 16.6 per cent to 33.3 per cent, and its ownership stake from around forty to at least sixty per cent. (As recently as 2004, these companies were paying royalties of one per cent of the oil?s value.) Most of the oil companies, including Chevron and B.P., agreed to the terms; ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil did not, and pulled out. ExxonMobil had been pumping as many as a hundred and twenty thousand barrels a day out of La Faja. Seeking compensation, the company secured injunctions from judges in the United States, Great Britain, and the Netherlands that froze up to twelve billion dollars in overseas assets of Venezuela?s state oil company, Petr?leos de Venezuela, S.A., or P.D.V.S.A. Ch?vez, decrying ?imperialist aggression,? threatened to cut off all oil sales to the United States. Analysts estimate that if he should ever make good on that threat the price, which has already risen vertiginously, would spiral even farther upward. (A London court later overturned the British injunction, in what was seen as a major victory for Ch?vez, but the legal fight continues. ExxonMobil will not say publicly how much it asked for, except that the sum is ?multiple billions of dollars.?) On the plane to La Faja were several of Ch?vez?s ministers and aides, along with a dozen or so bodyguards and three Cuban doctors, who travel with him everywhere. Just after boarding, Ch?vez pushed through the curtains from his compartment to the main cabin and greeted everyone. He joked that the Cuban doctors must be guerrillas on an ?internationalist mission.? Halfway through the hour-long flight, I joined Ch?vez in his compartment. Ch?vez, who is about five feet seven, is a youthful-looking fifty-three, and has a thick neck and chest. He introduced me to General Gustavo Rangel, his Defense Minister, and Ren? Vargas, Ecuador?s Ambassador to Venezuela. Ch?vez began our conversation by asking, ?Tell us, why didn?t Saddam put up more of a fight when the Yankees invaded?? Before I could reply, General Rangel said that the Americans had successfully degraded Iraq?s air-defense system in the run-up to the war. Ch?vez looked at me for confirmation, and when I agreed he smiled, and said that, just in case the Americans were thinking of doing anything similar to Venezuela, he had bought an air-defense system from Belarus. (In the past four years, Venezuela has spent four billion dollars on foreign arms purchases, mostly from Russia.) The Belarusian system probably wasn?t the most sophisticated in the world, Ch?vez said, but it was what Venezuela could get: ?We do what we can to defend ourselves.? Ch?vez campaigned for the Presidency, in 1998, with promises to bring radical change, but, for a time after he won, it was unclear whether he could deliver much more than symbolism and oratory. When he took office, oil was at a mere ten dollars a barrel, and his first government budget was seven billion dollars; last year, as oil approached a hundred dollars a barrel (by last week, it was a hundred and thirty-six dollars), the budget rose to fifty-four billion. The oil money has allowed Ch?vez to triple spending on social programs. Even though many of these ?missions,? as they?re known, have foundered or have proved inadequate, the volume of revenues has meant an improvement in living standards for the country?s poorest citizens, who are, unsurprisingly, Ch?vez?s strongest supporters. It has also given him the means to buy influence with his neighbors, usually at the expense of the United States. Ch?vez?s relationship with the United States, which was strained from the start, became openly hostile after a short-lived military coup, in 2002, that seemed to have the blessing of the Bush Administration. Ch?vez discontinued long-standing military ties and ended Venezuela?s co?peration with the Drug Enforcement Administration, while Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, before he left office, compared Ch?vez to Adolf Hitler. In 2006, the State Department placed Venezuela on a list of nations that it described as ?unco?perative? in the war on terror. Despite the harsh language, unofficial U.S. policy in the past few years has generally been to ignore Ch?vez, in order to avoid being drawn into a confrontation. This reflects a broader disengagement from the region during the Bush Administration. Since 2001, the United States has been distracted from Latin America by the war on terror and by Iraq, and that has given Ch?vez room to operate. Venezuela outspends the United States in foreign aid to the rest of Latin America by a factor of at least five. Last year, U.S. aid amounted to $1.6 billion, a third of which went to Colombia, mainly to fund Plan Colombia, a drug-eradication program administered by the U.S. security contractor DynCorp. Ch?vez, meanwhile, pledged $8.8 billion for the region. This included subsidized oil for Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia; the purchase of public debt in Argentina; and development projects in Haiti. (Ch?vez has, in addition, provided discounted heating oil to poor Americans through Citgo, the Venzuelan state oil company?s U.S. subsidiary.) There is also evidence that Ch?vez has fostered a relationship with the Colombian Marxist guerrilla organization Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, or FARC. The FARC operates along Venezuela?s border with Colombia and holds hundreds of hostages? civilians, soldiers, and politicians?in secret camps. Ch?vez has, at times, publicly distanced himself from the FARC, most recently last week, but the group?s espousal of Bolivarian ideals, and its strategic position, appears to have tempted him into seeing the organization as a means, if only by proxy, of confronting the U.S.; Colombia is one of America?s closest allies in the region. The present in Latin America may be analogous to the nineteen-sixties, when the U.S. was mired in Vietnam and deeply unpopular internationally, and Fidel Castro and Che Guevara (another hero of Ch?vez?s) saw an opportunity to foment guerrilla insurgencies elsewhere ??one, two, three, many Vietnams,? as Che said?by which U.S. strength could be sapped. Cris Arcos, who was, until recently, President Bush?s Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for International Affairs, told me he feared that the moment had passed for the U.S. to do much to contain Ch?vez. ?The problem with the war on terror is that the Pentagon can?t engage anywhere else?it?s tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan,? Arcos said. ?Our foreign policy is all about China and the war on terror, so where does that leave Latin America?? In Latin America, Arcos said, ?the political left has lost its fear of the gringos and the right has lost its respect for the U.S. Why? Ironically, because both expected the U.S. to smash the left, especially now that it is the sole superpower.? He continued, ?The U.S. predictably considers Ch?vez to be annoying and crude, and thinks that he behaves inappropriately for a head of state. His cavorting with Iranians and other pariahs is alarming to the U.S., yet it?s not taken seriously by his South American neighbors.? Their tolerance for Ch?vez, he said, was ?evidence of the U.S.?s eroding influence in the region.? Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, first met Ch?vez in 1999, when, as President Clinton?s Energy Secretary, he represented the United States at Ch?vez?s inauguration. (He brought him a baseball glove as a swearing-in gift.) Richardson told me, ?I am concerned that, because of our policy to isolate Ch?vez, we may have created a vacuum in Latin America, where he already outvotes us on certain issues. I am not saying that this means we have to go along with him, but there may be ways we can establish a working relationship with him. Isolating him is not in our interest.? Richardson said, ?I question whether we would be wise to brand Ch?vez a state sponsor of terror??a move that the Administration has considered??because of our energy needs, and our energy relationship with Venezuela.? The old ExxonMobil station in La Faja was immaculate, all swept gravel and pristinely painted structures. Ch?vez, who has a regular live Sunday television show, ?Al? Presidente,? planned to broadcast from the facility that day. It was humid but pleasant. An advance team had set up several hundred folding chairs outside the refining station, and a plank floor had been laid down as a stage, with a desk for Ch?vez, furnished with maps, notepads, and books (including a Spanish edition of Joseph Stiglitz?s ?The Roaring Nineties?). Young aides in red T-shirts emblazoned with Ch?vez?s image and the words ?Democracia en Revoluci?n? (?Democracy Within Revolution?) and matching red baseball caps dispensed coffee and bottles of water. Ch?vez was dressed in a red guayabera and black jeans. His bodyguards and many of his ministers wore similar red guayaberas. By the time Ch?vez sat down at the desk, he had been on the air for more than an hour, walking through the facility, followed by cameramen, with his daughter Mar?a Gabriela. She is a wide-faced young woman with a toothy smile. As they made their way, he explained what they were seeing, for the benefit of the television audience. Periodically, he stopped to hug or kiss her. She, her sister, Rosa Virginia, and a brother, Hugo Rafael, all in their twenties, are Ch?vez?s children with his first wife, Nancy Colmenares, whom he divorced in the early nineties. Ch?vez also has a ten-year-old daughter, Rosin?s, with his second wife, Marisabel Rodr?guez. Rodr?guez left him in 2002, and has since married a tennis instructor. Recently, she has begun speaking out publicly against Ch?vez, accusing him of being obsessed with power, and hinting that she would like to run for the Presidency herself. Sitting at the desk, Ch?vez began with a long pep talk for his supporters. When the camera cut away for a short, sharply critical film about ExxonMobil?it opened with a montage of images of Hitler, oil spills, and John D. Rockefeller?an aide held up a large white screen to shield Ch?vez while a young woman applied powder to his face. Another aide poured him espresso from a thermos, which he carried in a black leather briefcase. Back on the air, Ch?vez spoke scornfully of the students known as los chamos (?the kids?), who, in demonstrations last year, rallied considerable public opposition to him. Some of the leaders of los chamos have expressed interest in running against Ch?vez?s candidates in mayoral and gubernatorial elections scheduled for November; Ch?vez called out to those who might ?throw themselves? into the race, ?Go ahead, jump!? He then added, ?Better put on parachutes.? Ch?vez has a gospel preacher?s deftness with language and an actor?s ability to evoke emotions. Within a single soliloquy, he comes up with rhymes, breaks into song, riffs on his own words, gets angry, cracks jokes, and loops back to where he started. His speeches can be highly entertaining, but it is sometimes difficult to know if he means what he says or has simply been carried away by his own oratory. A couple of years ago, at the United Nations General Assembly, he announced that he smelled ?sulfur? at the lectern. The stench, he said, had been left by President Bush, who had spoken the day before, and was ?the Devil.? (Ch?vez has a repertoire of colorful labels for Bush, including ?coward,? ?donkey,? ?drunkard,? and ?Mr. Danger.?) At a summit meeting in Chile last November, Ch?vez repeatedly interrupted Spain?s Prime Minister, until Juan Carlos, Spain?s king, snapped, ??Porque no te callas????Why don?t you shut up?? The King?s rebuke became an instant YouTube sensation. In Spain alone, more than half a million people downloaded it as a cell-phone ring tone. Ch?vez, sitting at the stage desk, drew a diagram on a large white card, and, holding it up to the ?Al? Presidente? cameras, told viewers that he?d been thinking about a new ?windfall profits? tax on oil companies. He called out to Rafael Ram?rez, the president of P.D.V.S.A. ?a tall, blue-eyed man who resembles Tim Robbins?and he promptly stood up and began taking notes, nodding furiously. This was not a rehearsed moment; to an unusual degree, ?Al? Presidente? is Ch?vez?s government in action, and it is a government that Ch?vez does not so much administer as perform live. A couple of Ch?vez?s younger advisers told me that they frequently felt like supporting actors in Venezuela?s own ?Truman Show.? The show went on for five hours. At one point, Ch?vez spoke darkly about an assassination plot against him involving Colombian and American agents. He blamed Venezuela?s private companies for shortages of food?milk, for instance, had become extremely scarce. Ch?vez informed his audience that, a few hours earlier, a cargo of powdered milk from Belarus had been unloaded at a Venezuelan port. He elicited a round of applause, as if the mere fact of the milk?s arrival were a feat worth saluting, and pointed out a delegation of Belarusian officials in the audience. Ch?vez talks incessantly about building an alliance of nations that can challenge the United States; he has sought out relationships with Iran (and had earlier sought one with Saddam Hussein), China, Russia (Ch?vez has called Putin one of his ?buenos amigos?), and, of course, Belarus. The show cut away by satellite to a group of Belarusians and Venezuelans at the site of a joint seismic-mapping project. After a few minutes of pleasantries exchanged through an interpreter, Ch?vez remarked, ?That translator, from the sound of things, is Cuban, for sure.? He smiled. ?Cuba all over the place!? Then Ch?vez turned to the camera and, looking directly at it, asked, in English, ?How are you, Fidel?? Fidel Castro, who will turn eighty-two this summer, has been sick since July, 2006, when he vanished from view after returning from a trip to Argentina with Ch?vez. Despite rumors that he had cancer, it appears that Castro was suffering from diverticulitis, a severe intestinal disorder, which nearly killed him, and from which he has not entirely recovered. He has not appeared in public since, but photographs and video footage have offered glimpses of a diminished man. In all this time, Ch?vez has been one of the few people outside Castro?s immediate family who are allowed to see him. He has taken it upon himself to visit the Old Man regularly and to cheer him up. ?For me, Fidel is like a father. Like a beacon. Fidel is, I believe, irreplaceable,? Ch?vez told me. ?He is a giant of the twentieth century, and, just as he entered its history, he has also entered into that of the twenty-first. And there he is, even now, doing everything he can to keep on fighting what he calls the battle of ideas, until his last breath.? The deep friendship between Ch?vez and Castro began well before Ch?vez took office. In 1979, when Ch?vez was a young lieutenant in the Venezuelan Army, he and other junior officers began talking about a revolution. Their plans became more serious in 1989, after the Caracazo, a three-day riot that began when the government of Carlos Andr?s P?rez implemented International Monetary Fund reforms, resulting in a spike in the cost of gasoline and public transportation; the Army was called into the streets, and hundreds of civilians were shot dead. Three years later, in 1992, Ch?vez, then a lieutenant colonel, led a military rebellion. But he surrendered when it became clear that his men were outnumbered, and that continuing would only mean further bloodshed. (At least twenty people died.) Allowed to appear on television, he said that the coup was over, but only ?por ahora??for now. The bombast, and the implicit threat of Ch?vez?s words, captivated Venezuelans, and launched his political career. Ch?vez was imprisoned, along with his co-conspirators. They were released two years later, in 1994, after P?rez was impeached for corruption, and the criminal charges against them were dismissed. One of the first things Ch?vez did was go to Havana and meet Fidel Castro. Castro received him warmly, and treated him like a head of state. When, five years later, Ch?vez came to power, he returned to Havana and paid his respects to Castro. Ch?vez told me that while he was in jail he had read an interview with Castro that impressed him deeply. At the time, the Cuban economy had all but collapsed, owing to the abrupt end of Soviet subsidies. ?Fidel said, ?There will be a new wave, sooner or later. The people of Latin America will awaken and there will be a new wave, and it will have to be seen,? ? Ch?vez said. ?Now, as for the new wave, it?s here??he slapped the arm of his chair??and if someone can?t see it, it?s because he?s blind, and if he can?t feel it, it?s because he?s dead.? Since 2001, Cuba has received shipments of subsidized Venezuelan oil, estimated to be worth $2.5 billion a year, in exchange for the services of thousands of Cuban teachers, sports instructors, and doctors, who work in Venezuela?s slums and rural areas. Thousands of Venezuelans are studying in Cuba, and more than a hundred thousand Venezuelans with eye problems have been sent to Cuba for specialized medical treatment. In 2004, Ch?vez and Castro signed a sweeping trade deal that eliminated tariffs between their countries, and simultaneously committed themselves to Ch?vez?s Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, or ALBA, which means ?dawn? in Spanish. ALBA is intended to counter the ?neoliberal? trading bloc envisaged under the U.S.-sponsored Free Trade Area of the Americas. (Bolivia, Nicaragua, and the small Caribbean island nation of Dominica have since joined ALBA.) Ch?vez has become Cuba?s primary benefactor while positioning himself as the inheritor of Fidel?s mantle. In February, Castro released a letter saying that he was giving up his post as Cuba?s President. ?Fidel hasn?t resigned from anything,? Ch?vez, loyally, told reporters. ?He?s just stepped aside for others.? (Fidel?s younger brother Ra?l replaced him as President.) Ch?vez promised to ?continue fighting? at Fidel?s side. Teodoro Petkoff, who ran against Ch?vez in the 2006 Presidential election campaign and is one of his leading critics on the center- left, told me that Castro had been ?a moderating influence? on Ch?vez? a source for level-headed and pragmatic consultation for the younger man. He thought that Castro?s departure from active politics had, in that sense, hurt Ch?vez. ?Ch?vez doesn?t have anyone to talk to, and there?s no one who can argue with him; the people around him are all mediocre personalities,? he told me. ?The relationship with Fidel is key, because Ch?vez has a kind of adolescent devotion to him.? I was reminded of something that Rom?n Ortiz, a security-affairs analyst with a Bogot? think tank, told me: ?Ch?vez and his plans don?t fit into the minds of those who read and believed in Fukuyama and thought we were all going to be liberals. They don?t really grasp that he has a political project, one that shares certain elements with the FARC, which is to rebuild Gran Colombia.? Ortiz added, ?He will have to be contained in order for war to be avoided. Ch?vez is more dangerous and unpredictable than Fidel Castro. In this scenario, we are going to miss Castro.? The nature of Ch?vez?s relationship with the FARC, which has been fighting to overthrow the Colombian government for more than forty years, is one of the most controversial questions about him. The FARC occupies large areas of the remote jungle of southern and eastern Colombia and finances itself by taxing illicit coca farmers and cocaine processors and traffickers. Ch?vez?s perceived support of the guerrillas has alienated even some of his natural allies and, since last year, has been the focus of a dispute between him and his Colombian counterpart, ?lvaro Uribe, that has taken on increasingly bizarre dimensions. Last August, Uribe asked for Ch?vez?s help in negotiating with the FARC for the release of hostages, some of whom have been held for as long as a decade. Ch?vez agreed. Then, in late November, Uribe, after learning that Ch?vez had spoken with the commander of the Colombian Army without first asking his permission, abruptly cut Ch?vez out. Ch?vez responded, in one tirade after another, by calling Uribe a ?mafia boss,? a ?coward,? and a ?liar.? Uribe does have a problematic background. In a 1991 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency document, he is described as being a ?close personal friend of Pablo Escobar,? the late drug lord. As a regional governor, Uribe helped establish a civilian vigilante organization, CONVIVIR, that metamorphosed into an armed paramilitary network. Colombia?s right-wing paramilitary forces have fought a vicious war against the country?s leftist guerrillas and their sympathizers, killing thousands of civilians. And, like the FARC, they became involved in the drug trade. In the complex web of relationships that characterize Colombian society, however, few politicians can claim never to have had a relationship with a narcotraficante, a guerrilla commander, or a paramilitary warlord. During the past five years, thousands of paramilitaries have given up their weapons in a demobilization deal that has been criticized by human-rights groups as amounting to amnesty, but Uribe has been unwilling to broker a similar deal with the FARC. In the early nineteen-nineties, his father was killed during an attempt by the FARC to kidnap him. In his attacks on Uribe, Ch?vez also claimed that the United States was using Colombia as a staging ground to plot his overthrow and assassination. In response, a senior U.S. diplomat in Caracas told me, ?The things President Ch?vez accuses the United States of are just implausible. The United States has three citizens in the FARC?s hands in Colombia. We, in fact, supported President Ch?vez?s initial role as an arbitrator.? Ch?vez continued to negotiate with the FARC on his own, and, in midJanuary, he secured the release of two women. One of them, Clara Rojas, had been the campaign manager for Ingrid Betancourt, who was kidnapped in 2002 while running for President, and is the best known of the hostages. The episode had all the melodrama of a telenovela, as Rojas was reunited with her three-year-old son, Emmanuel, to whom she had given birth in the jungle, and whose father was a FARC guerrilla. Her captors had taken Emmanuel from her, and he had ended up in an orphanage. The women told of hostages being held in inhumane conditions ?some were kept chained to trees. Ch?vez, however, chose that moment to urge Colombia to recognize the FARC as a ?belligerent party,? which would give it diplomatic legitimacy, and to call on foreign governments to stop listing it as a terrorist organization. Ch?vez?s statements left him isolated. In February, some four million Colombians demonstrated to repudiate the FARC; many were also critical of Ch?vez. Gustavo Petro is an outspoken leftist Colombian senator who is well known for his opposition to Uribe, but last year he publicly condemned the FARC for its drug trafficking and its human-rights abuses. He attributed Ch?vez?s position to na?vet?. ?The FARC has latched on to Ch?vez and his good will because it is in need of political varnish,? he told me. ?It behaves like an occupation force, and has abandoned attempts to win over a base of support among the civilians. It actually kills more indigenous Colombians than any other armed group in the country today. Ch?vez doesn?t accept any of this. He is a romantic. If he sees people he thinks are ?revolutionaries,? Ch?vez salutes them and says, ?At your service!? ? In official circles in Caracas, I found a near-total disconnect with the mood in Colombia. Venezuela?s Foreign Minister, Nicol?s Maduro, dismissed the public?s support for Uribe as the product of ?a media dictatorship, with the means of communication in the hands of the most rancid, racist, retrograde oligarchy on the continent.? A few hours after I spoke to Maduro, I was summoned to meet Venezuela?s reclusive Interior Minister, Ram?n Rodr?guez Chac?n, a former naval captain. He was a participant in Ch?vez?s abortive coup, and, like him, served two years in prison. More recently, Rodr?guez Chac?n has been Ch?vez?s personal emissary to the FARC. It was widely noted in Colombia that, in television coverage of a recent hostage release, he hugged the guerrillas and urged them to ?keep up the struggle.? I met Rodr?guez Chac?n at night in a remote part of Fuerte Tiuna, the Venezuelan Army?s headquarters, in the mountains on the outskirts of Caracas. A small man in jeans and a red windbreaker, with a stubbly shaved head, he was waiting in a large, bunkerlike room. There were piles of military gear, a desk with half a dozen telephones on it, an exercise bike, and a cot. On a low table I saw the ?Selected Works of V. I. Lenin? and ?The Diary of a Snail,? by G?nter Grass. We went outside to talk. The lights of the city appeared far below us like stars in an upside-down sky. Periodically, bursts of automatic gunfire could be heard. Rodr?guez Chac?n said that a military firing range was situated on the side of the mountain. ?Sometimes they miss, so it?s unwise to go too near the edge when they?re shooting.? He told me that he was negotiating the release of four more Colombian hostages?members of parliament who had been kidnapped six years earlier. The FARC was to bring them to a rendezvous point in the jungle; he alone would be informed of the exact location, he said. He was just waiting for the word. (The hostages were in fact released, four days later.) Rodr?guez Chac?n said that the FARC wanted peace, ?but a different kind of peace from what Colombia?s oligarchy has in mind.? Colombia, he said, was the United States? ?last bastion, practically the last secure beachhead it has in Latin America. So the real enemy, behind this whole circumstance, even more so than the Colombian oligarchy, is the Empire.? (In Bolivarian Venezuela, ?the Empire? is the United States.) At the entrance to a grimy traffic tunnel in downtown Caracas stands a statue of Sim?n Bol?var. One day, I saw a handwritten sign there, reminiscent of the revelatory messages on placards sometimes seen in front of the White House. It carried an admonition, in Spanish, saying, ?Barack Obama will be the Beast, and the last President of the United States.? The apocalyptic message was somehow fitting. Caracas is, in many respects, a failed city, and it looks and feels like a place that has spun out of control. The crime rate is shockingly high; there were an estimated five hundred and fifty murders in the first three months of this year. Indigents live openly in the public parks and along the embankments of the city?s sewage trough of a river, the Guaire. Here and there are skyscrapers built in the boom years of the sixties and seventies, their concrete carcasses discolored and crumbling. Hundreds of thousands of shanties scar the surrounding green mountains. Garbage lies uncollected, and the streets are choked with traffic?and, since Venezuela is flush with oil money, there are brand-new cars everywhere. Four hundred and fifty thousand new vehicles were sold last year. Wealthy Venezuelans, meanwhile, live in gated communities and secure apartment buildings on hilltops with panoramic views over Caracas; a nouveau-riche class has emerged from the official ranks and is known, disparagingly, as the boliburguesia, for Bolivarian bourgeoisie. Five years ago, Ch?vez took direct control of the state oil company, P.D.V.S.A., after sitting out a two-month strike by its union. He fired more than eighteen thousand employees, replacing many of them with his supporters. Since then, he has used P.D.V.S.A.?s revenues to fund his most revolutionary schemes, which include the so-called missions to Venezuela?s poor. Rafael Ram?rez, the P.D.V.S.A. chief, told me that Ch?vez intended to use P.D.V.S.A. as the vehicle for transforming Venezuela from an ?oil sultanate to a productive society within a socialist framework.? Like a state within a state, the oil company has begun to replicate or supersede many of the functions of the national government. New P.D.V.S.A. branches oversee everything from agriculture to shipping, construction, and food distribution. ?The plan is to make P.D.V.S.A. like Gazprom,? Ram?rez told me, referring to the Russian energy giant, ?but with a social role.? Venezuela has a complex and volatile economy, with rampant corruption and high rates of unemployment and oil-fuelled inflation. A prominent Venezuelan economist, Orlando Ochoa, blamed Ch?vez?s policies and the inefficiency of his government for many of these problems. He described the situation to me as a ?perfect economic storm.? He said, ?No price of oil can forestall the rate of inflation and its social consequences.? But Ochoa acknowledged that, as long as oil prices remained high, the government could probably stave off collapse indefinitely. Ch?vez?s current term ends in 2013. Last year, he held a referendum to amend the constitution and remove provisions that would prevent him from running for a third term. He let it be known that he would like to stay in power until 2050, when he would be ninety-six years old. The referendum was narrowly defeated; it was his first loss at the polls since becoming President, and it reinvigorated the political opposition. Petkoff, who campaigned against Ch?vez in 2006, told me, ?Ch?vez is a charismatic leader, and he understood that the result of the referendum meant that his popularity with the people had been somewhat eroded. He needed to find a way to reconnect more directly with the people, and so he has turned everything into a kind of personal ?They?re coming for me? drama.? Petkoff added, ?Ch?vez is bipolar, really. One side of his brain is Girondin, and the other is Jacobin. He is prudent, and he is also radical.? Petkoff?s wife, a psychologist, who was listening to us, demurred: ?He?s a psychopath, in my opinion.? Petkoff replied, ?Yes, maybe, but a psychopath with a mission.? Jos? Vicente Rangel, who served as Ch?vez?s Vice-President from 2002 until 2007, said he thought that Ch?vez?s ?infatuation? with foreign affairs and his neglect of Venezuela?s domestic problems had contributed to the referendum?s defeat. ?Public insecurity is the scourge of Venezuelans, but Ch?vez never comprehended it,? Rangel said. ?He sees the crime rate as a product of poverty, a social issue, and this is because he believes in a mythology of poverty in which all the poor are good, and it just isn?t that way; the poor are criminals, too.? Rangel said that the rebuke to his government was something Ch?vez took seriously??He?s in a period of deep reflection.? The loss had shattered Ch?vez?s ?myth of invincibility,? Rangel said, ?and that has damaged us.? In the early hours of March 1st, two days after the release of the four parliamentarian hostages, Colombian troops crossed into Ecuadoran territory and destroyed a FARC camp there. The FARC?s second-in- command, Ra?l Reyes, was killed, along with twenty-four others. Uribe telephoned Ecuador?s President, Rafael Correa, to apologize for the incursion, but said that it had been done in self-defense?FARC fighters had fired on Colombian troops from the Ecuadoran side of the border. On the next day?s ?Al? Presidente,? which was broadcast from a plaza in Caracas, Ch?vez referred angrily to the ?cowardly murder? of Reyes, whom he called a ?good revolutionary,? and he said that the incident could be ?the start of a war in South America.? Looking straight into the cameras, he added, ?Try that here, President Uribe, and I will send you some Sukhois!? (Venezuela recently bought twenty-four Sukhoi fighter jets from Russia.) Then Ch?vez turned to his Defense Minister, General Rangel, who was in the audience. Rangel stood up and snapped to attention. ?Mr. Defense Minister, send ten battalions to the border with Colombia immediately,? Ch?vez said. ?Tank battalions.? In ordering the movement of troops on live TV, Ch?vez reinforced the unconventional aspect of his Presidency, in which statecraft is also a reality show. He then told viewers that he was closing the Venezuelan Embassy in Bogot?. The next day, the chief of Colombia?s national police, General Oscar Naranjo, announced that three laptops and several hard drives had been seized during the raid on the FARC camp. According to General Naranjo, e-mail exchanges found on Reyes?s computer indicated that Ch?vez had offered the FARC three hundred million dollars; one e-mail message, allegedly from a FARC official, suggested that Rodr?guez Chac?n had asked the FARC to help train Venezuelans in ?guerrilla warfare.? (There were also murky references to an attempt by the FARC to buy uranium for a ?dirty bomb,? although these seemed less credible.) Ch?vez dismissed the e-mails as fabrications. Uribe said that he intended to seek an indictment against Ch?vez before the International Criminal Court, for what he called ?the patronage and financing of genocidists.? Uribe?s approval ratings soared to eighty-four per cent, while Ch?vez was viewed unfavorably by ninety per cent of Colombians. Suddenly, there was talk of regional war. Television broadcasts showed Venezuelan tanks moving toward Colombia?s borders; trade between the two countries ground to a halt, and diplomats were expelled. One Latin- American diplomat told me he feared that the situation could easily escalate into a larger armed conflict. ?Ch?vez is using this incident to divert public attention from his internal problems,? he said. ?And I think he is also trying to demonstrate that he is the leader of the region?s popular forces. It is a very risky calculation.? A few days after Ch?vez ordered his tanks to the Colombian border, I interviewed him at Miraflores, the Presidential palace. We sat under a large portrait of Sim?n Bol?var. Ch?vez was wearing black jeans, a green military jacket, and a red T-shirt. The next day, he was to fly to Santo Domingo, in the Dominican Republic, where some twenty Latin- American leaders were gathering for a summit, which would address the crisis. He intended to confront Uribe there. I asked Ch?vez if his dispute with Colombia was getting out of hand. He replied, ?If you look at the situation clearly, the reality is that you have an anti-imperialist revolutionary country here and, over there, a counterrevolutionary, pro-imperialist country. It?s an explosive contradiction.? Over the years, he said, he had mostly managed to maintain good relations with Uribe. He mentioned a dispute involving a FARC emissary kidnapped in Caracas at the direction of Colombian agents. On that occasion, Ch?vez had been about to break off diplomatic relations when Uribe asked Fidel Castro to intercede. ?Fidel called me, and so we found a solution,? Ch?vez said. ?All this garbage is going to come back and fall on Uribe himself,? he said. ?First of all, just to clarify, the mobilization of troops on the border, that?s all defensive?eminently defensive. Because we are faced with a government, the Colombian government, that has publicly assumed the Bush doctrine?preventive war, pre?mptive attack.? He expressed understanding for the FARC. When, during a ceasefire in the mid-eighties, the FARC established a political party, thousands of its members were murdered, Ch?vez said. He said that he couldn?t ?dismiss the possibility that a group of guerrillas can cross the border?ours with Colombia is more than two thousand kilometres long? and install themselves, as occurred with Ecuador, here.? He went on, ?Anyone would understand that I was obliged to reinforce the border. I had to warn Uribe that he should not dare to do here in Venezuela what he did in Ecuador.? As for Uribe?s accusations and his threat to bring him before the International Criminal Court, ?I laugh at them?they are risible.? Uribe was the one who should be investigated for genocide, Ch?vez said. ?There are documents detailing the massacres by the paramilitaries in Colombia. It?s a horrible thing. They burn people, they cut them into pieces?into pieces! And Uribe supported that.? He added, ?Uribe says I will be accused? Well, to paraphrase Fidel, who once said that history will absolve him, history has already condemned ?lvaro Uribe.? I asked Ch?vez if he believed that a confrontation with the United States was inevitable. ?Look, once, when I was a boy, I nearly drowned in a river,? Ch?vez said. ?The current took me. Friends saved me when I was swept into a rock. Imagine if I had not been saved, and I had drowned at fifteen. This would have happened anyway. . . . If the oligarchies of this continent, directed by the United States and that group of extreme right-wing fascists with their imperial strategies of war who are in the White House, try to stop this revolution, Latin America will go up in flames.? Ch?vez said that it was not his intention, as some said, ?to be the leader of a continental revolution. Nor do we plan to export the Bolivarian revolution. It is a process that is happening?it is the people who are doing it. . . . Now, does this project necessarily have to confront the United States?? He paused. ?I would say yes?not the United States as such but the imperial line of the United States. Confrontation is inevitable.? Ch?vez?s jet took off for the Dominican Republic the next afternoon ??Hola, guerrilleros!? he called out to his Cuban doctors as we boarded. Maduro, the Foreign Minister, said, smiling, ?Let?s go confront the Empire.? The summit began the next morning, in a convention center set among the resort hotels and casinos on Santo Domingo?s seafront. At Ch?vez?s suggestion, I was given a lapel pin identifying me as a member of the Venezuelan delegation so that I could get into the Presidents? session, which was closed to the press. President Uribe, a pale, small, trim-looking man, was the first head of state to enter the hall, followed by Ch?vez and Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua?s President. Ortega wore a su?de jacket and jeans; all the other leaders, including Ch?vez, wore suits. (Ortega, the former Sandinista leader, was re?lected President last year, in spite of an unending series of scandals, and has begun to restore his image, thanks in part to Ch?vez?s financial and political largesse.) Ch?vez and Uribe ignored one another. The Dominican President, Leonel Fern?ndez, opened the meeting and gave Rafael Correa, of Ecuador, the floor. ?The government of Colombia bombed my country,? Correa began. Ecuador, he said, was prepared to pursue its grievances to their ?final consequences.? Looking at Uribe, Correa said, ?Your insolence offends us even more than your murderous bombs.? Ch?vez and the rest of the Venezuelan delegation gave Correa a standing ovation. Uribe spoke next. He described Ra?l Reyes, the FARC leader killed in the raid, as ?one of the most frightening terrorists in the history of humanity.? (A Ch?vez adviser next to me rolled his eyes.) He conceded that his troops had bombed the camp in Ecuador?but said that the bombs had been launched from Colombian territory. As for the guerrillas who were killed, ?they weren?t there preparing for Easter festivities.? At one point, Daniel Ortega got up, walked behind Correa, and stared hard at Uribe, looking like a man spoiling for a fight. When Uribe suggested that he sit down, Ortega said, ?I am not your son! Who do you think you are?? After a while, he sauntered back to his seat. Following Uribe?s remarks, Correa said that Uribe would bomb the Dominican Republic if he suspected that it harbored another Ra?l Reyes. ?Don?t inflict on me the cynicism of those who are nostalgic for Communism,? Uribe interrupted. Correa, continuing, raised his arms. ?These hands are clean and free of blood.? The session seemed close to breaking down. Then Ch?vez spoke. He began by telling stories, goading the others and drawing them in. In the nineties, he said, he had been accused of giving arms to Bolivia?s President, Evo Morales, who was then a cocalero activist and a congressman, and to another indigenous Bolivian leader, Felipe Quispe. Ch?vez said to Morales, ?Evo?I think Quispe?s even more radical than you.? Morales smiled modestly. Ch?vez said he found ironic the accusation that he was providing three hundred million dollars to the FARC, since he had recently financed a three-hundred-million-dollar gas pipeline for Colombia?he and Uribe had attended the groundbreaking together. Ch?vez looked across at Cristina Kirchner, the President of Argentina, whose populist, left-of- center government is supportive of his. ?Witness the infamy that was invented that I had sent suitcases full of dollars to Cristina.? (Last August, a Venezuelan-American businessman travelling to Buenos Aires was found to be carrying eight hundred thousand dollars in undeclared cash in his suitcase. Although Ch?vez has denied it, the widespread assumption is that he was secretly financing Kirchner?s Presidential campaign.) ?And now it?s suitcases in the jungle!? By now, many of the leaders were laughing. Ch?vez had created an atmosphere of entente cordiale, and momentarily blunted Uribe?s charges against him. ?I could have sent plenty of rifles to the FARC,? Ch?vez said. ?I could have sent them plenty of dollars?I will not do it, ever.? Ch?vez then had a surprise: the FARC, he said, had just informed him that it was prepared to release six more hostages. Uribe spoke in urgent whispers with his aides. Ch?vez asked President Fern?ndez if protocol could be broken to allow the mother of Ingrid Betancourt to come into the hall. After some commotion, Betancourt?s mother, Yolanda Pulecio, an elegant woman in her late sixties (and a former Miss Colombia), entered. With her was Piedad C?rdoba, a flamboyant left- wing Colombian senator who has worked with Ch?vez in negotiations with the FARC, and who was wearing a white turban. Uribe looked furious; Ch?vez was showing that he, not Uribe, was the one who could save the hostages? lives. By now, some eight hours had gone by, and waiters brought the leaders plates of food while they talked. Finally, an agreement was worked out, as part of which Uribe promised, reluctantly, not to conduct new cross-border raids. Fern?ndez asked Uribe and Correa to embrace. After some hesitation, they shook hands. Ch?vez walked up to Uribe and greeted him, too, and the crisis seemed to be at an end. Then, moments later, Correa began berating Uribe, who bristled. The other leaders in the room looked alarmed. Ch?vez swiftly spoke in mollifying tones to Uribe, who relaxed. I walked out with Piedad C?rdoba and Yolanda Pulecio. C?rdoba was gleeful. She said that she and Ch?vez and Cristina Kirchner had planned everything in detail?the revelation about the new hostages, and Pulecio?s dramatic appearance. Ch?vez had shown himself capable of sparking a regional confrontation and then, by defusing it, appearing as the peacemaker. It was similar to the moment in 1992 when he called off his coup attempt. Uribe understood that he had been temporarily outmaneuvered, and had responded to Ch?vez?s gesture. Both leaders, to an extent, could declare victory, although it was clear that this was just a skirmish in an ongoing conflict. We were boarding the flight that was to take us back to Caracas when Ch?vez announced that he had changed his mind: the plane was going to Cuba instead. A wave of elation swept through the delegation. When we arrived in Havana, it was nearly midnight. Ra?l Castro, wearing a military uniform, a brimmed hat, and large glasses, which gave him an owlish appearance, was waiting to greet Ch?vez as he got off the plane. Ch?vez was exuberant, and called me over to introduce me to Ra?l, who looked me up and down with a cautious smile and shook my hand. As the rest of the delegation headed to a state-run hotel, Ch?vez disappeared with Ra?l. The next day, Ra?l saw Ch?vez off at the airport. As we taxied away, Ch?vez came to the rear of the plane. He was beaming. He had spent three hours with Fidel, who was ?just fine.? He added, ?Fidel asked me to say hello to all of you for him!? Afterward, a senior Latin-American diplomat told me he learned that Ch?vez had lowered the tension with Uribe at the summit ?because Fidel advised him to.? In mid-May, the Interpol team investigating the captured FARC laptops announced that the hard drives had not been tampered with since their discovery. The investigators cautioned that they did not verify the authorship or the accuracy of the e-mails, but the report was damning. Ch?vez responded by deriding the investigators, calling Interpol?s secretary general, an American, an ?international vagabond.? Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon said that he was ?surprised? at Ch?vez?s flippant reaction. Two days after the release of the report, on May 17th, a U.S. Navy jet strayed into Venezuelan airspace, owing to what the Pentagon said was a navigation error. Defense Minister Rangel called the incident a ?provocation.? A series of embarrassments and setbacks for Ch?vez followed. A decree law, intended to bolster the country?s intelligence in case of ?imperialist attacks,? passed on May 28th and came under immediate and widespread criticism; many Venezuelans feared that it would require them to inform on one another. Ten days later, on June 7th, the Colombian government announced the arrest of a Venezuelan officer whom they accused of smuggling forty thousand AK-47 bullets to the FARC. Ch?vez?s government said that it was investigating. Adding to the sense of disarray, the FARC was forced to confirm reports that its legendary leader, Manuel Marulanda, had died of a heart attack. Ch?vez seemed to realize that he had gone too far. The day of the smuggling arrest, he announced that he would suspend the new intelligence law, saying, ?There is no dictatorship here.? Then, on his June 8th ?Al? Presidente? broadcast, he unexpectedly called on the FARC to give up its armed struggle and let its hostages go, saying that guerrillas did not have a place in today?s world. Ch?vez appeared? for now?to be withdrawing from the battlefield he had helped to create, pragmatically cutting his losses. Above all, he had shown the strength of his instincts as a survivor. Whether his call to the FARC was more than a tactical ploy remains to be seen. ?Those were very useful words,? Assistant Secretary Shannon said at a talk in Miami. ?That does not mean we aren?t aware of what is happening, and the kind of relationship that has been built over time between some members of the Venezuelan government and the FARC.? The question is, Shannon said, will the Venezuelan government ?use that relationship in an effort to get the FARC to come in out of the cold and end a four-decade conflict? Or will it continue to conspire against a democratic neighbor? . . . That, I think, is what everybody in the region is waiting for: how Venezuela will define itself.? Bill Richardson said that, in April, he had travelled to Caracas to speak to Ch?vez on behalf of the families of three American defense contractors being held by the FARC. Ch?vez had been effusive and friendly?Richardson is Mexican-American, and they spoke for an hour and a half in Spanish. He told Richardson that he did not comprehend the Bush Administration?s hostility toward him: ?He told me he didn?t like being demonized.? When Richardson asked him if he would get in touch with the FARC about the American contractors, Ch?vez said, ?S?, te ayudo???Yes, I will help you.? Richardson said, ?We need to establish some lines of communication with him, and this?co?peration on the hostage negotiations?is a possible way to start. I think we should keep a stable relationship with Venezuela; it?s in our interest to do so.? On June 7th, Ch?vez had also said, ?Whoever is the next President of the United States, I?d like to start preparing the way to start working together.? When I asked Ana Navarro, an adviser to Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, about the offer, she said, ?Senator McCain thinks that Ch?vez is a charlatan and a thug. The Senator doesn?t trust Ch?vez, and does not think it worth getting into a back-and-forth with him.? Last year, Senator Barack Obama was asked in a debate if he would be willing to meet with leaders who are hostile to the United States?Iran?s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ch?vez, and Castro??without precondition.? Obama answered that he would, prompting Senators McCain and Hillary Clinton to suggest that he was na?ve. Obama subsequently said that high on his agenda in any talks with Ch?vez would be addressing ?the fomentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America,? and ?his support of the FARC in Colombia,? which, he said, was ?not acceptable.? I asked Richardson if he had carried a message to Ch?vez on behalf of Senator Obama, whose candidacy he endorsed after dropping out of the Presidential race himself. Richardson said that he hadn?t, but that the thought had seemed to occur to Ch?vez, too. ?He said that he had noticed my endorsement. And he said, ?We could use better treatment from the United States.? But I don?t think he sees me as a representative of Obama, but as a fellow Latin-American,? Richardson said. ?His message to me was ?Take me seriously, and treat me better.? ? ? From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Jun 16 13:11:19 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:11:19 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Taliban fighters take over several Afghan villages Message-ID: <17AF0C7C-E5E4-49F0-9389-9660E3541FD5@shaw.ca> Taliban fighters take over several Afghan villages Updated Mon. Jun. 16 2008 1:25 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080616/taliban_fighters_080616/20080616?hub=TopStories Hundreds of Taliban fighters have taken over several villages in a district just north of Kandahar City, a local official says. Mohammad Farooq, the government leader in the Arghandab district of Kandahar province, said Monday that about 500 Taliban had moved into what has been considered a relatively peaceful district. A tribal leader said the militants could easily use the many grape and pomegranate orchards to mount an attack on Kandahar itself, where a brazen attack on a prison last week freed about 400 Taliban fighters. "All of Arghandab is made of orchards. The militants can easily hide and easily fight," said Haji Ikramullah Khan. "It's quite close to Kandahar," Khan added. "During the Russian war, the Russians didn't even occupy Arghandab, because when they fought here they suffered big casualties." Walid Karzai, brother of President Hamid Karzai, told The Canadian Press on Monday that he's also worried the Taliban could mount attacks within Kandahar. "There are also strong rumours that they will attack Kandahar city at certain strategic points. My house, the governor's house (and) the police station," he said. "Whenever they get close to Kandahar city, there could be problems. Every one in Kabul is very much concerned," said Karzai, who serves as president of the provincial council. NATO reaction NATO spokesperson Mark Laity said NATO and Afghan military officials are sending troops to the district to "meet any potential threats." Laity seemed to link the jailbreak with the Taliban push into Arghandab. "It's fair to say that the jailbreak has put a lot of people (rebels) into circulation who weren't there before, and so obviously you're going to respond to that potential threat," he said. Arghandab used to be the fiefdom of Mullah Naqib, a former Taliban supporter who switched sides in 2001. The leader of the powerful Alokozai tribe died in October, and there were fears a power vacuum would emerge. The Taliban did attempt to penetrate the district shortly after Naqib's death, but Canadian and Afghan troops said they pushed them out. "They will not come back because we know that the Afghan national security forces will hold the ground and secure the Arghandab district for the (betterment) of the local population," Canada's Maj. Eric Landry told reporters in Kandahar on Nov. 1, 2007. However, new district leader Kareemullah Naqibi, Mullah Naqib's son, had trouble winning the confidence of village elders. Gen. Dan McNeil, the commander of the International Stabilization and Assistance Force, announced in mid-December 2007 that a forward operating base would be constructed in the district. The move was seen as a way to shore up support for Naqibi, who is only 25. Besides Mullah Naqib's death, two other leaders in Arghandab have been killed. Police commander Abdul Hakim Jan, died in February. He was one of more than 100 people killed by a suicide bombing at a dog fight in Kandahar. Earlier this month, gunmen shot and killed Malim Akbar Khakrezwal, 55. He was a former mujahedeen leader and a key supporter of Naqibi. With files from The Associated Press and The Canadian Press From shimogamo at attglobal.net Mon Jun 16 16:34:39 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:34:39 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The E-Word Message-ID: <4856EA7F.4020604@attglobal.net> The US Has Rivals and Competitors, Not Enemies by Ted Rall www.rall.com (June 03 2006) "A Gallup poll", Libby Quaid wrote for the Associated Press on June 2nd, "found that two-thirds of [Americans] said they believe it would be a good idea for the president to meet with the leaders of enemy countries". Who are they referring to? An enemy is a country with whom a nation is at war. "Enemy countries"? We have enemies (hi, Osama). We have critics. We even have competitors. But the United States doesn't have enemy countries. September 11 aside, citizens of the United States should feel secure. We border big oceans and two close allies - more like wholly owned subsidiaries. As for the rest of the world, well, they've been pretty nice to us. Not that we deserve it. Since 1941, the US has attacked, among others, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, Laos, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Grenada, Panama, the Philippines, Libya, Iran, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Not once were we defending ourselves. We were always the aggressor. Over the course of six decades during which we were the world's leading instigator of armed conflict, no one attacked us - not even the people we attacked! No one declared war upon us. Yet everywhere you turn, on every channel and in every newspaper, there's some politician or journalist using that word to describe another country: enemy. John McCain bashes Barack Obama for appeasing "the enemy" (he means Iran). Writing in the Wall Street Journal, also about Obama and Iran, Joe Lieberman sniped: "Too many Democrats seem to have become confused about the difference between America's friends and America's enemies". After 9/11 self-loathing gay neoconservative blogger Andrew Sullivan called opponents of the Bush Administration "the enemy within the West itself - a paralyzing, pseudo-clever, morally nihilist fifth column". The Bush Administration even incorporates the E-word in a term it invented, found nowhere in US or international law, to describe its political prisoners: "unlawful enemy combatants". Enemies! Enemies! Enemies! Enemies everywhere, but never an attack. Slacker enemies! Iran isn't an enemy. It's a regional rival, a competitor, and a relatively good-natured one at that. Not only did the Iranians open a western front against the Taliban during America's 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, they offered assistance to downed US pilots. Iran has requested talks leading to the establishment of full diplomatic relations. We keep refusing. The British have since backed away from their claims that new Iranian-made improvised explosive devices were killing US occupation troops in Iraq. (The story never made sense, given that they were used by Sunni insurgent groups - who hate Shiite Iran.) Occasionally someone tries to point out the obvious: we're not at war. No war = no enemies. It's the truth. But the truth doesn't go over well. James Rubin, assistant secretary of state under President Clinton, was interviewed recently by the Journal's Paul Gigot on Fox News. "I think it's quite clear that Iran and North Korea and others are a danger to the United States", Rubin said. Gigot laid into Rubin: "You said a danger, but you didn't say enemies. Are they enemies?" Rubin: "Well, I don't know, you know, enemies - we're not in a state of war with Iran. Traditionally, the word 'enemy' is for a state of war. We're in a state war with the Shiite militias, with Al Qaeda, we're in a state of war." Gigot: "But they're contributing - " Rubin: "Iran has policies that we object to and we reject, and we should confront". Gigot: "But they're contributing to the deaths of Americans, if you listen to the American military, in Iraq, by supporting some of those rogue militias. Doesn't that make them enemies?" [Ted here: These claims were debunked two years before this exchange.] Rubin: "That makes them a country that is dangerous to the United States, and we need to confront that danger directly". In other words, a country can supply weapons to your enemy without becoming your enemy. Which, considering that the US is the world's largest arms merchant, is a good thing. The last thing we need is more enemies! (Not that we have any now.) Why do we call states with whom we disagree "enemies"? Religion writer Eboo Patel blames radical Islamists, and 9/11 for spooking us. "Terrorism", Patel wrote in Slate, "is more than heinous murder and guerrilla theater. It is a kind of macabre magic intended to create the illusion of enemies everywhere." Trouble is, Americans were freaking out long before 9/11. The reason? American conservatives, whose views are automatically accepted as conventional wisdom before eventually getting discredited, constantly see monsters in closets full of nothing but outdated fashions. "Iran has been at war with us for 27 years, and we have discussed every imaginable subject with them", shrieked The National Review's Michael Ledeen during 2006's Iranian-IEDs-are-killing-American-soldiers propaganda campaign. "We have gained nothing, because there is nothing to be gained by talking with an enemy who thinks he is winning. From [the Iranians'] standpoint, the only thing to be negotiated is the terms of the American surrender." Twenty-seven years - what a war! How on earth did we fail to notice it? And "surrender"! How exactly would surrendering to Iran work? Wouldn't they have to attack us first, you know, just for show? Do snotty remarks about Israel count as actual attacks with bullets and stuff? How would the Islamic Republic's modest military occupy the United States and beat its 300 million heavily armed citizens into submission? Enemies? Not yet. But we're working on it. _____ Ted Rall is the author of the book Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East? (2006), an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge. Copyright 2008 Ted Rall http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20080603 TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From tchilds at resist.ca Mon Jun 16 20:57:09 2008 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [R-G] Lakes across Canada face being turned into mine dump sites - CBC Message-ID: <62975.64.85.36.244.1213671429.squirrel@mail.resist.ca> >>>>?This is a precedent-setting decision by the federal government to start using fish-bearing habitat as a waste management area," Bourquin said. "It's totally bizarre for the federal government to come here and say that this Y-shaped valley up here is no longer a fish habitat, it's no longer sacred headwaters, it's just a waste dump site.?<<<< http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/16/condemned-lakes.html Lakes across Canada face being turned into mine dump sites Lakes are in B.C., Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories and Nunavut Last Updated: Monday, June 16, 2008 | 9:42 PM ET By Terry Milewski, CBC News Bush pilot Doug Beaumont and environmentalist Jim Bourquin fish on Kluela Lake, downstream from the planned dump site for the Red Chris gold and copper mining project in northwestern B.C. (Terry Milewski/CBC) CBC News has learned that 16 Canadian lakes are slated to be officially but quietly "reclassified" as toxic dump sites for mines. The lakes include prime wilderness fishing lakes from B.C. to Newfoundland. Environmentalists say the process amounts to a "hidden subsidy" to mining companies, allowing them to get around laws against the destruction of fish habitat. Under the Fisheries Act, it's illegal to put harmful substances into fish-bearing waters. But, under a little-known subsection known as Schedule Two of the mining effluent regulations, federal bureaucrats can redefine lakes as "tailings impoundment areas." Lakes proposed for use as mine tailings ponds: Since the introduction of Schedule Two of mining effluent regulations under the Fisheries Act, in 2002, 16 lakes have been proposed for reclassification as tailings dumps. Four of the 16 are already being used as dumps ? all in Newfoundland. Two of those are at the Duck Pond Mine and the other two are older mines due to be brought under Schedule Two retroactively. Only one of the 16 ? Kemess North in B.C. ? has been turned down. Eight are to be decided in the coming year. B.C.: Kemess North - Duncan Lake - REJECTED. Kutcho Creek - Andrea Creek. Ruby Creek - Ruby Creek watershed. Prosperity - Fish Lake. Red Chris. Mount Milligan. Manitoba: Bucko Lake. Newfoundland and Labrador: Duck Pond Mine - Trout Pond and Gill's Brook. Carol Mine - Wabush Lake. Wabush Mine - Flora Lake. Long Harbour - Sandy Pond. Northwest Territories: Winter Lake. Nunavut: Doris North Project - Tail Lake. Meadowbank - Second Portage Lake. High Lake. That means mining companies don't need to build containment ponds for toxic mine tailings. CBC News visited two examples of Schedule Two lakes. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the Vale Inco company wants to use a prime destination for fishermen known as Sandy Pond to hold tailings from a nickel processing plant. In northern B.C., Imperial Metals plans to enclose a remote watershed valley to hold tailings from a gold and copper mine. The valley lies in what the native Tahltan people call the "Sacred Headwaters" of three major salmon rivers. It also serves as spawning grounds for the rainbow trout of Kluela Lake, which is downstream from the dump site. Lakes 'safest option': mining association Vale Inco's proposal was the subject of a public meeting on June 10 in Long Harbour, N.L. Billed as a "public consultation" on the proposal, the meeting was attended by government officials, mining executives, environmentalists and fishermen. Jim Bourquin, centre, of the Cassiar Watch Society, says the decision by federal officials to turn a fish-bearing habitat into a waste management area is "totally bizarre." (CBC)Lakes are often the best way for mine tailings to be contained, said Elizabeth Gardiner, vice-president for technical affairs for the Mining Association of Canada. ?In some cases, particularly in Canada, with this kind of topography and this number of natural lakes and depressions and ponds in the end it's really the safest option for human health and for the environment," she said. But Catherine Coumans, spokeswoman for the environmental group Mining Watch, said the federal government is making it too easy. She said federal officials are increasingly using the obscure Schedule Two regulations to quietly reclassify lakes and other waters as tailings dumps. ?Something that used to be a lake ? or a river, in fact, they can use rivers ? by being put on this section two of this regulation is no longer a river or a lake," she said. "It's a tailings impoundment area. It's a waste disposal site. It's an industrial waste dump." Coumans said the procedure amounts to a subsidy to the industry and enables mines to get around the Fisheries Act. "What Canadians need to know is that this year, from March 2008 to March of 2009, eight lakes are going to be subject to being put on Schedule Two, which is just about every mine that is going ahead this year is looking around, looking for the nearest lake to dump its waste into.? A local environmentalist who attended the Long Harbour meeting, Chad Griffiths, said of Sandy Pond: ?It's easy enough to consider just one lake as just one lake, as a needed sacrifice, right? But it's not one lake It's a trend. It's an open season on Canadian water.? 'Open season on Canadian water': environmentalist A test case: the Red Chris Mine in northwestern B.C. Steve Robertson, exploration manager for Imperial Metals, says any risk to the environment from the Red Chris mine will be carefully managed. (CBC)Last fall, a Federal Court judge ruled that federal bureaucrats acted illegally in trying to fast-track the Red Chris copper and gold mine without a full and public environmental review. The decision put the project on hold, but late last week, the Federal Appeals Court reversed the decision, paving the way for federal officials to declare lakes to be dumps without public consultation. Imperial Metals said in a release Monday that federal authorities "are now authorized to issue regulatory approvals for the Red Chris project to proceed," although the matter could still be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the earlier decision, Justice Luc Martineau overturned the decision by federal officials to skip a public review, saying it "has all the characteristics of a capricious and arbitrary decision which was taken for an improper purpose." He also found those officials "committed a reviewable error by deciding to forgo the public consultation process which the project was statutorily mandated to undergo." The dump site includes two small lakes in a Y-shaped valley. Imperial Metals plans to build three dams to contain mine tailings within the valley. But environmentalists say there is no way to stop effluent leaking downstream in groundwater. James Dennis, an elder with the local Tahltan people, says he fears his grandchildren will be the ones who will have to live with polluted water. (CBC)Jim Bourquin of the Cassiar Watch Society, a conservation group, said Kluela Lake, immediately downstream from the site, is ?one of the best trout fishing lakes in northern B.C.? ?This is a precedent-setting decision by the federal government to start using fish-bearing habitat as a waste management area," Bourquin said. "It's totally bizarre for the federal government to come here and say that this Y-shaped valley up here is no longer a fish habitat, it's no longer sacred headwaters, it's just a waste dump site.? But Steve Robertson, exploration manager for Imperial Metals, told CBC News the dump site will be sealed and that the economic benefits of the planned Red Chris mine will be enormous. ?This is a project that can bring a lot of good jobs, long-term jobs, well-paying jobs to a community that desperately needs it,? Robertson said. He added that the total investment over the 25-year life of the mine would be about half a billion dollars and that the risk to the environment will be carefully managed. ?Tailings are part of the mining process,? Robertson said, ?and, if treated properly, if they're built into a proper structure and kept submerged, they should be able to withstand the test of time and actually not pose a detriment to the environment.? But James Dennis, a 76-year-old elder of the local Tahltan people, told CBC News he doesn?t buy that. ?We want it stopped,? said Dennis, who lives in the native village of Iskut, 18 kilometres northwest of the mine site. ?We want to stop the mine The animals will be drinking that water and they'll all be polluted too. "Once they do the mine, they?re going to leave, and we're the people who are going to live with that. Not me, but my grandchildren, the small little kids like this. That's who's going to live with the pollution.? From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Jun 16 22:46:20 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:46:20 -0700 Subject: [R-G] US runs out of patience with Pakistan Message-ID: South Asia Jun 17, 2008 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JF17Df02.html US runs out of patience with Pakistan By Syed Saleem Shahzad KARACHI - The words came from Afghan President Hamid Karzai at the weekend, threatening to send troops into Pakistani territory in hot pursuit of the Taliban, but Islamabad has no doubts Karzai was reading from a script prepared by the United States. The message is crystal clear: Pakistan's failure to cooperate at the sub-strategic level leaves the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with no alternative but to mobilize the newly trained Afghan National Army into Pakistan whenever it sees fit. Karzai said his country had the right to "self defense", adding, "When they [militants] cross the territory from Pakistan to come and kill Afghans and to kill coalition troops it gives us the right to go back and do the same. "[Pakistani Taliban leader] Baitullah Mehsud should know that we will go after him now and hit him in his house. And the other fellow, [Taliban leader] Mullah Omar of Pakistan, should know the same," said Karzai. Karzai was reacting to a bad week for the Afghan government and NATO, which lost at least 15 troops in various incidents. Kabul was embarrassed by a carefully planned operation in the southern city of Kandahar in which suicide bombers and about 100 Taliban attacked a jail, resulting in the death of nearly 20 security forces and the escape of over 1,000 prisoners, including 380 Taliban. And in another attack on Saturday, the governor of Helmand province was injured and the police chief killed. NATO headquarters see the spate of violence as the result of the Taliban's training in Pakistani territory and their ability to easily cross the border into Afghanistan. The Taliban completed their launch of men last month, promising specific, target-oriented attacks such as the jail operation. In response, NATO wanted to catch the Taliban in a pincer movement, with Pakistani forces operating from the Mohmand and Bajaur tribal agencies and NATO across the border in Kunar and Nooristan provinces. (See Pakistan's grand bargain falls apart Asia Times Online, March 6.) Asia Times Online was the first publication to write about US strikes using Predator drones and later a detailed story was published in the New York Times citing US officials who confirmed plans to target Taliban and al-Qaeda sanctuaries in the Pakistani tribal areas, with Pakistani help. Following US pressure, Pakistan prepared its plan, which Asia Times Online outlined on March 6: According to Asia Times Online contacts, a military operation is imminent, starting from a base camp in Peshawar in North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). The main focus will be Mohmand and Bajaur agencies, and some other tribal areas, to pre-empt the Taliban's spring offensive in Afghanistan. Under the initial plan, the operation would have been largely symbolic and the militants had been convinced that if they remained at the forefront and fought against Pakistani troops, their positions would be exposed to the foreign supervisors and they would sustain huge losses. Instead, if they struck ceasefire deals and retreated from forward positions to the border regions, they would be helped with advance information about possible raids and they could take alternative measures for their survival. They were categorically told that the operation was inevitable, so it would be best for them to take rear positions and flit on both sides of the border for their survival. The military rationale for adopting this approach was based on pragmatic grounds - that it would cause the militants to evacuate the main tribal areas for Afghanistan or the tribal fringes. This would allow secular Pashtun sub-nationalist forces to regain a hold in the area and develop an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation. The scheme was a blueprint to get rid of the Taliban-led insurgency from Pakistan and force it back into Afghanistan, but NATO considered it a betrayal on the part of Pakistan, especially it turning a blind eye to the Taliban crossing the border with impunity. Faced now with the very real threat of coalition raids into its territory, Pakistan might be forced to restart military operations in the tribal areas. Meanwhile, President Pervez Musharraf will have to play a significant role in reassuring Washington that Pakistan is still on board in the "war on terror" and that the Americans need to be patient. Time is not on his side, though. Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002 at yahoo.com (Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.) From fentona at shaw.ca Mon Jun 16 22:51:26 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:51:26 -0700 Subject: [R-G] US garrisons and global gas stations Message-ID: <05BFC151-7F75-41F2-8450-60B0B4F9E283@shaw.ca> Middle East Jun 14, 2008 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF14Ak03.html Page 1 of 2 US garrisons and global gas stations By Michael T Klare American policymakers have long viewed the protection of overseas oil supplies as an essential matter of "national security", requiring the threat of - and sometimes the use of - military force. This is now an unquestioned part of American foreign policy. On this basis, the George H W Bush administration fought a war against Iraq in 1990-1991 and the George W Bush administration invaded Iraq in 2003. With global oil prices soaring and oil reserves expected to dwindle in the years ahead, military force is sure to be seen by whatever new administration enters Washington in January 2009 as the ultimate guarantor of the US's well-being in the oil heartlands of the planet. But with the costs of militarized oil operations - in both blood and dollars - rising precipitously, isn't it time to challenge such "wisdom"? Isn't it time to ask whether the US military has anything reasonable to do with American energy security, and whether a reliance on military force, when it comes to energy policy, is practical, affordable or justifiable? How energy policy got militarized The association between "energy security" (as it's now termed) and "national security" was established long ago. President Franklin D Roosevelt first forged this association in 1945, when he pledged to protect the Saudi Arabian royal family in return for privileged American access to Saudi oil. The relationship was given formal expression in 1980, when president Jimmy Carter told the US Congress that maintaining the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf oil was a "vital interest" of the United States, and attempts by hostile nations to cut that flow would be countered "by any means necessary, including military force". To implement this "doctrine", Carter ordered the creation of a Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force, specifically earmarked for combat operations in the Persian Gulf area. President Ronald Reagan later turned that force into a full-scale regional combat organization, the US Central Command, or CENTCOM. Every president since Reagan has added to CENTCOM's responsibilities, endowing it with additional bases, fleets, air squadrons and other assets. As the country has, more recently, come to rely on oil from the Caspian Sea basin and Africa, US military capabilities are being beefed up in those areas as well. As a result, the US military has come to serve as a global oil protection service, guarding pipelines, refineries and loading facilities in the Middle East and elsewhere. According to one estimate, provided by the conservative National Defense Council Foundation, the "protection" of Persian Gulf oil alone costs the US Treasury US$138 billion per year - up from $49 billion just before the invasion of Iraq. For Democrats and Republicans alike, spending such sums to protect foreign oil supplies is now accepted as common wisdom, not worthy of serious discussion or debate. A typical example of this attitude can be found in an "Independent Task Force Report" on the "National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency" released by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in October 2006. Chaired by former secretary of defense James R Schlesinger and former Central Intelligence Agency director John Deutch, the CFR report concluded that the US military must continue to serve as a global oil protection service for the foreseeable future. "At least for the next two decades, the Persian Gulf will be vital to US interests in reliable oil supplies," it noted. Accordingly, "the United States should expect and support a strong military posture that permits suitably rapid deployment to the region, if necessary." Similarly, the report adds, "US naval protection of the sea lanes that transport oil is of paramount importance." The Pentagon as Insecurity Inc These views, widely shared, then and now, by senior figures in both major parties, dominate - or, more accurately, blanket - American strategic thinking. Yet the actual utility of military force as a means for ensuring energy security has yet to be demonstrated. Keep in mind that, despite the deployment of up to 160,000 US troops in Iraq and the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, Iraq is a country in chaos and the Department of Defense has been notoriously unable to prevent the recurring sabotage of oil pipelines and refineries by various insurgent groups and militias, not to mention the systematic looting of government supplies by senior oil officials supposedly loyal to the US-backed central government and often guarded (at great personal risk) by American soldiers. Five years after the US invasion, Iraq is producing only about 2.5 million barrels of oil per day - about the same amount as in the worst days of Saddam Hussein in 2001. Moreover, the New York Times reports, "At least one-third, and possibly much more, of the fuel from Iraq's largest refinery ... is [being] diverted to the black market, according to American military officials." Is this really conducive to American energy security? The same disappointing results have been noted in other countries where US-backed militaries have attempted to protect vulnerable oil facilities. In Nigeria, for example, increased efforts by American- equipped government forces to crush rebels in the oil-rich Niger Delta region have merely inflamed the insurgency while actually lowering national oil output. Meanwhile, the Nigerian military, like the Iraqi government (and assorted militias), has been accused of pilfering billions of dollars' worth of crude oil and selling it on the black market. In reality, the use of military force to protect foreign oil supplies is likely to create anything but "security". It can, in fact, trigger violent "blowback" against the United States. For example, the decision by the senior president Bush to maintain an enormous, permanent US military presence in Saudi Arabia following Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait is now widely viewed as a major source of virulent anti-Americanism in the kingdom and became a prime recruiting tool for Osama bin Laden in the months leading up to the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. "For over seven years," bin Laden proclaimed in 1998, "the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight neighboring Muslim peoples." To repel this assault on the Muslin world, he thundered, it was "an individual duty for every Muslim" to "kill the Americans" and drive their armies "out of all the lands of Islam". As if to confirm the veracity of bin Laden's analysis of US intentions, then-secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld flew to Saudi Arabia on April 30, 2003, to announce that the American bases there would no longer be needed due to the successful invasion of Iraq, then barely one month old. "It is now a safer region because of the change of regime in Iraq," Rumsfeld declared. "The aircraft and those involved will now be able to leave." Even as he was speaking in Riyadh, however, a dangerous new case of blowback had erupted in Iraq: on their entry into Baghdad, US forces seized and guarded the Oil Ministry headquarters while allowing schools, hospitals and museums to be looted with impunity. Most Iraqis have since come to regard this decision, which insured that the rest of the city would be looted, as the ultimate expression of the Bush administration's main motive for invading their country. They have viewed repeated White House claims of a commitment to human rights and democracy there as mere fig leaves that barely covered the urge to plunder Iraq's oil. Nothing American officials have done since has succeeded in erasing this powerful impression, which continues to drive calls for an American withdrawal. These are but a few examples of the losses to American national security produced by a thoroughly militarized approach to energy security. Yet the premises of such a global policy continue to go unquestioned, even as American policymakers persist in relying on military force as their ultimate response to threats to the safe production and transportation of oil. In a kind of energy "Catch-22", the continual militarizing of energy policy only multiplies the threats that call such militarization into being. If anything, this spiral of militarized insecurity is worsening. Take the expanded US military presence in Africa - one of the few areas in the world expected to experience an increase in oil output in the years ahead. This year, the Pentagon will activate the US Africa Command (AFRICOM), its first new overseas combat command since Reagan created CENTCOM a quarter century ago. Although Department of Defense officials are loathe to publicly acknowledge any direct relationship between AFRICOM's formation and a growing US reliance on that continent's oil, they are less inhibited in private briefings. At a February 19 meeting at the National Defense University, for example, AFRICOM deputy commander, Vice Admiral Robert Moeller, indicated that "oil disruption" in Nigeria and West Africa would constitute one of the primary challenges facing the new organization. AFRICOM and similar extensions of the Carter Doctrine into new oil- producing regions are only likely to provoke fresh outbreaks of blowback, while bundling tens of billions of extra dollars every year into an already bloated Pentagon budget. Sooner or later, if US policy doesn't change, this price will be certain to include as well the loss of American lives, as more and more soldiers are exposed to hostile fire or explosives while protecting vulnerable oil installations in areas torn by ethnic, religious and sectarian strife. Why pay such a price? Given the all-but-unavoidable evidence of just how ineffective military force has been when it comes to protecting oil supplies, isn't it time to rethink Washington's reigning assumptions regarding the relationship between energy security and national security? After all, other than George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who would claim that, more than five years after the invasion of Iraq, either the United States or its supply of oil is actually safer? Creating real energy security The reality of America's increasing reliance on foreign oil only strengthens the conviction in Washington that military force and energy security are inseparable twins. With nearly two-thirds of the country's daily oil intake imported - and that percentage still going up - it's hard not to notice that significant amounts of our oil now come from conflict-prone areas of the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. As long as this is the case, US policymakers will instinctively look to the military to ensure the safe delivery of crude oil. It evidently matters little that the use of military force, especially in the Middle East, has surely made the energy situation less stable and less dependable, while fueling anti-Americanism. This is, of course, not the definition of "energy security", but its opposite. A viable long-term approach to actual energy security would not favor one particular source of energy - in this case, oil - above all others, or regularly expose American soldiers to a heightened risk of harm and American taxpayers to a heightened risk of bankruptcy. Rather, an American energy policy that made sense would embrace a holistic approach to energy procurement, weighing the relative merits of all potential sources of energy. It would naturally favor the development of domestic, renewable sources of energy that do not degrade the environment or imperil other national interests. At the same time, it would favor a thoroughgoing program of energy conservation of a sort notably absent these past two decades - one that would help cut reliance on foreign energy sources in the near future and slow the atmospheric buildup of climate- altering greenhouse gases. Petroleum would continue to play a significant role in any such approach. Oil retains considerable appeal as a source of transportation energy (especially for aircraft) and as a feedstock for many chemical products. But given the right investment and research policies - and the will to apply something other than force to energy supply issues - oil's historic role as the world's paramount fuel could relatively quickly draw to a close. It would be especially important that American policymakers not prolong this role artificially by, as has been the case for decades, subsidizing major US oil firms or, more recently, spending $138 billion a year on the protection of foreign oil deliveries. These funds would instead be redirected to the promotion of energy efficiency and especially the development of domestic sources of energy. Some policymakers who agree on the need to develop alternatives to imported energy insist that such an approach should begin with oil extraction in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other protected wilderness areas. Even while acknowledging that such drilling would not substantially reduce US reliance on foreign oil, they nevertheless insist that it's essential to make every conceivable effort to substitute domestic oil supplies for imports in the nation's total energy supply. But this argument ignores the fact that oil's day is drawing to a close, and that any effort to prolong its duration only complicates the inevitable transition to a post-petroleum economy. A far more fruitful approach, better designed to promote American self- sufficiency and technological vigor in the intensely competitive world of the mid-21st century, would emphasize the use of domestic ingenuity and entrepreneurial skills to maximize the potential of renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, geothermal and wave power. The same skills should also be applied to developing methods for producing ethanol from non-food plant matter ("cellulosic ethanol"), for using coal without releasing carbon into the atmosphere (via "carbon capture and storage," or CCS), for miniaturizing hydrogen fuel cells, and for massively increasing the energy efficiency of vehicles, buildings and industrial processes. All of these energy systems show great promise and so should be accorded the increased support and investment they will need to move from the marginal role they now play to a dominant role in American energy generation. At this point, it is not possible to determine precisely which of them (or which combination among them) will be best positioned to transition from small to large-scale commercial development. As a result, all of them should be initially given enough support to test their capacity to make this move. In applying this general rule, however, priority clearly should be given to new forms of transportation fuel. It is here that oil has long been king, and here that oil's decline will be most harshly felt. It is thanks to this that calls for military intervention to secure additional supplies of crude are only likely to grow. So emphasis should be given to the rapid development of biofuels, coal-to-liquid fuels (with the carbon extracted via CCS), hydrogen, or battery power, and other innovative means of fueling vehicles. At the same time, it's obvious that putting some of the US's military budget into funding a massive increase in public transit would be the height of national sanity. An approach of this sort would enhance American national security on multiple levels. It would increase the reliable supply of fuels, promote economic growth at home (rather than sending a veritable flood of dollars into the coffers of unreliable petro-regimes abroad), and diminish the risk of recurring US involvement in foreign oil wars. No other approach - certainly not the present traditional, unquestioned, unchallenged reliance on military force - can make this claim. It's well past time to stop garrisoning the global gas station. Michael T Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author of several books on energy politics, including Resource Wars (2001), Blood and Oil (2004), and, most recently, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy. (Copyright 2008 Michael T Klare.) (Used by permission Tomdispatch) From shimogamo at attglobal.net Tue Jun 17 03:22:52 2008 From: shimogamo at attglobal.net (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:22:52 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Behind the falsification of US economic data Message-ID: <4857826C.6050303@attglobal.net> by Peter Daniels World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org (June 02 2008) In recent years, it has become increasingly clear to those who follow US economic statistics that there is something dubious about the numbers released by official government agencies and used to guide many aspects of social and public policy. The details and chronology of the corruption of economic data are presented in a new book by Kevin Phillips, the political commentator and former Republican Party adviser who has become something of a muckraking critic of the "excesses" that he helped set in motion. The book is entitled Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism. Phillips summarizes some of his main conclusions in an article in the current issue of Harper's Magazine. The article focuses primarily on three measures: the monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI), the quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and the monthly figure for the unemployment rate. Phillips convincingly demonstrates that the real unemployment rate in the United States is between nine and twelve percent, not the five percent or less that is officially claimed. The real rate of inflation is not two or three percent, but instead, between seven and ten percent. And real economic growth has been about one percent, not the three to four percent officially claimed during the most recent Wall Street and housing bubble that has burst. Phillips's background makes his statements all the more significant. He was a prime strategist for Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign and one of the main architects of the notorious "Southern strategy", through which the old Republican Party of Wall Street and Main Street refashioned itself with a right-wing populist appeal, stoking racial antagonisms while above all capitalizing on the bankruptcy of American liberalism to shift the political spectrum sharply to the right. The corruption of official statistics is not the work of one administration, and Phillips traces it back nearly fifty years. The current occupant of the White House has, in fact, been somewhat less active on this front than his predecessors. Soon after John F Kennedy took office in 1961, Phillips points out, he appointed a committee to recommend possible changes in the measurement of official joblessness. What soon followed was the use of the category of "discouraged workers" to exclude all those who had stopped looking for jobs because they weren't available. Many who had lost employment in basic industry, in a trend that was just beginning to pick up steam with automation and the rise of global competitors in such industries as steel and auto production, were no longer counted as unemployed. During the administration of Lyndon Johnson, the federal government began using the concept of a "unified budget" that combined Social Security with other expenditures, thus allowing the current Social Security surplus to disguise growing budget deficits. As Phillips reports, Nixon tried to tackle the "problem" of statistics in typically Nixonian fashion: he actually proposed that the Labor Department simply publish whichever was the lower figure between seasonally adjusted and unadjusted unemployment numbers. This was apparently deemed too brazen an attempt at manipulation and was never implemented. Under Nixon's Federal Reserve chairman, Arthur Burns, however, the concept of "core inflation" was devised. This became the means of excluding certain areas like food and energy, on grounds of the "volatility" of these sectors. The suggestion was that these prices jumped and then sometimes fell, so that it was best to remove them from the prices surveyed. In fact, food and energy together accounted for an enormous portion of spending for most sections of the working class and, as Phillips also explains, these two sectors are "now verging on another 1970s-style price surge". As of last January, Phillips writes, the price of imported goods had increased 13.7 percent compared with a year earlier, the biggest jump since these statistics began in 1982. Gasoline prices, meanwhile, have soared by more than thirty percent since just the beginning of this year. The Reagan administration addressed itself to the pesky problem of housing in the inflation index. An "Owner Equivalent Rent" measurement was dreamed up for the purpose of artificially lowering the cost of housing - from a purely abstract statistical standpoint. Under Reagan, Phillips also points out, the armed forces began to be included in the labor force and among the employed, thus reducing the unemployment rate, even though these same members of the military would in many cases have no employment in civilian life. George H W Bush and his Council of Economic Advisers proposed the recalculation of inflation statistics to give greater weight to the service and retail sectors and, again, reduce the official rate of inflation. This change was actually implemented during the Clinton administration. Clinton also carried out other changes, including a reduction in the monthly household sampling from 60,000 to 50,000, a decrease that was concentrated in the inner cities and had the effect of reducing official jobless figures among African-Americans. The Clinton years were an especially active time for imaginative tinkering with economic data. Three other "adjustments" in the Consumer Price Index were implemented under the Democratic administration: product substitution, geometric weighting, and hedonic adjustment. Product substitution means that, for example, if steak gets too expensive, individuals substitute hamburger. Steak is simply removed from the typical food basket even though it has been used in the past to track price changes. Geometric weighting is defined as lower weighting in the price index for those goods and services that are rising most rapidly in cost, on the assumption that they are consumed in lower quantities. This may of course be true, but the aim is to reduce the inflation figure, covering up the fact that some items are no longer affordable for tens of millions of people. Phillips is particularly scathing about "hedonic adjustment", also implemented during Clinton's presidency. In this concept, the supposedly improved quality of some products and services is translated into a reduction in their effective cost. This is another obvious attempt to reduce official inflation. "Reversing the theory, however, the declining quality of goods or services should adjust effective prices and therefore add to inflation", Phillips writes, "but that side of the equation generally goes missing". Phillips explains that every single one of the statistical revisions implemented over the past two generations have become permanent. Once initiated by a Democratic or Republican administration, they were carried over to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other agencies in bipartisan fashion, no matter who the current occupant of the White House was. To all of the above should be added one other element, which Phillips does not discuss, perhaps because it does not stem from the economic data itself. That is the explosive growth of the US prison population, which has soared over the last thirty years and now stands at 2.3 million, compared to an overall labor force of 153.1 million. This situation, the outcome of the misnamed war on drugs and the overall bipartisan law-and-order hysteria, keeps the official unemployment rate artificially low. Between the army and the prison system, official joblessness is reduced by perhaps two percent. Phillips points out that all of the changes in economic recordkeeping over the past fifty years were not the result of some grand conspiracy. They certainly did not stem from a master plan hatched in the 1960s or 1970s, of course. This does not mean, however, that there is no logic to these developments, no broader economic and political source. The corruption of economic data corresponds to deepening contradictions of US and world capitalism. These contradictions impelled the bourgeoisie to abandon a general policy of social reform that had lasted for more than three decades, and to embark on what has been termed a "one-sided class war", in which the services of the pro-capitalist trade unions were utilized to carry out an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the working population to a tiny ruling elite. There was a step-by-step logic to all of the measures that were taken to misrepresent basic economic statistics. Big business could not have carried out the policies it required without falsifying economic reality. Even though daily life became increasingly difficult for huge sections of the working class, it was necessary to divide and disorient, to intimidate millions with the claim that "there is no alternative", and that what Reagan referred to as the magic of the marketplace was creating a veritable golden age from which everyone would benefit. Some of the consequences of the falsification of data can be translated into dollars and cents. If the CPI had not been systematically understated, Phillips explains, Social Security checks would be seventy percent greater than they currently are. Beyond the direct impact on Social Security and other government expenditures, an artificially low unemployment rate and poverty rate (officially reported as twelve percent, but in fact at least twice that figure) helped the financial and political establishment to reduce living standards and social conditions. How many countless think tank reports and magazine articles, trumpeted by Democratic and Republican politicians and academic figures alike, took as the gospel truth that the "Anglo-American" model of capitalism, compared to its more regulated rivals in France and Germany, meant lower unemployment? This and similar claims were based largely on lies. American capitalism once prided itself on the accuracy of its economic statistics. An alphabet soup of regulatory agencies carried out this work. During the decades of the Cold War, the spokesmen for big business always pointed to the mockery of economic data produced by the Stalinist regimes as one more proof of the superiority of the profit system. Today, however, the growing crisis is producing a historic reversal. Where American capitalism once required accurate data, today it requires lies. Phillips's revelations share something with those of former White House press secretary Scott McClellan. They are not exactly news, but they represent a kind of barometer of the growing crisis that is forcing its way into the open within official and semi-official circles. _____ Copyright 1998-2008. World Socialist Web Site. All rights reserved http://wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/data-j02.shtml TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Jun 17 09:29:10 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:29:10 -0700 Subject: [R-G] 'Dare Anyone Say a Word?': The CLC Convention of 2008 Message-ID: <7D05EC8A-FBFF-4A38-A230-D84EDF01B43B@shaw.ca> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( T h e B u l l e t ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A Socialist Project e-bulletin .... No. 114 .... June 17, 2008 ______________________________________________________________ 'Dare Anyone Say a Word?': The Canadian Labour Congress Convention of 2008 John Peters There is always something unsettling about people who say one thing and do another. There is for one thing the hypocrisy. Then, there is the uncertainty. It only takes a few disappointments to sow the seeds of doubt about whether you can ever trust a person's judgement again or whether you can ever expect them to fulfill their responsibilities in the future. These problems become even greater when those in leadership positions engage in such 'shambolic' efforts that involve saying much and doing little, while rejecting all criticism. Couple this with trying to shut down any hints of debate or questioning of decisions or strategies, and what you end up with is a sort of variation on the 'Emperor has no clothes' fable. All these problems were very much in evidence at the recent Canadian Labour Congress Convention in Toronto (May 26-30, 2008) and all of these problems raise serious red flags about the state of the Canadian labour movement today. But in a variation of the story, there was something even more staged and more malevolent about the Congress -- more an event of the 'Leader has no clothes, but I dare anyone to say anything about it'. Even though there were many good resolutions dealing with renewing organizing, fighting privatization, establishing a national pharmacare program, and protecting and renewing good, unionized manufacturing jobs, there was very little to suggest that the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) would play any effective role in pushing these policies forward. Many of the final CLC resolutions suggested nothing more than future meetings with union staff to discuss options. Others only broached the importance of raising issues. Few detailed how a campaign would actually be launched. None made the promise that any money would be devoted to these causes. Even more worrisome was that in the floor debates, there was a good deal of evidence that the CLC and many in leadership positions were more interested in trying to shut down discussion and shut down the kind of activism necessary to move progressive ideas forward, rather than trying to stir passions, raise public awareness, and mobilize workers across Canada. The Canadian Labour Congress -- Yesterday and Today Outside of organized labour, the Canadian Labour Congress is a generally unknown entity to most Canadians. Established in the 1956, its basic functions were to operate as a central public communication body for labour, lobby government behind the scenes, conduct research, and help educate workers in local and provincial labour councils across Canada. The CLC was also established as the key fundraising arm and supporter for the NDP, something it continued to do until 2003, when federal financing laws cut at labour donations, while leaving large loopholes for corporate donations through individual and diffuse political action committees. The CLC had a number of useful secondary functions. Among the most effective was organizing new members where it was most difficult to do so and where unions had less influence. Also important was the role the CLC played in the mid-1970s helping coordinate and organize a national general strike against wage and price controls, as well as strikes against inadequate economic policy and draconian public sector legislation. Today, the CLC is a much more circumscribed organization, and it has more often than not accommodated to liberal market political reforms instead of actively trying to change them for the better. The CLC no longer organizes workers, nor does it provide financing or political direction for union members across the country. Over the past ten years, under the leadership of Ken Georgetti, public campaigns have taken a backseat to attempts at lobbying parliamentary committees and house members to change a select few pieces of legislation. Attempts at organizing national strikes or national demonstrations have all but vanished. To its credit, many of the CLC's researchers do produce some of the best material on labour markets and economics around. But little of this material makes its way to members, and to the general public. It is almost wholly invisible. Continue reading: http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet114.html#continue ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( T h e B u l l e t))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Bullet is produced by the Socialist Project. Readers are encouraged to distribute widely. Comments, criticisms and suggestions are welcome. Write to info at socialistproject.ca If you wish to subscribe: www.socialistproject.ca/lists/?p=subscribe The Bullet archive is available at www.socialistproject.ca/bullet For more analysis of contemporary politics check out 'Relay: A Socialist Project Review' at www.socialistproject.ca/relay ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From fentona at shaw.ca Tue Jun 17 11:24:26 2008 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:24:26 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Lakes across Canada face being turned into mine dump sites Message-ID: <940D11BF-9230-465E-ABA8-2E792222A873@shaw.ca> Lakes across Canada face being turned into mine dump sites Lakes are in B.C., Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, NWT and Nunavut Last Updated: Monday, June 16, 2008 | 9:42 PM ET http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/16/condemned-lakes.html CBC News has learned that 16 Canadian lakes are slated to be officially but quietly "reclassified" as toxic dump sites for mines. The lakes include prime wilderness fishing lakes from B.C. to Newfoundland. Environmentalists say the process amounts to a "hidden subsidy" to mining companies, allowing them to get around laws against the destruction of fish habitat. Lakes proposed for use as mine tailings ponds: Since the introduction of Schedule Two of mining effluent regulations under the Fisheries Act, in 2002, 16 lakes have been proposed for reclassification as tailings dumps. Four of the 16 are already being used as dumps ? all in Newfoundland. Two of those are at the Duck Pond Mine and the other two are older mines due to be brought under Schedule Two retroactively. Only one of the 16 ? Kemess North in B.C. ? has been turned down. Eight are to be decided in the coming year. B.C.: * Kemess North - Duncan Lake - REJECTED. * Kutcho Creek - Andrea Creek. * Ruby Creek - Ruby Creek watershed. * Prosperity - Fish Lake. * Red Chris. * Mount Milligan. Manitoba: * Bucko Lake. Newfoundland and Labrador: * Duck Pond Mine - Trout Pond and Gill's Brook. * Carol Mine - Wabush Lake. * Wabush Mine - Flora Lake. * Long Harbour - Sandy Pond. Northwest Territories: * Winter Lake. Nunavut: * Doris North Project - Tail Lake. * Meadowbank - Second Portage Lake. * High Lake. Under the Fisheries Act, it's illegal to put harmful substances into fish-bearing waters. But, under a little-known subsection known as Schedule Two of the mining effluent regulations, federal bureaucrats can redefine lakes as "tailings impoundment areas." That means mining companies don't need to b