From suzannedk at gmail.com  Fri May  1 01:01:24 2009
From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:01:24 +0200
Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Clinton=92s_Mideast_Pirouette?=
In-Reply-To: <771272690.4696531241113670522.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
References: <1540204518.4541101241045838874.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
	<771272690.4696531241113670522.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <dce6f8b40905010001u229b555aw390c90fcd628a8f@mail.gmail.com>

The sparring will be for PR not real change.    The Israeli Lobby knows
that.  Cheney knows that. Netanyahu, Clinton, Biden, Clintin know that.
Should Obama get too close to changing the present power structure in Israel
he might be assassinated, making the publicly avowed Zionist, President.
The reality of an US president is not that powerful.  He comes into a set up
matrix of power.  Think JFK, his brother and Lincoln.


Suzanne                              suzannedk at gmail.com

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Sid Shniad <shniad at sfu.ca> wrote:

>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27iht-edcohen.html
>
>
>
> New York Times
>
>   April 27, 2009
>
>
>
> Op-Ed Columnist
>
>
>
> Clinton?s Mideast Pirouette
>
>
>
> By Roger Cohen
>
>
>
> The sparring between the United States and Israel has begun, and that?s a
> good thing. Israel?s interests are not served by an uncritical American
> administration. The Jewish state emerged less secure and less loved from
> Washington?s post-9/11 Israel-can-do-no-wrong policy.
>
>
>
> The criticism of the center-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin
> Netanyahu has come from an unlikely source: Secretary of State Hillary
> Clinton. She?s transitioned with aplomb from the calculation of her
> interests that she made as a senator from New York to a cool assessment of
> U.S. interests. These do not always coincide with Israel?s.
>
>
>
> I hear that Clinton was shocked by what she saw on her visit last month to
> the West Bank. This is not surprising. The transition from Israel?s
> first-world hustle-bustle to the donkeys, carts and idle people beyond the
> separation wall is brutal. If Clinton cares about one thing, it?s human
> suffering.
>
>
>
> In fact, you don?t so much drive into the Palestinian territories these
> days as sink into them. Everything, except the Jewish settlers? cars on
> fenced settlers-only highways, slows down. The buzz of business gives way to
> the clunking of hammers.
>
>
>
> The whole desolate West Bank scene is punctuated with garrison-like
> settlements on hilltops. If you?re looking for a primer on colonialism, this
> is not a bad place to start.
>
>
>
> Most Israelis never see this, unless they?re in the army. Clinton witnessed
> it. She was, I understand, troubled by the humiliation around her.
>
>
>
> Now, she has warned Netanyahu to get off ?the sidelines? with respect to
> Palestinian peace efforts. Remember that the Israeli prime minister and his
> right-wing Likud party have still not accepted even the theory of a
> two-state solution.
>
>
>
> In House testimony last week, Clinton said: ?For Israel to get the kind of
> strong support it is looking for vis-?-vis Iran, it can?t stay on the
> sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts. They go
> hand in hand.?
>
>
>
> That was a direct rebuke to comments from Netanyahu aides who told the
> Washington Post Israel would not move on peace talks until it sees the
> United States check Iran?s nuclear program and rising regional influence.
>
>
>
> Although I don?t agree with the forms of linkage being made by Netanyahu
> and Clinton between Iran and an Israeli-Palestinian peace ? the issue is not
> how to threaten Iran but how to bring it inside the tent ? I agree with both
> of them that a link exists. At Madrid, at Oslo and at Annapolis, over a
> 16-year span, attempts were made to advance peace while excluding Iran. That
> doesn?t work; it won?t work now.
>
>
>
> The trick is to usher Israel-Palestine peace efforts and the quest for a
> U.S.-Iran rapprochement along in parallel.
>
>
>
> That?s why it?s so important that Clinton told Netanyahu that he can?t slip
> away from working for peace ? and that means stopping settlements now ? by
> taking an Iran detour.
>
>
>
> Clinton also indicated an important shift on Hamas, which the State
> Department calls a terrorist group. While stressing that no funds would flow
> to Hamas ?or any entity controlled by it,? she argued for keeping American
> options open on a possible Palestinian unity government between the moderate
> Fatah and Hamas.
>
>
>
> So long as a unity government meets three conditions ? renounces violence,
> recognizes Israel?s right to exist and abides by past agreements ? the
> United States would be prepared to deal with it, including on $900 million
> in proposed aid, Clinton indicated. Washington does business with a Lebanese
> government in which Hezbollah controls 11 of 30 seats, although Hezbollah is
> also deemed a terrorist group.
>
>
>
> Such a changed U.S. policy makes a lot more sense than the previous one,
> which insisted on Hamas itself ? rather than any Palestinian unity
> government ? meeting the three conditions. No peace can be made by
> pretending Hamas does not exist, which is why advancing Palestinian unity
> must be a U.S. priority.
>
>
>
> This sensible shift will anger Israel, although it deals indirectly with
> Hamas through Egypt. Israel?s de jure stand on Hamas ? that it must
> recognize Israel before any talks begin ? is wildly at odds with Israel?s de
> facto methodology since 1948.
>
>
>
> So it?s a week in which I cheer Clinton, although her reference to
> ?crippling sanctions? against Iran if the proposed rapprochement fails was a
> mistake. Sanctions haven?t worked and won?t.
>
>
>
> Tehran will not come to the table if it sees Obama?s extended hand as just
> a deceptive prelude to ?crippling? measures. My advice to Tehran: watch what
> Obama says. He?s driving Iran policy.
>
>
>
> Obama?s doing it in a way that means the Israeli-American friction evident
> in Clinton?s remarks will be a theme of his first year in office. As Lee
> Hamilton, the president of the Woodrow Wilson Center, told me: ?Initiatives
> are underway that show the United States is going to have some major
> differences with Israel.?
>
>
>
> He also said Netanyahu is ?a little more flexible than maybe he?s given
> credit for.?
>
>
>
> Netanyahu as Begin the peacemaker? It?s not impossible. Nor is Obama to
> Tehran. Provided the president pushes on the two fronts at once.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 suzannedk at gmail.com  Fri May  1 01:17:08 2009
From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:17:08 +0200
Subject: [R-G] The Banality of Bush White House Evil
In-Reply-To: <388148636.4696671241113687276.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
References: <1208853054.4464381241036387573.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
	<388148636.4696671241113687276.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <dce6f8b40905010017v528cccc0l2c86968b839e72cd@mail.gmail.com>

All of the subsequent US power moves are based on the 'hyping' of the Iraqi
war.  Complete clarification of what was done to lead the whole world into
war is not a possibility.  The bloody shell game the world was duped with?
Not this year or next.  Empire is based on it.

Suzanne                                     suzannedk at gmail.com

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Sid Shniad <shniad at sfu.ca> wrote:

>
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opinion/26rich.html?th&emc=th
>
> New York
> Times
> April 25, 2009
>
>
>
> Op-Ed
>
>
>
> The Banality of Bush White House Evil
>
> "President Obama can talk all he wants about not looking back, but this
> grotesque past is bigger than even he is. It won't vanish into a memory
> hole
> any more than Andersonville, World War II internment camps or My Lai."
>
> By FRANK RICH
>
> WE don't like our evil to be banal. Ten years after Columbine, it only now
> may be sinking in that the psychopathic killers were not jock-hating dorks
> from a "Trench Coat Mafia," or, as ABC News maintained at the time, "part
> of
> a dark, underground national phenomenon known as the Gothic movement." In
> the new best seller "Columbine," the journalist Dave Cullen reaffirms that
> Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were instead ordinary American teenagers who
> worked at the local pizza joint, loved their parents and were popular among
> their classmates.
>
> On Tuesday, it will be five years since Americans first confronted the
> photographs from Abu Ghraib on "60 Minutes II." Here, too, we want to cling
> to myths that quarantine the evil. If our country committed torture, surely
> it did so to prevent Armageddon, in a patriotic ticking-time-bomb scenario
> out of "24." If anyone deserves blame, it was only those identified by
> President Bush as "a few American troops who dishonored our country and
> disregarded our values": promiscuous, sinister-looking lowlifes like
> Lynddie
> England, Charles Graner and the other grunts who were held accountable
> while
> the top command got a pass.
>
> We've learned much, much more about America and torture in the past five
> years. But as Mark Danner recently wrote in The New York Review of Books,
> for all the revelations, one essential fact remains unchanged: "By no later
> than the summer of 2004, the American people had before them the basic
> narrative of how the elected and appointed officials of their government
> decided to torture prisoners and how they went about it." When the Obama
> administration said it declassified four new torture memos 10 days ago in
> part because their contents were already largely public, it was right.
>
> Yet we still shrink from the hardest truths and the bigger picture: that
> torture was a premeditated policy approved at our government's highest
> levels; that it was carried out in scenarios that had no resemblance to
> "24";
> that psychologists and physicians were enlisted as collaborators in
> inflicting pain; and that, in the assessment of reliable sources like the
> F.B.I. director Robert Mueller, it did not help disrupt any terrorist
> attacks.
>
> The newly released Justice Department memos, like those before them, were
> not written by barely schooled misfits like England and Graner. John Yoo,
> Steven Bradbury and Jay Bybee graduated from the likes of Harvard, Yale,
> Stanford, Michigan and Brigham Young. They have passed through white-shoe
> law firms like Covington & Burling, and Sidley Austin.
>
> Judge Bybee's r?sum? tells us that he has four children and is both a
> Cubmaster for the Boy Scouts and a youth baseball and basketball coach. He
> currently occupies a tenured seat on the United States Court of Appeals. As
> an assistant attorney general, he was the author of the Aug. 1, 2002, memo
> endorsing in lengthy, prurient detail interrogation "techniques" like
> "facial slap (insult slap)" and "insects placed in a confinement box."
>
> He proposed using 10 such techniques "in some sort of escalating fashion,
> culminating with the waterboard, though not necessarily ending with this
> technique." Waterboarding, the near-drowning favored by Pol Pot and the
> Spanish Inquisition, was prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes
> trials after World War II. But Bybee concluded that it "does not, in our
> view, inflict 'severe pain or suffering.' "
>
> Still, it's not Bybee's perverted lawyering and pornographic amorality that
> make his memo worthy of special attention. It merits a closer look because
> it actually does add something new - and, even after all we've heard,
> something shocking - to the five-year-old torture narrative. When placed in
> full context, it's the kind of smoking gun that might free us from the
> myths
> and denial that prevent us from reckoning with this ugly chapter in our
> history.
>
> Bybee's memo was aimed at one particular detainee, Abu Zubaydah, who had
> been captured some four months earlier, in late March 2002. Zubaydah is
> portrayed in the memo (as he was publicly by Bush after his capture) as one
> of the top men in Al Qaeda. But by August this had been proven false. As
> Ron
> Suskind reported in his book "The One Percent Doctrine," Zubaydah was
> identified soon after his capture as a logistics guy, who, in the words of
> the F.B.I.'s top-ranking Qaeda analyst at the time, Dan Coleman, served as
> the terrorist group's flight booker and "greeter," like "Joe Louis in the
> lobby of Caesar's Palace." Zubaydah "knew very little about real
> operations,
> or strategy." He showed clinical symptoms of schizophrenia.
>
> By the time Bybee wrote his memo, Zubaydah had been questioned by the
> F.B.I.
> and C.I.A. for months and had given what limited information he had. His
> most valuable contribution was to finger Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as the 9/11
> mastermind. But, as Jane Mayer wrote in her book "The Dark Side," even that
> contribution may have been old news: according to the 9/11 commission, the
> C.I.A. had already learned about Mohammed during the summer of 2001. In any
> event, as one of Zubaydah's own F.B.I. questioners, Ali Soufan, wrote in a
> Times Op-Ed article last Thursday, traditional interrogation methods had
> worked. Yet Bybee's memo purported that an "increased pressure phase" was
> required to force Zubaydah to talk.
>
> As soon as Bybee gave the green light, torture followed: Zubaydah was
> waterboarded at least 83 times in August 2002, according to another of the
> newly released memos. Unsurprisingly, it appears that no significant
> intelligence was gained by torturing this mentally ill Qaeda functionary.
> So
> why the overkill? Bybee's memo invoked a ticking time bomb: "There is
> currently a level of 'chatter' equal to that which preceded the September
> 11
> attacks."
>
> We don't know if there was such unusual "chatter" then, but it's unlikely
> Zubaydah could have added information if there were. Perhaps some new facts
> may yet emerge if Dick Cheney succeeds in his unexpected and welcome
> crusade
> to declassify documents that he says will exonerate administration
> interrogation policies. Meanwhile, we do have evidence for an alternative
> explanation of what motivated Bybee to write his memo that August, thanks
> to
> the comprehensive Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainees
> released last week.
>
> The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist
> assigned to interrogations in Guant?namo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army
> investigators of another White House imperative: "A large part of the time
> we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and
> we were not being successful." As higher-ups got more "frustrated" at the
> inability to prove this connection, the major said, "there was more and
> more
> pressure to resort to measures" that might produce that intelligence.
>
> In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda
> attack
> on America but the Bush administration's ticking timetable for selling a
> war
> in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the
> 2002 midterm elections. Bybee's memo was written the week after the
> then-secret (and subsequently leaked) "Downing Street memo," in which the
> head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House
> was so determined to go to war in Iraq that "the intelligence and facts
> were
> being fixed around the policy." A month after Bybee's memo, on Sept. 8,
> 2002, Cheney would make his infamous appearance on "Meet the Press," hyping
> both Saddam's W.M.D.s and the "number of contacts over the years" between
> Al
> Qaeda and Iraq. If only 9/11 could somehow be pinned on Iraq, the case for
> war would be a slamdunk.
>
> But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it.
> Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus "intelligence"
> from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the
> waterboarding.
>
> Last week Bush-Cheney defenders, true to form, dismissed the Senate Armed
> Services Committee report as "partisan." But as the committee chairman,
> Carl
> Levin, told me, the report received unanimous support from its members -
> John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman included.
>
> Levin also emphasized the report's accounts of military lawyers who
> dissented from White House doctrine - only to be disregarded. The Bush
> administration was "driven," Levin said. By what? "They'd say it was to get
> more information. But they were desperate to find a link between Al Qaeda
> and Iraq."
>
> Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our
> government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also
> must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere,
> if criminally misguided, desire to "protect" us but also to promote an
> unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from "another 9/11,"
> torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that
> fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do
> with Al Qaeda. The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which
> flows much of the Bush White House's illegality.
>
> Levin suggests - and I agree - that as additional fact-finding plays out,
> it's
> time for the Justice Department to enlist a panel of two or three
> apolitical
> outsiders, perhaps retired federal judges, "to review the mass of material"
> we already have. The fundamental truth is there, as it long has been. The
> panel can recommend a legal path that will insure accountability for this
> wholesale betrayal of American values.
>
> President Obama can talk all he wants about not looking back, but this
> grotesque past is bigger than even he is. It won't vanish into a memory
> hole
> any more than Andersonville, World War II internment camps or My Lai. The
> White House, Congress and politicians of both parties should get out of the
> way. We don't need another commission. We don't need any Capitol Hill witch
> hunts. What we must have are fair trials that at long last uphold and
> reclaim our nation's commitment to the rule of law.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Fri May  1 05:53:57 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 20:53:57 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] A Struggle of Paradigms
Message-ID: <49FAE2D5.9080201@ashisuto.co.jp>


by John Michael Greer

The Archdruid Report (April 22 2009)

Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society


Perhaps the most fascinating factor shaping today's debates about the
future of industrial society, and certainly among the most frustrating,
is the rapidity with which any such debate plunges into territory
outside the reach of rational argument. Watch a conversation about the
subject, and nearly always one of two things will happen: either the
participants will find they share basic assumptions in common, and will
proceed to build a conversation on that firm ground, or their
assumptions will differ and they'll spend the rest of the conversation
talking past one another.

Any number of examples could be cited, but the one that comes to mind
just now is the way that communications break down over the subject of
environmental limits. It's no exaggeration to say that either you
believe in limits or you don't. If you do, it seems glaringly obvious
that modern industrial civilization, which depends on ever-increasing
exploitation of finite and nonrenewable resources, is in deep trouble,
and the only viable options are those that jettison the fantasy of
perpetual economic growth and aim at a controlled descent to a level of
energy and resource use per capita that can be sustained over the long run.

If you don't believe in limits, by contrast, such notions are the height
of folly. Since, according to this way of thinking, progress can by
definition overcome any limit nature might impose on human beings, it
seems glaringly obvious that modern industrial civilization needs to
push progress into overdrive so that it can find and deploy the
innovations that will get us past today's problems and launch our
species onward toward its glorious future, whatever that happens to be.

Readers of this blog will have little trouble guessing the side of this
division on which I can be found. As a student of ecology, I've learned
that environmental limits play a dominant role in shaping the destiny of
every species, ours included; as a student of history, I've reviewed the
fate of any number of civilizations that believed themselves to be
destiny's darlings, and proceeded to pave the road to collapse with
their own ecological mistakes. From my perspective, the insistence that
limits don't apply to us is as good a case study as one might wish of
that useful Greek word hubris, otherwise defined as the overweening
pride of the doomed. Still, the fact that these things seem so
self-evident to me makes it all the more intriguing that they are
anything but self-evident to most people in the industrial world today.

This same territory was mapped out the year I was born, from a different
perspective, by Thomas Kuhn, whose famous book The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions (1996) is as influential as it is rarely read.
Kuhn was among the first historians of science to put the popular image
of scientific progress to the test of history, and find it wanting. In
place of the notion that science advances toward objective truth by the
steady accumulation of proven facts - a notion that continues to shape
histories of science written for popular consumption - he showed that
scientific beliefs are profoundly shaped by social and cultural forces,
and that the relation between scientific theory and the facts on the
ground is a great deal more complex than conventional ideas allow.

Kuhn's take on things has been misstated often enough that it probably
needs a summary here. During a period of what he calls "normal science",
scientists model their work on a paradigm. This isn't some sort of vague
worldview, in the sense too often given to the word recently; rather,
it's a specific example of science at work, an investigation by an
exemplary scientist and the successful and popular theory resulting from
that research. In bacteriology, for example, Louis Pasteur's research
program in the 1870s and 1880s, which led to the first successful
artificial vaccines, became the paradigm that later researchers
followed; good bacteriological research - in Kuhn's terms, normal
science - was research that followed Pasteur's lead, worked at
fine-tuning his theories, and asked the same kinds of questions about
the same kinds of phenomena that he asked and answered.

Sooner or later, though, a mismatch opens up between the paradigm and
the facts on the ground; the research methods drawn from the paradigm
stop yielding good answers, and the paradigmatic theory no longer allows
for successful prediction of phenomena. Scientists respond by making the
theory more elaborate, the way that Ptolemy's earth-centered cosmology
had to be padded out with epicycle after epicycle to make it fit the
vagaries of planetary motion. Crisis comes when the theory becomes so
cumbersome that even its stoutest believers come to realize that
something is irreducibly wrong, or when data emerges that no reworking
of the paradigmatic theory can explain. Sooner or later the crisis
resolves when a researcher propounds a new theory that makes sense of
the confusion. That theory, and the research program that created it,
then becomes the new paradigm in the field.

So far, so good. Kuhn pointed out, though, that while the new paradigm
solves questions the old one could not, the reverse is often true as
well: the old paradigm does things the new paradigm cannot. (Sailors who
navigate by the stars still use Ptolemaic astronomy, for example,
because one of the questions it answers elegantly - what does the
movement of the heavens look like from Earth? - is awkward to work out
using the Copernican system.) It's standard practice for the new
paradigm to include the value judgment that the questions the new
paradigm answers are the ones that matter, and the ones the old paradigm
does better don't count. Nor is this judgment pure propaganda; since the
questions the new paradigm answers are generally the ones that
researchers have been wrestling with for decades or centuries, they look
more important than details that have been comfortably settled since
time out of mind. They may also be more important, in every meaningful
sense, if they allow practical problems to be solved that the old
paradigm left insoluble.

Yet the result of that value judgment, Kuhn argued, is the false
impression that science progresses, replacing relatively false beliefs
with relatively more true ones, and thus gradually advances on the
truth. He argued that different paradigms are not attempts to answer the
same questions, differing in their level of accuracy, but attempts to
answer entirely different questions - or, to put it another way, they
are models that highlight different features of a complex reality, and
cannot be reduced to one another. Thus, for example, Ptolemaic astronomy
isn't wrong, just useful for different purposes than Copernican
astronomy. (From the standpoint of relativity theory, please note, this
is quite correct: since there are no fixed points in the cosmos, only
frames of reference, it's as meaningful to take an earth-centered frame
of reference and calculate the movements of the planets from there as it
is to take a sun-centered frame of reference and do the same thing.)

All these same considerations sprawl outside the limits of the sciences
to define the rise and fall of paradigms in the entire range of human
social phenomena. This brings us back around to the irreconcilable
differences that introduced this post, for the difference between the
believers and the disbelievers in limits is, at root, a difference in
paradigms. Those who believe that modern industrial society is destined
for, or even capable of, unlimited economic expansion have drawn their
paradigm from the industrial revolution and its three-century aftermath,
with James Watt and his steam engine playing roughly the same role that
Louis Pasteur played in the old paradigm of bacteriology, say, or Isaac
Newton still plays in some aspects of physics. Like any other paradigm,
the industrial revolution defines certain questions and issues as
important, and dismisses others from serious consideration.

This is where the problems arise, because a solid case can be made - and
this blog has tried in various ways to make it - that some of the
questions dismissed from consideration by the "normal culture" of
industrial expansion are among those our species most needs to face just
now, as the depletion of fossil fuel reserves and the soaring costs of
environmental damage become central facts of our contemporary
experience. The industrial paradigm can only interpret running out of
one resource as a call to begin exploiting some even richer one. If
there is no richer one, and even the poorer ones are rapidly being
depleted as well, what then? From within the industrial paradigm, that
question cannot even be formulated; the assumption that there is always
some new and better resource to be had is hardwired into the ways of
thinking that the industrial paradigm makes inevitable.

Thus a change of paradigms is necessary. The belief in limits discussed
earlier in this post derives from a different model of this kind - the
model of ecology, which is still sorting out its historical vision and
has not yet quite found its paradigmatic theory, researcher, and
discovery. (Rachel Carson, Aldo Leopold, and Charles Darwin are among
the current contenders.) From within this paradigm, the models that
provide the most insight into our contemporary situation are those found
in nonhuman nature - specifically, the cycles of increase, overshoot,
and dieoff which afflict so many other species that rely on outside
forces to control their numbers. Unless we take that model and its
implications into account, the ecological paradigm suggests, some of the
most important factors shaping our future are completely out of sight.

The change from one paradigm to another, however, is not an overnight
thing. Kuhn points out that in the sciences, it usually has to wait
until most of the older generation of scientists, who have been trained
in the old paradigm, have been removed from the debate by old age and
death. The same thing is too often true in other fields. Thus it's
uncomfortably likely that even as the industrial paradigm fails to
explain an increasingly challenging world, a great many people will
cling to the faith that progress will bail us out. Meanwhile, those of
us who have made the Copernican leap to a universe in which human beings
are no longer central will have to accomplish what we can on the smaller
scales available to us.

_____

?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 (2006) and The Long Descent: A User's
Guide to the End of the Industrial Age (2008). He lives in Ashland, Oregon.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/04/struggle-of-paradigms.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 May  1 08:21:09 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 07:21:09 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Behind the Afghan propaganda
Message-ID: <BC663875-E5B5-48C5-9BAE-FAB282BE8CF5@shaw.ca>

BOOK REVIEW
Behind the Afghan propaganda
Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story by Paul Fitzgerald and  
Elizabeth Gould
Reviewed by Anthony Fenton

[...]

http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE02Df01.html


From fentona at shaw.ca  Fri May  1 11:34:32 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 10:34:32 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Al Jaz: Obama's Afghanistan mission
Message-ID: <839FCC94-6A34-48CE-B2EB-A84CB2A594DA@shaw.ca>

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PupXTUn9Mo&feature=related

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dr4to5T04w&feature=related

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/empire/2009/04/2009430131311544246.html

Obama's Afghanistan mission

In order to tackle the foreign policy challenges he inherited from  
George Bush US president Barack Obama has announced a new strategy.

He intends to re-deploy 17,000 troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, in an  
attempt to replicate the success of the surge in troop numbers in Iraq.

The stated goal is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in  
Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The US hopes to encourage Afghans to take a more active role in the  
military and policing of the country, whilst simultaneously sending  
more civilian aid and "soft power", similar policies to those used in  
Iraq.

Empire examines the motives behind this policy and its chances of  
success. The task ahead is not easy.

Warlords and Taliban leaders control most of the country outside of  
Kabul and the whole mission will cost tens of billions of dollars that  
the US can no longer afford.

In the meantime, the battle for Afghan hearts and minds is being lost,  
every time a civilian dies in a US strike.

This problem is also spilling over into America?s most unstable ally,  
Pakistan. With non-existent borders, government no-go areas, and a  
large percentage of the population that disapproves of US policy.

Marwan Bishara and guests ask if the United States has learnt lessons  
from its operations in Iraq.

From fentona at shaw.ca  Fri May  1 12:41:54 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:41:54 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Kabul's New Elite
Message-ID: <A57EA768-5EC5-4C33-95C7-EF2AB4DF5883@shaw.ca>

http://counterpunch.org/patrick05012009.html

Weekend Edition
May 1 - 3, 2009
Living High on the West's Largesse
Kabul's New Elite

By PATRICK COCKBURN

Kabul.

Vast sums of money are being lavished by Western aid agencies on their  
own officials in Afghanistan at a time when extreme poverty is driving  
young Afghans to fight for the Taliban. The going rate paid by the  
Taliban for an attack on a police checkpoint in the west of the  
country is $4, but foreign consultants in Kabul, who are paid out of  
overseas aids budgets, can command salaries of $250,000 to $500,000 a  
year.

The high expenditure on paying, protecting and accommodating Western  
aid officials in palatial style helps to explain why Afghanistan ranks  
174th out of 178th on a UN ranking of countries' wealth. This is  
despite a vigorous international aid effort with the US alone spending  
$31bn since 2002 up to the end of last year.

The high degree of wastage of aid money in Afghanistan has long been  
an open secret. In 2006, Jean Mazurelle, the then country director of  
the World Bank, calculated that between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of  
aid was "badly spent". "The wastage of aid is sky-high," he said.  
"There is real looting going on, mainly by private enterprises. It is  
a scandal."

The dysfunctional reputation of the US aid effort in Afghanistan is  
politically crucial because Barack Obama, with strong support from  
Gordon Brown, has promised that a "civilian surge" of non-military  
experts will be sent to Afghanistan to strengthen its government and  
turn the tide against the Taliban. These would number up to 600,  
including agronomists, economists and legal experts, though Washington  
admitted this week that it was having difficulty recruiting enough  
people of the right calibre.

Whole districts of Kabul have already been taken over or rebuilt to  
accommodate Westerners working for aid agencies or embassies. "I have  
just rented out this building for $30,000 a month to an aid  
organisation," said Torialai Bahadery, the director of Property  
Consulting Afghanistan, which specialises in renting to foreigners.  
"It was so expensive because it has 24 rooms with en-suite bathrooms  
as well as armoured doors and bullet-proof windows," he explained,  
pointing to a picture of a cavernous mansion.

Though 77 per cent of Afghans lack access to clean water, Mr Bahadery  
said that aid agencies and the foreign contractors who work for them  
insist that every bedroom should have an en-suite bathroom and this  
often doubles the cost of accommodation.

In addition to the expensive housing the expatriates in Kabul are  
invariably protected by high-priced security companies and each house  
is converted into a fortress. The freedom of movement of foreigners is  
very limited. "I am not even allowed to go into Kabul's best hotel,"  
complained one woman working for a foreign government aid  
organisation. She added that to travel to a part of Afghanistan deemed  
wholly free of Taliban by Afghans, she had to go by helicopter and  
then be taken to where she wanted to go in an armoured vehicle.

There have been numerous attacks on foreigners in Kabul and suicide  
bombings have been effective from the Taliban's point of view in  
driving almost all expatriates into well-defended compounds where  
living conditions may be luxurious but which are as confining as any  
prison. This means that many foreigners sent to Afghanistan to help  
rebuild the country and the state machinery seldom meet Afghans aside  
from their drivers and a few Afghans with whom they work.

"Risk avoidance is crippling the international aid effort," said one  
aid expert in Kabul. "If governments are so worried about risk then  
they really should not be sending people here and having them work  
under such restricted conditions."

The effectiveness of foreign advisers and experts in Iraq is often  
further reduced by the very short time they stay in the country. "Many  
people move on after six months," said one expatriate who did not want  
to be named. "In addition some embassy employees receive two weeks off  
work for every six weeks they are in the country, on top of their  
usual holidays."

Some officials working for non-governmental organisations in  
Afghanistan are themselves troubled by the amount of money which  
foreign government officials and their aid agencies spend on staff  
compared to the poverty of the Afghan government.

"I was in Badakhshan province in northern Afghanistan which has a  
population of 830,000, most of whom depend on farming," said Matt  
Waldman, the head of policy and advocacy for Oxfam in Kabul. "The  
entire budget of the local department of agriculture, irrigation and  
livestock, which is extremely important for farmers in Badakhshan, is  
just $40,000. This would be the pay of an expatriate consultant in  
Kabul for a few months."

Mr Waldman, the author of several highly-detailed papers on the  
failures of aid in Afghanistan, says that a lot of money is put in at  
the top in Afghanistan but it is siphoned off before it reaches  
ordinary Afghans at he bottom. He agrees that the problems faced are  
horrendous in a country which was always poor and has been ruined by  
30 years of war. Some 42 per cent of Afghanistan's 25 million  
inhabitants live on less than a dollar a day and life expectancy is  
only 45 years. Overall literacy rate is just 34 per cent and 18 per  
cent for women.

But much of the aid money goes to foreign companies who then  
subcontract as many as five times with each subcontractor in turn  
looking for between 10 per cent and 20 per cent or more profit before  
any work is done on the project. The biggest donor in Afghanistan is  
the US, whose overseas aid department USAID channels nearly half of  
its aid budget for Afghanistan to five large US contractors.

Examples cited in an Oxfam report include the building of a short road  
between Kabul city centre and the international airport in 2005 which,  
after the main US contractor had subcontracted it to an Afghan  
company, cost $2.4m a kilometre ? or four times the average cost of  
road construction in Afghanistan. Often aid is made conditional on  
spending it in the donor country.

Another consequence of the use of foreign contractors is that  
construction has failed to make the impact on unemployment among young  
Afghans which is crucial if the Taliban is to be defeated. In southern  
provinces such as Farah, Helmand, Uruzgan and Zabul, up to 70 per cent  
of Taliban fighters are non-ideological unemployed young men given a  
gun before each attack and paid a pittance according to a report by  
the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. By using these part-time  
fighters as cannon-fodder, the Taliban can keep down casualties among  
its own veteran fighters while inflicting losses on government forces.

Some simple and obvious ways of spending money to benefit Afghans have  
been neglected. Will Beharrell of the Turquoise Mountain charity,  
which is encouraging traditional Afghan crafts and reconstruction of  
part of the old city, says tangible and visible improvements are  
important. He said: "We went in for rubbish clearing because it is  
simple and provides employment. We brought the street level down by  
two metres in some places when we had cleared it away."

A striking feature of Kabul is that while the main roads are paved,  
the side streets are often no more than packed earth with high ridges,  
deep potholes and grey pools of dirty water. New roads have been built  
between the cities, such as Kabul and Kandahar, but these are often  
too dangerous to use because of mobile Taliban checkpoints where  
anybody connected to the central government is killed on the spot.

The international aid programme is particularly important in  
Afghanistan because the government has few other sources of revenue.  
Donations from foreign governments make up 90 per cent of public  
expenditure. Aid is far more important than in Iraq, where the  
government has oil revenues. In Afghanistan a policeman's monthly  
salary is only $70, which is not enough to live on without taking  
bribes.

Since the fall of the Taliban the Afghan government has been trying to  
run a country in which the physical infrastructure has been destroyed.  
Kabul is now getting electricity from Uzbekistan but 55 per cent of  
Afghans get no electricity at all and just one in 20 get power all  
day. Money can be distributed more swiftly by the US military but this  
may not undercut the political support of the Taliban to the degree  
expected.

Afghans themselves are unenthusiastic about President Obama's plan for  
more US military and civilian involvement in Iraq. And the failure of  
foreign aid to deliver a better life to Afghans also helps explain  
plummeting support for the Kabul government and its Western allies.  
Oxfam's Mr Waldman believes better-organised aid could still deliver  
the benefits Afghans hoped for when the Taliban were overthrown in  
2001, but he warns: "It is getting very late in the day to get things  
right."

Go figure: The West's spending in Afghanistan

$57 The foreign aid per capita to Afghanistan, compared with $580 per  
capita in the aftermath of the Bosnian conflict.

$250,000 Typical salary of foreign consultants in Afghanistan,  
including 35 per cent hardship allowance and 35 per cent danger money.  
Afghan civil servants typically receive less than $1,000 a year.

$22bn The shortfall in donations compared to the international  
community's estimate of Afghanistan's need ? around 48 per cent.

40 per cent Share of international aid budget returned to aid  
countries in corporate profit and consultant salaries ? more than $6bn  
since 2001.

$7m Daily aid spend in Afghanistan. The daily military spend by the US  
government is around $100m.

Patrick Cockburn is the author of 'The Occupation: War, resistance and  
daily life in Iraq', a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle  
Award for best non-fiction book of 2006. His new book 'Muqtada!  
Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia revival and the struggle for Iraq' is  
published by Scribner. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  1 12:52:52 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] The last great swine flu epidemic
In-Reply-To: <1243040647.4545221241046342225.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1739565662.214711241203972170.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




http://www.salon.com:80/env/feature/2009/04/28/1976_swine_flu/index.html 



Salon.com ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? April 28, 2009 



The last great swine flu epidemic 



"This virus will kill 1 million Americans," declared the U.S. in 1976. The panic then has a lot to teach us today. 



By Patrick Di Justo 



There is evidence there will be a major flu epidemic this coming fall. The indication is that we will see a return of the 1918 flu virus that is the most virulent form of the flu. In 1918 a half million Americans died. The projections are that this virus will kill one million Americans in 1976. 



-- F. David Matthews, secretary of health, education, and welfare (Feb., 1976) 



In January 1976, 19-year old U.S. Army Private David Lewis, stationed at Fort Dix, joined his platoon on a 50-mile hike through the New Jersey snow. Lewis didn't have to go; he was suffering from flu and had been confined to his quarters by his unit's medical officer. Thirteen miles into the hike, Lewis collapsed and died a short time later of pneumonia caused by influenza. Because Lewis was young, generally healthy and should not have succumbed to the common flu, his death set off a cascade of uncertainty that confused the scientists, panicked the government and eventually embittered a public made distrustful of authority by Vietnam and Watergate. 



This past Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano left open the possibility of a mass immunization program for the current outbreak of swine flu. If that happens, the Obama administration has a lot to learn from the debacle set in motion by Private Lewis' ill-fated hike. 



Lewis was a victim of swine flu, a form of influenza endemic to pig populations. Influenza is caused by a virus, a microorganism that is mostly dead and partially alive. The virus' genetic code, held inside a protein sheath, consists of several helices of RNA. The virus injects its RNA into a healthy cell, which causes the cell to stop its usual work and make more copies of the virus. RNA genes mutate easily; for this reason, each new flu season brings a slightly different form of the disease into the population. Most year-to-year mutations bring little change to the virus, but for some still unknown reason, influenza seems to undergo a significant genetic change every ten years or so. 



This major mutation results in a radically new strain of flu, one that races through a population because few people are immune to it. The dangerous influenza epidemics of 1938, 1947, 1957 (60,000 dead in the U.S.) and 1968 (the dreaded Hong Kong flu) fit this pattern. It was believed that swine flu, a particularly deadly form of the virus, had a 60-year mutation cycle that brought on worldwide pandemics, killing millions of people. Both the 10- and 60-year cycles were due to converge in the mid 1970s; Lewis' death in 1976 was thought to be the first instance of a new, incredibly lethal type of flu. 



Doctors from the Centers for Disease Control tested Private Lewis' blood, and determined that his immune system had developed antibodies to a strain of flu similar to the Spanish influenza of 1918. That particular strain of swine flu produced the worst human pandemic of the 20th century: 1 billion sick in every country of the world, at least 22 million dead in the space of a few months. If Lewis had been exposed to something like the 1918 flu virus, the world could be in for an extensive and lethal outbreak. CDC doctors, charged with protecting the U.S. from epidemics, began to worry. 



By the end of January, 155 soldiers at Fort Dix reported positive for swine flu antibodies. None of the soldiers' families or co-workers, however, had been exposed to the virus; all of the reported swine flu cases had been limited to the soldiers in Private Lewis' camp. The virus wasn't spreading. For some reason this information did not mollify the doctors, and on Feb. 14, 1976, the CDC issued a notice to all U.S. hospitals to be on the lookout for any cases of swine flu. 



By March, the normal end of flu season, worldwide cases of all types of flu had diminished, and not one case of swine flu had been reported outside of Fort Dix. For some reason this news did not placate the doctors either, and on March 13, 1976, the director of the CDC asked Congress for money to develop and test enough swine flu vaccine to immunize at least 80 percent of the population of the United States, believed to be the minimum needed to avoid an epidemic. 



1976 was the year of the U.S. Bicentennial. 1976 was a presidential election year. 1976 was two years after Watergate caused Nixon's resignation, and one year after the fall of Saigon. The U.S. government, both Republicans and Democrats, had never been held in such low esteem. Practically every elected official felt an overwhelming itch that patriotic year to do something to get the public thinking of them as good guys again. A swine flu pandemic was an opportunity on a plate. What better way to get into the good graces of the voters than to save them from a plague? 



Between March 13 and March 24, the U.S. government dealt with the perceived flu emergency at fever pitch. The vaccine request went from the CDC to the secretary of HEW (Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the forerunner of today's Department of Health and Human Services), and reached the president's desk in less than a week. On March 24, the day after he lost the North Carolina primary to Ronald Reagan, President Gerald Ford welcomed the top virologists in the nation to a meeting in the White House and asked them if the nation was facing a swine flu epidemic. Would mass vaccinations be necessary? The doctors all said yes. 



After the meeting, President Ford held a press conference with Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin, developers of the polio vaccine. The president heralded the impending flu plague and asked Congress for $135 million to investigate the development of a swine flu vaccine, with the goal of vaccinating the citizenry. This was probably the first time that most of the nation had heard of swine flu. 



Congress, with few exceptions, raced to support the bill. Knowing the Republican president would not, could not veto a bill he requested, the Democratically controlled House attached $1.8 billion dollars in welfare and environmental spending to the flu bill. President Ford signed the bill on April 15, 1976, and incorrectly remarked to the press that the Fort Dix swine flu was identical to the deadly 1918 variety. He announced the immunization program would begin in October. 



The scientists began to come to their senses. By July, they were pretty much agreed that a flu pandemic in 1976 would not lead to 1 million U.S. dead. The flu strain extracted from Private Lewis, they learned, was much less virulent that the 1918 strain, and modern medicine could handle an outbreak far better than the World War I doctors could. The World Health Organization ordered hospitals to keep a global lookout for swine flu, but it did not request mass immunization of the population. 



But the U.S. government was unstoppable. Congress began to pressure the drug companies to work faster toward development of a swine flu vaccine. The drug companies insisted that proper vaccine development required years of experimentation and clinical trials, and they were reluctant to develop and distribute an untested drug. The drug companies suggested that they could work faster if they were given immunity from lawsuits in the event something went wrong with the vaccine. Congress refused. The issue of legal liability remained at an impasse until Aug. 2, 1976. 



On that day, two members of the American Legion died of a strange respiratory disease they acquired at the Legion's convention in Philadelphia. Congress collectively freaked. Panicky news reports out of Philadelphia hinted that the deaths were the beginning of the Great Swine Flu Epidemic of 1976. On Aug. 3, Congress agreed to completely indemnify the drug companies against any and all lawsuits they might incur as a result of the distribution of swine flu vaccine. The drug companies got to work. 



On the same day, the CDC Disease Etiology Team sprang into action, and it had never performed better. On Aug. 5, the head of the CDC was able to testify before Congress and announce conclusively that the Legionnaires had died of a new disease, a type of pneumonia that was definitely not swine flu. When Congress was informed that the dreaded epidemic had not started, they canceled their indemnification agreement with the drug companies. The drug companies announced that they would immediately cease development of swine flu vaccines. They also began to hint that even if they were to be re-indemnified, they now wanted Congress to guarantee them reasonable profits from the development of the vaccines. 



President Ford went on television that night and delivered a speech to the nation, telling Americans that Congress will be to blame for your deaths when the flu season begins in October. Congress caved in, and on Aug. 15, President Ford signed the National Influenza Immunization Program (NIIP). This set as a goal the immunization of at least 80 percent of the U.S. population, indemnified the drug companies and left vague the government's power to limit the drug companies' profit. The drug companies got to work. 



By September, the swine flu scaffolding came crashing down. Pollsters reported that while 93 percent of the population had heard of swine flu and knew it could cause a million U.S. deaths, only 52 percent planned to get immunized. The press was claiming that Congress had not done a good job of educating the public. Congress members blamed the failure on the CDC. The CDC was busy looking into the deaths of the Legionnaires; while they were able to say that the Legionnaires had not died of swine flu, they were unable to pin down what exactly what had killed the men. The American Legion thought the whole thing was a Communist plot. Congressman John Murphy of Staten Island claimed the CDC was stalling on identifying the Legionnaire's disease to panic people into fearing swine flu. Murphy demanded an investigation into the CDC and the indemnification deal made with the drug companies. The heroic miracle that was supposed to overhaul the government's image was rendered futile before it had started. 



On Oct. 1, 1976, the immunization program began. By Oct. 11, approximately 40 million people had received swine flu immunizations, mostly through the new compressed air vaccination guns. That evening, in Pittsburgh, came the first blow to the immunization program: Three senior citizens died soon after receiving their swine flu shots. The media outcry, linking the deaths to the immunizations without any proof, was so loud it drew an on-air rebuke from CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite, who warned his colleagues of the dangers of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore, because of this") thinking. But it was too late. The government had long feared mass panic about swine flu -- now they feared mass panic about the swine flu vaccinations. 



The deaths in Pittsburgh, though proved not to be related to the vaccine, were a strong setback to the program. The death blow came a few weeks later when reports appeared of Guillain-Barr? syndrome, a paralyzing neuromuscular disorder, among some people who had received swine flu immunizations. The public refused to trust a government-operated health program that killed old people and crippled young people; as a result, less than 33 percent of the population had been immunized by the end of 1976. The National Influenza Immunization Program was effectively halted on Dec. 16. 



Gerald Ford's attempt to gain credit for keeping America safe was busted. He lost the presidential election to Jimmy Carter that November. The 1976 to 1977 flu season was the most flu-free since records had been kept; a condition that was apparently unrelated to the vaccination program. The Great Swine Flu Epidemic of 1976 never took place. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  1 12:59:49 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Is Pakistan collapsing? A father and a citizen speaks
In-Reply-To: <728102238.7561241128903078.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <143012365.217821241204389609.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>





http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/is-pakistan-collapsing-a-father-and-a-citizen-speaks/ 



Is Pakistan collapsing? A father and a citizen?speaks 



The Islamization project unleashed by the United States and implemented by the Pakistani military since 1979 had turned on its creators, snarling at the United States, devouring Pakistan and exposing its army for the megalomaniac but intensely incompetent institution that it is. 



by Ali Dayan Hasan 



At my daughter?s annual school parent?s day event in Lahore last month, the tension was palpable. Bewildered at the speed with which this innocuous annual event had transformed into a maximum security operation, anxious parents filed in their hundreds past security guards, metal detectors and bag searches into Theatre Number Two of the Alhamra Cultural Complex - a modernist structure that the citizens of Lahore would tell you proudly is amongst the largest public-funded exhibition and theatre complexes in Asia. They were there to see their children, none older than seven, perform the usual amalgam of tableaux on ?Peoples and Festivals of the World?, a smattering of Kathak ? a North Indian classical dance, a ?Chinese dance? performance and, of course, my daughter?s favorite ? a Disney-esque version of the Bangles hit ? ?Walk Like an Egyptian.? The event began, as always, with recitation from the Quran. Tense primary school teachers grappled with security issues and as I walked in; a very public stand-off between a security posse comprising teachers, local police and plain clothes personnel and a random man who was on the premises for ?no known reason? was underway. The man was eventually deemed harmless and let go but there was no parent who entered that hall without making note of the exits. Two hours later, as we filed out, I and virtually every relieved parent thought and said the same thing: ?One more year like the last one and next year there will be no Parents Day. Another month or two like the previous ones and there might be no school left open.? 



Since December 27, 2007 ? the dreadful winter?s day when streets across Pakistan fell silent in the aftermath of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistanis have understood and expressed in varying degrees, or disagreed in desperate denial, that the Islamization project unleashed by the United States and implemented by the Pakistani military since 1979 had turned on its creators, snarling at the United States, devouring Pakistan and exposing its army for the megalomaniac but intensely incompetent institution that it is. And the narrative of impending disaster, brutal dispossession and disembodied lives in exile for stateless citizens harking back pathetically to a lost life, hitherto the preserve of Palestinians and Cubans, Afghans, Somalis and the ethnic mosaic of the Balkans, beckons to Pakistanis as well. One could argue that Pakistanis are scared of a future comprising daily doses of floggings, beheadings, daisy cutters and drones. They might be too. But no one has had time to think that far ahead. The truth is more prosaic: After all, if your children cannot go to school, the future has ceased to be. And when societies cannot have a future, they die. 



Pakistan is facing an existential crisis at multiple levels. But is it on the brink of a Taliban takeover, the fear and anxiety notwithstanding? 



The short answer is that the Taliban have already taken over large parts of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) bordering Afghanistan. They have imposed their authority in Swat and adjoining areas through summary executions - including beheadings - of state officials and political opponents, public whippings, and large-scale intimidation of the population. Girls? schools have been shut down, women are not allowed to leave their homes unless escorted by male family members, polio immunization programs have been halted, and nongovernmental organizations have been expelled. Music and film have been banned and stores trading in them have been destroyed. All men have been required to grow beards. All of this 100 miles or less from Islamabad. 



And of course, class, sectarian and ethnic fault lines run throughout Pakistan and the Punjab itself which militants are exploiting. 



In Southern and Central Punjab, a militant fault line has been historically nurtured and exploited by the Pakistani army to create cannon fodder for its jihadist enterprise in Kashmir and later, to help buttress the Taliban in creating ?strategic depth? in Afghanistan. The process began in earnest in the 1980s when the ISI played midwife to the birth of the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), a Sunni militant group that represented primarily a class challenge to the Shia feudal elite in the Central Punjab town of Jhang. A similar pattern of radicalization and recruitment provided cadres to the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba for operations in Kashmir. The presence of the state is less intrusive and less effective in Southern Punjab and Northern Sindh than it is in urban Pakistan proper. 



Similarly, Karachi, the country?s largest metropolis comprising about ten per cent of the population may be overwhelmingly anti-Taliban but it is also the largest Pashtun city in the world and hence from within that community and through other Islamist sympathizers, there is considerable room for mayhem. This room for mayhem becomes enhanced when you consider that the Muttaheda Qaumi Movement (MQM), the city?s principal political force is a product of ethno-fascist political mobilization and may feel inspired to de-Talibanize Karachi through a policy that may well closely resemble an attempt at the ethnic cleansing of the Pashtun from the port city. 



Certainly, the Taliban and the Pakistan army?s assorted other militant proxies, now acting in a loose coalition, sense an unprecedented historical opportunity to enhance their influence across the country. A country-wide network of militants provides their ambitions with some teeth as well. Meanwhile, Pakistan?s overwhelmingly right-wing media, presided over by an array of right-wing talk show hosts, many of them known to be ISI plants from the 1980s, continue to deify the Taliban and to present terrorism as a function of the state?s failure to reach a compact with fellow Pakistanis rather than as the existential threat it represents to the state. US drone attacks on Pakistan have exacerbated deep-rooted anti-Americanism and personalized it as the perceived victims of? American imperialism? are no longer just Palestinians but Pakistanis themselves. 



So where does Pakistan go from here? 



The dangers outlined above, though serious, present only half the picture. For the Pakistani state, intrusive or not, effective or not, is alive and well in much of Punjab and Sindh. 



And seen in that context, the Taliban?s physical proximity to Islamabad is misleading. The Taliban presence is more of an immediate crisis for the NWFP and for the prospect of the state exercising anything resembling sovereign authority in the province than it is to the rest of Pakistan, particularly the Punjab - the heartland of the country. The Taliban have social, cultural, political and historical ingress in the NWFP but central and northern Punjab, some thirty percent of the population, is obsessed with the ?rule of law? and constitutionalism as witnessed in the Lawyer?s movement to restore deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. The Swat Taliban affiliate, Sufi Mohammad, caused outrage in much of Punjab when he proclaimed that he did not recognize the country?s constitution, its Supreme Court or democracy.? It is one thing for women to be shut indoors in the NWFP and quite another for the same thing to happen in the urban, industrialized swathe running from Islamabad to Lahore. At the other end of Pakistan, in Karachi, the MQM is spouting venom about the Taliban?s ?tribal Sharia.? Rural Sindh and the adjoining parts of Southern Punjab remain under the near total political sway of the cult of Bhutto, the current unpopularity of President Asif Zardari notwithstanding. 



Given that the Pashtun edition of Talibanization has reached its optimal geographical limits, any Taliban ingress in Punjab and Sindh can only be effected through local interlocutors whose social, political and military capacity to achieve that end remains severely limited to date. Hence, while the Taliban will find no dearth of sympathizers who will perpetrate terrorist attacks and suicide bombings for them, their ability to assume political and military control of the Punjab or of Sindh is virtually non-existent. Much can and is going wrong at the same time as the Taliban expansion. But each element has to be seen for what it is and not be lumped together under the rubric of ?Talibanization.? And we have to differentiate between Talibanization and its knock-on effects. 



Which is not to say that the Punjab or Sindh for that matter, will rise up in arms against the Taliban. The Taliban will continue to wage a terror campaign in mainland Pakistan and people - particularly in the Punjab - will react by trying to appease and placate them. But there are very clear cultural, political and social limits to that appeasement. Mainland Pakistan may move towards the right (indeed it has) and engage in further overt displays of conservatism and piety. Is growing a beard and covering your head too high a price to pay for ensuring the safety of your children? Is it preferable to send your seven-year-old daughter to school covered in a chador than to not send her to school at all? Is a Parents Day with girls reciting only the Quran a better option than living with the fear that your child may return from school in a body bag?? The process of Islamization will not be pretty- indeed it was not in the 1980s either when the US funded it and encouraged it through a brutal dictatorship. But the process is likely to halt, in all likelihood, well short of Talibanization as seen in Afghanistan or the NWFP for that matter. 



Meanwhile, relations between the US and Pakistan have reached an impasse. Neither can dispense with the other, but equally, neither can deliver what the other actually wants. Pakistan?s army has neither the power nor the will to destroy the Taliban nor is it convinced that to do so is in its institutional and strategic interest. Has the Pakistan army swapped a policy of ?gaining strategic depth? in Afghanistan for one which seeks strategic depth in the NWFP? 



While the world grapples with this question, Pakistan?s civilian governments - provincial and federal ? are effectively left with no choice but to transact bad peace deals because the military simply refuses to fight. What does any government do if its security policy implementing agency (the army) refuses to implement? 



If the world is serious about confronting Talibanization, it must engage with what it cannot undo - ? the Pakistani army?s national security paradigm - which continues to remain India-centric and by default, Taliban-tolerant. Until the international community, including India, come to terms and deal with this in a meaningful manner, Pakistan and the world will remain hostage to Talibanization and its knock-on effects. 



Ali Dayan Hasan is the Senior South Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch

From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  1 12:59:06 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Dahr Jamail: The Horrible Truth
In-Reply-To: <451685545.215121241204026968.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <287516313.217481241204346241.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




http://www.truthout.org/042409A 

t r u t h o u t??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?April 24, 2009 

"... The Horrible Truth" 

Many Americans who voted for Barack Obama last November continue to 
believe he will do the right thing in Iraq. The reality is that, unless forced 

to do so from below, there will be none of the promised "change" in 
US foreign policy. 



by Dahr Jamail 



The US occupation of Iraq, which has become the full responsibility of 
President Barack Obama, is once again a bloodbath. Not that it had ceased to 
be violent, brutal and chaotic, for not one day has passed since the US 
invasion of Iraq was launched that hasn't found several Iraqis being 
senselessly slaughtered. But rather than talking about three Iraqis being 
killed today, or two dozen, we are again talking about several dozen, and 
over 100 wounded, as we are seeing recently. Each of these Iraqis have been 
killed as a direct result of the US occupation of Iraq - their blood 
splattered on the hands of President Obama, who, during a visit to Baghdad's 
airport on April 7, praised the US military for their "extraordinary 
achievement" in Iraq. 

?? ?On April 23, over 73 Iraqis were killed in two separate suicide attacks. 
One bomber detonated his explosives in central Baghdad as a group of 
policemen were distributing relief supplies to Iraqis who had been driven 
from their homes during the US-fomented sectarian bloodshed of 2006 to 
mid-2007. Police said that at least 50 people were wounded; at least five 
children and one woman were among the dead. 

?? ?A second major suicide bombing occurred that day as well, near 
Muqdadiya, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. The bomber targeted Iranian 
pilgrims who were in a restaurant, killing at least 45 and wounding over 60. 
The Shiite pilgrims were visiting Shia religious sites in Iraq. 

?? ?The bombings reek of al-Qaeda in Iraq - whose operations were brought to 
a standstill thanks to both the Iraqi resistance and the al-Sahwa 
(US-created Sunni militia comprised mostly of former resistance fighters, 
who were largely abandoned by the US military and are now being attacked by 
the Iraqi government). The Sahwa have been abandoning their security posts 
in protest at having not been paid by the Iraqi government for their work, 
as well as in protest of the ongoing targeting of their leaders by the 
government. Prime Minister Maliki perceives the Sahwa as a political threat 
to the existence of his government, so has taken it upon himself to 
undermine their existence at every turn, as he has from the beginning. 

?? ?The recent spasms of horrendous violence in Iraq are a direct result of 
the US abandonment of the Sahwa, and the US reluctance to stop Maliki from 
his ongoing policies to disenfranchise the group. The Sahwa were able to 
find al-Qaeda when the US military could not. Now that they are ceasing 
their security operations across an increasing portion of Iraq, naturally, 
the ability of al-Qaeda to conduct their operations increases. 

?? ?Meanwhile, we have the pathetic propaganda from the impotent Maliki 
government in Baghdad. On the same day of the aforementioned bloodletting, 
just after the second bombing, Iraqi state television announced that Abu 
Omar al-Baghdadi, the purported leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, an 
al-Qaeda-linked group, was captured in eastern Baghdad. Security experts 
have previously speculated that al-Baghdadi was a character invented by some 
extremist groups rather than a real person and the US military does not 
believe there was ever a single al-Qaeda leader with that name. 

?? ?There will be more attacks like this. They have less to do with the 
approaching June deadline of US troops to withdraw from cities in Iraq, 
(aside from Mosul, and any others the US military feels it should not 
withdraw from), and more to do with the Sahwa being hung out to dry by both 
the US military and the Iraqi government. 

?? ?My cynicism is due to the fact that the Maliki government is not ceasing 
its attacks on the Sahwa, nor is there any indication the US government will 
force them to do so. 

?? ?Neither the US military nor the Iraqi military has proven itself capable 
of finding al-Qaeda, nor of ceasing the attacks. In fact, Agence 
France-Presse reported on April 22 that the US military is, in fact, 
continuing to lead 'Iraqi-led' operations. The report reads: 

??"The [US and Iraqi] troops assembled by torchlight at Camp Falcon for a 
mission to the farming village of Owessat, which American and Iraq forces 
believe is being used as a staging ground for bombings in and around the 
capital. As with nearly every operation in Iraq these days, the Americans 
insisted that the Iraqis were in charge, leading the fight against Al-Qaeda 
and other armed groups with US forces cast in a supporting role. But the 
scene at Camp Falcon told a different story: six years after the invasion 
that toppled Saddam Hussein, the Americans not only vastly outnumbered the 
Iraqis, but they were giving orders and providing vital logistical support. 
Under a security pact signed in November, Iraqi forces are to assume full 
responsibility for security as US forces withdraw from cities and towns by 
June 30 and from the country as a whole by the end of 2011. Iraqi and US 
leaders and commanders have repeatedly said that Iraq's 560,000 police and 
260,000 soldiers will be able to maintain security as the Americans pull 
back and have vowed to adhere to the timeline of the security plan. But on 
the Owessat operation this month, 600 US troops backed by helicopters were 
joined by a group of 40 Iraqi soldiers who, over the course of the 21-hour 
raid, repeatedly took their cues from the Americans." 

?? ?Many Americans who voted for Barack Obama last November continue to 
believe he will do the right thing in Iraq. The reality is that, unless 
forced to do so from below, there will be none of the promised "change" in 
US foreign policy. Those on the receiving end of US policy in the Middle 
East, Iraq in particular, know this better than most Americans. 

?? ?In April 2004, when I was in Fallujah during the first major US military 
assault on that city, I spoke with Maki al-Nazzal, who was managing a small, 
makeshift emergency clinic. We spoke while dozens of women and children, 
most shot by US military snipers, were carried into the clinic. 

?? ?"For all my life, I believed in American democracy," he told me with an 
exhausted voice. "For 47 years, I had accepted the illusion of Europe and 
the United States being good for the world, the carriers of democracy and 
freedom. Now, I see that it took me 47 years to wake up to the horrible 
truth. They are not here to bring anything like democracy or freedom." 

?? ?Maki, who is now a refugee in Amman, Jordan, continued, "Now I see it 
has all been lies. The Americans don't give a damn about democracy or human 
rights. They are worse than even Saddam." 

?? ?I asked him if he minded if I quoted him with his name. "What are they 
going to do to me that they haven't already done here," he replied.

From mstainsby at resist.ca  Fri May  1 13:10:12 2009
From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby)
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 13:10:12 -0600
Subject: [R-G] Updated Continental Maps: Tar Sands and Associated Pipelines
 & Climate model maps.
Message-ID: <49FB4914.2000203@resist.ca>

These maps show the proposed growth of the tar sands, according to 
announced and officially proposed mega project components of the 
gigaproject. Updated from the original maps put out on OilSandsTruth.org 
two years ago, the following maps were produced with the Indigenous 
Environmental Network [IEN-- Canadian Indigenous Tar Sands Campaign].

Recently while speaking on the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline cutting through 
the Rocky Mountains and about to enable tar sands oil super tanker 
traffic on British Columbia's still mainly pristine Central Coast, Jim 
Prentice (the Federal Minister for the Environment) said of future 
proposed developments:

?It is a destination that will see us at the forefront of the industries 
where we currently excel, oil, natural gas, pipelines, hydro electricity 
and the orderly development of the oil sands.? Prentice went on to say 
?We will not aggravate and already weakening economy in the name of 
environmental progress.?

What does that mean?

In the time since the last pipeline continental maps, one can see new 
proposed and expanded pipelines cutting this way and that across British 
Columbia, proposed to splice directly to California as well as reversing 
several lines to facilitate major tar sands super tanker traffic from 
Maine to Philadelphia and further along the Atlantic and into the Gulf 
of Mexico.

Wherever you are in North America there is probably a planned pipeline 
or refinery "just for you".

These maps do not include the dozens of refineries in Canada designed or 
planned to take tar sands mock oil; If the maps listed those it would be 
so busy as to be unreadable.

http://oilsandstruth.org/maps/updated

This following map demonstrates the most recently modeled version of 
what not engaging in proper response to climate change-- such as 
shutting down the disastrous tar sands gigaproject-- will lead to. The 
map lists flooding and temperature.

These projections have their sources cited on the map itself.

http://oilsandstruth.org/maps/climate


From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  1 13:08:29 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 12:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Vive la Revolution?
In-Reply-To: <18721064.32811241131505623.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <2146742968.220511241204909118.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090518/perelman 

Vive la Revolution? 

By Marc Perelman 

In April 1968 workers at a factory of Sud Aviation in Nantes, France, 
began a strike to protest the decision by the company to cut their hours 
and wages. A month later, they decided to lock themselves--and their 
boss--inside the plant. They were soon joined by leftist students, a 
turning point that transformed a series of youth protests into a 
nationwide social movement that nearly toppled the government of Charles 
de Gaulle. 

Four decades later, de Gaulle's heir, President Nicolas Sarkozy, is 
facing massive street demonstrations, a rash of "boss-nappings" and the 
resurgence of the far left. To be sure, no new French revolution is in 
sight. But Sarkozy, whose popularity has eroded sharply since his 
election in May 2007, has warned of France's "eruptive" nature and is 
careful to remind his fellow citizens constantly that the main culprits 
of the economic meltdown are Wall Street, greedy bosses and tax 
havens--not him. 

His concern is not so much the two massive one-day demonstrations, in 
January and March, against the crisis. Or that for the first time since 
World War II, all major trade unions will march together instead of 
separately during the May 1 Labor Day celebration. Rather, for someone 
who won the presidency two years ago on a law-and-order platform, the 
resurgence of radical actions is far more unsettling. On March 12, the 
CEO of Sony France was held by workers in a plant that was about to 
close; he was released the next day after agreeing to pay more generous 
severance packages. Since then, employees of a 3M pharmaceutical factory 
held an executive overnight after layoffs were announced for nearly half 
of them. In addition, three British executives in a Scapa Group 
adhesive-tape plant; the bosses at Faure et Machet, a printer plant that 
lost its contract with Hewlett-Packard; and two managers at the US car 
equipment plant Molex have been "sequestered," according to the 
authorities--"withheld" in trade-union parlance. At the US-owned 
Caterpillar plant near Grenoble, workers protesting a plan to sack more 
than 700 of them blocked the entrance for four days, until they were 
granted a meeting at the Ministry of the Economy. 

Most of those actions have targeted local executives who have little say 
on the global strategy of the large companies they work for. The only 
instance of a highflying executive being forced to face the wrath of his 
underlings was the time luxury-brand magnate Fran?ois-Henri Pinault's 
car was briefly surrounded by salesclerks angry about layoffs in his 
stores, an incident captured by TV cameras. 

Sarkozy has strongly criticized such actions as unlawful, although the 
authorities have refrained from prosecuting the perpetrators. The reason 
is simple: at least half the French public supports or understands these 
tactics, according to the polls. But whereas holding executives, 
invading facilities and violent scuffles between workers and the police 
were routine from the late '60s to the mid-'70s, today's rerun is far 
more limited--in scope and in meaning. 

"In the '70s, those movements were backed by a political offer on the 
left that included a program of nationalizations, planned economy and 
self-management, i.e., a break with market economy," says Guy Groux, an 
expert on labor relations at the Center for Political Research here in 
Paris. "Today there is no political alternative; workers are just trying 
to bargain over layoffs and severance pay." 

Antoine Lyon-Caen, a professor of comparative labor law at the 
University of Nanterre, the birthplace of the student movement in 1968, 
sees the sequestrations as a telling metaphor. "It's a way to oblige the 
employers to actually face their employees, to look them in the eyes. 
There is no escape," Lyon-Caen said. "It so happens that capitalism is 
on the run right now, and so it is a way to oblige its representatives 
to see the reality it has wrought." 

The outcry over the excesses of financial capitalism has even reached 
private-sector employees, including at the managerial level. "This is 
new," according to Jean-Fran?ois Bolzinger, a senior official with the 
General Confederation of Labor (CGT), a leading union that was for 
decades affiliated with the Communist Party. "We are seeing management 
people inform us about what companies intend to do, especially when it 
comes to moving factories abroad. Just imagine, those guys are talking 
to the CGT!" 

Jean Kaspar, who started working as an electrical mechanic in a 
potassium mine at 14, vividly remembers the couple of hours, back in the 
1970s, during which he and his comrades locked the factory boss in his 
office "because he did not want to discuss." Kaspar, who eventually 
became the head of the leading French Democratic Labor Confederation 
(CFDT) trade union in the late '80s, notes that the current 
"withholdings" are undertaken mostly by low-skilled and aging workers in 
areas suffering from high unemployment--in other words, people for whom 
finding another job is unlikely and going on strike not much of an 
option because they are stretched financially. 

For Kaspar, who heads a consulting firm specializing in labor issues, 
the incidents illustrate the breakdown of social dialogue in many 
companies. "Worker reps should be associated early on with the 
decision-making process rather than asked to swallow orders and try to 
mediate their consequences," he said. Moreover, the contrast between the 
litany of layoff plans and the daily revelations about inflated bonuses 
and golden parachutes has added fuel to the fire. So has Sarkozy's 
refusal to budge on some of the free-market policies he put in place. 
The most symbolic is the so-called fiscal shield, which limits the level 
of taxation to 50 percent. Sarkozy has for now brushed off calls, even 
from his own camp, to repeal or amend this measure, which clearly favors 
the wealthy. 

Sarkozy counters that the crisis is a US import and that France's 
vaunted social safety net has helped the country fare better than its 
neighbors. And he knows that unlike the massive strikes and 
demonstrations in 1995, 2003 and 2006, which were focused on specific 
issues (retirements, job programs), the current street mobilizations 
have no clear objective and thus pose no threat. He is pinning his hopes 
on a quick end to the recession and on major trade unions channeling the 
discontent in an orderly way. 

"Sarkozy is playing for time and is betting that people will get tired 
of the social protests, just like Maggie Thatcher did in the 1980s," 
says Isabelle Sommier, a sociology professor at the Sorbonne. "But this 
is a very risky strategy, because we are sitting on a volcano." 

In addition to factory shutdowns and sequestrations, a movement of 
university professors and researchers protesting a reform of their 
status has unfolded since February, with little input from trade unions. 
As a result their actions have taken decidedly original forms. For 
instance, a group of professors from a Paris university are giving 
"classes" to subway passengers. In front of the Paris City Hall, 
academics, students and sympathizers have been walking in circles 
nonstop since March 24 in what they call the "infinite circle of the 
obstinate." They are taking a page from Italian filmmaker and leftist 
militant Nanni Moretti, who in 2002 organized girotondi around official 
buildings to call for justice and denounce the government of Silvio 
Berlusconi. Professors and students have also held multiple marathon 
public readings of La Princesse de Cl?ves, a classic of 
seventeenth-century romantic literature written by Madame de Lafayette, 
a tongue-in-cheek response to Sarkozy, who last year tartly remarked 
that he found reading the book a drag and thought it a waste of time for 
those preparing to enter government service. 

Another original form of action are the "wild picnics" staged by 
activists, who enter a supermarket, unfold a table and begin eating from 
the shelves until they are ousted by security personnel. Their goal is 
to protest the high food prices asked by large distribution chains. The 
association behind those monthly happenings is close to the New 
Anticapitalist Party (NPA), launched a few months ago by a smallish 
Trotskyite group in an effort to become the standard-bearer of the far 
left. Riding the coattails of its young and charismatic leader, Olivier 
Besancenot, who splits his time between his political activities and 
working as a postman, the NPA is having a field day, thanks to Lehman 
Brothers. CEOs have indeed become fair game for most of the French, 
including Sarkozy, who routinely rails against "gangster thugs." 

Ingrid Hayes, a member of the NPA's executive committee, explains that 
its model of social upheaval is the recent general strike over wages in 
Guadeloupe and Martinique, in the French Antilles, which ended up 
forcing the government to compromise with workers. "We know we can't 
replicate it here for now, but this is what we are seeking," Hayes says. 

Besancenot spends a lot of time in factories across the country lending 
support to strikers and never misses an opportunity to remind his 
audiences that he himself was on a picket line for several weeks to 
oppose the privatization of the national postal service. This has struck 
a nerve among unions, which see factories as their turf. Fran?ois 
Ch?r?que, head of the CFDT, lashed out at the NPA, claiming the party 
was behaving a "little bit like vultures." NPA officials counter that 
they are not encroaching on union territory but merely offering bolder 
responses to the situation. 

In broader terms, the party views the social unrest as a 
quintessentially political moment that deserves a political 
response--not merely an isolated strike or a street demonstration. 
"Trade unions are not opening perspectives, and this is not good enough 
for the more combative sectors," explains Hayes. "We are mindful of the 
independence of the unions, but we reject the notion of a waterproof 
separation between the political and the social arenas." 

Besancenot, who has replaced the fading Communist Party as the leading 
force of the "left of the left," is also benefiting from the constant 
squabbling and weak leadership of the Socialist Party. In this regard, 
he sees eye to eye with Sarkozy, who is following a strategy that bears 
a striking resemblance to the cynical game played by his predecessor 
Fran?ois Mitterrand twenty-five years ago. At that time, the Socialist 
president quietly encouraged the emergence of Jean-Marie Le Pen's 
far-right National Front in an effort to weaken his conservative 
enemies. Just as Mitterrand warned against the rebirth of the dark 
forces of fascism but profited from it politically, Sarkozy is 
denouncing the looming danger of a violent ultraleft as a way to cripple 
the Socialists. He has, for instance, associated Besancenot with the 
violent incidents that surrounded the NATO summit in early April. His 
government also dismantled a group of leftist anarchists who, they 
alleged, perpetrated a series of crude explosive attacks on the overhead 
power cables of railway lines. To be sure, the postman-politician 
fiercely rants against Sarkozy. But at the same time, Besancenot 
relishes the publicity. "We won't complain that we are polarizing the 
political situation," says Hayes. 

While the NPA is quick to dampen any expectation that it will crack the 
10 percent ceiling for the first time in the June elections for the 
European Parliament (Besancenot received just above 4 percent in the 
2007 presidential poll), the party is obviously banking on the tense 
social climate to help its performance. While those elections are 
traditionally marked by low turnout, they can be a steppingstone. In the 
1984 European elections, Le Pen garnered almost 11 percent of the vote, 
the first time he had reached double digits. He would go on to match 
this performance in nearly all ensuing elections, reaching an apex in 
the presidential poll of 2002, when he obtained 17 percent and beat the 
Socialist candidate to reach the second round (where he was trounced by 
the Gaullist candidate, Jacques Chirac). Ironically, the aging far-right 
leader is leaving the political scene, bequeathing his nasty blend of 
nationalist and racist discourse to his daughter Marine. She has tried 
to tap into the social discontent by reviving the populist stances that 
enabled the National Front to seduce part of the lower middle class over 
the years. Some observers predict that the far right will actually end 
up gaining if violent acts multiply and intensify. In this case, Sarkozy 
certainly hopes to capture their votes as he did in 2007 and emulate de 
Gaulle, who was eventually able to turn the tide in 1968 by riding a 
wave of outrage over the paralysis of the country. 

Sarkozy might not like classic French literature, but he knows his 
contemporary history: it took another thirteen years after the May '68 
events before a Socialist became president. 

Marc Perelman, a freelance journalist based in Paris, was formerly the 
diplomatic correspondent of the Forward. more... 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  1 13:11:31 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 12:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Professor's comparison of Israelis to Nazis stirs furor
In-Reply-To: <1709820481.4697441241113775530.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <69440993.221701241205091733.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>





http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-professor30-2009apr30,0,7753995.story 



Los Angeles Times ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? April 29, 2009 



Professor's comparison of Israelis to Nazis stirs furor 



"You can criticize Israel; you can criticize the war in Gaza. But to compare what the Israelis are doing in defense of their citizens to what the Nazis did to the Jews is clearly anti-Semitism." 



? Abraham Foxman, national director, Anti-Defamation League 



By Duke Helfand? 



Controversy has erupted at UC Santa Barbara over a professor's decision to send his students an e-mail in which he compared graphic images of Jews in the Holocaust to pictures of Palestinians caught up in Israel's recent Gaza offensive. 



The e-mail by tenured sociology professor William I. Robinson has triggered a campus investigation and drawn accusations of anti-Semitism from two national Jewish groups, even as many students and faculty members have voiced support for him. 



Professor 



The uproar began in January when Robinson sent his message -- titled "parallel images of Nazis and Israelis" -- to the 80 students in his sociology of globalization class. 



The e-mail contained more than two dozen photographs of Jewish victims of the Nazis, including those of dead children, juxtaposed with nearly identical images from the Gaza Strip. It also included an article critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and a note from Robinson. 



"Gaza is Israel's Warsaw -- a vast concentration camp that confined and blockaded Palestinians," the professor wrote. "We are witness to a slow-motion process of genocide." 



Two Jewish students dropped the class, saying they felt intimidated by the professor's message. They contacted the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which advised them to file formal complaints with the university. 



In their letters, senior Rebecca Joseph and junior Tova Hausman accused Robinson of violating the campus' faculty code of conduct by disseminating personal, political material unrelated to his course. 



"I was shocked," said Joseph, 22. "He overstepped his boundaries as a professor. He has his own freedom of speech, but he doesn't have the freedom to send his students his own opinion that is so strong." 



Robinson, 50, who is Jewish, called the accusations and the campus investigation an attack on academic freedom. He said his former students, the Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League had all confused his criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism. 



"That's like saying if I condemn the U.S. government for the invasion of Iraq, I'm anti-American," he said. "It's the most absurd, baseless argument." 



Robinson said he regularly sends his students voluntary reading material about current events for the global affairs course, and that no one raised questions when he subsequently discussed his e-mail. 



"The whole nature of academic freedom is to introduce students to controversial material, to provoke students to think and make students uncomfortable," said Robinson, a UC Santa Barbara professor for nine years. 



As the dispute over his e-mail plays out, UC Santa Barbara has become the most recent U.S. university to confront campus unrest over issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 



In recent years, Jewish and Muslim groups have quarreled repeatedly at UC Irvine about the Holocaust and Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. Professors and students at Columbia University have also argued over issues of intimidation and academic freedom amid debates about the Middle East. 



In Robinson's case, reaction has been strong -- on both sides. 



Shortly after hearing from the two students in January, the Wiesenthal Center produced a YouTube? video titled ?"Jewish Students Under Siege from Professor at UC Santa Barbara." The clip shows one of Robinson's former students, her face obscured to protect her identity, reading from his e-mail. 



The head of the ADL's Santa Barbara region sent Robinson a letter in February calling on him to repudiate his statements about Israel. Last month, the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, in a meeting with faculty members at the campus, urged the university to conduct an investigation into Robinson. He was told that an inquiry was already underway. 



"You can criticize Israel; you can criticize the war in Gaza," Foxman said. "But to compare what the Israelis are doing in defense of their citizens to what the Nazis did to the Jews is clearly anti-Semitism." 



Robinson's supporters say the professor is being maligned for exercising his right to challenge his students to think critically about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 



Students on campus have formed a group, the Committee to Defend Academic Freedom at UCSB, which is chronicling the saga on its website . Letters of support also have arrived from academics across the country, including one from California Scholars for Academic Freedom, which says it represents 100 professors at 20 college campuses. The group argues that the allegations have been raised against Robinson to "silence criticism of Israeli policies and practices." 



Some UC Santa Barbara faculty members also are speaking up for Robinson. History professor Harold Marcuse, who attended the March meeting with the ADL's Foxman, said the pictures e-mailed by Robinson were "well within the bounds of appropriateness on campus. It's something I could have used in a course." 



Marcuse, who is Jewish and teaches about the Holocaust in his world history and German history classes, said he would not have injected his own views into such a message to students, but added: "I don't think Bill Robinson's e-mail is anti-Semitic in any way. I think criticism of Israel is OK." 



One UC Santa Barbara official has already looked into the allegations against Robinson, and a faculty committee is being formed to decide whether to forward the case to UC Santa Barbara Chancellor Henry Yang. A university spokesman declined to comment on the case. 



In the meantime, Robinson has hired an attorney, and the student committee supporting him has scheduled a May 14 campus forum on the matter. Joseph and Hausman, the students who filed the original complaints, said they plan to attend. So do Hausman's parents from Los Angeles and Rabbi Aron Hier, director of campus outreach for the Wiesenthal Center. 



"I just want to bring awareness," said Hausman, 20. "I want people to know that educators shouldn't be sending out something that is so disturbing." 



duke.helfand at latimes.com 



?> The Original Email at?Issue

From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  1 13:12:58 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 12:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Video - Caryl Churchill's play: "Seven Jewish Children"
In-Reply-To: <1372053480.4477651241038248711.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <2091464921.222221241205178477.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




Video -?Caryl Churchill's play: "Seven Jewish Children" 
? 
To view a reading of the play by actor Jennie Stoller, go to: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/video/2009/apr/25/seven-jewish-children-caryl-churchill 


?

From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  1 13:24:36 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 12:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Sadly,
 Israel is no longer democratic - Former Israeli Education Minister
 Shulamit Aloni
In-Reply-To: <1371767302.225341241205818371.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <69202229.225641241205876267.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1082174.html 

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? 01/05/2009 

Sadly, Israel is no longer democratic 

By Shulamit Aloni 

Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin and philosopher Asa Kasher, two respected men around here, published an article entitled: "A just war of a democratic state," (Haaretz, April 24, Hebrew). 

A remark about the first part: There are wars that are necessary for self-defense or to fight injustice and evil. But the expression "just" is problematic when speaking of war itself - which involves killing and destruction and leaves women, children and old people homeless, and sometimes even kills them. 

Our sages have said: "Don't be overly righteous." And there is absolutely no question that dropping cluster bombs in an area populated by civilians, as we did in the Second Lebanon War, does not testify to great righteousness. The same thing can be said of using phosphorus bombs against a civilian population. 

Apparently, according to the Yadlin and Kasher definition of justice, in order to eliminate terrorists it is just to destroy, kill, expel and starve a civilian population that has no connection to the acts of terror and no responsibility for them. Perhaps had they adopted a more decent and less arrogant approach they would have tried to explain the reasons for the fury and intensity that brought about the shocking killing and destruction, and even apologized for the fact that these exceeded any reasonable necessity. 

But after all, we are always right; moreover, these things were done by "the most moral army in the world," sent by the "democratic" Jewish state - and here is the meeting point of the two concepts in the title of Yadlin and Kasher's article. 

As for the army's morality, it would have been better had they remained silent and thereby been considered wise. This is because the statistics on the destruction and harm to civilians in the Gaza Strip are familiar to everyone, and not divorced from the oh-so-moral behavior of our army in the occupied territories. In the context of this behavior, for example, the army operates with great efficiency against farmers who demonstrate against the theft of their lands, even when the demonstrations are not violent. 

The long-term evidence of abuse by soldiers against civilians at the checkpoints - including repeated instances of expectant mothers who are forced to give birth in the middle of the road, surrounded by armed soldiers who laugh wickedly - is no secret either. Day after day, year after year, the most moral army in the world helps to steal lands, uproot trees, steal water, close roads - in the service of the righteous "Jewish and democratic" state and with its support. It's heartbreaking, but the State of Israel is no longer democratic. We are living in an ethnocracy under "Jewish and democratic" rule. 

In 1970 it was decided that in Israel religion and nationality are one and the same (that is why we are not listed in the Population Registry as Israelis, but as Jews). In 1992 it was determined in the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty that Israel is a "Jewish state." There is no mention in this law of the promise that appears in the state's formative document, the Declaration of Independence, to the effect that "The State of Israel will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race or sex." The Knesset ratified the law nonetheless. 

And so there is a "Jewish state" and no "equality of rights." Therefore some observers emphasize that the Jewish state is not "a state of all its citizens." Is there really a democracy that is not a state of all its citizens? After all, Jews living today in democratic countries enjoy the full rights of citizenship. 

Democracy exists in the State of Israel today only in the formal sense: There are parties and elections and a good judicial system. But there is also an omnipotent army that ignores legal decisions that restrict the theft of land owned and held by people who have been living under occupation for the past 42 years. And since 1992, as we mentioned, we also have the definition "Jewish state," which means an ethnocracy - the rule of an ethnic religious community that strictly determines the ethnic origin of its citizens according to maternal lineage. And as far as other religions are concerned, disrespect for them is already a tradition, since we have learned: "Only you are considered human beings, whereas the gentiles are like donkeys." 


From fentona at shaw.ca  Fri May  1 13:45:41 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 12:45:41 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Banning art,
	blaming the victim and rewarding Canadian war exporters
Message-ID: <C8711B3C-A0FD-40EE-AAB9-0014C0E26F6D@shaw.ca>

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2248/

Canadian Politics, Economy and Foreign Policy
Banning art, blaming the victim and rewarding Canadian war exporters

Richard Sanders | April 23rd 2009 | 2

Posters have been banned on two university campuses in Ottawa because  
they used a cartoon image depicting an Israeli AH-64 attack helicopter  
firing at a Palestinian child. The poster?s artwork, by Brazilian  
cartoonist Carlos Latuff, is based on reality. U.S.-made AH-64  
gunships were among the major weapons used by Israel during its recent  
bombardment of Gaza. More than 1,380 people, including some 430  
children, were killed in those attacks against densely populated  
civilian neighbourhoods.

This is a war crime.

But according to Carleton University?s administration, it is the  
artwork ? not the Israeli attacks ? that deserve condemnation. The  
posters, Carleton authorities say, may ?incite others to infringe  
rights protected in the Ontario Human Rights code? and are  
?insensitive to the norms of civil discourse in a free and democratic  
society.?

So, when students put up artwork depicting AH-64s targeting a  
Palestinian child, Carleton President Roseanne Runte said the posters  
?were deemed ? to incite hatred,? and university authorities  
threatened students with expulsion. But when 56 Carleton professors  
asked Runte to join them in condemning violations of human rights  
caused by Israel?s bombing of a Gazan university, she bluntly refused.

This is a double standard.

In a similar fashion, when Israel?s military aircraft launched  
indiscriminate attacks wounding 5,300 people (at least half of whom  
were women and children) and totally or partially destroyed 22,000  
housing units, 92 mosques and 29 schools, the Canadian government  
responded by condemning Palestinians as the source of this violence.

On January 12, in the midst of this onslaught, Canada stood up at the  
UN Human Rights Council in Geneva and voted against ?urgent  
international action? to halt Israel?s ?massive violations? of human  
rights. The sole dissenting vote came from Canada, whose spokesperson,  
Marius Grinius, said the UN statement ?used unnecessary, unhelpful and  
inflammatory language? and ?failed to clearly recognize that rocket  
fire on Israel had led to the current crisis.? Both the foreign  
affairs minister, Lawrence Cannon, and former newsman Peter Kent, now  
Canada?s minister of state for foreign affairs for the Americas, held  
Hamas responsible for the Gaza massacre. This is called blaming the  
victim.
Canada?s Military-Industrial Complex in Gaza

The plot thickens when we consider that at least fifty Canadian  
military industries manufacture key components embedded within AH-64  
helicopters and two other major U.S. weapons exported to Israel,  
namely F-15 and F-16 warplanes. And Canadian workers are now forced,  
through the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), to invest in many of the  
world?s largest war industries. For example, the CPP?s portfolio  
includes $100 million in investments in Boeing and Lockheed Martin,  
which manufacture the AH-64s, F-15s and F-16s.

Our government also helps finance some of this country?s most  
profitable war-related companies through Industry Canada ?investment?  
programs. A recent example of this largesse was announced the day  
after Canada?s shameful UN vote in Geneva. It was January 13, 2009.  
Israel?s military killed dozens of people in Gaza that day, including  
at least eleven children and three women. Tony Clement, Canada?s  
industry minister, and Christian Paradis, minister of public works and  
government services, were all smiles when they proudly unveiled a  
$52.3 million government ?investment? in CMC Electronics.

This ?investment? in ?cutting-edge R&D? is part of Industry Canada?s  
Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative. It is designed to help CMC  
create cockpit components that are ?easily customizable and adaptable  
to ? varied aircraft platforms.? ?Cutting-edge? is an apt metaphor.  
CMC supplies ?weapon delivery? and ?embedded combat training systems?  
for many of America?s most destructive war machines. But Canada?s  
supporting role in U.S. theatres of war was not one of our  
government?s talking points that day.

It never is.

Frontmen, like Paradis, prefer instead to speak glowingly of  
government ?investments? to ?ensure that Canada remains at the  
forefront of the aerospace and defence industry.?

This is called duplicity.

CMC has already supplied its so-called ?defence? technologies for such  
?varied aircraft platforms? as the aforementioned AH-64s, F-15s and  
F-16s that made mincemeat of Gaza civilians and their already  
devastated infrastructure.

Other ?cutting-edge? weapons equipped by CMC include the A-10  
?Warthog,? AC-130 ?Spectre,? AV-8B ?Harrier II,? E-2 ?Hawkeye,? EA-6B  
?Prowler,? F-14 ?Tomcat,? F/A-18 ?Hornet,? F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,  
HH-60 ?Pave Hawk,? MC-130 ?Combat Talon,? OH-58D ?Kiowa Warrior,? UH-1  
?Huey? and UH-60 ?Black Hawk.? All these weapons have been used to  
great effect in Iraq, where war has claimed over one million lives  
since 2003.

But CMC is but one among many hundreds of Canadian military exporters  
that equip U.S. weapons systems used in Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan and  
elsewhere. Unbeknownst to most Canadians, war manufacturers are  
scattered right across this country like razor blades concealed in a  
loaf of bread. These industries provide an incredibly diverse range of  
products, largely for export, and mostly to the U.S. While many  
produce high-tech machined parts or sophisticated electronics and  
software that are shipped stateside for assembly into major weapons,  
others churn out rounds of ammunition, machine guns, armoured  
vehicles, or air-to-ground missiles that fire phosphorous and anti- 
personnel cluster bombs.

If only this were publicly known, it would be a scandal.

A recent on-line report by the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade  
(COAT) details fifty Canadian companies supplying parts for the three  
U.S. military aircraft exported to Israel. In addition, COAT?s report  
also names over 140 Canadian military companies that are exporting  
directly to Israel. Many of these are among 540 military companies  
represented in Ottawa by an organization called the Canadian  
Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI).

According to its website, CADSI?s ?patriotic? mission ?has its roots  
in the creation of the Canadian chapter of the American Defense  
Preparedness Association.? Between 2006 and 2008, CADSI received  
donations totalling $192,000 from Canada?s Department of Foreign  
Affairs and International Trade for ?export marketing? and  
?international business development activities.?

This is called aiding and abetting war.

In 2004, CADSI organised a ?mission? to ?advance industrial  
partnerships between Canadian and Israeli companies.? Speakers  
included Canada?s minister of national defence, Israel?s ambassador to  
Canada and various high-level Israeli and Canadian government  
bureaucrats. CADSI then facilitated face-to-face ?Company One-on-Ones?  
between Canadian and Israeli military companies.

CADSI?s main work is to organize Canada?s largest international arms  
bazaar, called CANSEC, so hundreds of this country?s military  
exporters can showcase their wares. Browsing the exhibition this May  
in Ottawa will be thousands of government buyers and military users  
from Canada, the U.S. and around the globe.

This is a call to action. Let?s do something.

From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Fri May  1 15:40:19 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 06:40:19 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Fake faith and epic crimes
Message-ID: <49FB6C43.8080804@ashisuto.co.jp>


The Brussels War Crimes Tribunal and the newly established Blair War
Crimes Foundation are building a case for the former British prime
minister's prosecution

by John Pilger

New Statesman (April 02 2009)


These are extraordinary times. With the United States and Britain on the
verge of bankruptcy and committing to an endless colonial war, pressure
is building for their crimes to be prosecuted at a tribunal similar to
that which tried the Nazis at Nuremberg. This defined rapacious invasion
as "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war
crimes [sic] in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of
the whole". International law would be mere farce, said the chief US
chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, the Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson,
"if, in future, we do not apply its principles to ourselves".

That is now happening. Spain, Germany, Belgium, France and Britain have
long had "universal jurisdiction" statutes, which allow their national
courts to pursue and prosecute prima facie war criminals. What has
changed is an unspoken rule never to use international law against
"ourselves", or "our" allies or clients. In 1998, Spain, supported by
France, Switzerland and Belgium, indicted the Chilean dictator Augusto
Pinochet, client and executioner of the west, and sought his extradition
from Britain, where he happened to be at the time. Had he been sent for
trial, he almost certainly would have implicated at least one British
prime minister and two US presidents in crimes against humanity. The
then home secretary, Jack Straw, let him escape back to Chile.

The Pinochet case was the ignition. On 19 January, the George Washington
University law professor Jonathan Turley compared the status of George W
Bush with that of Pinochet. "Outside [the United States] there is no
longer the ambiguity about what to do about a war crime", he said. "So
if you try to travel, most people abroad are going to view you not as
'former president George Bush' [but] as a current war criminal". For
this reason, Bush's first defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who
demanded an invasion of Iraq in 2001 and personally approved torture
techniques for use in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, no longer travels.
Rumsfeld has twice been indicted for war crimes in Germany. On 26
January, the UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, said: "We
have clear evidence that Mr Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but
nevertheless he ordered torture".

The Spanish high court is currently investi?gating a former Israeli
defence minister and six other top Israeli officials for their role in
the killing of civilians, mostly children, in Gaza. Henry Kissinger, who
was largely responsible for bombing 600,000 peasants to death in
Cambodia in 1969-73, is wanted for questioning in France, Chile and
Argentina. Yet, on 8 February, as if demonstrating the continuity of
American power, President Barack Obama's national security adviser,
James Jones, said: "I take my daily orders from Dr Kissinger".

Like them, Tony Blair may soon be a fugitive. The International Criminal
Court, to which Britain is a signatory, has received a record number of
petitions relating to Blair's wars. Spain's celebrated judge Baltasar
Garzon, who indicted Pinochet and the leaders of the Argentinian
military junta, has called for George W Bush, Blair and the former
Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar to be prosecuted for the
invasion of Iraq - "one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in
recent human history - a devastating attack on the rule of law" that had
left the UN "in tatters". He said: "There is enough of an argument in
650,000 deaths for this investigation to start without delay".

This is not to say Blair is about to be collared and marched to The
Hague, where Serbs and Sudanese dictators are far more likely to face a
political court set up by the west. However, an international agenda is
forming and a process has begun which is as much about legitimacy as the
letter of the law, and a reminder from history that the powerful lose
wars and empires when legitimacy evaporates. This can happen quickly, as
in the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of apartheid South
Africa - the latter a spectre for apartheid Israel.

Today, the unreported "good news" is that a worldwide movement is
challenging the once-sacrosanct notion that imperial politicians can
destroy countless lives in the cause of an ancient piracy, often at a
remove in distance and culture, and retain their respectability and
immunity from justice. In his masterly Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, R L
Stevenson writes in the character of Jekyll: "Men have before hired
bravos to transact their crimes, while their own person and reputation
sat under shelter ... I could thus plod in the public eye with a load of
genial respectability, and, in a moment, like a schoolboy, strip off
these lendings and spring headlong into the sea of liberty. But for me,
in my impenetrable mantle, the safety was complete."

Blair, too, is safe - but for how long? He and his collaborators face a
new determination on the part of tenacious non-government bodies that
are amassing "an impressive documentary record as to criminal charges",
according to the international law authority Richard Falk. He cites the
World Tribunal on Iraq, held in Istanbul in 2005, which heard evidence
from 54 witnesses and published rigorous indictments against Blair, Bush
and others. At present, the Brussels War Crimes Tribunal and the newly
established Blair War Crimes Foundation are building a case for the
former prime minister's prosecution under the Nuremberg Principle and
the 1949 Geneva Convention. In a separate indictment, a former judge of
the New Zealand Supreme Court, E W Thomas, wrote: "My predisposition was
to believe that Mr Blair was deluded, but sincere in his belief. After
considerable reading and much reflection, however, my final conclusion
is that Mr Blair deliberately and repeatedly misled cabinet, the British
Labour Party and the people in a number of respects. It is not possible
to hold that he was simply deluded but sincere: a victim of his own
self-deception. His deception was deliberate."

Protected by the fake sinecure of Middle East envoy for the Quartet (the
US, EU, UN and Russia), Blair operates largely from a small fortress in
the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem, where he is an apologist for the
US in the Middle East and Israel, a difficult task following the
bloodbath in Gaza. To assist his mortgages, he recently received an
Israeli "peace prize" worth $1 million. He, too, is careful where he
travels; and it is instructive to watch how he now uses the media.
Having concentrated his post-Downing Street apologetics on a BBC series
of obsequious interviews with David Aaronovitch, Blair has all but
slipped from view in Britain, where polls have long exposed a remarkable
loathing for a former prime minister - a sentiment now shared by those
in the liberal media elite whose previous promotion of his "project" and
crimes is an embarrassment, and preferably forgotten.

On 8 February, Andrew Rawnsley, the Observer's former leading Blair fan,
declared that "this shameful period will not be so smoothly and simply
buried". He demanded, "Did Blair never ask what was going on?" This is
an excellent question made relevant with a slight word change: "Did the
Andrew Rawnsleys never ask what was going on?" In 2001, Rawnsley alerted
his readers to Saddam Hussein's "contribution to international
terrorism" and his "frightening appetite to possess weapons of mass
destruction". Both assertions were false and echoed official
Anglo-American propaganda. In 2003, when the destruction of Iraq was
launched, Rawnsley described it as a "point of principle" for Blair who,
he later wrote, was "fated to be right". He lamented, "Yes, too many
people died in the war. Too many people always die in war. War is nasty
and brutish, but at least this conflict was mercifully short."

In the subsequent six years, at least a million people have been killed.
According to the Red Cross, Iraq is now a country of widows and orphans.
Yes, war is nasty and brutish, but never for the Blairs and the Rawnsleys.

F?ar from the carping turncoats at home, Blair has lately found a safe
media harbour - in Australia, the original Murdochracy. His interviewers
exude an unction reminiscent of the promoters of the "mystical" Blair in
the Guardian of more than a decade ago, though they also bring to mind
Geoffrey Dawson, editor of the Times during the 1930s, who wrote of his
infamous grovelling to the Nazis: "I spend my nights taking out anything
which will hurt their susceptibilities and dropping in little things
which are intended to soothe them".

With his words as a citation, the finalists for the Geoffrey Dawson
Prize for Journalism (Antipodes) are announced. On 8 February, in an
interview on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Geraldine Doogue
described Blair as "a man who brought religion into power and is now
bringing power to religion". She asked him: "What would the perception
be that faith would bring towards a greater stability ... [sic]?"

A bemused and clearly delighted Blair was allowed to waffle about
"values". Doogue said to him that "it was the bifurcation about right
and wrong, that's what I thought the British found really hard [sic]",
to which Blair replied that "in relation to Iraq I tried every other
option [to invasion] there was". It was his classic lie, and it passed
unchallenged.

However, the clear winner of the Geoffrey Dawson Prize is Ginny Dougary
of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times. Dougary recently accompanied
Blair on what she described as his "James Bond-ish Gulfstream" where she
was privy to his "bionic energy levels". She wrote: "I ask him the
childlike question: does he want to save the world?" Blair replied,
well, more or less, aw shucks, yes. The murderous assault on Gaza, which
was under way during the interview, was mentioned in passing. "That is
war, I'm afraid", said Blair, "and war is horrible". No counter came
that Gaza was not a war, but a massacre by any measure. As for the
Palestinians, noted Dougary, it was Blair's task "to prepare them for
statehood". The Palestinians will be surprised to hear that. But enough
gravitas; her man "has the glow of the newly-in-love: in love with the
world and, for the most part, the feeling is reciprocated". The evidence
she offered for this absurdity was that "women from both sides of
politics have confessed to me to having the hots for him".

These are extraordinary times. Blair, a perpetrator of the epic crime of
the 21st century, shares a "prayer breakfast" with President Obama, the
yes-we-can man now launching more war.

"We pray", said Blair, "that in acting we do God's work and follow God's
will".

To decent people, such pronouncements about Blair's "faith" represent a
contortion of morality and intellect that is a profanation of the basic
teachings of Christianity. Those who aided and abetted his great crime
and now wish the rest of us to forget their part - or who, like Alastair
Campbell, offer their bloody notoriety for the vicarious pleasure of
some - might read the first indictment proposed by the Blair War Crimes
Foundation: "Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to
incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths,
four million refugees, countless maimings and traumas".

These are indeed extraordinary times.

www.johnpilger.com

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/war-crimes-blair-pilger-iraq


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 suzannedk at gmail.com  Fri May  1 15:57:45 2009
From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 23:57:45 +0200
Subject: [R-G] Professor's comparison of Israelis to Nazis stirs furor
In-Reply-To: <69440993.221701241205091733.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
References: <1709820481.4697441241113775530.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
	<69440993.221701241205091733.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <dce6f8b40905011457p59d49da8r28c289694bc9618f@mail.gmail.com>

Comparison

The comparison is apt.   The situation is worse that the Warsaw Ghetto.
Gaza is a symbol of what the world can expect when enough countries
acquiesce to being colonial arms of the United States World War Empire.



Suzanne
suzannedk at gmail.com







On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Sid Shniad <shniad at sfu.ca> wrote:




>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-professor30-2009apr30,0,7753995.story
>
>
>
> Los Angeles Times
>
>                                                                        April
> 29, 2009
>
>
>
> Professor's comparison of Israelis to Nazis stirs furor
>
>
>
> "You can criticize Israel; you can criticize the war in Gaza. But to
> compare what the Israelis are doing in defense of their citizens to what the
> Nazis did to the Jews is clearly anti-Semitism."
>
>
>
> ? Abraham Foxman, national director, Anti-Defamation League
>
>
>
> By Duke Helfand
>
>
>
> Controversy has erupted at UC Santa Barbara over a professor's decision to
> send his students an e-mail in which he compared graphic images of Jews in
> the Holocaust to pictures of Palestinians caught up in Israel's recent Gaza
> offensive.
>
>
>
> The e-mail by tenured sociology professor William I. Robinson has triggered
> a campus investigation and drawn accusations of anti-Semitism from two
> national Jewish groups, even as many students and faculty members have
> voiced support for him.
>
>
>
> Professor
>
>
>
> The uproar began in January when Robinson sent his message -- titled
> "parallel images of Nazis and Israelis" -- to the 80 students in his
> sociology of globalization class.
>
>
>
> The e-mail contained more than two dozen photographs of Jewish victims of
> the Nazis, including those of dead children, juxtaposed with nearly
> identical images from the Gaza Strip. It also included an article critical
> of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and a note from Robinson.
>
>
>
> "Gaza is Israel's Warsaw -- a vast concentration camp that confined and
> blockaded Palestinians," the professor wrote. "We are witness to a
> slow-motion process of genocide."
>
>
>
> Two Jewish students dropped the class, saying they felt intimidated by the
> professor's message. They contacted the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which
> advised them to file formal complaints with the university.
>
>
>
> In their letters, senior Rebecca Joseph and junior Tova Hausman accused
> Robinson of violating the campus' faculty code of conduct by disseminating
> personal, political material unrelated to his course.
>
>
>
> "I was shocked," said Joseph, 22. "He overstepped his boundaries as a
> professor. He has his own freedom of speech, but he doesn't have the freedom
> to send his students his own opinion that is so strong."
>
>
>
> Robinson, 50, who is Jewish, called the accusations and the campus
> investigation an attack on academic freedom. He said his former students,
> the Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League had all confused his
> criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism.
>
>
>
> "That's like saying if I condemn the U.S. government for the invasion of
> Iraq, I'm anti-American," he said. "It's the most absurd, baseless
> argument."
>
>
>
> Robinson said he regularly sends his students voluntary reading material
> about current events for the global affairs course, and that no one raised
> questions when he subsequently discussed his e-mail.
>
>
>
> "The whole nature of academic freedom is to introduce students to
> controversial material, to provoke students to think and make students
> uncomfortable," said Robinson, a UC Santa Barbara professor for nine years.
>
>
>
> As the dispute over his e-mail plays out, UC Santa Barbara has become the
> most recent U.S. university to confront campus unrest over issues related to
> the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
>
>
>
> In recent years, Jewish and Muslim groups have quarreled repeatedly at UC
> Irvine about the Holocaust and Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.
> Professors and students at Columbia University have also argued over issues
> of intimidation and academic freedom amid debates about the Middle East.
>
>
>
> In Robinson's case, reaction has been strong -- on both sides.
>
>
>
> Shortly after hearing from the two students in January, the Wiesenthal
> Center produced a YouTube  video titled  "Jewish Students Under Siege from
> Professor at UC Santa Barbara." The clip shows one of Robinson's former
> students, her face obscured to protect her identity, reading from his
> e-mail.
>
>
>
> The head of the ADL's Santa Barbara region sent Robinson a letter in
> February calling on him to repudiate his statements about Israel. Last
> month, the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, in a meeting with
> faculty members at the campus, urged the university to conduct an
> investigation into Robinson. He was told that an inquiry was already
> underway.
>
>
>
> "You can criticize Israel; you can criticize the war in Gaza," Foxman said.
> "But to compare what the Israelis are doing in defense of their citizens to
> what the Nazis did to the Jews is clearly anti-Semitism."
>
>
>
> Robinson's supporters say the professor is being maligned for exercising
> his right to challenge his students to think critically about the
> Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
>
>
>
> Students on campus have formed a group, the Committee to Defend Academic
> Freedom at UCSB, which is chronicling the saga on its website . Letters of
> support also have arrived from academics across the country, including one
> from California Scholars for Academic Freedom, which says it represents 100
> professors at 20 college campuses. The group argues that the allegations
> have been raised against Robinson to "silence criticism of Israeli policies
> and practices."
>
>
>
> Some UC Santa Barbara faculty members also are speaking up for Robinson.
> History professor Harold Marcuse, who attended the March meeting with the
> ADL's Foxman, said the pictures e-mailed by Robinson were "well within the
> bounds of appropriateness on campus. It's something I could have used in a
> course."
>
>
>
> Marcuse, who is Jewish and teaches about the Holocaust in his world history
> and German history classes, said he would not have injected his own views
> into such a message to students, but added: "I don't think Bill Robinson's
> e-mail is anti-Semitic in any way. I think criticism of Israel is OK."
>
>
>
> One UC Santa Barbara official has already looked into the allegations
> against Robinson, and a faculty committee is being formed to decide whether
> to forward the case to UC Santa Barbara Chancellor Henry Yang. A university
> spokesman declined to comment on the case.
>
>
>
> In the meantime, Robinson has hired an attorney, and the student committee
> supporting him has scheduled a May 14 campus forum on the matter. Joseph and
> Hausman, the students who filed the original complaints, said they plan to
> attend. So do Hausman's parents from Los Angeles and Rabbi Aron Hier,
> director of campus outreach for the Wiesenthal Center.
>
>
>
> "I just want to bring awareness," said Hausman, 20. "I want people to know
> that educators shouldn't be sending out something that is so disturbing."
>
>
>
> duke.helfand at latimes.com
>
>
>
> ?> The Original Email at Issue
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Fri May  1 16:01:18 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 15:01:18 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law
Message-ID: <26F98359-0E0B-4061-B17F-AE571E3BDD9E@shaw.ca>

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/04/30/cgy-bill-evolution-law-alberta-classes-teachers.html?ref=rss

Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law
Last Updated: Thursday, April 30, 2009 | 6:09 PM ET

A controversial Alberta bill will enshrine into law the rights of  
parents to pull their children out of classes discussing the topics of  
evolution and homosexuality.

The new rules, which would require schools to notify parents in  
advance of "subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion,  
sexuality or sexual orientation," is buried in a bill that extends  
human rights to homosexuals. Parents can ask for their child to be  
excluded from the discussion.

"This government supports a very, very fundamental right and that is  
parental rights with respect to education," said Premier Ed Stelmach.

Although Stelmach has confirmed the bill will give parents the  
authority to exclude their kids from classes if the topic of evolution  
comes up, Education Minister Dave Hancock said it won't change anything.

"With respect to values, religion and sex education have always been  
areas of concern for parents, and they've always been areas parents  
have had the right to be notified about and to exempt their students  
from," Hancock said.
Debate over Alberta's international image

Frank Bruseker, the head of the Alberta Teachers' Association, is  
meeting with Hancock on Monday to raise his concerns.

"If parents don't want that kind of education for their children they  
have a couple of options," Bruseker said. "One would be home schooling  
or private school. So for a public school to start excluding based on  
religious preference, I think is a mistake."

     'All they've done is make Alberta look like Northumberland and  
sound like Arkansas.'? Brian Mason, Alberta NDP leader

Bruseker said it would be difficult for teachers to avoid the topic of  
evolution in science or geography classes.

The proposed legislation has touched off a debate about just what kind  
of image Alberta's government is trying to create around the world.

NDP Leader Brian Mason likened the bill to Alberta recently using a  
photo of a British beach in an ad to promote the province.

"This government just spent $25 million of taxpayers money to give  
Alberta a new image. All they've done is make Alberta look like  
Northumberland and sound like Arkansas," Mason said.

The new legislation could be passed within a few weeks.

From fentona at shaw.ca  Fri May  1 16:16:04 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 15:16:04 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Occupying Hearts and Minds
Message-ID: <460E7732-12B7-4FF4-AD18-E57A83E77706@shaw.ca>

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/occupying-hearts-and-minds

Occupying Hearts and Minds

by Dahr Jamail
May 1st, 2009 | T r u t h o u t

One of the definitions of the word ?occupation? is: the action, state,  
or period of occupying or being occupied by military force. Throughout  
history, areas or countries occupied by military force have always  
resisted, and this resistance has caused the occupier to devise more  
suitable methods of subduing the population of the area being occupied.

The US military has sent shock troops, which also donned helmets and  
flak jackets - anthropologists, sociologists and social psychologists,  
with their own troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of  
2007, American scholars in these fields were embedding with the  
military in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a Pentagon program called  
Human Terrain System (HTS), which evolved shortly thereafter into a  
$40 million program that embedded four or five person groups of  
scholars in the aforementioned fields in all 26 US combat brigades  
that were busily occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.

Two years prior to this, the CIA had quietly started recruiting social  
scientists by advertising in academic journals, offering salaries of  
up to $400,000. The military?s goals for the HTS was to have them  
gather and disseminate information about Iraqi and Afghani cultures.  
These embedded scholars, contracted through companies like CACI  
International, work in the project that is described by CACI as  
?designed to improve the gathering, understanding, operational  
application, and sharing of local population knowledge? among combat  
teams.

This new form of psychological warfare is deeply disturbing.  
Throughout my five years of reporting on the occupation of Iraq, when  
I?ve asked Iraqis what they feel the most damaging aspect of the  
occupation is, I have been told that the occupation is ?shredding the  
fabric of Iraqi society and culture.?

Anthropology, in particular, has been referred to through history as  
the ?handmaiden of colonialism,? thus putting anthropologists, at  
least those with a moral conscience, on guard against anything that  
smells like exploitation or oppression of their subjects. Roberto  
Gonzalez, an associate professor of anthropology at San Jose State  
University and leading member of the Network of Concerned  
Anthropologists, told Time magazine that the militarization of  
anthropology will cause the field to become ?just another weapon ? not  
a tool for building bridges between peoples.? Anthropology has core  
professional ethics standards that require voluntary, informed consent  
from subjects, and that anthropologists do no harm. How likely do you  
think these will be adhered to by the flack-jacket-wearing, gun- 
toting, embedded anthropologists working directly with regimental  
combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan?

In an article titled ?When Anthropologists Become Counter-Insurgents,?  
published in September 2007, and co-authored with David Price, author  
of the book ?Anthropological Intelligence: The Deployment and Abuse of  
American Anthropology in the Second World War,? Gonzalez and Price  
wrote:

     ?Although proponents of this form of applied anthropology claim  
that culturally informed counter-insurgency work will save lives and  
win ?hearts and minds,? they have thus far not attempted to provide  
any evidence of this. Instead, there has been a flurry of non-critical  
newspaper accounts in publications including the Wall Street Journal  
and the Christian Science Monitor that portray these HTS  
anthropologists as heroically serving their nation without bothering  
to report on the ethical complications of this work. Missing are  
discussions of anthropologists? ethical responsibilities to disclose  
who they are and what they are doing, to gain informed consent, and to  
not harm those they study. Portraying counter-insurgency operations as  
social work is naive and historically inaccurate.

     ?In fact, David Kipp of the Foreign Military Studies Office at  
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas describes HTS teams as a ?CORDS for the 21st  
Century?-a reference to the Pentagon?s Vietnam-era Civil Operations  
and Revolutionary Development Support project. The most infamous  
product of the CORDS counter-insurgency effort was the Phoenix  
Program, in which CIA agents collected intelligence information used  
to ?neutralize? (read assassinate) suspected Viet Cong members.  
Between 1968 and 1972, more than 26,000 suspected Viet Cong were  
killed as a result, including many civilians.

     ?Kipp?s comparison of HTS and CORDS begs a series of ethical  
questions which have gone unanswered. If anthropologists on HTS teams  
interview Afghans or Iraqis about the intimate details of their lives,  
what is to prevent combat teams from using the same data to one day  
?neutralize? suspected insurgents? What would impede the transfer of  
data collected by social scientists to commanders planning offensive  
military campaigns? Where is the line that separates the professional  
anthropologist from the counter-insurgency technician? Although the  
answers to these questions are not clear, the history of anthropology  
should give us pause. During World War II and the Cold War, US  
military and intelligence agencies tended to use anthropologists? work  
to help accomplish immediate goals, and discarded all other  
information that was counter to their beliefs or institutional models.?

Adding credence to the points made by Price and Gonzalez is the fact  
that one of the top ten US defense contractors, Science Applications  
International Corporation, which has been operating in Iraq since the  
beginning of the occupation, describes anthropology in its job  
advertisements as a ?counter-insurgency related field.?

Marcus Griffin, an anthropology professor, while preparing to deploy  
to Iraq at part of an HTS team, boasted on his blog, ?I cut my hair in  
a high and tight style and look like a drill sergeant ? I shot very  
well with the M9 and M4 last week at the range ? Shooting well is  
important if you are a soldier regardless of whether or not your job  
requires you to carry a weapon.?

Nevertheless, proponents of the program attempt to dismiss any ethical  
dilemma encountered by the embedded scholars. Montgomery McFate, a  
Navy anthropologist, described HTS as an effort to anthropologize the  
military, not militarizing anthropology, told Time, ?The more  
unconventional the adversary, and the further from Western cultural  
norms, the more we need to understand the society and underlying  
cultural dynamics.?

The program is nothing new, neither for the US empire nor other  
empires throughout history. As far as the US empire project is  
concerned, there were two programs from the Vietnam era that involved  
anthropologists.

Project Camelot, in 1965, organized by US Army intelligence, recruited  
anthropologists to assess the cultural causes of war and violence.  
Despite the misleadingly benign sounding name, the project used Chile  
as a trial run while the CIA was engineering the election of Eduardo  
Frei as president in 1964 to prevent the election of Socialist leader  
Salvador Allende.

The second program from that era, known as CORDS (Civil Operations and  
Revolutionary Development Support), was formed to coordinate the US  
civil and military pacification programs in Vietnam. CORDS used  
anthropological data to map human terrain and identify individuals and  
groups that the military believed were sympathizers of the Vietcong,  
who were then targeted for assassination.

It is easy to imagine HTS teams in Iraq being used to exploit existing  
fault lines between Sunni and Shia, Kurd and Arab, and even  
differences within each group, in order to invoke the classic divide- 
to-conquer strategy. For example, the Sahwa (US-created and -backed  
Sunni militia) clashing with the US-backed Maliki government in Iraq  
is a classic example of Iraqis being effectively turned against one  
another so as not to unite against the occupier.

Another example would be the effective creation and exploitation of  
the myth of sectarianism in Iraq, which has lead to the deaths of  
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and threatens to do so once again.

Documentary filmmaker Jason Coppola is directing and producing a film  
titled ?Justify My War.? In the film, an introspective Coppola  
explores the question of rationalization of the wars being waged by  
our government, from Wounded Knee to Fallujah. I asked Coppola for his  
perspective about the ongoing use of anthropologists by the US  
military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

?This seems to be the most powerful weapon against indigenous cultures  
today. Much more powerful than F-16s and M-1 tanks. We see how well it  
worked against our own indigenous culture. You need to know a people  
before you decide what can corrupt them, what can be used to confuse,  
divide and conquer them. The strongest defense against occupation is  
an undivided, culturally rooted people, but empires don?t like that.?

Commenting on experiences from his recent trip to Iraq, Coppola adds,  
?A country can rebuild itself after an invasion, but it is much more  
difficult to rebuild a culture after it has been invaded. I realized  
this seeing young girls walking the streets of Sadr City, on their way  
to school in their traditional hijab carrying their books in a  
backpack with a blond-haired, blue-eyed Barbie design on it. Confusion  
is sewn throughout the Iraq occupation, nobody trusts anybody. And as  
I looked up in Baghdad or Fallujah or Sadr City, and stared at  
?Apache? helicopters flying overhead ? I couldn?t help but to think -  
mission accomplished - certainly for the Apache people. But what about  
the Iraqis? We still don?t know.?

Price and Gonzalez, along with several other scholars, felt the  
problem serious enough to have formed the Network of Concerned  
Anthropologists and drafted a ?Pledge of Non-Participation in Counter- 
Insurgency? to boycott anthropological work in counterinsurgency and  
direct combat support operations. They took their stand against ?work  
that is covert, work that breaches relations of openness and trust  
with studied populations, and work that enables the occupation of one  
country by another.?

Similarly, in October 2007, the Executive Board of the American  
Anthropological Association issued a statement that warned its members  
that activities such as involvement in the HTS program are likely to  
violate the code of ethics. As it should have, for it is impossible to  
imagine the lethality of a massive conventional military coupled with  
unconventional scholarship made into a weapon for use in combat, as it  
is in the ongoing US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  1 17:08:54 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 16:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] AIPAC set to push Iran legislation at major conference
Message-ID: <1760256659.302401241219334625.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710832357&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull 





? 

Jerusalem Post ????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? May 1, 2009 





? 

AIPAC set to push Iran legislation at major conference 





? 

Hilary Leila Krieger, JPost correspondent in Washington 





? 

Some 6,500 American Israel Public Affairs Committee activists attending the organization's annual conference will be hitting Capitol Hill next week to stress the importance of the US-Israel relationship and push legislation imposing sanctions on Iran. 





? 

But the conference, which begins on Sunday, comes as the Obama administration is staking out different ground from Israel on Iran and the peace process - a divergence some Jewish activists critical of AIPAC have seized on. The climate poses challenges as AIPAC tries to push its lobbying agenda. 





? 

The White House on Wednesday rebuffed Israeli calls for the US to put a time limit on its engagement with Iran and to act speedily as Teheran makes progress mastering nuclear capabilities. National Security Council spokesman 



Mike Hammer said "it's not appropriate at this time to be trying to establish timetables but rather seeing how the engagement can move forward" 



and that "we are in a process that we expect will take some time." 





? 

And when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, according to an interview published in The Washington Post Thursday, National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones thinks the US should propose its own ideas - a proposition many Israelis are uncomfortable with. Jones is quoted as saying, "If we want to get momentum, we have to be involved directly." 





? 

At the same time, the progressive J Street lobby is opposing the Iran legislation AIPAC is championing, coming out strongly in favor of the Obama administration's approach of engagement on Israel and Iran and calling on its supporters to contact members of Congress to make that point. 





? 

The new Iran sanctions bills would increase the president's ability to punish international companies that help Iran obtain refined petroleum. It was introduced Tuesday in the Senate by sponsors Evan Bayh (D-Indiana), John Kyl (R-Arizona) and Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), with similar companion legislation submitted by the chairman and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman (D-California) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), late Thursday. 





? 

"AIPAC strongly supports congressional measures to create the leverage we need for constructive diplomatic engagement to have a chance to work. If 



Iran doesn't act rapidly to suspend its enrichment and other illicit nuclear work, the US and our allies must be prepared to induce Iranian compliance by targeting Iran's economic and structural vulnerabilities," said AIPAC spokesman Josh Block. "This bill gives President Obama the tools to do just that." 





? 

But the legislation, while having significant bipartisan support that bodes well for its eventual passage, is being held up from the get-go by Berman himself, who noted in a press release that "I have no intention of moving this bill though the legislative process in the near future." 





? 

"I share President Obama's conviction that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons and his determination to seek a diplomatic solution to this issue," he explained. "However, should engagement with Iran not yield the desired results in a reasonable period of time, we will have no choice but to press forward with additional sanctions - such as those contained in this bill - that could truly cripple the Iranian economy." 





? 

A congressional aide described it as a "sword of Damocles" to show Iran what awaits it if the negotiations don't work out. 





? 

The legislation also sends a signal to the administration about what's in store for it if engagement falters - both in terms of enhancing the range of options at its disposal and in terms of the congressional pressure it might face to take stronger action. 





? 

"It keeps the discussion going in the body politic about sanctions and corporate divestment as being something that's important on an advocacy level," said one Washington pro-Israel activist, describing the legislation as a reminder that "while the president's playing with his carrots there are a lot of people who think the sticks are important too." 





? 

The activist added that it was important that the legislation be introduced this week even if it isn't acted on soon because "6,000-plus people are 



going to come to Washington next week and they need something to talk about that's Iran-related." 





? 

The White House did not respond to questions from The Jerusalem Post on whether it would support the legislation, but a State Department official said the administration was aware of the proposals. 





? 

"We have been reviewing the draft legislation and its implications. It's important that any legislation not interfere with the administration's ability to conduct its diplomacy," he said. "We intend to pursue direct and honest diplomacy with Iran on all issues to overcome our real differences and explore areas of shared interest. We urge Iran to take advantage of this opportunity for engagement." 





? 

Speaking about the US posture toward Iran generally, Hammer said Wednesday that the administration was focused on moving engagement forward while US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of "crippling" sanctions against 



Iran "should we need it" in testimony before Congress last week. 





? 

The impression on Capitol Hill, though, is that the administration is less than pleased at the prospect of additional sanctions being slapped on Iran in the near term. Holding off on pushing the legislation forward could avoid a tussle with the White House on how to proceed on the sensitive issue. Having the legislation in the wings, on the other hand, could be helpful if the administration does want to move in the future to increase pressure on Iran and the European companies that do business with it by pointing to what Teheran might face from Congress. 





? 

J Street, for its part, argues that imposing further sanctions on Iran is "directly undercutting the president's diplomatic message" and is urging those on its email list - which it counts as more than 100,000 strong - to contact members of Congress to make that case. 





? 

J Street is also calling on its supporters to tell their members of Congress "to support President Obama's vision for US policy in the Middle East" to the tune of $900 million in funding for the Palestinians. 





? 

AIPAC, which supports the Palestinian funding, is also preparing a letter that appears to bridge some of the gaps between Israeli and American thinking on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, as it emphasizes establishing the institutions for a Palestinian state - a position somewhere between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's preference for Palestinian economic improvement leading toward autonomy, and the urgency the US has put on working toward a two-state solution - and urges direct negotiations between the parties, rather than solutions imposed from other players. 





? 

J Street is officially making no connection between its action alert and AIPAC's own lobbying day next Tuesday, and J Street officials have pointed to the introduction of the legislation this week to explain the timing. Jewish community officials in Washington, though, see the effort as a direct challenge to AIPAC. 





? 

Either way, one progressive Jewish Washington insider contended that the new lobbying outfit is going to complicate AIPAC's case. 





? 

"It definitely makes it harder for AIPAC. If there's overwhelming support or opposition for something in the Congress, then it's very hard for lobby groups smaller than AIPAC to make a difference," he said. "But when there are widespread differences, then the J Streets of the world can have much more effect." 





? 

But long-time Israel advocate Morrie Amitay disagreed. 





? 

"You've had these on-their-knees types coming out of the woodwork all the time," asserted the former executive director of AIPAC. 





? 

"AIPAC's going to have 6,000-7,000 people [present]. They have over 100,000 members. They've been around since 1957," he continued. 





? 

"You're comparing an ant to an elephant." 





? 

One Washington Jewish organizational leader not affiliated with either camp agreed with Amitay that J Street was no match for AIPAC. 





? 

"AIPAC, in terms of money and influence, clearly overwhelms J Street," he said, "but it's pretty interesting to see them [decide] to directly take on AIPAC on a legislative issue." 





? 

He predicted that "there's no question the majority of members of Congress are going to vote the way AIPAC wants them to," if for no other reason than that sanctioning Iran is a popular cause among Americans generally. 





? 

"They [J Street] are not going to win, but they're building their voice and building their credibility," he said. "Next time, there'll be more people listening to them." 



From fentona at shaw.ca  Fri May  1 23:11:34 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 22:11:34 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Thought police muscle up in Britain
Message-ID: <73B91EBA-BA2D-4471-B0AE-3A13F6057C42@shaw.ca>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25361297-7583,00.html

Thought police muscle up in Britain

Hal G. P. Colebatch | April 21, 2009
Article from:  The Australian

BRITAIN appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian  
state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international  
law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely.

There are no concentration camps or gulags but there are thought  
police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff  
out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.

Nikolai Bukharin claimed one of the Bolshevik Revolution's principal  
tasks was "to alter people's actual psychology". Britain is not  
Bolshevik, but a campaign to alter people's psychology and create a  
new Homo britannicus is under way without even a fig leaf of disguise.

The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will criminalise  
politically incorrect jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven  
years' prison. The House of Lords tried to insert a free-speech  
amendment, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw knocked it out. It was  
Straw who previously called for a redefinition of Englishness and  
suggested the "global baggage of empire" was linked to soccer violence  
by "racist and xenophobic white males". He claimed the English  
"propensity for violence" was used to subjugate Ireland, Scotland and  
Wales, and that the English as a race were "potentially very  
aggressive".

In the past 10 years I have collected reports of many instances of  
draconian punishments, including the arrest and criminal prosecution  
of children, for thought-crimes and offences against political  
correctness.

Countryside Restoration Trust chairman and columnist Robin Page said  
at a rally against the Government's anti-hunting laws in  
Gloucestershire in 2002: "If you are a black vegetarian Muslim asylum- 
seeking one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as  
you." Page was arrested, and after four months he received a letter  
saying no charges would be pressed, but that: "If further evidence  
comes to our attention whereby your involvement is implicated, we will  
seek to initiate proceedings." It took him five years to clear his name.

Page was at least an adult. In September 2006, a 14-year-old  
schoolgirl, Codie Stott, asked a teacher if she could sit with another  
group to do a science project as all the girls with her spoke only  
Urdu. The teacher's first response, according to Stott, was to scream  
at her: "It's racist, you're going to get done by the police!" Upset  
and terrified, the schoolgirl went outside to calm down. The teacher  
called the police and a few days later, presumably after officialdom  
had thought the matter over, she was arrested and taken to a police  
station, where she was fingerprinted and photographed. According to  
her mother, she was placed in a bare cell for 3 1/2 hours. She was  
questioned on suspicion of committing a racial public order offence  
and then released without charge. The school was said to be  
investigating what further action to take, not against the teacher,  
but against Stott. Headmaster Anthony Edkins reportedly said: "An  
allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially  
motivated remark. We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude  
towards pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and will not stand for racism  
in any form."

A 10-year-old child was arrested and brought before a judge, for  
having allegedly called an 11-year-old boya "Paki" and "bin Laden"  
during a playground argument at a primary school (the other boy had  
called him a skunk and a Teletubby). When it reached the court the  
case had cost taxpayers pound stg. 25,000. The accused was so  
distressed that he had stopped attending school. The judge, Jonathan  
Finestein, said: "Have we really got to the stage where we are  
prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness? There  
are major crimes out there and the police don't bother to prosecute.  
This is nonsense."

Finestein was fiercely attacked by teaching union leaders, as in those  
witch-hunt trials where any who spoke in defence of an accused or  
pointed to defects in the prosecution were immediately targeted as  
witches and candidates for burning.

Hate-crime police investigated Basil Brush, a puppet fox on children's  
television, who had made a joke about Gypsies. The BBC confessed that  
Brush had behaved inappropriately and assured police that the episode  
would be banned.

A bishop was warned by the police for not having done enough to  
"celebrate diversity", the enforcing of which is now apparently a  
police function. A Christian home for retired clergy and religious  
workers lost a grant because it would not reveal to official snoopers  
how many of the residents were homosexual. That they had never been  
asked was taken as evidence of homophobia.

Muslim parents who objected to young children being given books  
advocating same-sex marriage and adoption at one school last year had  
their wishes respected and the offending material withdrawn. This  
year, Muslim and Christian parents at another school objecting to the  
same material have not only had their objections ignored but have been  
threatened with prosecution if they withdraw their children.

There have been innumerable cases in recent months of people in  
schools, hospitals and other institutions losing their jobs because of  
various religious scruples, often, as in the East Germany of yore, not  
shouted fanatically from the rooftops but betrayed in private  
conversations and reported to authorities. The crime of one nurse was  
to offer to pray for a patient, who did not complain but merely  
mentioned the matter to another nurse. A primary school receptionist,  
Jennie Cain, whose five-year-old daughter was told off for talking  
about Jesus in class, faces the sack for seeking support from her  
church. A private email from her to other members of the church asking  
for prayers fell into the hands of school authorities.

Permissiveness as well as draconianism can be deployed to destroy  
socially accepted norms and values. The Royal Navy, for instance, has  
installed a satanist chapel in a warship to accommodate the  
proclivities of a satanist crew member. "What would Nelson have said?"  
is a British newspaper cliche about navy scandals, but in this case  
seems a legitimate question. Satanist paraphernalia is also supplied  
to prison inmates who need it.

This campaign seems to come from unelected or quasi-governmental  
bodies controlling various institutions, which are more or less  
unanswerable to electors, more than it does directly from the  
Government, although the Government helps drive it and condones it in  
a fudged and deniable manner.

Any one of these incidents might be dismissed as an aberration, but  
taken together - and I have only mentioned a tiny sample; more are  
reported almost every day - they add up to a pretty clear picture.

Hal G. P. Colebatch's Blair's Britain was chosen as a book of the year  
by The Spectator in 1999.



From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Sat May  2 05:49:23 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 20:49:23 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Prosperity
Message-ID: <49FC3343.9010109@ashisuto.co.jp>


Freedom from Debt Slavery

Welcome to the Website of Prosperity.

Prosperity is a monthly Money Reform journal based in Glasgow, Scotland,
which is dedicated to spreading understanding about the nature of our
debt-based money system, and campaigning for publicly-created debt-free
money.

What is Money Reform?

Money Reform (sometimes called, Monetary Reform) highlights the fact
that our economy today is "debt-based", meaning that virtually all money
is supplied into the economy as a debt owed to the private banking
system. We are reliant upon this banking system for the supply of almost
all our means of exchange. In Britain today, 97% of our money stock is
created by this private banking system as a debt, while only three per
cent is created by the government debt-free. As we explain on this
website, that is both a technical absurdity and a democratic offence.

As a consequence of virtually all our money coming into existence as a
debt, we see the indebtedness of people, families and countries growing
daily. Money Reformers believe the present debt-based system perpetrates
debt slavery, and this is destructive of society, the environment and
the planet. Money Reformers believe this debt-based money supply is the
big issue which governs all the issues.

Money Reformers advocate that the virtual Monopoly of Money Creation
must be removed from the private banking system and we work to establish
a publicly-created supply of debt-free money, created on behalf of the
people, by a public body. This money should be spent, not lent, into
society on the basis of proven need. This will gradually reduce the
overall burden of debt in society, break reliance upon the private
banking system for the supply of money, open potential for change, and
empower people democratically. The Money Reformers' proposal is not a
left-wing, or right-wing idea. It's just good sense!

This website carries some of the articles, interviews, and reviews which
have appeared in back-issues of our journal, and which investigate and
explain the debt-based money system, and which publicise the debt-free
alternative. If our debt-free Money Reform ideas are new to you then we
recommend reading the following articles to obtain a comprehensive
introduction to our case.

For a short, general introduction to the problem of a debt-based money
supply see "Bankrolling the World into Chaos" {1} by author Michael
Rowbotham, and also see his call that debt-free money is "The Single
Most Important Reform" {2}. Then for a fully comprehensive explanation
on how the banking system creates money for both private and commercial
needs, including a description of how notes and coins are created, how
banks create money for national needs, and how international debt is
created, see "How Private, Commercial, National and International Money
is Created" {3}.

Bill Clarke explains "The Case for Monetary Reform" {4} and emphasises
the extent to which most people are unaware of the debt-based manner in
which almost all money comes into existence. This article should be read
with Richard Greaves' summary of "The Negative Consequences of the
Debt-Based Money System" {5}.

Alistair McConnachie addresses the democratic necessity for Money Reform
in his articles "Money for the People" {6} and by the "People and in
Publicly-Created Money: The Democratic Imperative" {7} where he also
deals with some frequently heard objections to the Money Reformers'
debt-free money proposal.

James Gibb Stuart is "Making a Case for Money Reform" {8} and laying out
a basic debt-free money proposal, while Ron Morrison deals with how such
a proposal could be brought into operation, and advocates that we
"Establish a State Bank" {9} to provide society with a regular supply of
debt-free money.

Prosperity developed from the meetings of the Bromsgrove Group which
meets annually outside Bromsgrove, near Birmingham. Each issue carries
the Group's Statement of Belief which is a succinct general summary of
the Money Reform case. Prosperity does not promote any particular
"brand" of monetary reform, nor are we critiquing the system from any
particular political or religious perspective. It is edited and
published by Alistair McConnachie and can be contacted at:

Prosperity
268 Bath Street
Glasgow, Scotland
UK, G2 4JR
Telephone : 0141 332 2214
Fax : 0141 353 6900
email: admcc at admcc.freeserve.co.uk

Links:

{1} http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/bankchaos.php

{2} http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/mosimprt.php

{3} http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/moneymake.php

{4} http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/casefmr.php

{5} http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/negcon.php

{6} http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/monftp.php

{7} http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/faq.php

{8} http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/caseref.php

{9} http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/statebank.php


http://www.prosperityuk.com/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 shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  2 14:57:39 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 13:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Bill Moyers Journal: Torture and its consequences;
 The Frontlines of Foreclosure
Message-ID: <363926910.386141241297859147.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

Bill Moyers Journal May 1, 2009 

Torture and its consequences 

A new debate followed the release of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel memos approving extreme measures of interrogation under the Bush administration. Bill Moyers sits down with Bruce Fein, former deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan and chairman of the American Freedom Agenda, and Mark Danner, who has been reporting on the US treatment and interrogation of detainees for the New York Review of Books. 

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05012009/watch.html 

Followed by 

The Frontlines of Foreclosure 

The JOURNAL profiles Steve Meacham, a Boston-based organizer who's trying to halt the tidal wave of evictions and foreclosures plaguing his community. Meacham works for an award-winning organization known as City Life/Vida Urbana, a group that's pioneered new strategies to help working people hold on to their homes in the face of intense pressure from banks. 

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05012009/watch2.html 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  2 15:01:21 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Holocaust Denial and Holocaust Tourism
In-Reply-To: <787705347.276221241215061651.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1602590116.386461241298081541.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/04/holocaust_denia.html#comments 



April 30, 2009 



Holocaust Denial and Holocaust Tourism 



Gordon Brown had the kind of Auschwitz photo-call this week that I have always found in dubious taste. I say that with consideration because I have attended and even set up a lot of Auschwitz photo-calls, as I will explain. 



[See story from Daily Telegraph:] 



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/5237879/Gordon-Brown-pledges-funds-for-Holocaust-memorial-during-tour-of-Auschwitz.html 



Two days before Brown's photocall, Gerd Honsik, an Austrian author, had been jailed for five years for holocaust denial. 



In 1994 I was studying Polish language and culture at the Catholic University of Lublin. With a small group of other students I went one day to the Majdanek concentration camp. There is much less to see than at Auschwitz, but Majdanek has a bleak starkness. 



When we first arrived, there were only the eight of us and our guide in the place. I was overcome by the horror of it and withdrew to sit by myself on a bank and think. Then a couple of tourist buses drew up. One was full of American seniors and one of French children, but both were the same in terms of happy chatter and clicking of lenses. It just felt deeply wrong. 



After I had learnt some Polish and started work in the British Embassy in Warsaw, I found that my duties frequently involved escorting official visitors to the camps, particularly but not always Auschwitz. When they were politicians, I also had to oversee the organisation of press-calls for them. That never felt right. Nor did familiarity ever make me feel any better about walking around these places. I seemed to pick up on the evil in them - I know that sounds stupid. 



I was involved in the events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the liberation of the camps. One of the things that did, was to bring me into contact with survivors, and also with eye witnesses to the liberation, from a variety of countries. In this and in other ways I received first hand information on the camps. I understood that the Jews were only the largest of the groups subject to mass murder - over a million Poles, other Slavs, gypsies, gays, communists. 



There was (and remains) a peculiar tension over the running of Auschwitz, with frequent arguments over the emphasis of commemoration between its Polish and Jewish victims. 



The German administration at Auschwitz was based in Oswiecim castle. When the camp was liberated, many of the surviving gypsies were settled locally by the Communist authorities. I once had a meeting with the seven Romany Kings of Poland, in their headquarters which is actually inside Oswiecim castle. I was meeting them because of Home Office fears that, once Poland joined the EU, the UK would be inundated with Polish gypsies. 



The layers of irony were extraordinary - that the meeting was in that place, and that it was motivated (in my view) by continuing racial prejudice in the UK Home Office, though obviously of a less vicious kind. I learnt a lot from them about the problems of gypsies, and was able to give them some realistic information on the UK. 



I have met people who were in the death camps, and people who liberated them. I view people who deny that the industrialised murder happened as cranky, and I don't think disputes over precise numbers are of much importance. 



But neither do I think holocaust denial should be a crime. It should be met with ridicule and social sanction, not with prison. From reports Honsik seems a nasty bit of work, whose holocaust denial is motivated by Nazi sympathy. But he is given a spurious glamour by his imprisonment, and more attention than he deserves. 



Politicians like Brown should avoid being seen to milk the holocaust. Mass muder is not a photo-op. If people want to go and pay their respects, they should do so quietly, with reverence and without publicity. 



There is nothing to be gained by Holocaust tourism if we view it as a crime perpetrated by evil cartoon Nazis unconnected to ourselves. Did Brown reflect that he too had the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands for his part of the attack on Iraq? Did he think about the widespread policy of torture in which the UK and US are complicit? 



No. He was too busy thinking about his photo-call. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  2 15:00:37 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Hamas Gaining International Legitimacy
In-Reply-To: <801077592.300131241218997322.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1656078312.386431241298037008.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46676 



Inter Press Service April 30, 2009 



Hamas Gaining International Legitimacy 



Analysis by Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler 



Jerusalem - Delegations from the rival Fatah and Hamas organisations have again failed in Cairo to bridge their differences meant to usher in a Palestinian unity government, but this has in no way slowed inroads which the Islamist movement has been making to increase its international legitimacy - much to Israel's concern. 



Since the conclusion of Israel's 22-day military offensive in January which coincided with U.S. President Barack Obama taking power in Washington, Gaza-controlled Hamas has had many more international visitors. Sources close to the Hamas leadership in once diplomatically isolated Gaza confirm that official representatives of several European governments have come calling, over and above Norway, which has long sought to breach the Israel- U.S.-European boycott. 



Until recently, most of the international community backed Israel's view that Hamas is a terrorist group, and refused to deal directly with it. That meant largely a siege of Hamas since the movement won an election back in January 2006 and then ousted Fatah in a fierce power struggle in the summer of the following year. The hope was to marginalise Hamas while strengthening the moderation of the Palestinian Authority under Fatah leader, President Mahmoud Abbas. 



The new Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu had hoped the international community would continue steadfastly not to deal officially with Hamas unless it committed to non-violence, recognised Israel, and accepted previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. The new direction leaves Israel facing an increasingly complex diplomatic conundrum. 



There is simply a growing international perception, especially since the war, that the old 'isolate Hamas' approach is not working. This has raised Israel's anxiety that an end to the sanctions on Hamas could be nigh. 



The signs are unmistakable. Lawmakers from the UK and EU, travelling independently, have made widely publicised visits to the recently re-elected Hamas leader-in-exile, Khaled Meshal in Damascus. And, last week, Meshal delivered a speech via a teleconference uplink to a closed parliamentary session at Westminster, further undermining the boycott. 



Expressing "extreme disappointment", the speaker of the Israeli Knesset, Reuven Rivlin, sent a protest to the Speaker of the British House of Commons, Michael Martin. "Democracy and terrorism cannot live side by side. A democracy that allows itself to be taken advantage of by terrorism risks dire consequences. I ask that you not provide a platform that could further advance their cause," Rivlin wrote. 



Hamas sources in Gaza believe the flurry of contacts is only taking place because of a tacit go-ahead from the U.S - "they are showing much more courage than during the Bush administration," the sources say. In parallel, the international community's Middle East envoy, Tony Blair, has repeatedly cautioned about "pushing Gaza aside" from any putative peace moves. He recently told the London Times, "I do think it is important we find a way of bringing Hamas into this process." And, Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel close to the Obama administration, said bluntly in his recently published book, 'Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East', that "a peace process that excludes Hamas is bound to fail." 



More recently, as part of its 83.4 billion dollar emergency spending bill to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Obama Administration began exploring ways to change U.S. law to allow aid to any future Palestinian unity government that might include Hamas. The emergency aid bill provides 840 million dollars for the Palestinian Authority and for rebuilding Gaza after the war. 



The Hamas refusal to make any commitment about recognising Israel or accepting past Palestinian-Israeli agreements is still considered the main stumbling block in forging a Palestinian national government. Israeli Middle East experts argue, however, that Hamas is actually being encouraged not to budge from its resolute positions because of the erosion of the diplomatic boycott. 



Alongside fiery Hamas declarations, such as that delivered last Friday in a Gaza mosque by a top Hamas man, Mahmoud Al-Zahar, in which he vowed the organisation would "never ever" recognise Israel, there are distinct signs of Hamas pragmatism. There has been an almost total lull in rocket fire from Gaza at Israeli villages in recent weeks. Hamas, which has never taken responsibility for any of the previous attacks in the wake of the war, is now apparently exerting pressure on more militant fringe groups to halt the firing completely. Ismail Al-Ashkar, a senior Hamas official, told reporters "the firing of rockets is against Palestinian interests." 



This pragmatism is meant to stem less from fear of Israeli retaliation and is geared more to bolstering the tentative gains in international credibility. Coupled with the uncompromising ideological stance against Israel, it seems also to serve in strengthening Hamas vis-?-vis a flagging Palestinian Authority. 



Interestingly, although Israel seems less than the PA the immediate target of this post-war Hamas strategy, the surge towards ending the Islamist movement's isolation comes just as Israel begins to feel increasingly a diplomatic freeze of its own. 



More and more European officials have been calling for a freeze in upgrading ties with the Netanyahu government over his reluctance to commit to a two-state solution. The most outspoken critic is the EU external affairs commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner. She is the butt of a counter-Israeli diplomatic offensive. The Foreign Ministry is even threatening Israel will block the EU from participating in any diplomatic process with the Palestinians. Rafi Barak, deputy director of the European Desk, told several European ambassadors that unless the EU stopped such declarations, "Europe will not be able to be part of the diplomatic process and both sides will lose." 



Israel, however, may well find that a strident approach will bear little fruit when Netanyahu meets President Obama at the White House in three weeks time, and discovers just how far the U.S. Administration has departed from the absolutist anti-Hamas approach of the previous Administration, and steps up its insistence that Israel lines up with the two-state solution. (END/2009) 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  2 15:01:58 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Big health insurer's calls to members draws criticism
In-Reply-To: <392605790.223171241205401670.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <852894320.386571241298118978.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>





http://www.sacbee.com/business/story/1806091.html 



Sacramento Bee April 24, 2009 



Big health insurer's calls to members draws criticism 



There appears to be little interest among policymakers to implement a single-payer system, which some see as socialized medicine and that insurers say threatens the lifeblood of the nation's 1,300 health insurance companies. 



By Bobby Caina Calvan 
bcalvan at sacbee.com 



WellPoint, the nation's largest health insurer, has launched what could be the start of a campaign for the hearts and minds of the American public as the country prepares for debates over reshaping its much-maligned health care system. 



The company, which operates in California as Anthem Blue Cross, made 3 million computer-generated phone calls last week to gauge the public's appetite for overhauling health care ? and to enlist, critics say, a grass-roots army to voice concerns about the sweeping proposals developing on Capitol Hill. 



"This was our first step," said WellPoint spokeswoman Cheryl Leamon. "Obviously, the debate over health care reform is heating up." 



Health care leaders in the U.S. Senate said the work on legislation will begin in early June. 



California's largest insurer with 8.3 million subscribers, WellPoint is expected to take a prominent role in the debate over health care ? much as it did in the state two years ago. 



The company's critics say it may be taking a page out of its playbook here to counter some of the sweeping health care proposals now circulating in Washington, including a government-backed insurance plan that would compete against private insurers. 



WellPoint spent $2 million on an advertising blitz in 2007 that helped defeat Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign to require all Californians to obtain health insurance and force insurers to issue policies to anyone, regardless of health. 



His program also would have required insurers to spend 85 percent of the premiums on patient care. At the time, WellPoint said it objected to the proposed regulations and to what it said was the increased cost of implementing the rules. 



The Governor's Office criticized WellPoint's marketing campaign then ? and did so again this week for its recent telephone survey. 



"We don't need to make telemarketer phone calls to know what Californians think about health care reform," said Lisa Page, a spokeswoman for the governor. "They want it." 



Other groups also found fault with the governor's plan two years ago, including the California Nurses Association. But Anthem Blue Cross stood alone in opposition among the state's major insurers, who signed onto the proposal or remained neutral. 



"The other major health plans deserve credit for going out of their comfort zone," said Daniel Zingale, one of the architects of Schwarzenegger's plan and now vice president for policy at the California Endowment, a nonprofit health care foundation. 



Elizabeth Hall, WellPoint's vice president of public policy, defended the company's effort to reach out to its 35 million subscribers nationwide. 



"The public is not always well informed," Hall said. 



She said WellPoint wants to make sure that its customers are aware of its positions. 



Of the 3 million phone calls WellPoint made last week, the company connected with 140,000 people ? 66,000 of whom expressed interest in receiving information and willingness to take part in WellPoint-sponsored town hall meetings, if any are to be convened, said Leamon, the company spokeswoman. 



Joel E. Miller, senior vice president for operations at the National Coalition for Health Care, said WellPoint must tread carefully, particularly in engaging a public wary of doctors, pharmaceutical firms and health insurance companies. 



"The industry has been under fire, and that's no mystery," said Miller, whose nonpartisan group represents insurance companies, business groups, labor unions and health advocates. 



"It really is amazing that they would make all those phone calls," he said. "Looks like they're putting together a giant focus group." 



With $2.24 trillion spent on health care in 2007 ? including $775 billion spent on private insurance ? the stakes are undoubtedly high. 



WellPoint could have the most to lose, particularly if the government decides to offer its own health plan, because the company's profits depend heavily on individual health insurance policies. Those policies often have low premiums and high deductibles, and WellPoint has been among the most aggressive in pursuing healthy customers who are less likely to use benefits to pay for medical care. 



Insurance companies, while embracing universal insurance, are resisting a government-run plan similar to Medicare. There appears to be little interest among policymakers to implement a single-payer system, which some see as socialized medicine and that insurers say threatens the lifeblood of the nation's 1,300 health insurance companies. 



Joan Pirkle Smith of Glendale was among the Californians called by WellPoint. 



"They asked me if I was aware of the health care debate happening in Washington right now," Smith said. "Then they asked me if I cared enough to get involved." 



Smith, who is a board member of the advocacy group Health Access California, responded in the affirmative. 



"Sure, I'd love to give Anthem Blue Cross my opinions about health care reform," said Smith, who supports a single-payer system. 



It's no surprise that WellPoint and other stakeholders would want to take the pulse of the American public, said Jacob Hacker, a professor of political science and co-director for the Center for Health, Economic and Family Security at the University of California, Berkeley. 



"At the moment, there are good signs that insurance companies will play ball," Hacker said. 



But it remains to be seen, he said, how willing the industry will be to make concessions as the debate moves forward. 



"Most people are skeptical of insurance companies," Hacker said. As a result, the industry "may well be hoping they can find sympathetic allies in their subscriber base."

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  2 15:02:17 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Kabul's new elite live high on West's largesse
In-Reply-To: <106647847.232301241207021992.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1163540383.386681241298137123.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/kabuls-new-elite-live-high-on-wests-largesse-1677116.html 



The Independent Friday, 1 May 2009 



Kabul's new elite live high on West's largesse 



'Gilded cage' lifestyle reveals the ugly truth about foreign aid in Afghanistan 



By Patrick Cockburn in Kabul 



Kabul City shopping centre, which opened in 2005: photo 



Vast sums of money are being lavished by Western aid agencies on their own officials in Afghanistan at a time when extreme poverty is driving young Afghans to fight for the Taliban. The going rate paid by the Taliban for an attack on a police checkpoint in the west of the country is $4, but foreign consultants in Kabul, who are paid out of overseas aids budgets, can command salaries of $250,000 to $500,000 a year. 



The high expenditure on paying, protecting and accommodating Western aid officials in palatial style helps to explain why Afghanistan ranks 174th out of 178th on a UN ranking of countries' wealth. This is despite a vigorous international aid effort with the US alone spending $31bn since 2002 up to the end of last year. 



The high degree of wastage of aid money in Afghanistan has long been an open secret. In 2006, Jean Mazurelle, the then country director of the World Bank, calculated that between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of aid was "badly spent". "The wastage of aid is sky-high," he said. "There is real looting going on, mainly by private enterprises. It is a scandal." 



The dysfunctional reputation of the US aid effort in Afghanistan is politically crucial because Barack Obama, with strong support from Gordon Brown, has promised that a "civilian surge" of non-military experts will be sent to Afghanistan to strengthen its government and turn the tide against the Taliban. These would number up to 600, including agronomists, economists and legal experts, though Washington admitted this week that it was having difficulty recruiting enough people of the right calibre. 



Whole districts of Kabul have already been taken over or rebuilt to accommodate Westerners working for aid agencies or embassies. "I have just rented out this building for $30,000 a month to an aid organisation," said Torialai Bahadery, the director of Property Consulting Afghanistan, which specialises in renting to foreigners. "It was so expensive because it has 24 rooms with en-suite bathrooms as well as armoured doors and bullet-proof windows," he explained, pointing to a picture of a cavernous mansion. 



Though 77 per cent of Afghans lack access to clean water, Mr Bahadery said that aid agencies and the foreign contractors who work for them insist that every bedroom should have an en-suite bathroom and this often doubles the cost of accommodation. 



In addition to the expensive housing the expatriates in Kabul are invariably protected by high-priced security companies and each house is converted into a fortress. The freedom of movement of foreigners is very limited. "I am not even allowed to go into Kabul's best hotel," complained one woman working for a foreign government aid organisation. She added that to travel to a part of Afghanistan deemed wholly free of Taliban by Afghans, she had to go by helicopter and then be taken to where she wanted to go in an armoured vehicle. 



There have been numerous attacks on foreigners in Kabul and suicide bombings have been effective from the Taliban's point of view in driving almost all expatriates into well-defended compounds where living conditions may be luxurious but which are as confining as any prison. This means that many foreigners sent to Afghanistan to help rebuild the country and the state machinery seldom meet Afghans aside from their drivers and a few Afghans with whom they work. 



"Risk avoidance is crippling the international aid effort," said one aid expert in Kabul. "If governments are so worried about risk then they really should not be sending people here and having them work under such restricted conditions." 



The effectiveness of foreign advisers and experts in Iraq is often further reduced by the very short time they stay in the country. "Many people move on after six months," said one expatriate who did not want to be named. "In addition some embassy employees receive two weeks off work for every six weeks they are in the country, on top of their usual holidays." 



Some officials working for non-governmental organisations in Afghanistan are themselves troubled by the amount of money which foreign government officials and their aid agencies spend on staff compared to the poverty of the Afghan government. 



"I was in Badakhshan province in northern Afghanistan which has a population of 830,000, most of whom depend on farming," said Matt Waldman, the head of policy and advocacy for Oxfam in Kabul. "The entire budget of the local department of agriculture, irrigation and livestock, which is extremely important for farmers in Badakhshan, is just $40,000. This would be the pay of an expatriate consultant in Kabul for a few months." 



Mr Waldman, the author of several highly-detailed papers on the failures of aid in Afghanistan, says that a lot of money is put in at the top in Afghanistan but it is siphoned off before it reaches ordinary Afghans at he bottom. He agrees that the problems faced are horrendous in a country which was always poor and has been ruined by 30 years of war. Some 42 per cent of Afghanistan's 25 million inhabitants live on less than a dollar a day and life expectancy is only 45 years. Overall literacy rate is just 34 per cent and 18 per cent for women. 



But much of the aid money goes to foreign companies who then subcontract as many as five times with each subcontractor in turn looking for between 10 per cent and 20 per cent or more profit before any work is done on the project. The biggest donor in Afghanistan is the US, whose overseas aid department USAID channels nearly half of its aid budget for Afghanistan to five large US contractors. 



Examples cited in an Oxfam report include the building of a short road between Kabul city centre and the international airport in 2005 which, after the main US contractor had subcontracted it to an Afghan company, cost $2.4m a kilometre ? or four times the average cost of road construction in Afghanistan. Often aid is made conditional on spending it in the donor country. 



Another consequence of the use of foreign contractors is that construction has failed to make the impact on unemployment among young Afghans which is crucial if the Taliban is to be defeated. In southern provinces such as Farah, Helmand, Uruzgan and Zabul, up to 70 per cent of Taliban fighters are non-ideological unemployed young men given a gun before each attack and paid a pittance according to a report by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. By using these part-time fighters as cannon-fodder, the Taliban can keep down casualties among its own veteran fighters while inflicting losses on government forces. 



Some simple and obvious ways of spending money to benefit Afghans have been neglected. Will Beharrell of the Turquoise Mountain charity, which is encouraging traditional Afghan crafts and reconstruction of part of the old city, says tangible and visible improvements are important. He said: "We went in for rubbish clearing because it is simple and provides employment. We brought the street level down by two metres in some places when we had cleared it away." 



A striking feature of Kabul is that while the main roads are paved, the side streets are often no more than packed earth with high ridges, deep potholes and grey pools of dirty water. New roads have been built between the cities, such as Kabul and Kandahar, but these are often too dangerous to use because of mobile Taliban checkpoints where anybody connected to the central government is killed on the spot. 



The international aid programme is particularly important in Afghanistan because the government has few other sources of revenue. Donations from foreign governments make up 90 per cent of public expenditure. Aid is far more important than in Iraq, where the government has oil revenues. In Afghanistan a policeman's monthly salary is only $70, which is not enough to live on without taking bribes. 



Since the fall of the Taliban the Afghan government has been trying to run a country in which the physical infrastructure has been destroyed. Kabul is now getting electricity from Uzbekistan but 55 per cent of Afghans get no electricity at all and just one in 20 get power all day. Money can be distributed more swiftly by the US military but this may not undercut the political support of the Taliban to the degree expected. 



Afghans themselves are unenthusiastic about President Obama's plan for more US military and civilian involvement in Iraq. And the failure of foreign aid to deliver a better life to Afghans also helps explain plummeting support for the Kabul government and its Western allies. Oxfam's Mr Waldman believes better-organised aid could still deliver the benefits Afghans hoped for when the Taliban were overthrown in 2001, but he warns: "It is getting very late in the day to get things right." 



Go figure: The West's spending in Afghanistan 



$57 The foreign aid per capita to Afghanistan, compared with $580 per capita in the aftermath of the Bosnian conflict. 



$250,000 Typical salary of foreign consultants in Afghanistan, including 35 per cent hardship allowance and 35 per cent danger money. Afghan civil servants typically receive less than $1,000 a year. 



$22bn The shortfall in donations compared to the international community's estimate of Afghanistan's need ? around 48 per cent. 



40 per cent Share of international aid budget returned to aid countries in corporate profit and consultant salaries ? more than $6bn since 2001. 



$7m Daily aid spend in Afghanistan. The daily military spend by the US government is around $100m. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  2 15:03:20 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Israel warns European critics
In-Reply-To: <2029210288.4689281241112901124.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <907251956.386841241298200180.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8026941.stm 

BBC News 30 April 2009 

Israel warns European critics 

Israel has told the European Union to stop criticising Benjamin Netanyahu's government or risk being excluded from future Middle East peace negotiations. A foreign ministry official called EU envoys in Israel after a commissioner in Brussels suggested freezing a move to upgrade EU-Israeli relations. 

The commissioner said Netanyahu should commit to talks with the Palestinians. 

The warning comes ahead of the first European trip by Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's new foreign minister. 

Israeli media say the warnings have been issued by the deputy director for European affairs at the Israeli foreign ministry, Rafi Barak. His main target the EU External Affairs Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner. 

The UK embassy in Tel Aviv has confirmed it was contacted by Mr Barak but refused to disclose details of the conversation. 

"We want the European Union to be a partner but it is important to hold a mature and discreet dialogue and not to resort to public declarations," Rafi Barak reportedly told diplomats, according to a report in Haaretz. 

He concluded by "warning" that Europe's influence in the area would be undermined. 

"Israel is asking Europe to lower the tone and conduct a discreet dialogue," Rafi Barak is quoted saying. "However, if these declarations continue, Europe will not be able to be part of the diplomatic process, and both sides will lose." 

Correspondents say it is far from clear whether Ms Ferrero-Waldner was expressing an official view of the European Union towards Israel. 

Israeli officials have told the BBC that they requested a month-long postponement of a ministerial-level meeting in May which discusses the EU-Israeli Association agreement regulating bilateral ties. 

The postponement "is to allow the new government time to formulate its policies" before the meeting, foreign ministry officials said. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far refused to back the principle of a Palestinian state while Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has said the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is a "dead end". 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  2 15:04:01 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Spanish Judge Opens Probe Into Guantanamo Torture
In-Reply-To: <1827795774.272821241214478092.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1082564273.386931241298241939.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>


http://www.truthout.org/042909T 

Spanish Judge Opens Probe Into Guantanamo Torture 

Agence France-Presse: April 29, 2009 

Madrid - A Spanish judge on Wednesday opened an investigation into an 
alleged "systematic programme" of torture at the US Guantanamo Bay detention 
camp, following accusations by four former prisoners. 

Judge Baltasar Garzon will probe the "perpetrators, the instigators, the 
necessary collaborators and accomplices" to crimes of torture at the prison 
at the US naval base in southern Cuba, he said in his ruling, a copy of 
which was seen by AFP. 

The judge based his decision on statements by Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, 
known as the "Spanish Taliban" and three other former Guantanamo detainees - 
a Moroccan, a Palestinian and a Libyan. 

Garzon said that documents declassified by the US administration and 
carried by US media "have revealed what was previously a suspicion: the 
existence of an authorised and systematic programme of torture and 
mistreatment of persons deprived of their freedom" that flouts international 
conventions. 

This points to "the possible existence of concerted actions by the US 
administration for the execution of a multitude of crimes of torture against 
persons deprived of their freedom in Guantanamo and other prisons including 
that of Bagram" in Afghanistan. 

The four former Guantanamo detainees alleged they were held in cramped 
cells and suffered beatings and other physical and mental mistreatment. 

The Palestinian, Jamiel Abdelatif al Banna, said he suffered "blows to 
the head that caused him to lose consciousness, was detained in an 
underground place without light for three weeks and deprived of food and 
sleep." 

The decision by Garzon, known around the world for ordering the arrest 
of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London in 1998, was unrelated 
to another investigation by the judge into six officials of the former US 
administration of George W. Bush over alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay. 

Prosecutors this month issued an official request to the judge to drop 
that probe, arguing that the complaint targets officials who did not have 
the power to make decisions but who simply "drafted non-binding judicial 
reports." 

Spain since 2005 has assumed the principle of universal jurisdiction in 
alleged cases of crimes against humanity, genocide, and terrorism. But it 
can only proceed when any such cases of the alleged crimes are not already 
subject to a legal procedure in the country involved. 

Several human rights groups have asked judges in different countries to 
indict Bush administration officials over the camp, which US President 
Barack Obama has vowed to close by January 2010. 

More than 800 detainees have been held at the US military prison since 
2002. 

Some 240 people are still there. About 60 of them have been deemed 
eligible for release, but the Obama administration is struggling to arrange 
their transfer to a third country. 

The Bush administration had charged about 20 of the detainees on 
terror-related charges, including two prisoners arrested when they were 
still teenagers. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  2 15:04:59 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Waterboarding the Rule of Law
In-Reply-To: <1561812810.272441241214400215.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1379290822.387061241298299794.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>


http://www.truthout.org/042809R 

Waterboarding the Rule of Law 

By Steve Weissman 
t r u t h o u t: Aoril 28, 2009 

Asked what he thought of Western civilization, the nonviolent Mahatma Gandhi 
famously replied, "I think it would be a good idea." Unless millions of 
Americans now demand better, we can say the same of "the rule of law." What 
a good idea it would have been, but - like the tooth fairy - it will not 
exist, not when competing priorities get in the way. The balancing - and 
trimming - is well on its way. 

Should a special prosecutor hold Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld 
accountable for violating the law against torture when they specifically 
authorized waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions and sexual 
humiliation of detainees? "No one is above the law," President Obama 
repeatedly tells us. But, prosecuting Bush & Co. would tear the country 
apart, the Republican chorus chimes in. And it would create a precedent for 
prosecuting future presidents whose policies we might not like, just as in a 
banana republic. 

Should Congress or a truth commission investigate torture and other war 
crimes so they will never happen again? Better not, the White House tells 
us. The country needs to look ahead and not to the past, and the 
administration needs to focus on fixing the economy and creating a universal 
health care system. 

Should Congress impeach former Deputy Attorney General Jay Bybee, now a 
federal appeals court judge, for giving his superiors the legal arguments 
they wanted to justify the torture they had already decided upon? Absolutely 
not, his defenders insist. Lawyers must feel free to give officials their 
best legal advice, and officials must feel free to get the legal advice they 
need. 

None of these alternative priorities are trivial. America should never 
criminalize differences over lawful policies. Obama and his administration 
should focus on ending the economic crisis and fulfilling his campaign 
promises. And senior officials should feel free to consult with government 
lawyers. But all these priorities must remain within legal limits, and none 
of them justify giving a pass to those who commit criminal acts, no matter 
how high their office. Either we uphold the rule of law or we make political 
priorities paramount. We cannot have it both ways, and we should stop 
pretending that we can. 

The stakes here go far beyond whether or not we torture our enemies, our 
suspected enemies and then our own people, though these are obviously 
life-and-death concerns. What should scare us even more is whether or not we 
maintain even the fa?ade of democracy. 

In overriding the Geneva Conventions, other treaty obligations and 
American laws banning torture, the Bush administration explicitly claimed 
that the president could do whatever he thought necessary to full his 
constitutional obligation to defend the country. He was the decider in 
chief, and neither Congress nor the courts could overrule his decision. As 
Jay Bybee's torture memo put it, "the President enjoys complete discretion 
in the exercise of his Commander-in-Chief authority and in conducting 
operations against hostile forces." 

Right-wing legal ideologues call this view of sweeping and unchecked 
presidential power "a strong unified presidency." Those who believe in it 
would turn our chief executive into an elected monarch, and some proponents 
would even grant him or her the right to call off elections in time of 
crisis, real or contrived. Following this grandiose view, President Bush 
usurped powers that the Constitution does not permit, and his administration 
used those powers to commit other crimes, from torture to invading Iraq on a 
pack of lies. Do we prosecute Bush's power grab as a criminal violation of 
the Constitution? Or, do we accept a crime bordering on treason as just 
another policy decision with which we may or may not disagree? 

Either way, we set a precedent. Prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rice and 
Rumsfeld and we confirm that every future leader must operate within the 
rule of law. Give them a pass and their successors will feel free to rule as 
they will. The choice is clear, if only Americans have the courage to pursue 
it. My guess is that we do not, and that we will soon come to rue it.

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  2 15:09:04 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] 7 Jewish Children on The Sunday Edition CBC radio TOMORROW
 (Sunday) 9:10 a.m.
In-Reply-To: <0CE3F5D3B3EE304090BECEB41E7F5AE908AFF6DF@EXCHANGE2VS1.campus.mcgill.ca>
Message-ID: <486062791.387401241298544416.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

The world radio premiere of "Seven Jewish Children" will air this 
Sunday, May 3rd on The Sunday Edition on CBC radio 1 in the first 
hour of the program, followed by two interviews about the play. 

http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/ 

May 3, 2009 

This week on the show, 

Two months ago, a play opened at the Royal Court Theatre in London. A 
mere ten minutes long, it was the work of the well-known feminist 
playwright Caryl Churchill. 

It is called Seven Jewish Children and it is about the Israel/Gaza War. 

It is also about death, honesty, politics, anger and the state of 
Israel itself. 

The whirlwind of controversy was immediate. It was denounced as anti- 
semitic and praised for its theatrical and emotional power. 

Since February it has played all over the UK, the United States and 
tonight it comes to Canada, to Montreal. 

Few are neutral about its impact. It is one of those artistic events 
that can either hurt or heal. Or perhaps both. 

In addition to controversy it has also sparked debate. And this 
morning we are going to hear that debate. 

But to do so, we feel it is important that you hear the play as it 
will be performed tonight in Montreal. 

In our first Hour, Seven Jewish Children; the play and its aftermath. 














From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  2 15:15:55 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?National_Post=3A_A_Play_for_Gaza=2C=E2=80=99_a_de?=
	=?utf-8?q?bate_on_hatred?=
In-Reply-To: <57f08f9a0905020846w693ae00bqca585cc281340632@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1038209365.388161241298955062.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1555345 

National Post May 01, 2009 

?A Play for Gaza,? a debate on hatred 

Graeme Hamilton 

MONTREAL -- The play is just 10 minutes long, its script a tight 1,300 words. But since its London debut in February, Caryl Churchill's Seven Jewish Children has generated epic debate on both sides of the Atlantic, attacked as anti-Semitic and defended as legitimate criticism of Israel. This weekend, the controversy spreads to Canada, as the play gets its Canadian premiere in Montreal. 

The city's major Jewish groups have decided against organizing protests of Sunday's production, but that has not stopped their leaders from condemning it. Incoming Quebec Jewish Congress president Adam Atlas told the Canadian Jewish News this week that the play is "anti-Semitic and full of hatred," while Sara Saber-Freedman of the Canada-Israel Committee said in an interview that it revives the ancient blood libel against Jews. 

There is no question that Ms. Churchill, described by The New York Times as "one of the most critically acclaimed playwrights in the English-speaking world," intended to provoke strong reactions when she wrote Seven Jewish Children during Israel's winter military offensive in Gaza. 

"If it makes people feel angry about what happened in Gaza, I think that is a good reaction," she wrote in March. "It is hard to think about what happened without anger and grief." The play is subtitled "A Play for Gaza," and Ms. Churchill has advised theatre groups they are free to perform it provided no admission fee is charged and donations are collected for a specific Palestinian charity. 

What has angered supporters of Israel are the words and evocative imagery she employs, particularly at the play's climax. The script, which is available online at royalcourttheatre.com , features a cast of adults discussing what to tell children during pivotal moments in modern Jewish history. Divided into seven scenes, it begins with a child in hiding, apparently from the Nazis. Subsequent scenes include the founding of Israel, the Six Day War and the first intifada, before concluding with the war in Gaza. 

It is one character's anti-Palestinian rant in the final scene that has attracted the greatest attention: "Tell her they did it to themselves. Tell her they want their children killed to make people sorry for them, tell her I'm not sorry for them, tell her we're the ones to be sorry for, tell her they can't talk suffering to us. Tell her we're the iron fist now, tell her it's the fog of war, tell her we won't stop killing them until we're safe." 

The same character calls Palestinians "animals" and concludes: "Tell her I wouldn't care if we wiped them out, the world would hate us is the only thing, tell her I don't care if the world hates us, tell her we're better haters, tell her we're chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? Tell her all I feel is happy it's not her." 

Ms. Saber-Freedman, executive vice-president of the Canada-Israel committee, said the play is an example of anti-Israel sentiment merging seamlessly into anti-Semitism. 

"If that's not a resuscitation of the blood libel, I don't know what is," she said of the final monologue. (The blood libel is the false accusation that Jewish rituals require the blood of non-Jews, usually children.) "It is absolutely clear that the character who is speaking those lines is saying that the killing of children is a deliberate act by the Israeli government." 

She also took exception to the implicit parallel drawn between the Jews' suffering during the Holocaust and the plight of Palestinians today. "It is an inversion in which, if the victims of the Holocaust today are the people of Gaza, then the Israelis are the Nazis," she said. 

When Seven Jewish Children ran for a month at London's Royal Court Theatre, critics were divided but many took offence. "Quite simply, in this wantonly inflammatory piece, the Jews drop in on somewhere they have no right to be, despise, conquer, and at last revel in the spilling of Palestinian blood," Howard Jacobson wrote in The Independent. Christopher Hart in the Sunday Times called the play "straitjacketed political orthodoxy" with an "utterly predictable lack of even-handedness." The Guardian's Michael Billington, on the other hand, applauded the play for capturing "the transition that has taken over Israel, to the point where security has become the pretext for indiscriminate slaughter." It has since stirred similar controversy in Washington and New York. 

In her defence of the play, Ms. Churchill has rejected the charge of anti-Semitism. In a letter to The Independent she also addressed the "blood-libel" accusation. 

"I find it extraordinary that, because the play talks about the killing of children in Gaza, I am accused of reviving the medieval blood libel that Jews killed Christian children and consumed their blood," she wrote. "The character is not ?rejoicing in the murder of little children.' He sees dead children on television and feels numb and defiant in his relief that his own child is safe." 

Rose Plotek, who will direct tomorrow's two staged readings at Montreal's Geordie Theatre, said she did not hesitate when approached about the Churchill play by the Montreal branch of Independent Jewish Voices. "She's a writer I'm very familiar with and that I have great admiration for. This seemed like a great challenge," Ms. Plotek said. A recent graduate of Montreal's National Theatre School, she will also be directing staged readings of Seven Jewish Children at Toronto's Theatre Passe Muraille, from May 15-17. The Toronto readings will include Ann-Marie MacDonald, R.H. Thomson and Rosemary Dunsmore in the cast. 

Ms. Plotek, who is Jewish and teaches drama studies at York University's Glendon College, said she disagrees with critics who detect anti-Semitism in the script. 

"It's not a piece of fluff entertainment. It's a piece with substance and it does provoke ideas and thoughts," she said. "I hope that it promotes an opening up of debate." She added that the attention given the play is proof of the vitality of the theatre: "It's not a dead art, and it can still have impact and immediacy." 

Abby Lippman, a member of Independent Jewish Voices who helped bring the play to Montreal, said the play is about, "What do we tell our children?" She said the criticism of Israel contained in the play should be fair game in an open society. 

"We have all these truth and reconciliation commissions going on all over the place. Why can't we have truth and reconciliation about Israel? Why can't Israelis acknowledge that there are other people suffering right now, not just Israelis? One doesn't erase the other," she said. "What happened in December and January in Gaza was just beyond belief." 

National Post

From fentona at shaw.ca  Sat May  2 17:12:21 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 16:12:21 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Israeli proxy gets busy to silence Americans
Message-ID: <87AF841B-49F2-43B7-95AA-E7C5091D91FA@shaw.ca>

http://www.presstv.ir/classic/detail.aspx?id=93102&sectionid=3510203

Israeli proxy gets busy to silence Americans
Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:27:23 GMT

An American academic is to be prosecuted for drawing parallels between  
the plight of Gazans and that of the Jews who suffered under Nazi rule.

Jewish Sociology and Global Studies Professor William Robinson of the  
University of Santa Barbara in California sent the electronic post  
entitled 'Parallel photos of Nazis and Israelis' to 80 students in his  
class, Ynet reported on Thursday.

The message, mailed during Operation Cast Lead, enclosed 25 photos of  
Nazi victims and equated their predicament with that of the war- 
battered Palestinians.

The email also included an essay that stated, "Gaza in Israel's Warsaw  
- one big concentration camp for Palestinian? What we are witnessing  
is the slow process of genocide."

Two Jewish students immediately dropped the class and filed a formal  
complaint against Robinson with the Academic Senate Charges Committee.  
The 50-year-old professor has hired an attorney and his hearing has  
been slated for May 14.

Professor Robinson has explained in his own words that the issue at  
hand is that pro-Israel lobby groups have long been exploiting the  
term 'anti-Semitism' to push forward the goals of political Zionism.

"These students did not even accuse me of doing anything which we  
would consider anti-Semitism -- discrimination against Jews, against  
the Jewish religion and so forth," he told Counterpunch in an interview.

"They said openly and outright that the professor introduces material  
which criticized the state of Israel and that equals anti-Semitism,"  
he continued.

Various student and academic groups in the United States have come to  
Robinson's defense and have described the motion against the  
California academic as "a clear attempt to silence the criticism  
against Israel".

Three weeks of Israeli airstrikes and a ground incursion resulted in  
the death of over 1,350 Palestinians and the injury of nearly 5,450  
people -- most of them civilians. Thirteen Israelis also died in the  
operation.

The carnage also inflicted more than $1.6 billion in damages on the  
Gazan economy.

Israeli war crimes include, but are not limited to, the use of deadly  
white phosphorus shells in densely populated civilian areas in Gaza.  
Tel Aviv initially denied using the controversial weapon, but mounting  
evidence later forced Israeli officials to admit to having employed  
the shells.

Despite the international outcry caused by the military operation,  
Israel continues to enforce a 21-month blockade on the Palestinian  
territory with US support.

According to Professor Robinson, the Anti-Defamation League -- which  
has come under severe criticism for its unswerving support for Israeli  
interests in the United States -- is behind the move to prosecute him.

"We have just learned about this; we're going to go public with it,"  
he said.

Renowned American author and political analyst Noam Chomsky, who is  
himself Jewish, exposed much about the Anti-Defamation League in his  
1989 book titled Necessary Illusions.

"The ADL has virtually become 'one of the main pillars' of Israeli  
propaganda in the US, as the Israeli press casually describes it,  
engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files  
circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public  
responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on," he wrote.

"These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct  
accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to  
Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with US support, to move  
towards a general political settlement," he adds.

MP/AA 

From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Sat May  2 19:29:36 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 10:29:36 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Bill McKibben and the Technofixers' Tragic
	Myopia
Message-ID: <49FCF380.5010704@ashisuto.co.jp>


by Jan Lundberg

Culture Change (March 30 2009)


Like all the global-warming commentators who between them get almost all
the press that's not pro-fossil fuels, Bill McKibben is trapped in the
faulty logic of the technofix. To understand the pseudo-green vision,
read McKibben's recent essay "The Fierce Urgency of Now" that appeared
in the Toronto Star and the Common Dreams website (and below).

McKibben says in his March 25 2009 essay, as he has repeated many times,
that the number 350 (parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere)
is the goal of our time. Yes, if we don't manage it we're all cooked.
But it's in the implementation-scheme that we must not be manipulated
and tragically misled.

McKibben says we must "reverse the fossil fuel economy", but we must END
the fossil fuel economy. Now - not in "ten years". The fossil fuel
economy is collapsing anyway, and since it has no future - due to the
workings of petrocollapse (discussed in this column innumerable times) -
it must be shut down by grassroots action. This will take the form of
community survival strategies, not government policy initiatives or
green venture capitalism.

For McKibben to advocate a "clean energy" transition to a green consumer
economy without a fundamental culture change means several things. One
is that he does not "get" peak oil or the impossibility of replacing the
petroleum infrastructure. Another major error on his part is his
corporate position of better cars being the answer; rather, they are the
threat. If we waste time on this scam that does not promise to save
energy or lives, then McKibben may as well be campaigning for 460 ppm
instead of 350. Let us briefly excoriate the corporate news media that
is much more friendly to the technofix trap than to fundamental change:


How the News Media Are Killing You

Corporate news coverage - what most US citizens are getting for print
and electronic news - is offering some real and important stories. The
trouble is, when it's a game not to mention anything uncorporate, such
as car-free living, then the public is not hearing the whole truth of
our world that the media pretend to cover faithfully.

The list of taboo subjects is pretty significant. Of course the news
media can't cover everything, or too many things equally. However, using
again the example of car-free living, there are reasons having to do
with advertising, for example. Most daily newspapers not only have ads
but whole sections of the newspaper once a week called Driving or Car Style.
- Jan Lundberg (March 30 2009)


Bill McKibben and Common(place thinking) Dreams

It may help to imagine "Common Dreams" as rightfully being called
"Technofix Dreams". The news service has many a good column, but they
stop short of advocating action to bring down the dominant system and
immediately begin new economics for the post-collapse world. The
editorial staff there has gotten Culture Change reports for several
years at three email addresses, but has never acknowledged one inquiry
from me or run one of our reports. It's unprofessional, but the reason
for this is what's key:

They have an agenda, business and political if not psychological. These
non-radical reformers, with McKibben in the lead for their enviro
dreams, are dangerous for offering false hope to the somewhat clueless,
well-meaning consumers who may fear living in a teepee and not being
able to drive to the store ever again.

The climate-action issue has been framed by McKibben and other liberals
as one of "getting" global warming - but on their terms. Understanding
the potential disaster is only half of getting it. Even G W Bush "gets"
global warming.

And to frame the issue as wanting or not wanting a windmill nearby is a
clever argument, when that's not the issue. I'm not really fearful of a
windmill "out my window" (despite wind turbine syndrome actually
affecting one's health), but I'm also for sacrificing the cars McKibben
thinks we need. Cars and their global-warming pavement are an eyesore
too. I'm for other eyesores, such as a compost heap you have to walk by
a few times a day, or the worm bin in the kitchen.

Slashing carbon and methane emissions is still unpopular and non-funded
as a primary program or movement. McKibben puts "energy conservation" in
his short list, but it's not first. And what does it mean? Conserving a
fossil fuel for later use, to let our grandkids participate in the
consumption of it? Better than energy conservation is energy curtailment
permanently in a "new" cultural paradigm.

What if you had a serious health crisis and the doctor said "This is due
to the patient's misfortune on such-and-such time and at such-and-such
place, and we have to take immediate action". Fine, but what if his
method is bloodletting? Or just a band-aid? No thanks, get out of the
way, Doc.

Finally, McKibben's ignoring the fact that the renewable energy industry
and a new grid cannot be financed. The economy is finished, or getting
there. He doesn't see the connection to petroleum, or the fact that the
renewable energy industries are dependent on fossil fuels and cannot
renew themselves.

So what is a better approach? See the Pledge for Climate Protection {1}.
For news and commentary get on the Global Warming Crisis Council {2}
listserve. GWCC was conceived for action, not "let's rebuild the
infrastructure to maintain our alleged energy needs".

The talking heads of today, the good and the bad, will disappear from
the scene as collapse unfolds, unless one of them happens to be your
neighbor in your local bioregional tribe.

The last time I took Bill McKibben to task this way was in 1996 in the
Auto-Free Times. I had visited Kerala, India, which he had recently
written about. When my daughter and I found his observations were way
off the mark and we said so in our magazine, he had an unfriendly
reaction in a letter to me that he ordered not be be printed. A couple
of years later a friend of his, the editor of Outside magazine,
interviewed me for Metropolis magazine that turned out to be a hatchet
job on this depaver.

I applaud good works and good guys, but I blow the whistle on illogical
or tainted positions at a time of life and death for the Earth's
ecological biodiversity.

Links:

{1}
http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=201&Itemid=52

{2}
http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=156&Itemid=49

_____


The Fierce Urgency of Now

Yes, windmills and dams deface the landscape but the climate crisis
demands immediate action

by Bill McKibben, author of The End of Nature (1989)

www.thestar.com (March 25 2009)


Don't be too "Canadian" about the backlash - this is no time for Mr Nice Guy

Watching the backlash against clean energy projects build in Canada has
moved me to think about what Americans have learned from facing this
same problem. I have been thinking and writing for several years about
overcoming conflict-avoidance and the importance of standing up for "Big
Truths" even at the price of criticizing fellow environmentalists.

It's not that I've developed a mean streak. It's that the environmental
movement has reached an important point of division, between those who
truly get global warming, and those who don't.

By get, I don't mean understanding the chemistry of carbon dioxide, or
the importance of the Kyoto Protocol, or those kinds of things - pretty
much everyone who thinks of themselves as an environmentalist has
reached that point. By get, I mean understanding that the question is of
transcending urgency, that it represents the one overarching global
civilizational challenge that humans have ever faced.

In the US, there are all manner of fights to stop or delay every
imaginable low-carbon technology. Wind, solar, run-of-river hydro -
these are precisely the kinds of renewable energy that every Earth Day
speech since 1970 has trumpeted. But now they are finally here - now
that we're talking about particular projects in particular places -
people aren't so keen.

Opponents of renewable energy projects point out (correctly) that they
have impacts - there are (overstated) risks to birds from wind turbines,
to fish from run-of-river hydro, that the projects mean "development"
somewhere there was none and transmission lines where there were none
before.

They point out (again correctly) that the developers are private
interests, rushing to develop a resource that, in fact, they do not own,
and without waiting for the government to come up with a set of rules
and processes for siting such installations.

The critics also insist that there's a "better" site somewhere - and
again they're probably right. There's almost always a better site for
anything. The whole business is messy, imperfect.

If we had decades to burn, then perhaps the opponents would be right
that there's a better site, and a nicer developer. There's always a
better site and a nicer developer. But in the real world, we have at
most ten years to reverse the fossil fuel economy. Which means we have
to do everything quickly - conservation and plug-in cars and solar
panels and compact fluorescents and 100-mile food and tree planting. And
windmills, windmills everywhere there is wind, just like off the shores
of Europe.

Whatever natural endowments a region is blessed to have, these are the
basis for your green economy: solar in the deserts, wind where it's
windy, hydro where water's falling, geothermal if you've got it. Do it
all, and do it quickly.

In the ideal world, we'd do everything slowly and carefully - but this
planet is rapidly becoming the worst of all possible worlds, a place
that before my daughter dies may well see temperatures exceeding
anything since before the dawn of primate evolution. A planet facing
hundreds of millions of environmental refugees as a result of rising
seas, with heat waves like the one that killed 35,000 in Europe becoming
commonplace occurrences.

The evidence gets worse by the day: already whole nations are
evacuating, the Arctic is melting and we have begun to release the
massive storehouse of carbon trapped under the polar ice. Scientists
figure the "safe" level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 350
parts per million. This is the most important number in the world. Go
beyond it for very long and we will trigger "feedbacks" that will result
in runaway warming spiralling out of any human control and resulting in
a largely inhospitable planet.

We are already well beyond 350 and accelerating rapidly in the wrong
direction.

So when local efforts to delay or stop low-carbon energy projects come
into conflict with the imperative to act urgently on global warming,
they have to take second place. Because even if we win every other
battle, if we lose 350, it won't make any difference at all. You can
"keep" every river and bay and lake and mountain and wilderness, but if
the temperature goes up three degrees globally, it won't matter. The
fish that live there won't be able to survive, the trees that anchor the
landscape will die, the coral reefs will bleach and crumble. Whatever
the particular part of the world that we're each working on, it's still
a part of the world. Global warming is the whole thing.

Believe me that I understand how difficult this is. I have spent a
lifetime loving and fighting for the Adirondacks and other treasured
areas. Perhaps you've spent your life fighting for birds, and I
understand how wrenching it must be to acknowledge that "some birds may
die from this wind farm". But what 350 forces us to say is: every bird,
every fish, and everything else that we know, is fundamentally at risk
in the next few decades.

In the name of birds, I want that windmill on my ridge. In the name of
rivers, I want run-of-river hydro. In the name of wild beauty, I want
that windmill out my window.

350 means it is too late to be arguing for theories or cool ideas. In
the real world, the one where carbon dioxide inconveniently traps solar
radiation, you don't get to argue for perfection.

You can say, as opponents of clean energy projects have said, that we'd
do more to fight global warming by improving gas mileage in our cars.
You can say that we should insulate our homes and build better
refrigerators. You can say that we should plant more trees and have
fewer kids.

And you would be right, just as every Earth Day speech is "right". I've
given my share of Earth Day speeches. And if we're to have any chance of
heading off catastrophic temperature increase, we have to do everything
we can imagine, all at once. Hybrid cars and planting trees, windmills,
energy conservation, carbon taxes, emissions caps, closing the coal
plants and pressuring our leaders.

I understand the opposition to clean energy projects. And I would have
supported the opponents years ago - before climate science became clear.
I live in the mountains above Lake Champlain, where the wind blows
strong along the ridgelines. I'll battle to keep windmills out of
designated wilderness if that ever comes up, but right now I'm joining
those who are battling to get them built on the ridgeline nearest our
home. And battling to see them not as industrial eyesores, but as part
of a new aesthetic. The wind made visible.

The slow, steady turning that blows us into a future less hopeless than
the future we're steaming toward now.

_____


Bill McKibben is co-founder of 350.org, a global grassroots organizing
campaign on climate change, and a guest blogger on www.zerocarboncanada.ca.

Original article at The Fierce Urgency of Now:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/607657

This report is Culture Change Letter #246

This article is published under Title 17 USC. Section 107. See the Fair
Use Notice for more information:
http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=266&Itemid=26


http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=371&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  Sun May  3 08:35:31 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 07:35:31 -0700
Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?U=2ES=2E_May_Revive_Guant=E1namo_Military_Co?=
	=?iso-8859-1?q?urts?=
Message-ID: <7EF28565-AFB2-48E2-92A8-9AB5C258664E@shaw.ca>

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html?_r=1

May 2, 2009
U.S. May Revive Guant?namo Military Courts
By WILLIAM GLABERSON

The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military  
commission system for prosecuting Guant?namo detainees, which was a  
target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama  
himself.

Officials said the first public moves could come as soon as next week,  
perhaps in filings to military judges at the United States naval base  
at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, outlining an administration plan to amend the  
Bush administration?s system to provide more legal protections for  
terrorism suspects.

Continuing the military commissions in any form would probably prompt  
sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Mr.  
Obama?s political allies because the troubled system became an emblem  
of the effort to use Guant?namo to avoid the American legal system.

Officials who work on the Guant?namo issue say administration lawyers  
have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to  
trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might make it  
difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal  
treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by  
intelligence agencies.

Obama administration officials ? and Mr. Obama himself ? have said in  
the past that they were not ruling out prosecutions in the military  
commission system. But senior officials have emphasized that they  
prefer to prosecute terrorism suspects in existing American courts.  
When President Obama suspended Guant?namo cases after his inauguration  
on Jan. 20, many participants said the military commission system  
appeared dead.

But in recent days a variety of officials involved in the  
deliberations say that after administration lawyers examined many of  
the cases, the mood shifted toward using military commissions to  
prosecute some detainees, perhaps including those charged with  
coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks.

?The more they look at it,? said one official, ?the more commissions  
don?t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.?

Several officials insisted on anonymity because the administration has  
directed that no one publicly discuss the deliberations.

Administration officials said Friday that some detainees would be  
prosecuted in federal courts and noted that Mr. Obama had always left  
open the possibility of using military commissions.

Still, during the presidential campaign Mr. Obama criticized the  
commissions, saying that ?by any measure our system of trying  
detainees has been an enormous failure,? and declaring that as  
president he would ?reject the Military Commissions Act.?

The military commissions, which were established specifically for  
trying Guant?namo detainees, have been subject to repeated delays and  
court challenges that argued that detainees were being denied basic  
rights of American law. Only two trials have been completed in the  
nearly eight years since the Bush administration announced that it  
would use military tribunals.

Any plan to adjust the military commissions would walk a tightrope of  
granting the suspects more rights yet stopping short of affording them  
the rights available to defendants in American courts. Several lawyers  
say the commissions are only beneficial for the government if they  
make it easier to win a prosecution than it would be in federal court.

The Bush administration?s commission system was criticized in part  
because it permitted evidence that would often be barred in federal  
court, like evidence obtained through coercive interrogations and  
hearsay.

The administration is likely to make it more difficult for prosecutors  
to admit hearsay, while not excluding it entirely, the lawyers said.  
The hearsay issue is central to many Guant?namo cases because they are  
based on intelligence reports and detainees may never be permitted to  
cross-examine the sources of those reports.

Human rights groups said Friday that using any form of military  
commission would be seen as permitting shortcuts that would not be  
available in existing American courts.

Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil  
Liberties Union, said that Mr. Obama had pledged to return the country  
to the rule of law and that ?continuing with the military commission  
system would be a retreat from that promise.?

Gabor Rona, the international legal director of Human Rights First,  
said military commissions would only be necessary if the  
administration wanted to assure convictions that might not otherwise  
be certain.

?The administration is making a huge mistake,? Mr. Rona said, ?if they  
believe getting convictions through suspect methods is more valuable  
than letting justice take its course.?

It is not clear how many of the remaining 241 detainees are likely to  
be prosecuted. The four-month suspension of military commission  
proceedings Mr. Obama ordered is to end May 20. As a result,  
administration officials are considering whether to ask military  
judges at Guant?namo for an additional delay. In making such a  
request, administration lawyers might outline their proposed changes.

In recent days, senior administration officials have hinted publicly  
that commissions were far from dead, yet offered no specifics and  
their comments drew little attention. In Congressional testimony on  
Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said, ?The commissions are  
still very much on the table.?

In a news conference this week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.  
emphasized that if the administration did use military commissions,  
the rules must give detainees ?a maximum amount of due process.?

But, speaking of detainees whom American officials have accused of  
involvement in major terrorist plots, Mr. Holder added, ?It may be  
difficult for some of those high-value detainees to be tried in a  
normal federal court.? 

From suzannedk at gmail.com  Sun May  3 11:10:44 2009
From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 19:10:44 +0200
Subject: [R-G]
	=?iso-8859-1?q?U=2ES=2E_May_Revive_Guant=E1namo_Military_Co?=
	=?iso-8859-1?q?urts?=
In-Reply-To: <7EF28565-AFB2-48E2-92A8-9AB5C258664E@shaw.ca>
References: <7EF28565-AFB2-48E2-92A8-9AB5C258664E@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <dce6f8b40905031010s142645b4g31f77afc78552005@mail.gmail.com>

In other words, paint the place a freah new color,and you have another
different prison, nicer, legaler.

Suzanne
suzannedk at gnail.com


On 5/3/09, Anthony Fenton <fentona at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html?_r=1
>
> May 2, 2009
> U.S. May Revive Guant?namo Military Courts
> By WILLIAM GLABERSON
>
> The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military
> commission system for prosecuting Guant?namo detainees, which was a
> target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama
> himself.
>
> Officials said the first public moves could come as soon as next week,
> perhaps in filings to military judges at the United States naval base
> at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, outlining an administration plan to amend the
> Bush administration?s system to provide more legal protections for
> terrorism suspects.
>
> Continuing the military commissions in any form would probably prompt
> sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Mr.
> Obama?s political allies because the troubled system became an emblem
> of the effort to use Guant?namo to avoid the American legal system.
>
> Officials who work on the Guant?namo issue say administration lawyers
> have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to
> trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might make it
> difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal
> treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by
> intelligence agencies.
>
> Obama administration officials ? and Mr. Obama himself ? have said in
> the past that they were not ruling out prosecutions in the military
> commission system. But senior officials have emphasized that they
> prefer to prosecute terrorism suspects in existing American courts.
> When President Obama suspended Guant?namo cases after his inauguration
> on Jan. 20, many participants said the military commission system
> appeared dead.
>
> But in recent days a variety of officials involved in the
> deliberations say that after administration lawyers examined many of
> the cases, the mood shifted toward using military commissions to
> prosecute some detainees, perhaps including those charged with
> coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks.
>
> ?The more they look at it,? said one official, ?the more commissions
> don?t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.?
>
> Several officials insisted on anonymity because the administration has
> directed that no one publicly discuss the deliberations.
>
> Administration officials said Friday that some detainees would be
> prosecuted in federal courts and noted that Mr. Obama had always left
> open the possibility of using military commissions.
>
> Still, during the presidential campaign Mr. Obama criticized the
> commissions, saying that ?by any measure our system of trying
> detainees has been an enormous failure,? and declaring that as
> president he would ?reject the Military Commissions Act.?
>
> The military commissions, which were established specifically for
> trying Guant?namo detainees, have been subject to repeated delays and
> court challenges that argued that detainees were being denied basic
> rights of American law. Only two trials have been completed in the
> nearly eight years since the Bush administration announced that it
> would use military tribunals.
>
> Any plan to adjust the military commissions would walk a tightrope of
> granting the suspects more rights yet stopping short of affording them
> the rights available to defendants in American courts. Several lawyers
> say the commissions are only beneficial for the government if they
> make it easier to win a prosecution than it would be in federal court.
>
> The Bush administration?s commission system was criticized in part
> because it permitted evidence that would often be barred in federal
> court, like evidence obtained through coercive interrogations and
> hearsay.
>
> The administration is likely to make it more difficult for prosecutors
> to admit hearsay, while not excluding it entirely, the lawyers said.
> The hearsay issue is central to many Guant?namo cases because they are
> based on intelligence reports and detainees may never be permitted to
> cross-examine the sources of those reports.
>
> Human rights groups said Friday that using any form of military
> commission would be seen as permitting shortcuts that would not be
> available in existing American courts.
>
> Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil
> Liberties Union, said that Mr. Obama had pledged to return the country
> to the rule of law and that ?continuing with the military commission
> system would be a retreat from that promise.?
>
> Gabor Rona, the international legal director of Human Rights First,
> said military commissions would only be necessary if the
> administration wanted to assure convictions that might not otherwise
> be certain.
>
> ?The administration is making a huge mistake,? Mr. Rona said, ?if they
> believe getting convictions through suspect methods is more valuable
> than letting justice take its course.?
>
> It is not clear how many of the remaining 241 detainees are likely to
> be prosecuted. The four-month suspension of military commission
> proceedings Mr. Obama ordered is to end May 20. As a result,
> administration officials are considering whether to ask military
> judges at Guant?namo for an additional delay. In making such a
> request, administration lawyers might outline their proposed changes.
>
> In recent days, senior administration officials have hinted publicly
> that commissions were far from dead, yet offered no specifics and
> their comments drew little attention. In Congressional testimony on
> Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said, ?The commissions are
> still very much on the table.?
>
> In a news conference this week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
> emphasized that if the administration did use military commissions,
> the rules must give detainees ?a maximum amount of due process.?
>
> But, speaking of detainees whom American officials have accused of
> involvement in major terrorist plots, Mr. Holder added, ?It may be
> difficult for some of those high-value detainees to be tried in a
> normal federal court.?
> _______________________________________________
> 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 deanosor at mailup.net  Sun May  3 11:13:46 2009
From: deanosor at mailup.net (dean tuckerman)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 10:13:46 -0700
Subject: [R-G]
 =?iso-8859-1?q?U=2ES=2E_May_Revive_Guant=E1namo_Military_Co?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?urts?=
In-Reply-To: <dce6f8b40905031010s142645b4g31f77afc78552005@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7EF28565-AFB2-48E2-92A8-9AB5C258664E@shaw.ca>
	<dce6f8b40905031010s142645b4g31f77afc78552005@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6EF7CDB1-D9CD-4C3C-9BFC-394E3E466AAA@mailup.net>

How "may" is "may"?
On May 3, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Suzanne de Kuyper wrote:

> In other words, paint the place a freah new color,and you have another
> different prison, nicer, legaler.
>
> Suzanne
> suzannedk at gnail.com
>
>
> On 5/3/09, Anthony Fenton <fentona at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html?_r=1
>>
>> May 2, 2009
>> U.S. May Revive Guant?namo Military Courts
>> By WILLIAM GLABERSON
>>
>> The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military
>> commission system for prosecuting Guant?namo detainees, which was a
>> target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama
>> himself.
>>
>> Officials said the first public moves could come as soon as next  
>> week,
>> perhaps in filings to military judges at the United States naval base
>> at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, outlining an administration plan to amend  
>> the
>> Bush administration?s system to provide more legal protections for
>> terrorism suspects.
>>
>> Continuing the military commissions in any form would probably prompt
>> sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Mr.
>> Obama?s political allies because the troubled system became an emblem
>> of the effort to use Guant?namo to avoid the American legal system.
>>
>> Officials who work on the Guant?namo issue say administration lawyers
>> have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to
>> trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might  
>> make it
>> difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal
>> treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by
>> intelligence agencies.
>>
>> Obama administration officials ? and Mr. Obama himself ? have said in
>> the past that they were not ruling out prosecutions in the military
>> commission system. But senior officials have emphasized that they
>> prefer to prosecute terrorism suspects in existing American courts.
>> When President Obama suspended Guant?namo cases after his  
>> inauguration
>> on Jan. 20, many participants said the military commission system
>> appeared dead.
>>
>> But in recent days a variety of officials involved in the
>> deliberations say that after administration lawyers examined many of
>> the cases, the mood shifted toward using military commissions to
>> prosecute some detainees, perhaps including those charged with
>> coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks.
>>
>> ?The more they look at it,? said one official, ?the more commissions
>> don?t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.?
>>
>> Several officials insisted on anonymity because the administration  
>> has
>> directed that no one publicly discuss the deliberations.
>>
>> Administration officials said Friday that some detainees would be
>> prosecuted in federal courts and noted that Mr. Obama had always left
>> open the possibility of using military commissions.
>>
>> Still, during the presidential campaign Mr. Obama criticized the
>> commissions, saying that ?by any measure our system of trying
>> detainees has been an enormous failure,? and declaring that as
>> president he would ?reject the Military Commissions Act.?
>>
>> The military commissions, which were established specifically for
>> trying Guant?namo detainees, have been subject to repeated delays and
>> court challenges that argued that detainees were being denied basic
>> rights of American law. Only two trials have been completed in the
>> nearly eight years since the Bush administration announced that it
>> would use military tribunals.
>>
>> Any plan to adjust the military commissions would walk a tightrope of
>> granting the suspects more rights yet stopping short of affording  
>> them
>> the rights available to defendants in American courts. Several  
>> lawyers
>> say the commissions are only beneficial for the government if they
>> make it easier to win a prosecution than it would be in federal  
>> court.
>>
>> The Bush administration?s commission system was criticized in part
>> because it permitted evidence that would often be barred in federal
>> court, like evidence obtained through coercive interrogations and
>> hearsay.
>>
>> The administration is likely to make it more difficult for  
>> prosecutors
>> to admit hearsay, while not excluding it entirely, the lawyers said.
>> The hearsay issue is central to many Guant?namo cases because they  
>> are
>> based on intelligence reports and detainees may never be permitted to
>> cross-examine the sources of those reports.
>>
>> Human rights groups said Friday that using any form of military
>> commission would be seen as permitting shortcuts that would not be
>> available in existing American courts.
>>
>> Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil
>> Liberties Union, said that Mr. Obama had pledged to return the  
>> country
>> to the rule of law and that ?continuing with the military commission
>> system would be a retreat from that promise.?
>>
>> Gabor Rona, the international legal director of Human Rights First,
>> said military commissions would only be necessary if the
>> administration wanted to assure convictions that might not otherwise
>> be certain.
>>
>> ?The administration is making a huge mistake,? Mr. Rona said, ?if  
>> they
>> believe getting convictions through suspect methods is more valuable
>> than letting justice take its course.?
>>
>> It is not clear how many of the remaining 241 detainees are likely to
>> be prosecuted. The four-month suspension of military commission
>> proceedings Mr. Obama ordered is to end May 20. As a result,
>> administration officials are considering whether to ask military
>> judges at Guant?namo for an additional delay. In making such a
>> request, administration lawyers might outline their proposed changes.
>>
>> In recent days, senior administration officials have hinted publicly
>> that commissions were far from dead, yet offered no specifics and
>> their comments drew little attention. In Congressional testimony on
>> Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said, ?The commissions  
>> are
>> still very much on the table.?
>>
>> In a news conference this week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
>> emphasized that if the administration did use military commissions,
>> the rules must give detainees ?a maximum amount of due process.?
>>
>> But, speaking of detainees whom American officials have accused of
>> involvement in major terrorist plots, Mr. Holder added, ?It may be
>> difficult for some of those high-value detainees to be tried in a
>> normal federal court.?
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 shniad at sfu.ca  Sun May  3 12:21:50 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 11:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Is Netanyahu bringing Israel closer to a 'second Holocaust'?
 - Haaretz
In-Reply-To: <65DD4E44D52449AAB2100B8E4E82E44F@jac>
Message-ID: <159354807.23621241374910843.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1082131.html 





Haaretz 01/05/2009 Is Netanyahu bringing Israel closer to a 'second Holocaust'? 


By Aluf Benn 


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's actions are shaped by a profound conviction that Israel will be in danger of extermination if Iran has nuclear weapons at its disposal. Removing the Iranian threat to Israel has been Netanyahu's main goal for years, and the Iranians' progress in this realm has only reinforced his awareness that the fateful hour of decision is fast approaching. 

Ariel Sharon called Iran a global rather than an Israeli problem. Ehud Olmert used to say no issue preoccupied him more than the nuclear threat posed by Iran. But Netanyahu's predecessors didn't describe this danger with the same gravity as he does. "We will not allow the Holocaust-deniers to perpetrate another Holocaust against the Jewish people," the prime minister warned at the state ceremony on Holocaust and Martyrs' Remembrance Day last week. Senior political figures say Netanyahu has spoken to them about the danger of another Holocaust in private conversations as well. They are convinced that he truly believes it is his historic mission to rescue the Jewish people from a catastrophe. 

As far as Netanyahu is concerned, a decisive turning point in world history will occur when Iran completes its nuclear bomb. This will mean that significant control over the world's energy resources will be in the hands of a fanatical sect of ayatollahs, and will turn the Arab countries, against their will, into Tehran's satellites. Netanyahu views Israel's strategic problems as part and parcel of the ongoing struggle with Iran, a country that has built "launching bases" on the other side of the borders, in Lebanon and in Gaza, by supplying rockets to both Hezbollah and Hamas. The prime minister believes that once Iran goes nuclear, thereby turning Syria into its protege, any withdrawal from the Golan Heights will turn that territory into an Iranian front. 

In his speeches in recent years, Netanyahu has compared Iran to Nazi Germany and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Adolf Hitler, and has spoken of the international community's silence in the face of both threats - in 1938 and at present. 

"The second Holocaust" of which Netanyahu warns will not feature ghettos, trains or gas chambers, but will be characterized by an attempt to eradicate the State of Israel. In his opinion, the Jewish people's continued existence depends on the State of Israel's continued existence. Today, a great proportion of the world's Jews live in Israel, the only place where they can truly enjoy the revitalization of Jewish life, while their coreligionists are gradually being lost to assimilation elsewhere. Netanyahu sees Iran as the latest enemy that has surfaced and threatens the survival of the Jewish collective, an enemy that must be repelled, with the help of others or on our own. 

A country's leaders are obligated by commitments they make in public, which often compel them to keep their promises. Here are a few examples: The Arab countries invaded Palestine in 1948 after promising to prevent the Jewish state's establishment and to help the Palestinians, but their armies were ill prepared for the mission and lost the war. In 1967, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, swept up by his own rhetoric, pushed Israel into declaring its own "red lines," thereby dragging both sides into a war that probably neither of them wanted. 

In 1991 Iraqi president Saddam Hussein promised missiles against Israel, and delivered. In 2006 Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah kept his promise to his supporters to kidnap Israeli soldiers, and then-prime minister Ehud Olmert was pushed into keeping his counter-promise not to give in to terror, and embarked on a war without checking whether the Israel Defense Forces were capable of defeating Hezbollah. In 2008 Israel's leaders once again warned of an imminent operation in Gaza, and eventually embarked on it. 

Illusion of choice 

In his impressive book "Fateful Choices," British historian Ian Kershaw describes the 10 most critical decisions about World War II, made in 1940-41 by the leaders of Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the U.S. These include Britain's decision to continue fighting Hitler after the fall of France, Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union, Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor, president Roosevelt's decision to join the war and Hitler's decision to destroy the Jews. 

In all these cases, which constituted turning points in the war, the leaders ostensibly acted out of their own volition and could have chosen another path, which would have changed the course of history. But Kershaw demonstrates that freedom of choice is an illusion. When leaders reach the moment of truth, they are bound by their character, by ideology and beliefs that prompted them to run for office, by their countries' military and economic capabilities, and - above all - by their commitment to their previous decisions. Any deviations will probably be more closely linked to the type of regime and its decision-making mechanisms than to content. 

Netanyahu's policy also has to be assessed by these parameters. His role model is Winston Churchill, the man who warned about Germany's strengthening in the 1930s and was considered an eccentric right-wing militarist until he was called upon to save Britain in World War II, after his doomsday prophecies came true. Like him, Netanyahu also sees himself as a prophet at the gate, who saw the dangers of terror and extremist Islam before others did, and has now received a second chance to prove the justice of his claims and remove the threats to Israel and the Jewish people. A person with such historical awareness does not just spew out empty words about existential dangers, Holocaust and destruction. These words obligate him to take action. And his declarations to date have been so extreme that he will have difficulty retreating from them. 

The first test for Netanyahu's approach will come during his upcoming meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama. Netanyahu sees Obama, more than anyone else in the world, as the one person who can halt Iranian armament. During their meeting in Jerusalem last July, when they were both still running for office, Netanyahu told Obama that his presidency would be judged by his handling of Iran. He expressed support for Obama's proposal for rapprochement with the Iranians, and told him that in that case, the end far outweighs the means. In Netanyahu's opinion Obama has tremendous political clout - something his predecessor George W. Bush lacked - to launch an operation against Iran. He has at his disposal all the diplomatic, economic and military capabilities of the American superpower. 

Furthermore, Netanyahu apparently understands that, in return for American actions to remove the specter of the Iranian threat from the region, Israel will be required to embark on a diplomatic process with the Palestinians, and perhaps with the Syrians, too. In case he didn't understand this, during her appearance in Congress last week, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it her business to explain to him that the Arab countries will not stand with Israel against Iran if Israel does not advance the peace process with the Palestinians. 

Since Netanyahu's return to the Prime Minister's Office, and ahead of his trip to Washington, Israel has upped its verbal tirade against Iran, and there is evidence of a media campaign with one, simple message: If the world doesn't halt Iran's nuclearization, Israel will act alone, and it is already preparing for such an eventuality. 

It began with an interview Netanyahu gave to Jeffrey Goldberg, a reporter for The Atlantic, while the government was still being formed. Goldberg wrote: "The American president, he [Netanyahu] said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons - and quickly - or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran's nuclear facilities itself." The citation appeared without quotation marks, and Goldberg explained in his blog that this was his take on Netanyahu's statements rather than a direct quote. The PMO did not issue a specific denial, and the headline in The Atlantic - "Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran - Or I Will" - became the basis for a worldwide media discussion and for a debate among columnists as to whether or not Israel should attack Iran. 

Netanyahu's controversial quote was only the opening act, preceding the item that appeared recently in the daily Maariv, to the effect that the prime minister is satisfied with the military preparations for attacking Iran; the report in The Times of Britain, which cited Israeli security sources on IDF plans for an operation and asserted that an upcoming Home Front exercise will be part of the preparations for a war with Iran; the Israel Air Force briefing for military correspondents, during which pilots spoke about their high motivation for an operation against Iranian nuclearization; and the interview in the daily Yedioth Ahronoth with the outgoing CEO of the Nuclear Research Institute in Dimona, Yitzhak Gurevich, who compared Ahmadinejad to Hitler and his speeches against Israel to "Mein Kampf." Gurevich, who headed the country's most sensitive facility for seven years, cannot speak to the media without first receiving the prime minister's permission. 

In this week's cabinet meeting, Defense Minister Ehud Barak reiterated his call on Obama to determine a deadline for talks with Iran and to prepare a threatening package of sanctions in case the negotiations fail. "At the same time, we are not removing any option from the table, we recommend that others do the same, and we mean what we say," he said. A few weeks ago Barak warned that the time for dealing with Iran is running out. 

Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who visited the U.S. a few weeks ago, tried to illustrate to his American interlocutors the challenge Iran poses for Israel. "Let's say that the rocket fire resumes, and we have to embark on another operation in Gaza. Intelligence informs us that the Iranians have armed their nuclear bombs. What will we do then? How can we operate against Hamas?" When we say all options are on the table, explained Ashkenazi, it is my job to make sure that they will be ready. 

What will a Netanyahu-led Israel do if Obama succeeds and reaches an agreement that will leave Iran with the status of a "threshold nation" - with nuclear capability, but without a bomb? And what will Israel demand in return for such an arrangement, in the form of American security guarantees in case it is violated? 

Israel will find it difficult to attack Iran alone without a "green light" from America, even if it is only implied and if America ostensibly turns a blind eye. But once the moment of truth arrives, it is doubtful Obama would give the order to take down the Israeli planes heading to Iran - or for that matter to declare an end of aid to Israel or to sever relations. Obviously, the U.S. will want to remain somewhat distanced from any operation that is launched, so as not to be vulnerable to the anticipated Iranian response. But its strong commitment to Israeli security will not allow America to forcibly prevent a military operation designed to prevent a second Holocaust. That is the message Netanyahu will try to implant in the minds of the members of Congress. 

As long as the diplomatic process continues, and Obama is asking Israel to hold off on any action, it is too early to declare that a war against Iran is inevitable. But Netanyahu's rise to power is clearly bringing Israel closer to such a conflagration, because of the gravity he attributes to the Iranian threat and his belief that he is tasked with saving Israel and the Jewish people from destruction. Anyone who thinks of himself in such terms and is also talking about history books will not want to be remembered as the prime minister who served when the Islamic Republic, whose leader considers Israel a "filthy germ," became a nuclear power. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sun May  3 12:25:04 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 11:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Blame NAFTA for swine flu, experts say  -  Toronto Star
In-Reply-To: <2053221367.389131241299446558.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <629530665.23821241375104197.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>


http://www.thestar.com/article/627157 






Blame NAFTA for swine flu, experts say 







Lax farming rules under free trade deal create breeding ground for virus, environmentalists argue 


May 01, 2009 04:30 AM 


Linda Diebel 
Staff Reporter 





MEXICO CITY?Sewage-filled lagoons at a pig farm in eastern Mexico ? a product of the North American free trade deal ? are suspected of creating ground zero conditions for swine flu in this country. 




Environmentalists argue lax regulations in the factory farming that boomed in Mexico right after the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and the U.S. are making people sick ? and not just with swine flu. 




"You might call this the `NAFTA flu,'" said Rick Arnold, co-ordinator of Common Frontiers, a Canadian coalition focusing on Latin America and issues of economic integration. 

He argues multinationals are getting away with dire conditions not allowed north of the border. 




Environmental groups three years ago began protesting against operations at the Carroll Farms in Veracruz, jointly operated by U.S. pork giant Smithfield Farms. 





The first confirmed case of swine flu originated with a 5-year-old boy from the town of La Gloria, near the farm. He recovered. 

Medical officials have not pinpointed where the outbreak began. 





And from its Virginia headquarters, Smithfield officials insist there is no evidence linking their operations to the disease. 

Smithfield Farms, the world's largest pork producer with $12 billion in annual sales, opened Carroll Farms in 1994, calling it a "joint venture. 





At home, the company was fined $12.6 million (U.S.) in 1997 after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disclosed it was dumping raw pig sewage into a river flowing into Chesapeake Bay. 




The health ministry, which earlier said 168 people were believed killed by swine flu in Mexico, yesterday would confirm only 12 of those deaths as being from swine flu and would not say how many more cases were suspected. 




The air in Mexico City, once called the "most polluted" by the World Health Organization, is loaded with human fecal matter, gases, dust and other toxic materials. 





"The pollution affects our eyes, throats and lungs," said Dr. Erendira Gallardo Lobera, a general practitioner. She said the Mexican government should take stronger measures to ensure residents of the capital aren't breathing in rat and dog feces with their oxygen. 




While Mexicans continue to wear masks and stay indoors in a country virtually shut down, people say the government should be more forthcoming with information. 




"I think the government isn't giving us the correct statistics about infected cases," said restaurant employee Jose Gutierrez Hernandez. "I fear there's not enough medicine to control this outbreak and there is no vaccine against swine flu." 




President Felipe Calderon promised his officials would provide timely information, adding as a "parent and as a person, there is nothing more important to me than the life and health of the Mexican people." 





From shniad at sfu.ca  Sun May  3 12:25:41 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 11:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] NSARCHIVE Digest - "How Much is Enough?": The U.S. Navy and
 "Finite Deterrence"
In-Reply-To: <1934899743.388831241299322296.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1025923588.23851241375141506.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>


Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 08:19:59 -0400 
From: National Security Archive <archive at GWU.EDU> 
Subject: "How Much is Enough?": The U.S. Navy and "Finite Deterrence" 

National Security Archive Update, May 1, 2009 

"How Much is Enough?": The U.S. Navy and "Finite Deterrence" 

A Moment in Cold War History when the Fundamentals of the U.S. Nuclear Posture Were at Stake 

http://www.nsarchive.org/nukevault 

Washington, DC, May 1, 2009 - President Obama's recent call for a "world without nuclear weapons" immediately raised questions of how do you get there, what does deterrence actually require before you get there, and how many nuclear weapons would that involve at each step. Exactly these questions of "how much is enough" were fifty years ago in secret debate within the U.S. government, when Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh Burke argued that a small force of mainly nuclear missile-launching Polaris submarines was enough for deterrence. Burke and Navy leaders developed a concept of "finite" or "minimum" deterrence--highly relevant to today's debate--that they believed would make the United States safer because it would dissuade nuclear attacks while removing pressures for a dangerous "hair-trigger" posture. 

In early 1960, when President Eisenhower's budget director Maurice Stans was told that the U.S. Navy's Polaris missile-launching submarines could "destroy 232 targets, which was sufficient to destroy all of Russia," he asked defense officials, "If POLARIS could do this job, why did we need other... ICBMs, SAC aircraft, and overseas bases?" According to Stans, the answer "he had received... [was] that was someone else's problem." An electronic briefing book of declassified documents obtained through archival research and published for the first time by the National Security Archive shows how the U.S. Navy, tried to take responsibility for this "problem" by supporting a minimum deterrent force that would threaten a "finite" list of major urban-industrial and command centers in the heart of the Soviet Union. 

With their capability to destroy key Soviet targets, Burke believed, the virtually undetectable and invulnerable Polaris submarines could "inflict terrible punishment" and deter Moscow from launching a surprise attack on the United States or its allies. By contrast, Burke saw land-based missile and bombers as vulnerable to attack, which made the U.S.-Soviet nuclear relationship dangerously unstable. While he did not propose eliminating all strategic bombers and ICBMs, he believed that a force of about 40 Polaris submarines (16 missiles each) was a reasonable answer to the question "how much is enough?" Although the Kennedy administration rejected Burke's concept, years later former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara revived it by arguing that 400 nuclear weapons were "enough" to deter a Soviet attack. 

The Archive's briefing book includes: 

* A report by Admiral Roy Johnson arguing that the proper basis of deterrence lay in the "assured delivery of rather few weapons" which was "sufficient to inflict terrible punishment." Even "10 delivered weapons would produce a major disaster with fully a quarter as many casualties as the first hundred." 

* A speech by Arleigh Burke where he argued that Polaris submarines would mitigate the vulnerabilities of strategic forces, but would also "provide time to think in periods of tension" making possible gradual retaliation as well as opportunities for "political coercion, if we like, to gain national objectives more advantageous than simple revenge." 

* The record of Burke's conversation with the Secretary of the Navy, where, having lost a major bureaucratic conflict over the direction of nuclear targeting, he declared that Air Force leaders were "smart and ruthless ... it's the same way as the Communists; it's exactly the same techniques." 

* Burke's inside "Dope" newsletter to top Navy commanders where he declared that hair-trigger nuclear response capabilities and preemptive nuclear strategies were "dangerous for any nation" because they could initiate a "a war which would not otherwise occur." 

This is the first in a series of electronic briefing books that will document moments during the Cold War when top officials considered radical changes in the U.S. nuclear posture, involving significantly smaller strategic forces. More powerful forces and conflicting policy imperatives defeated these proposals, but they are nonetheless worth revisiting because their proponents raised searching questions about nuclear strategy that were never properly addressed during the Cold War. 

Visit the Archive's Nuclear Vault for more information. 

http://www.nsarchive.org/nukevault 

________________________________________________________ 

THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE is an independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. The Archive collects and publishes declassified documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A tax-exempt public charity, the Archive receives no U.S. government funding; its budget is supported by publication royalties and donations from foundations and individuals. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sun May  3 12:27:50 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 11:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] The Israel Boycott is Biting
In-Reply-To: <354264019.229341241206523248.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1531593767.24041241375270484.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=31810 

2009-05-01 

The Israel Boycott is Biting 


Motorola, Caterpillar, Veolia (light rail makers), the Tesco supermarket chain, and other companies across the world that do business with Israel are suffering losses due to a global boycott in support of Palestinian rights, argues Nadia Hijab . 





On May 4, protesters will greet Motorola shareholders, already disgruntled by the company?s losses, as they arrive for their annual meeting at the Rosemont Theater in Chicago, Illinois. 





The protest, organized by the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, is part of a drive to ?Hang Up On Motorola? until it ends sales of communications and other products that support Israel?s military occupation of Palestinian land. 





Inside the meeting, the Presbyterian, United Methodist and other churches will urge shareholders to support their resolution, which calls for corporate standards grounded in international law. Doing the right thing could also reduce the risk of ?consumer boycotts, divestment campaigns and lawsuits.? 





Although Motorola executives deny it, such risks must have played a part in their decision to sell the department making bomb fuses shortly after Human Rights Watch teams found shrapnel with Motorola serial numbers at some of the civilian sites bombed by Israel in its December-January assault on Gaza. 





The US protests are part of a growing global movement that has taken international law into its own hands because governments have not. And, especially since the attacks on Gaza, the boycotts have been biting. There are three reasons why. 





First, boycotts enable ordinary citizens to take direct action. For instance, the New York group Adalah decided to target diamond merchant Lev Leviev, whose profits are plowed into colonizing the West Bank. During the Christmas season, they sing carols with the words creatively altered to urge shoppers to boycott his Madison Avenue store. 





The British group Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine teamed up with Adalah NY and others to exert public pressure on the British government regarding Leviev. The British Embassy in Tel Aviv recently cancelled plans to rent premises from Leviev?s company Africa-Israel. 





There are other results. Activists in Britain have targeted the supermarket chain Tesco to stop the sales of Israeli goods produced in settlements. In a video of one such action -- over 38,000 YouTube views to date -- Welsh activists load up a trolley with settlement products and push it out of the shop without paying. 





All the while, they calmly explain to the camera just what they are doing and why. They talk away as they pour red paint over the produce, and as British Bobbies quietly lead them away to a police van. 





The result of such consumer boycotts? A fifth of Israeli producers have reported a drop in demand since the assault on Gaza, particularly in Britain and Scandinavia. 





The second reason boycotts are more effective is the visible role of Jewish human rights advocates, making it harder for Israel to argue that these actions are anti-Semitic. 





For example, British architect Abe Hayeem, an Iraqi Jew, describes in a passionate column in The Guardian exactly how Leviev tramples on Palestinian rights, and warns Israeli architects involved in settlements that they will be held to account by their international peers. 





In the United States, Jewish Voice for Peace has led an ongoing campaign to stop Caterpillar from selling bulldozers to Israel, which militarizes them and uses them in home demolitions and building the separation wall. 





The third, key, reason for the growing success of this global movement is the determined leadership of Palestinian civil society. The spark was lit at the world conference against racism in Durban in 2001. In 2004, Palestinian civil society launched an academic and cultural boycott that is having an impact. 





In 2005, over 170 Palestinian civil society coalitions, organizations, and unions, from the occupied territories, within Israel, and in exile issued a formal call for an international campaign of boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) until Israel abides by international law. The call sets out clear goals for the movement and provides a framework for action. 





In November 2008, Palestinian NGOs helped convene an international BDS conference in Bilbao, Spain, to adopt common actions. This launched a ?Derail Veolia? campaign. That French multinational corporation, together with another French company, Alstom, is building a light railway linking East Jerusalem to illegal settlements. 





The light rail project was cited by the Swedish national pension fund in its decision to exclude Alstom from its $15 billion portfolio, and by the Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council in its decision not to consider further Veolia's bid for a $1.9 billion waste improvement plan. There were active grassroots campaigns in both areas. 





Other hits: Veolia lost the contract to operate the city of Stockholm subway and an urban network in Bordeaux. Although these were reportedly ?business decisions? there were also activist campaigns in both places. The Galway city council in Ireland decided to follow Stockholm?s example. Meanwhile, Connex, the company that is supposed to operate the light rail, is being targeted by activists in Australia. 





The ?Derail Veolia? campaign has been the movement?s biggest success to date. Veolia and its subsidiaries are estimated to have lost as much as $7.5 billion. 







As one of the BDS movement leaders, Omar Barghouti, put it, ?When companies start to lose money, then they listen.? Perhaps governments will too. 







Nadia Hijab is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies in Washington D.C. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sun May  3 12:32:53 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 11:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Free trade and Mexico's drug war
In-Reply-To: <BAA0FC0406F342EE34F92F726BF1367EEDC3615173C7E546@response.therealnews.com>
Message-ID: <1087734184.24521241375573780.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>





		donate to The Real News		logo

News stories 	May 3, 2009 	
More from The Real News 
Watch more news stories on the economy, US politics and the climate change crisis from around the world view 

	Free trade and Mexico's drug war 
Miguel Tinker Salas: Collapse of traditional economy created the space for the cartels to grow view 

	

	The Promise '09 	
To reach an audience in the millions view 



	
	

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sun May  3 12:36:10 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 11:36:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Julia Ward Howe's Mother's Day Proclamation - 1870
In-Reply-To: <1022031937.4046251238623983884.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <586266974.24831241375770290.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?id=217 



Julia Ward Howe's Mother's Day Proclamation - 1870 



Arise then...women of this day! 

Arise, all women who have hearts! 

Whether your baptism be of water or of tears! 

Say firmly: 

"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies, 

Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage, 

For caresses and applause. 

Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn 

All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience. 

We, the women of one country, 

Will be too tender of those of another country 

To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs." 




From suzannedk at gmail.com  Sun May  3 13:28:43 2009
From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 21:28:43 +0200
Subject: [R-G] Spanish Judge Opens Probe Into Guantanamo Torture
In-Reply-To: <1082564273.386931241298241939.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
References: <1827795774.272821241214478092.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
	<1082564273.386931241298241939.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <dce6f8b40905031228v79789911r4f7ab521399fe7f1@mail.gmail.com>

I thought that they decided not to do this as the Obama administration would
make a mockery of thier law!  The U S must be pleased for the photo-op.

Suzanne                      suzannedk at gmail.com

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Sid Shniad <shniad at sfu.ca> wrote:

>
> http://www.truthout.org/042909T
>
> Spanish Judge Opens Probe Into Guantanamo Torture
>
> Agence France-Presse: April 29, 2009
>
> Madrid - A Spanish judge on Wednesday opened an investigation into an
> alleged "systematic programme" of torture at the US Guantanamo Bay
> detention
> camp, following accusations by four former prisoners.
>
> Judge Baltasar Garzon will probe the "perpetrators, the instigators, the
> n




> ecessary collaborators and accomplices" to crimes of torture at the prison
> at the US naval base in southern Cuba, he said in his ruling, a copy of
> which was seen by AFP.
>
> The judge based his decision on statements by Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed,
> known as the "Spanish Taliban" and three other former Guantanamo detainees
> -
> a Moroccan, a Palestinian and a Libyan.
>
> Garzon said that documents declassified by the US administration and
> carried by US media "have revealed what was previously a suspicion: the
> existence of an authorised and systematic programme of torture and
> mistreatment of persons deprived of their freedom" that flouts
> international
> conventions.
>
> This points to "the possible existence of concerted actions by the US
> administration for the execution of a multitude of crimes of torture
> against
> persons deprived of their freedom in Guantanamo and other prisons including
> that of Bagram" in Afghanistan.
>
> The four former Guantanamo detainees alleged they were held in cramped
> cells and suffered beatings and other physical and mental mistreatment.
>
> The Palestinian, Jamiel Abdelatif al Banna, said he suffered "blows to
> the head that caused him to lose consciousness, was detained in an
> underground place without light for three weeks and deprived of food and
> sleep."
>
> The decision by Garzon, known around the world for ordering the arrest
> of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London in 1998, was
> unrelated
> to another investigation by the judge into six officials of the former US
> administration of George W. Bush over alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay.
>
> Prosecutors this month issued an official request to the judge to drop
> that probe, arguing that the complaint targets officials who did not have
> the power to make decisions but who simply "drafted non-binding judicial
> reports."
>
> Spain since 2005 has assumed the principle of universal jurisdiction in
> alleged cases of crimes against humanity, genocide, and terrorism. But it
> can only proceed when any such cases of the alleged crimes are not already
> subject to a legal procedure in the country involved.
>
> Several human rights groups have asked judges in different countries to
> indict Bush administration officials over the camp, which US President
> Barack Obama has vowed to close by January 2010.
>
> More than 800 detainees have been held at the US military prison since
> 2002.
>
> Some 240 people are still there. About 60 of them have been deemed
> eligible for release, but the Obama administration is struggling to arrange
> their transfer to a third country.
>
> The Bush administration had charged about 20 of the detainees on
> terror-related charges, including two prisoners arrested when they were
> still teenagers.
> _______________________________________________
> 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 tchilds at resist.ca  Sun May  3 14:53:01 2009
From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca)
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 13:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Greenwashing the Olympics - video resource
Message-ID: <49755.70.71.176.80.1241383981.squirrel@mail.resist.ca>

This is a 3 part online video resource. Chris Shaw, author of _Five Ring
Circus_, presents at the rabble.ca anniversary event held last month in
Vancouver. It is inter-cut with scenes from Vancouver's Anti Poverty
Committee/Olympic Resistance Network's demo opposing the greenwashing of
the Olympics outside the Trade and Convention Center also last month. Do
share this popular education resource with your networks:

http://pasifik.ca/node/5822

Best regards,
tom
www.pasifik.ca



From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Sun May  3 23:51:59 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 14:51:59 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Bankrolling the World into Chaos
Message-ID: <49FE827F.6080900@ashisuto.co.jp>


by Michael Rowbotham

Prosperity (January 2000)


It is time to ask searching questions about the near total reliance of
modern economies upon banking. Getting the right answers can sometimes
be difficult. But not asking the right questions in the first place can
be a disaster. The industrialised economies are trying desperately to
break the cycle of boom and bust and the Asian Tigers are counting what
is left after the crash. But no-one is pointing out that modern
economies are rendered inherently unstable by a financial system based
almost entirely upon lending.

The exposure of industrialised nations to the banking system is no less
great than that of the poorer nations, and the risk of collapse just as
possible. The debts registered against the wealthy nations and their
citizens speak for themselves. In the UK outstanding mortgage debts
total GBP 420 billion, commercial debts GBP 380 billion and the National
Debt stands at GBP 400 billion. In the USA, mortgages currently in
excess of $4.2 trillion and a national debt of $5 trillion make one
wonder why the wealthier a nation becomes, the more its financial
accounts deteriorate.

The answer to this conundrum is easy. Under the current financial
system, debt is used to create money. Bank of England statistics show
that a staggering 97% of the entire UK money stock consists of bank
money created by the action of lending to borrowers. Government created
currency the notes and coins (MO) at three per cent of the money stock,
is now so trivial that the entire economy functions on money created by
bank lending. Globally, over ninety per cent of all money is created by
the banking system.

The ability of lending institutions to create a vast circulating money
stock of bank credit is well understood by economists. In most peoples'
minds, money is still the stuff you jingle in your pocket. However, most
money today consists simply of numbers relayed between bank accounts via
computer systems, and created out of thin air every time a loan is made.

The problem with a bank-based money supply is this: When a bank makes a
loan, a debt is created as well as a credit. So with the GBP 680 billion
of bank credit now lubricating the UK economy goes GBP 680 billion of
debt in the form of mortgages, overdrafts, commercial loans and other debts.

A clear political as well as an economic question arises: is it proper
to rely so heavily upon debt to create the nation's medium of exchange?

Of course, the citizens of Malaysia, South Korea and Indonesia have not
just been having difficulties with the monthly mortgage. Their entire
future has been rewritten. After decades of struggle to raise per capita
income above the poverty level to a half-decent standard of living, the
financial carpet has been suddenly and cruelly pulled from under their
feet. Forced to accept massive dollar loans from the IMF and commercial
banks, with their currency degraded and now the plaything of
international dealers, their commercial assets are now being picked up
for a song by foreign investors. The Koreans are already talking about a
"lost generation".

The Asian crisis reminds the world of the capacity of a bank-based money
supply to lead to complete economic collapse. The industrialised nations
have not experienced this for many decades. But, we too are suffering
from the debt-based financial system. The massive mortgages carried by
Western citizens, and the earnings pressure and wage dependency these
create, is a form of constant oppression. Should we allow our lives to
be so dominated by debt and banking policy, and the stock market
manipulation of international capital flows?

What are the Money Supply Alternatives?

Monetary reform has an ancient pedigree, as applicable to the advanced
industrial nations as to the Third World. Bishop Berkeley asked in the
early eighteenth century "whether or not it be a mighty privilege for a
man to create a hundred pounds with the stroke of a pen?"

In the 1930s, during the Depression days of poverty amidst plenty, the
financial system brought the economies of the world to a virtual
standstill. Then, the public took to the streets in support of monetary
reformers such as Douglas, Orage, Soddy and Kitson. The monetary
reformers were ignored and Keynsian deficit financing was adopted, that
is, the world chose debt.

In the 1980s, the Economic Research Council, under Sir Arthur Bryant,
advocated that the UK government should take on the responsibility for
the issuance of money, thereby obviating the need for a national debt
and reducing the burden of money creation placed upon commerce and the
general population. Bryan Gould, shortly before he left for New Zealand,
displayed his monetary reform credentials when he declared, in the New
Statesman (February 19 1993) :

"Why shouldn't a socially aware and economically responsible government
create credit where it is appropriate ... in order to ensure investment
is made and at the same time strike a great blow for the democratic
control of the economy?"

Government-created credit, like the coins and notes they issue, would be
created as a debt-free input into the economy, spent into circulation
via public services, and contribute to a stable, circulating money
stock. The monetary reformers have history on their side. In the 1950s
and 1960s, the money stock consisted of about 75% bank created money and
25% cash currency, created debt-free. Inflation was lower, growth more
stable and debts markedly smaller in comparison to average incomes, and
related to GDP. Why should the declining use of cash mean that the
difference is made up by bank created money and the debt it entails?
Just because the economy needs less cash doesn't mean it needs more debt.

This question was raised by Lord Sudeley in the House of Lords in May
1998. He asked whether the government intended to take any measure to
compensate for the loss of debt and interest free money caused by the
declining use of cash. The official reply, contained in a statement of
masterly evasion and opacity, was "No".

The government issuance of money has always been dismissed as
inflationary. But this need not be the case. If sensible restrictions
were placed on banks and building societies, the government-issued money
supply would be compensated for by curtailing the production of new bank
lending. For instance, there could be a limit, and gradual reduction, in
the number of times a person is allowed to multiply their annual income
as the basis of a mortgage. Since house mortgages support over sixty per
cent of the money stock, this could make a dramatic contribution to
preventing monetary inflation as well as putting a break on the
relentless rise in house prices, which benefits no-one. It would also
mean that, over the years, house buying would became a competition based
on money people have got, rather than at present, money they haven't
got. An entirely new economic agenda is possible, and radically
different fiscal conditions would prevail in an economy based on
solvency rather than debt. Although this offers a range of government
and commercial policy options that amount almost to an economic
revolution, it is a reform that can be undertaken gradually, building up
the liquidity in an economy and monitoring the effects over a number of
years, effectively reversing the recent drift towards ever greater debt.

All national economies are now so financially vulnerable that they are
constantly taken to the cleaners by powerful multinationals and heavily
exposed to the callous and destructive actions of predatory speculation.
More liquidity and solvency would afford protection to the real,
productive economy, rather than making the source of true wealth subject
to the vagaries of finance.

In the end, this has to be part of the answer. And as Bryan Gould points
out, the questions addressed are fundamental political issues, not just
a matter of economics. Why should a nation's people and its commerce
drift ever deeper into debt simply to create their medium of exchange?
Why should a government the one institution with the constitutional
authority to create money delegate this responsibility and power
entirely to banks, and thereby oblige the nation to run on debt? These
are the questions we should ask as we watch the crisis in Asia deepen
and spread, perhaps along with a query as to the sanity of the bulk of
our economists, who see no connection between the spiralling debt
problems of the world and the way money is currently created.

_____

Please print out, photocopy and distribute these articles. Also copy and
paste them to emails, and circulate widely, and please include all the
essential contact information below. Thank you.

Essential Further Reading:

PROSPERITY: Freedom from Debt Slavery is a four-page quarterly journal
which campaigns for publicly-created debt-free money, edited and
published by Alistair McConnachie. A four-issue subscription is
available for GBP 10 payable to: PROSPERITY at 268 Bath Street, Glasgow,
Scotland, UK, G2 4JR
Tel: 0141 332 2214; Fax: 0141 353 6900
admcc at admcc.freeserve.co.uk  http://www.ProsperityUK.com
Or you can follow this link to our subscribe page:
http://www.prosperityuk.com/get_involved/subscribe/index.php

The Grip of Death: A study of modern money, debt slavery and destructive
economics by Michael Rowbotham [Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1998] and
Goodbye America! Globalisation, debt and the dollar empire by Michael
Rowbotham [Jon Carpenter Publishing, 2000] both available from the
address above.

http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/bankchaos.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 ashisuto.co.jp  Mon May  4 08:25:53 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 23:25:53 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The IMF Rules the World
Message-ID: <49FEFAF1.5050603@ashisuto.co.jp>


Will the Debtors Fight Back?

by Michael Hudson

CounterPunch (April 06 2009)


Not much substantive news was expected to come out of the G-20 meetings
that ended on April 2 in London - certainly no good news was even
suggested. Europe, China and the United States had too deeply distinct
interests. American diplomats wanted to lock foreign countries into
further dependency on paper dollars. The rest of the world sought a way
to avoid giving up real output and ownership of their resources and
enterprises for yet more hot-potato dollars. In such cases one expects a
parade of smiling faces and statements of mutual respect for each
others' position - so much respect that they have agreed to set up a
"study group" or two to kick the diplomatic ball down the road.

The least irrelevant news was not good at all: The attendees agreed to
quadruple IMF funding to $1 trillion. Anything that bolsters IMF
authority cannot be good for countries forced to submit to its austerity
plans. They are designed to squeeze out more money to pay the world's
most predatory creditors. So in practice this G-20 agreement means that
the world's leading governments are responding to today's financial
crisis with "planned shrinkage" for debtors - a ten per cent cut in wage
payments in hapless Latvia, Hungary put on rations, and permanent debt
peonage for Iceland for starters. This is quite a contrast with the
United States, which is responding to the downturn with a giant
Keynesian deficit spending program, despite its glaringly unpayable $4
trillion debt to foreign central banks.

So the international financial system's double standard remains alive
and kicking - at least, kicking countries that are down or are falling.
Debtor countries must borrow a trillion from the IMF not to revive their
own faltering economies, not to pursue counter-cyclical policies to
restore market demand (that is only for creditor nations), but to pass
on the IMF "aid" to the poisonous banks that have made the irresponsible
toxic loans. (If these are toxic, who put in the toxin? To claim that it
was all the "natural" workings of the marketplace is to say that free
markets curdle and sicken. Is this what is happening?)

In Ukraine, a physical fight broke out in Parliament when the Party of
Regions blocked an agreement with the IMF calling for government budget
cutbacks. And rightly so! The IMF's operating philosophy is the
destructive (indeed, toxic) belief that imposing a deeper depression
with more unemployment will reduce wage levels and living standards by
enough to pay debts already at unsustainable levels, thanks to the
kleptocracy's tax "avoidance" and capital flight. The IMF
trillion-dollar bailout is actually for these large international banks,
so that they will be able to take their money and run. The problem is
all being blamed on labor. That is the neo-Malthusian spirit of today's
neoliberalism.

The main beneficiaries of IMF lending to Latvia, for example, have been
the Swedish banks that have spent the last decade funding that country's
real estate bubble while doing nothing to help develop an industrial
potential. Latvia has paid for its imports by exporting its male labor
of prime working age, acting as a vehicle for Russian capital flight -
and borrowing mortgage purchase-money in foreign currency. To pay these
debts rather than default, Latvia will have to lower wages in its public
sector by ten per cent - and this with an economy already depressed and
that the government expects to shrink by twelve percent this year!

To save the banks from losing on their toxic mortgages, the IMF is
bailing them out, and directing the Latvian government to squeeze labor
all the more - and to charge for education rather than providing it
freely. The idea is for families to take a lifetime of debt not only to
live inside rather than on the sidewalk, but to get an education.
Alcoholism rates are rising, as they did in Russia under similar
circumstances in Yeltsin's "Harvard Boys" kleptocracy after 1996.

The insolvency problem of the post-Soviet economies is not entirely the
IMF's fault, to be sure. The European Community deserves a great deal of
blame. Instead of viewing the post-Soviet economies as wards to be
brought up to speed with Western Europe, the last thing the EU wanted
was to develop potential rivals. It wanted customers - not only for its
exports, but most of all for its loans. The Baltic States passed into
the Scandinavian sphere, while Austrian banks carved out financial
spheres of influence in Hungary (and lost their shirt on real estate
loans, much as the Habsburgs and Rothschilds did in times past). Iceland
was neoliberalized, largely in ripoffs organized by German banks and
British financial sharpies.

In fact, Iceland (where I'm writing these lines) looks like a controlled
experiment - a very cruel one - as to how deeply an economy can be
"financialized" and how long its population will submit voluntarily to
predatory financial behavior. If the attack were military, it would spur
a more alert response. The trick is to keep the population from
understanding the financial dynamics at work and the underlying
fraudulent character of the debts with which it has been saddled - with
the complicit aid of its own local oligarchy.

In today's world, the easiest way to obtain wealth by old-fashioned
"primitive accumulation" is by financial manipulation. This is the
essence of the Washington Consensus that the G-20 support, using the IMF
in its usual role as enforcer. The G-20's announcement continues the US
Treasury and Federal Reserve bank bailout over the past half-year. In a
nutshell, the solution to a debt crisis is to be yet more debt. If
debtors can't pay out of what they are able to earn, lend them enough to
keep current on their carrying charges. Collateralize this with their
property, their public domain, their political autonomy - their
democracy itself. The aim is to keep the debt overhead in place. This
can be done only by keeping the volume of debts growing exponentially as
they accrue interest, which is added onto the loan. This is the "magic
of compound interest". It is what turns entire economies into Ponzi
schemes (or Madoff schemes as they are now called).

This is "equilibrium", neoliberal style. In addition to paying an
exorbitant basic interest rate, homeowners must pay a special eighteen
per cent indexation charge on their debts to reflect the inflation rate
(the consumer price index) so that creditors will not lose the
purchasing power over consumer goods. Labor's wages are not indexed, so
defaults are spreading and the country is being torn apart with
bankruptcy, causing the highest unemployment rate since the Great
Depression. The IMF approves, announcing that it can find no reason why
homeowners cannot bear this burden!

Meanwhile, democracy is being torn apart by a financial oligarchy, whose
interests have become increasingly cosmopolitan, looking at the economy
as prey to be looted. A new term is emerging: "codfish republic" (known
further south as banana republics). Many of Iceland's billionaires these
days are choosing to join their Russian counterparts living in London -
and the Russian gangsters are reciprocating by visiting Iceland even in
the dead of winter, ostensibly merely to enjoy its warm volcanic Blue
Lagoon, or so the press is told.

The alternative is for debtor countries to suffer the same kind of
economic sanctions as Iran, Cuba and pre-invasion Iraq. Perhaps soon
there will be enough such economies to establish a common trading area
among themselves, possibly along with Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil.
But as far as the G-20 is concerned, aid to Iceland and "doing the right
thing" is simply a bargaining chip in the international diplomatic game.
Russia offered $4 billion aid to Iceland, but retracted it - presumably
when Britain gave it a plum as a tradeoff.

The IMF's $1 trillion won't help the post-Soviet and Third World debtor
countries pay their foreign debts, especially their real estate
mortgages denominated in foreign currency. This practice has violated
the First Law of national fiscal prudence: Only permit debts to be taken
on that are in the same currency as the income that is expected to be
earned to pay them off. If central bankers really sought to protect
currency stability, they would insist on this rule. Instead, they act as
shills for the international banks, as disloyal to the actual economic
welfare of their countries as expatriate oligarchs.

If you are going to recommend more of this consensus, then the only way
to sell it is to do what British Prime Minister Gordon Brown did at the
meetings: announce that "The Washington Consensus is dead". (He might
have saved matters by saying "deadly", but used the adjective instead of
the adverb.) But the G-20's IMF bailout belies this claim. As Turkey was
closing out its loan last year, the IMF faced a world with no customers.
Nobody wanted to submit to its destructive "conditionalities",
anti-labor policies designed to shrink the domestic market in the false
assumption that this "frees" more output for export rather than being
consumed at home. In reality, the effect of austerity is to discourage
domestic investment, and hence employment. Economies submitting to the
IMF's "Washington Consensus" become more and more dependent on their
foreign creditors and suppliers.

The United States and Britain would never follow such conditionalities.
That is why the United States has not permitted an IMF advisory team to
write up its prescription for US "stability". The Washington Consensus
is only for export. ("Do as we say, not as we do".) Mr Obama's stimulus
program is Keynesian, not an austerity plan, despite the fact that the
United States is the world's largest debtor.

Here's why the situation is unsustainable. What has enabled the Baltics
and other post-Soviet countries to cover the foreign-exchange costs of
their trade dependency and capital flight has been their real estate
bubble. The neoliberal idea of financial "equilibrium" has been to watch
"market forces" shorten lifespans, demolish what industrial potential
they had, increase emigration and disease, and run up an enormous
foreign debt with no visible way of earning the money to pay it off.
This real estate bubble credit was extractive and parasitic, not
productive. Yet the World Bank applauds the Baltics as a success story,
ranking them near the top of nations in terms of "ease of doing business".

One practical fact trumps all the junk economics at work from the IMF
and G-20: Debts that can't be paid, won't be. Adam Smith observed in The
Wealth of Nations (1776) that no government in history had ever repaid
its national debt. Today, the same may be said of the public sector as
well. This poses a problem of just how these debtor countries are not
going to pay their foreign and domestic debts. How will they frame and
politicize their non-payment?

Creditors know that these debts can't be paid. (I say this as former
balance-of-payments analyst of Third World debt for nearly fifty years,
from Chase Manhattan in the 1960s through the United Nations Institute
for Training and Research [UNITAR] in the 1970s, to Scudder Stevens &
Clark in 1990, where I started the first Third World sovereign debt
fund.) From the creditor's vantage point, knowing that the Great
Neoliberal Bubble is over, the trick is to deter debtor countries from
acting to resolve its collapse in a way that benefits themselves. The
aim is to take as much as possible - and to get the IMF and central
banks to bail out the poisonous banks that have loaded these countries
down with toxic debt. Grab what you can while the grabbing is good. And
demand that debtors do what Latin American and other third World
countries have been doing since the 1980s: sell off their public domain
and public enterprises at distress prices. That way, the international
banks not only will get paid, they will get new business lending to the
buyers of the assets being privatized - on the usual highly
debt-leveraged terms!

The preferred tactic to deter debtor countries from acting in their
self-interest is to pound on the old morality, "A debt is a debt, and
must be paid". That is what Herbert Hoover said of the Inter-Ally debts
owed by Britain, France and other allies of the United States in World
War One. These debts led to the Great Depression. "We loaned them the
money, didn't we?" he said curtly.

Let's look more closely at the moral argument. Living in New York, I
find an excellent model in that state's Law of Fraudulent Conveyance.
Enacted when the state was still a colony, it was enacted in response
British speculators making loans to upstate farmers, and demanding
payment just before the harvest was in, when the debtors could not pay.
The sharpies then foreclosed, getting the land on the cheap. So New
York's Fraudulent Conveyance law responded by establishing the legal
principle that if a creditor makes a loan without having a clear and
reasonable understanding of how the debtor can repay the money in the
normal course of doing business, the loan is deemed to be predatory and
therefore null and void.

Just like the post-Soviet economies, Iceland was sold a neoliberal bill
of goods: a self-destructive Junk Economics. Just how moral a
responsibility - and perhaps even more important, how large a legal
liability -should fall on the IMF and World Bank, the US Treasury and
Bank of England whose economies and banks benefited from this toxic
Washington Consensus junk economics?

For me, the moral principle is that no country should be subjected to
debt peonage. That is the opposite of democratic self-determination,
after all - and of Enlightenment moral philosophy that economic policies
should encourage economic growth, not shrinkage. They should promote
greater economic equality, not polarization between wealthy creditors
and impoverished debtors.

At issue is just what a "free market" is. It's supposed to be one of
choice. Indebted countries lose discretionary choice over their economic
future. Their economic surplus is pledged abroad as financial tribute.
Without the overhead costs of a military occupation, they are
relinquishing their policy making from democratically elected political
representatives to bureaucratic financial managers, often foreign - the
new Central Planners in today's neoliberal world. The best they can do,
knowing the game is over, is to hope that the other side doesn't realize
it - and to do everything you can to confuse debtor countries while
extracting as much as they can as fast as they can.

Will the trick work? Maybe not. While the G-20 meetings were taking
place, Korea was refusing to let itself be victimized by the junk
derivatives contracts that foreign banks sold. Korea is claiming that
bankers have a fiduciary responsibility to their customers to recommend
loans that help them, not strip them of money. There is a tacit
understanding (one that the financial sector spends millions of dollars
in public relations efforts to undermine) that banking is a public
utility. It is supposed to be a handmaiden to growth - industrial and
agricultural growth and self-sufficiency - not predatory, extractive and
hence anti-social. So Korean victims of junk derivatives are suing the
banks. As New York Times commentator Floyd Norris described last week,
the legal situation doesn't look good for the international banks. The
home court always has an advantage, and every nation is sovereign, able
to pass whatever laws it wants. (And as America's case abundantly
illustrates, judges need not be unbiased.)

The post-Soviet economies as well as Latin America must be watching
attentively the path that Korea is clearing through international
courts. The nightmare of international bankers is that these countries
may bring the equivalent of a class action suit against the
international diplomatic coercion mounted against these countries to
lead them down the path of financial and economic suicide. "The Seoul
Central District Court justified its decision [to admit the lawsuit] on
the kind of logic that would apply in the United States to a lawsuit
involving an unsophisticated individual investor and a fast-taking
broker. The court pointed to questions of whether the contract was a
suitable investment for the company, and to whether the risks were fully
disclosed. The judgment also referred to the legal concept of "changed
circumstances", concluding that the parties had expected the exchange
rate to remain stable, that the change in circumstances was
unforeseeable and that the losses would be too great for the company to
bear".

As a second cause of action, Korea is claiming that the banks provided
creditor for other financial institutions to bet against the very
contracts the banks were selling Korea to "protect" its interests. So
the banks knew that what they were selling was a time bomb, and
therefore seem guilty of conflict of interest. Banks claim that they
merely were selling goods with no warranty to "informed individuals".
But the Korean parties in question were no more informed than were
Iceland's debtors. If a bank seeks to mislead and does not provide full
disclosure, its victim cannot be said to be "informed". The proper
English word is misinformed (viz disinformation).

Speaking of disinformation, an important issue concerns the extent to
which the big international banks may have conspired with domestic
bankers and corporate managers to loot their companies. This is what
corporate raiders have done for their junk-bond holders since the high
tide of Drexel Burnham and Michael Milken in the 1980s. This would make
the banks partners in crime. There needs to be an investigation of the
lending pattern that these banks engaged in - including their aid in
organizing offshore money laundering and tax evasion to their customers.
No wonder the IMF and British bankers are demanding that Iceland make up
its mind in a hurry, and commit itself to pay astronomical debts without
taking the time to ask just how they are to pay - and investigating the
creditor banks' overall lending pattern!

Bearing the above in mind, I suppose I can tell Icelandic politicians
that I have good news regarding the fate of their country's foreign and
domestic debt: No nation ever has paid its debts. As I noted above, this
means that the real question is not whether or not they will be paid,
but how not to pay these debts. How will the game play out - in the
political sphere, in popular ideology, and in the courts at home and abroad?

The question is whether Iceland will let bankruptcy tear apart its
economy slowly, transferring property from debtors to creditors, from
Icelandic citizens to foreigners, and from the public domain and
national taxing power to the international financial class. Or, will
Iceland see where the inherent mathematics of debt are leading, and draw
the line? At what point will it say "We won't pay. These debts are
immoral, uneconomic and anti-democratic." Do they want to continue the
fight by Enlightenment and Progressive Era social democracy, or the
alternative - a lapse back into neofeudal debt peonage?

This is the choice must be made. And it is largely a question of timing.
That's what the financial sector plays for - time enough to transfer as
much property as it can into the hands of the banks and other investors.
That's what the IMF advises debtor countries to do - except of course
for the United States as largest debtor of all. This is the underlying
lawless character of today's post-bubble debts.

_____

Michael Hudson is a former Wall Street economist. A Distinguished
Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), he is
the author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic
Strategy of American Empire (new edition, Pluto Press, 2002) He can be
reached at mh at michael-hudson.com

http://www.counterpunch.com/hudson04062009.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  Mon May  4 08:43:10 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 07:43:10 -0700
Subject: [R-G] The Fun House Mirror: Distortions and Omissions in the News
	on Bolivia
Message-ID: <CD03074E-99CC-42BE-A9D2-9C964C819DE0@shaw.ca>

http://snipr.com/hc3ox

The Fun House Mirror: Distortions and Omissions in the News on Bolivia

By Dan Beeton

This article was published in the May/June 2009 issue of NACLA Magazine.

In August, Bolivian president Evo Morales won a referendum on his term  
in office with 67% of the vote. The opposition, having failed to  
unseat Morales in the face of the largest electoral majority in  
Bolivian history, embarked on a campaign of violent destabilization  
that culminated in riots, economic sabotage, and the massacre of more  
than 20 indigenous Morales supporters in September. Just a day before  
the massacre, at the height of opposition violence, the Bolivian  
government expelled U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg, following  
revelations that the U.S. Embassy in La Paz had asked Peace Corps  
volunteers and a Fulbright scholar to spy inside Bolivia, together  
with growing evidence, amid official secrecy, of U.S. funding for  
violent opposition groups.1

It was in this context that in November Morales paid a visit to  
Washington, his first as Bolivian president. Following a busy  
itinerary, Morales spoke at the Organization of American States,  
addressed a large audience at American University, and held meetings  
with congressional members, among other engagements. Such visits by  
heads of state do not always draw much media attention. But  
considering that his visit came soon after a series of newsworthy  
political developments in Bolivia, as well as a breakdown in  
diplomatic relations with the United States, the scant coverage his  
visit received was still surprising.

Save for one Washington Post article, the Morales visit garnered no  
full-length reports in major U.S. papers, according to a Nexis survey. 
2 Furthermore, most editors apparently took no interest in one  
particularly notable meeting Morales held on Capitol Hill with Senator  
Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking minority member of the Foreign  
Relations Committee and the most influential Republican on  
international issues in Congress. After the meeting, Lugar issued a  
remarkable statement implicitly acknowledging that the United States  
had made a mistake in failing to condemn the September violence.

"The United States regrets any perception that it has been  
disrespectful, insensitive, or engaged in any improper activities that  
would disregard the legitimacy of the current Bolivian government or  
its sovereignty," the statement read. "We hope to renew our  
relationship with Bolivia, and to develop a rapport grounded on  
respect and transparency." Lugar's overture represented the first  
olive branch to Bolivia from any U.S. government figure after the  
diplomatic breakdown, and it came, surprisingly, from a powerful  
Republican. The mention of transparency was also important, since the  
State Department has declined to disclose whom it is funding among  
Bolivia's opposition, and for what purpose.

Yet the press largely ignored it. Only the Associated Press and The  
Washington Post even mentioned it, and the AP initially misrepresented  
the statement completely, reporting that Lugar had said "the United  
States rejects any suggestion that it did not respect Bolivia's  
sovereignty or the legitimacy of its government."3 (A correction was  
never issued. A subsequent AP article in December cited Lugar's  
statement correctly and reported Morales's encouraging response.)

Although Lugar's statement was handed directly to the Post, neither  
the meeting with Lugar nor Lugar's statement made it into the print  
edition of the paper's article on Morales's visit.4 This is a striking  
omission in a 700-word article, since it was arguably the most  
newsworthy event of the visit. A Web version of the article did  
mention the Lugar meeting, but only in the 13th paragraph.5

Following Bolivia's approval of the new constitution in January, Lugar  
made a second statement on Bolivia, calling for respectful dialogue  
and a redeployment of ambassadors as steps toward building a "positive  
new stage in relations between the United States and Bolivia." The  
statement received no notice from the U.S. press, save for one  
Bloomberg article.6

The nature of the opposition-led violence in September was also  
distorted or simply ignored in U.S. newspapers. During, and prior to,  
September's violence, newswires including Agence France-Presse,  
Reuters, and Inter Press Service revealed the close ties between  
violent, racist youth groups and "respectable" opposition leaders like  
businessman Branko Marinkovic. Reuters, for example, in August  
reported that "although Marinkovic said he wanted to avoid violence,  
young people were seen coming in and out of his office building  
carrying batons and baseball bats."7 Even more revealing was an Inter  
Press Service article, which reported that the campaign of violence  
carried out in September followed a plan coordinated by the opposition  
coalition, and that opposition legislators had been ejected from an  
early-September meeting after objecting to the violent methods under  
discussion.8

Yet major U.S. English-language media that covered the September  
events did not mention the planned nature of the violence, even after  
AFP noted that-in the midst of violent attacks, the ransacking of  
government offices, and the sabotage of a gas pipeline-"the  
conservative governors are . . . encouraging the protesters in their  
actions" and that "militants linked to the opposition group set up  
road blocks" to add pressure to the governors' demands for more  
control over gas revenues."9

Amateur video and images posted online easily demonstrate the violent  
and racist nature of many incidents and many groups and persons in the  
opposition. (One example, available at the time of this writing on  
Youtube.com, is a video of violent attacks in Santa Cruz titled  
"Autonom?stas fan?ticos y desesperados enlodan im?gen de Santa Cruz.")  
Even though videos and images are readily available on the Web, U.S.  
media reports, while sometimes noting racial overtones or racist  
incidents, have often failed to present details of the many attacks  
that have been carried out against indigenous Bolivians when they have  
occurred, or the common talk of assassinating Morales, Bolivia's first  
indigenous president.

According to sources in Bolivia, a cell phone image depicting Morales  
being shot in the head was popular with some in the opposition, and in  
January a few wire services did report on an incident in which a  
Virginia-based Facebook user had posted a message encouraging others  
to contribute funds in order to hire a hit man to kill Morales.10 A  
particularly egregious example of racist violence occurred in May  
2008, when opposition activists assaulted a group of indigenous  
Morales supporters in Sucre, stripping them and forcing them to  
publicly denounce Morales and the MAS government, while berating them  
with racist epithets.11 This incident was only reported by Inter Press  
Service and The Miami Herald at the time.12

The disturbing nature of Bolivia's right-wing youth groups did not  
prevent the Los Angeles Times from publishing a 928-word profile of  
Edson Abad Ruiz, a young man killed in fighting with government  
supporters. Abad was a member of the Cruce?o Youth Union (UJC),  
identified by the newspaper as a "group dedicated to defending this  
rebellious eastern region of Bolivia from its chief foe, the leftist  
administration of President Evo Morales."13

As observers familiar with Bolivia's conflicts know, the UJC is a far- 
right militant group that has attacked Morales supporters many times  
in recent years. While the Los Angeles Times should not be faulted for  
giving a human face to Bolivia's violence, the context in which the  
article appeared made it perhaps an unusual choice. Racist groups,  
including the UJC, had massacred more than 20 indigenous Morales  
supporters in Porvenir, in the department of Pando, just nine days  
earlier. The Los Angeles Times has yet to run a human interest story  
on indigenous, or pro-government, victims of Bolivia's recent violence.

The media's attitude toward the violence in Bolivia-some of which was  
publicly supported by opposition leaders who had been in contact with  
the U.S. ambassador-seemed to mirror that of the U.S. government,  
which neglected to condemn the violence. In contrast, a commission to  
investigate the Porvenir massacre was quickly established by the Union  
of South American Nations (Unasur). The commission found that more  
than 20 people had been killed in a "massacre" and that the  
perpetrators had acted "in an organized fashion," responding "to a  
chain of command" leading up to the Pando prefect, Leopoldo Fern?ndez,  
who was also said to have provided funding.14 The Unasur report went  
generally unnoticed in U.S. news. Only the Associated Press,  
Reuters,Indian Country Today, and The New York Times (which noted it  
only in passing) even mentioned it.15

By any standard, Morales has a sizable political mandate. He not only  
triumphed in the August referendum on his presidency but gained 13  
percentage points over his initial election in 2005. Yet much U.S.  
reporting has portrayed his electoral successes as an entrenchment of  
political polarization, especially between the pro-Morales western  
highlands and the opposition-dominated eastern lowlands. While there  
is some truth to this depiction, Bolivia's geopolitical reality is  
more complex, as was apparent in the recall referendum's results.  
Morales won six out of Bolivia's nine departments, and of the three  
where majority No votes prevailed, only two had strong majorities  
against Morales-Beni (56.28%) and Santa Cruz (59.25%).

The third, Tarija, was split almost evenly down the middle, with a  
50.17% No vote.16 Even outside the city of Santa Cruz, more voters  
supported Morales in the rest of the "opposition dominated" Santa Cruz  
department than voted against him, with a 53.1% Yes vote against 46.9%  
No.17 Yet many U.S. press reports presented the results as a deepening  
of divisions. "Bolivian Deadlock Remains as President, Foes Are  
Returned to Office" a Washington Post headline announced.18 The Miami  
Herald likewise ran an article titled "Voters Give Morales and Foes a  
Stalemate," which stated: "Bolivian President Evo Morales survived an  
election test, but his foes gained as well, which means the stalemate  
between them will continue."19

The reporting on the January 25 constitution vote, in which more than  
61% of voters approved a new constitution long called for by  
indigenous groups and social movements, continued this pattern. Many  
articles summing up the results of the constitutional referendum  
emphasized that Bolivia remains "sharply divided," claiming that the  
country "is split on ethnic and geographic lines."20While it is true  
that four departments in the eastern lowlands did have strong  
majorities against the new constitution, the media's framing of the  
vote was similar to coverage of the August recall referendum,  
stressing opposition to Morales and his government, despite his  
unprecedented electoral popularity.

The media framing of Bolivia's recent votes comes into sharp relief  
when we compare it with how the media framed the election of Barack  
Obama. Morales won his first election, in 2005, with slightly more  
than Obama's near 53% of the popular vote in 2008 (53.7% voted for  
Morales, while Obama received 52.9% of the popular vote). Yet by  
comparison, coverage of Obama's win has often been framed as not only  
an overwhelming rejection of George W. Bush policies but a moment of  
national reconciliation and unity. Obama's inauguration, for example,  
inspired the New York Times editorial board to suggest that "this  
battered nation will be able to draw together and mend itself." The  
accent on unity was so strong, as media critic Janine Jackson pointed  
out, that it led some in the media to declare a "post-racial" United  
States, in which the Obama victory would "absolve us of any need to  
talk about racism anymore."21

Capturing 53% of the popular vote in a U.S. presidential election is  
not unusual, historically speaking-George H.W. Bush in 1988, Ronald  
Reagan in 1984, Richard Nixon in 1972, Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and  
Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, among others, all won with more than that  
percentage.22 But when Morales won with this percentage in 2005, it  
was unprecedented in Bolivia's current period of democracy, going back  
to 1981 (to say nothing of his recall referendum victory by almost  
70%).23 Yet the framing of Bolivia's recent elections and referendums  
has tended to underplay this and stress divisions in the country, even  
though Morales is Bolivia's most popular democratically elected  
president, measured in both votes and approval ratings.24

Of course, what made both the elections of Morales and Obama even more  
significant was that both came from a social group long excluded from  
higher office to be elected to the highest office. Here the contrast  
between the media's framing is also striking: Whereas Obama's win has  
often been framed as a historic maturation of the U.S. electorate,  
which is described as moving beyond prejudices and racism, Morales's  
electoral successes have been framed to stress ongoing ethnic and  
racial divisions. This is all the more conspicuous in that indigenous  
people compose the majority of Bolivia's population.

Bolivia's history, both recent and distant, is, of course, unique,  
complex, and worthy of careful analysis. When it pays attention to  
Bolivian politics, however, the U.S. press sometimes offers coverage  
that treats the current government of Bolivia as a threat, and one  
that perhaps lacks appropriate popular support. One can only hope  
other U.S. media outlets will be more even-handed in their future  
treatment of Bolivia.
_____________________________________

1. See Center for Economic and Policy Research, "U.S. Should Disclose  
Its Funding of Opposition Groups in Bolivia and Other Latin American  
Countries," September 12, 2008, available at cepr.net.

2. The Hill publication Politico ran an article by Clint Rice,  
reporter for American University newspaper The Eagle. Opinion pieces  
by journalist Amy Goodman and CEPR co-director Mark Weisbrot also  
described Morales's visit, but these were not news articles.

3. The Associated Press, "Bolivia's Morales Seeks International  
Support," November 20, 2008. The Hill publication Inside U.S. Tradedid  
mention the statement, as did a McClatchy Tribune Information Services  
column by Weisbrot.

4. See Pamela Constable, "Bolivia's Morales Diplomatic, Defiant in  
Visit to D.C.," The Washington Post, November 20, 2008.

5. Constable, "Bolivian President Evo Morales Visits Washington, Talks  
of Fresh Start With U.S. Under Obama," WashingtonPost.com, November  
19, 2008.

6. Levin, Jonathan J. "Bolivia Seeks to Renew U.S. Ties, Choquehuanca  
Says (Update2)," Bloomberg, January 29, 2009. Bloomberg articles are  
not archived in Nexis.

7. Eduardo Garcia, "Foes of Morales Stage General Strike in Bolivia,"  
Reuters, August 19, 2008.

8. Franz Ch?vez, "Bolivia: Divisions Emerge in Opposition Strategy,"  
Inter Press Service, September 4, 2008.

9. Agence France-Presse, "Bolivia Orders US Ambassador Out, Warns of  
Civil War," September 10, 2008.

10. Frank Bajak, "Facebook Nixes Group Seeking Morales 'Liquidation,'  
" Associated Press, January 27, 2009.

11. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Press Release, "IACHR  
Deplores Violence in Bolivia and Urges Punishment of Those  
Responsible," no. 22/08 (May 29, 2008), available at cidh.org.

12. Jack Chang and Alex Ayala, "Two More Bolivian Provinces Weigh  
Autonomy," The Miami Herald, May 30, 2008; Franz Ch?vez, "Bolivia:  
Armed Civilians Humiliate Local Indigenous Leaders," Inter Press  
Service, May 27, 2008.

13. Los Angeles Times, "Young Bolivians Fuel Mob Violence in Civil  
Conflict," September 20, 2008.

14. Mery Vaca, "UNASUR: 'Hubo masacre en Bolivia,'" BBC Mundo,  
December 3, 2008.

15. Associated Press, "Bolivian Opposition Criticizes 'Massacre'  
Report," December 5, 2008; Eduardo Garcia, "Bolivia Violence Was  
Massacre, Says Regional Report," Reuters, December 3, 2009 (Reuters is  
not archived in Nexis); Rick Kearns, "Tensions Increase Between U.S.  
and Bolivian Governments," Indian Country Today, December 26, 2008;  
Alexei Barrionuevo, "At Meeting in Brazil, Washington Is Scorned," The  
New York Times, December 16, 2008.

16. See Corte Nacional Electoral, Rep?blica de Bolivia, Referendum  
Revocatorio 2008 Resultados, available at www.cne.org.bo.

17. See results for the department of Santa Cruz in ibid.

18. Joshua Partlow, "Bolivian Deadlock Remains as President, Foes Are  
Returned to Office," The Washington Post, August 11, 2008.

19. Tyler Bridges, "Voters Give Morales and Foes a Stalemate," The  
Miami Herald, August 11, 2008.

20. Antonio Regalado, "Bolivians Projected to Approve New  
Constitution," The Wall Street Journal, January 26, 2009. See also  
Associated Press, "Bolivian Constitution Vote Unlikely to Heal  
Divide," January 23, 2009, and Chris Kraul, "In Bolivia, Vote Unlikely  
to Heal Divide," Los Angeles Times, January 25, 2009.

21. Editorial, "President Obama," The New York Times, January 20,  
2009; Janine Jackson, "Let's Talk About Race-Or Maybe Not," Extra!,  
March 2009. Some conservative commentators, disputing the existence of  
a strong electoral mandate for Obama, tended to emphasize national  
disunity. See, for example, Robert D. Novak, "No Mandate for Obama and  
No Lopsided Congress," syndicated column, November 6, 2008.

22. See uselectionatlas.org/results.

23. Richard Lapper and Hal Weitzman, "Morales Poised for Win in  
Bolivia," Financial Times, December 19, 2005.

24. See, for example, Angus Reid Global Monitor, "President Morales  
Drops to 56% in Bolivia," January 10, 2009, and "Bolivians Continue to  
Back Morales," December 6, 2008.





From fentona at shaw.ca  Mon May  4 10:56:29 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 09:56:29 -0700
Subject: [R-G] 'Witness for Jesus' in Afghanistan
Message-ID: <99907209-E815-44BE-AB39-E3AD0950BC99@shaw.ca>

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/20095485025169646.html

Probe call in Afghan 'convert' row

Bagram air base has a thriving evangelical Christian community

A former Afghan prime minister has called for an inquiry after Al  
Jazeera broadcast footage showing Christian US soldiers appearing to  
be preparing to try and convert Muslims in Afghanistan.

Ahmed Shah Ahmedzai said there must be a "serious investigation" after  
military chaplains stationed in the US air base at Bagram were filmed  
discussing how to distribute copies of the Bible printed in the  
country's main Pashto and Dari languages.

In one recorded sermon, Lieutenant-Colonel Gary Hensley, the chief of  
the US military chaplains in Afghanistan, tells soldiers that, as  
followers of Jesus Christ, they all have a responsibility "to be  
witnesses for him".

"The special forces guys - they hunt men basically. We do the same  
things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them  
down," he says.

"Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom.  
That's what we do, that's our business."

Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the  
highest ranking officer in the US military, told Al Jazeera he was not  
aware of the details of the footage but that the US army was not  
involved in promoting religion.

"From the United States' military's perspective, it is not our  
position to push any specific kind of religion," he said at a Pentagon  
briefing in Washington on Monday.

'Very damaging'

Under the US military code of conduct, armed forces on active duty are  
prohibited from trying to convert a person's faith.

Ahmed Shah Ahmedzai told Al Jazeera from Kabul on Monday: "This is a  
complete deviation from what they [the US military] are supposed to be  
doing.

"I don't think even the US constitution would allow what they are  
doing ... it is completely against all regulations.

"This is very damaging for diplomatic relations between the two  
counties ... everyone knows people are very conservative here, very  
faithful to Islam. They will never accept any other religion.

"Someone who leaves Islam is sentenced very severely - the death  
penalty [is imposed].

"There must be a serious investigation now that it has come out into  
the public and [into the] press," he said.

Sayed Aalam Uddin Asser,  of the Islamic Front for Peace and  
Understanding in Kabul, told Al Jazeera: "It's a national security  
issue ... our constitution says nothing can take place in Afghanistan  
against Islam.

"If people come and propaganda other religions which have no followers  
in Afghanistan [then] it creates problems for the people, for peace,  
for stability.

Local language bibles

The footage, shot about a year ago by Brian Hughes, a documentary  
maker and former member of the US military who spent several days in  
Bagram near Kabul, was obtained by Al Jazeera's James Bays, who has  
covered Afghanistan extensively.

In other footage captured at Bagram, Sergeant Jon Watt, a soldier set  
to become a military chaplain, said during a Bible study class: "I  
also want to praise God because my church collected some money to get  
bibles for Afghanistan. They came and sent the money out."

It is not clear that the Bibles were distributed to Afghans, but  
Hughes said that none of the people he recorded in a series of sermons  
and Bible study classes appeared to able to speak Pashto or Dari.

Hughes said: "The only reason they would have these documents there  
was to distribute them to the Afghan people and I knew it was wrong,  
and I knew that filming it ? documenting it would be important."

Guidelines

It is not clear if the presence of the bibles and practice of calling  
on soldiers to be "witnesses" for Jesus continues, but they were  
filmed a year ago despite regulations by the US military's Central  
Command that expressly forbid "proselytising of any religion, faith or  
practice".

It is not clear any of the local language Bibles were distributed to  
Afghans
But in another piece of footage, the chaplains appear to understand  
their actions were in breach of a regulation known as General Order  
Number One.

"Do we know what it means to proselytise?" Captain Emmit Furner, a  
military chaplain, says to the gathering.

"It is General Order Number One," an unidentified soldier replies.

But Watt says "you can't proselytise, but you can give gifts".

The footage also suggests US soldiers gave out bibles in Iraq.

In an address at Bagram, Watt is recorded as saying: "I bought a  
carpet and then I gave the guy a Bible after I conducted my business.

"... the expressions that I got from the people in Iraq [were] just  
phenomenal, they were hungry for the word."

Questioned about the footage, Greg Julian, a US colonel in Afghanistan  
told Al Jazeera: "Most of this is taken out of context ... this is  
irresponsible and inappropriate journalism.

"This footage was taken a year ago ... the bibles were taken into  
custody and not distributed.

"There is no effort to go out and proselytise to Afghans."

The footage has surfaced as Barack Obama, the US president, prepares  
to host Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, at a summit on Tuesday  
and Wednesday focusing on how to tackle al-Qaeda and Taliban bases  
dotted along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.



From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May  4 13:14:42 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 12:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Guess what's outside of the AIPAC conference center today...
In-Reply-To: <999713404.1200917727@org.orgDB.mail.democracyinaction.org>
Message-ID: <2104611323.264111241464482439.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>









Here's a little something we've kept to ourselves until today ... 



Why? Well, we wanted to make sure the truck pictured here was already rolling on the streets in front of the AIPAC Conference and the US Capitol. 



In our line of justice work, you never know if a contract will get canceled at the last minute, or if other, bigger trucks will show up on the scene.? 

But we're happy to report we're on the ground in Washington, DC along with volunteer activists who are handing out flyers and talking to attendees. 








From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May  4 13:15:27 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 12:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] 7 Jewish Children on CBC Sunday Edition (podcast)
In-Reply-To: <FA8CC8E740C94A2AB381F78A86BBF648@twubby.com>
Message-ID: <1250231833.264481241464527284.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>


You can listen to the play?and the discussion on the Sunday Edition?at 

http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/ 

If you support this work, please send a note of support to the CBC for having the guts to run this (BBC declined).?It's certain those who oppose Churchill's play will be writing the CBC in large numbers. 

You can send the note via 

http://www.cbc.ca/contact/ http://www.cbc.ca/contact/

From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May  4 13:16:26 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 12:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Packed house for provocative play
In-Reply-To: <DC1EC83A227E4077A243F8F184099119@twubby.com>
Message-ID: <2143274341.264891241464586114.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://www.montrealgazette.com/Entertainment/Packed+house+provocative+play/1560162/story.html 



? 

Montreal Gazette ?????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? May 4, 2009 



? 

Packed house for provocative play 





? 

Seven Jewish children; Work called anti-Semitic by some, 'beautiful and elusive' by others 





? 

By Jan Ravensbergen, The Gazette 



? 

An increasing number of voices from within Montreal's Jewish community have begun to elbow aside the traditional leadership to convey public dissent over Israel's actions in the Gaza, Jewish-community activist Devora Neumark said yesterday. 



? 

"On campuses, a growing number of young, undergraduate and graduate Jewish students are involved in pro-Palestinian activist events," she added. 



? 

"They are really accepting to speak out and say: 'We are tired of being painted as part of this monolithic Jewish mainstream voice.' 



? 

"It is amazing to see the dynamism and the active engagement of these students on the Concordia campus, the McGill campus, who are saying: 'We have to speak up,' " she said. 



? 

Neumark spoke up after an unexpectedly strong turnout by local theatregoers prompted Independent Jewish Voices Montreal to add an extra Sunday-afternoon performance at the last minute of a provocative new play by English playwright Caryl Churchill. 



? 

The short play - Seven Jewish Children, A Play for Gaza - tackles themes ranging from the Holocaust to the recent Israeli incursion into Gaza. 



? 

Mainstream Jewish leaders have condemned the play without equivocation. 



? 

Churchill's play is "anti-Semitic and full of hatred," Adam Atlas, incoming president of the Quebec Jewish Congress, formerly the Canadian Jewish Congress Quebec Region, has said. 



? 

Sara Saber-Freedman of the Canada-Israel Committee said the play revives the ancient blood libel against Jews. 



? 

Regardless, more than 230 Montrealers took turns jamming into the 75-seat theatre at Espace Geordie in the Plateau district yesterday for what became three performances rather than the two originally scheduled. 



? 

It was the world premiere of the play's French-language version. 



? 

It also marked the play's Canadian stage debut in English, said director Rose Plotek, a recent graduate of the National Theatre School in Montreal. 



? 

Independent Jewish Voices has about 30 active members in this city and several hundred in 18 chapters across Canada, member Scott Weinstein said. 



? 

The three presentations raised close to $2,000 for the London-based organization Medical Aid for Palestinians, he added. 



? 

Toronto performances have been scheduled May 15 -17. 



? 

With each performance yesterday, the all-woman 10-member cast staged their 1,300-word reading first in English, then in French. 



? 

Each performance took about 20 minutes, followed by audience discussion. 



? 

Abby Lippman, an activist with the Voices group and one of the organizers, said she had invited "the most progressive rabbi in our city" to attend. 



? 

"But he didn't," she told the audience. 



? 

Playwright Tony Kushner and journalism teacher Alisa Solomon, writing in The Nation, said the play "should be seen and discussed as widely as possible. 



? 

"Though you'd never guess from the descriptions offered by its detractors," the two wrote, "the play is dense, beautiful, elusive and intentionally indeterminate." 



? 

janr at thegazette.canwest.com 


From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May  4 13:22:40 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 12:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Newt Gingrich at AIPAC
In-Reply-To: <258179987.670574718@wfc.wfcDB.mail.democracyinaction.com>
Message-ID: <1509232639.268291241464960112.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




	

Defend President Obama from Newt Gingrich's attacks. 





To thunderous applause last night, Newt Gingrich attacked President Barack Obama's policies in the Middle East, promoted military action against Iran, and assailed diplomatic engagement as weakness at AIPAC's conference. [1] 

Just before he went on stage, Gingrich told The Jerusalem Post that the President's policy with Israel and Iran was a "fantasy" and that Obama was "endangering Israel" by trying to work toward a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [2] 

Is this some kind of bad horror movie? Just when we thought the 2008 election had finally discredited the disastrous foreign policy of George Bush and Dick Cheney, Gingrich spouts the same old failed ideas in primetime and thinks it's good politics. 

We need to fight back right now -- political pundits and journalists might think that Gingrich and those who applauded his remarks speak for the majority of American friends of Israel, when they certainly don't speak for you and me. Congress may consider supporting Gingrich's recycled Bush-Cheney views, which would be a disaster for Israel and the United States. 

We've got to make it crystal clear that the majority of our community stands with President Obama on Israel and Iran - so Congress and the media see how politically toxic and substantively wrong Gingrich's views really are. 

Click here to defend President Obama from Newt Gingrich's attacks. 

We'll use the tens of thousands of signatures we collect to talk to the media about how out of the mainstream Gingrich and his views are - so make sure you add your signature. 

On the politics, Newt's got it wrong. 

78% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama and over 70% of American Jews support President Obama's policies toward Israel and the Middle East. [3]? Gingrich's views represent a small, though politically outspoken, minority of the Jewish community. 

On substance, Newt's also dead wrong. 

Pursuing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the single most pro-Israel thing President Obama could do right now. It's the only way to secure Israel as a Jewish, democratic homeland, as well as a building block of regional peace efforts that would normalize relations between all Arab countries and Israel. 

On Iran, the President is promoting tough, direct diplomacy to address concerns over their nuclear program, support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and threats against Israel. The President has made clear that the diplomatic road ahead will be tough and that we will not be bound by any illusions. This is the right approach for the time being - and a welcome change after the last President's Axis-of-Evil approach that got us nowhere. 

The politics of this moment are incredibly important - imagine if we can collect tens of thousands of signatures from our community rejecting Newt Gingrich's attacks on Obama. Next time someone wants to attack President Obama on Israel and the Middle East, they'll think twice. 

Click here to stand up for President Obama's Middle East agenda. 

After you've taken action, be sure to spread the word to your friends and family. We'll need to expand our reach if we're going to send a loud enough message that Newt doesn't speak for us. 

Thanks so much. 

- Isaac 

Isaac Luria 
Campaigns Director 
J Street 
May 4, 2009 

[1] "Gingrich: remove Iranian regime," by Ron Kampeas. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 3, 2009 . 

[2] "Gingrich: 'Obama endangering Israel'," by Hilary Leila Krieger. The Jerusalem Post, May 3, 2009 . 

[3] "J Street Releases New Poll of American Jewish Community." March 2009. ---------- 



From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May  4 13:36:32 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 12:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Why Latin America's left keeps winning
In-Reply-To: <1145650834.271391241465260038.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1247657617.275971241465792635.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/apr/30/ecuador-election-economy 



? 



The Guardian?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?? ?May 1, 2009 





? Why Latin America's left keeps winning 






? 

Washington's foreign policy establishment has been proven wrong. Latin America is more stable and democratic than ever 





? 

by Mark Weisbrot 



? 

A few months ago I ran into an economist who was formerly head of the Bolivian Central Bank in the La Paz airport. He had been reading Roubini, the New York University economist whom the media has nicknamed "Dr. Doom", and was predicting a very gloomy economic future for the hemisphere, the region, and especially his own country. 



? 

I didn't agree about Bolivia, which has more international reserves relative to its economy than China. But it was striking to see the same thing in all the countries that I visited: opposition economists and political leaders everywhere reminded me of communists in the 1930s, praying for the collapse of the capitalist system - in this case, somewhat ironically, so that they could rid themselves of the left governments that the voters had chosen in Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador and elsewhere. 



? 

In all of these countries the vast majority of the mass media, to varying degrees, shares the opposition's agenda and in many cases appears willing to present an overly pessimistic or even catastrophic scenario in order to help advance the cause. 



? 

But despite the worsening of the world and regional economy, the left keeps winning in Latin America. The latest left victory was that of President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, an economist who was first elected at the end of 2006 and was re-elected last Sunday under a new constitution. This gives the charismatic 46 year-old four more years, and he can be re-elected once more for another term. 



? 

There are a number of reasons that most Ecuadorians might stick with their president, despite what they hear on the TV news. Some 1.3 million of Ecuador's poor households (in a country of 14 million) now get a stipend of $30 a month, which is a significant improvement. Social spending as a share of the economy has increased by more than 50 percent in Correa's two years in office. Last year the government also invested heavily in public works, with capital spending more than doubling. 



? 

Correa has delivered on other promises that were important to his constituents, not least of which was a referendum allowing for a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution, which voters approved by a nearly two-thirds majority. It is seen as one of the most progressive constitutions in the world, with advances in the rights of indigenous people, civil unions for gay couples, and a novel provision of rights for nature. The latter would apparently allow for lawsuits on the basis of damage to an ecosystem. 



? 

Many thought Correa was joking when he said during his presidential campaign that he would be willing to keep the U.S. military base at Manta if Washington would allow Ecuadorian troops to be stationed in Florida. But he wasn't, and the base is scheduled to close later this year. He also resisted pressure from the U.S. Congress and others in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit that Ecuadorian courts will decide, in which Chevron is accused of dumping billions of gallons of toxic oil waste that polluted rivers and streams. And in an unprecedented move last November, Correa stopped payment on $4 billion of foreign debt when an independent Public Debt Audit Commission, long demanded by civil society organizations in Ecuador, determined that this debt was illegally and illegitimately contracted. 



? 

In the United States, these policies have mostly been dismissed as "populism" or worse. A New York Times editorial in November 2007 entitled "Authoritarians in the Andes" summed up the foreign policy establishment view that Correa, Bolivia's President Evo Morales, and President Hugo Ch?vez of Venezuela were "increasingly interested in grabbing power for themselves." For Correa and Morales, wrote the Times editorial board, "their confrontational approach is also threatening to rend Bolivia and Ecuador's fragile social and political stability." 



? 

The Times (and Washington's foreign policy establishment) have proven to be wrong, as Ecuador and Bolivia are now more politically stable than they have been for decades. (Ecuador has had nine presidents over the last fifteen years). They are also more democratic than they have ever been. 



? 

In fact, most of Latin America is going through a democratic transition that is likely to prove every bit as important as the one that brought an end to the dictatorships that plagued many countries through the first four decades of the post-World War II era. Ironically, the region's economic performance was vastly better in the era of the dictatorships, because the governments of that era generally had more effective economic policies than the formally democratic but neoliberal governments that replaced them. 



? 

A few years ago there were fears, backed by polling data, that people would become nostalgic for the days of real (not imagined) authoritarian governments because of the much greater improvements in living standards during that era. Instead, they chose to vote for left governments who extended democracy from politics to economic and social policy. 



? 

The left governments have mostly succeeded where their neoliberal predecessors failed. Partly they have benefited from an acceleration in world economic growth during most of the last five years. But they have also changed their economic policies in ways that increased economic growth. Argentina's economy grew more than 60 percent in six years and Venezuela's by 95 percent. These are enormous growth rates even taking into account these countries' prior recessions, and allowed for large reductions in poverty. Left governments have also taken greater control over their natural resources (Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela) and delivered on their promises to share the income from these resources with the poor. 



? 

This is the way democracy is supposed to work: people voted for change and got quite a bit of what they voted for, with reasonable expectations of more to come. We should not be surprised if most Latin American voters stick with the left through hard times. Who else is going to defend their interests? 



? 

-------- 



? 

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, DC. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis," and has written numerous research papers on economic policy. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. 


From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May  4 13:38:22 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 12:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] How can you trust the cowardly BBC?
In-Reply-To: <87210544.4171081240952648050.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <762429034.276831241465902849.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




http://www.independent.co.uk:80/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-how-can-you-trust-the-cowardly-bbc-1669281.html 



The Independent ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 16 April 2009 



How can you trust the cowardly BBC? 



The BBC Trust is now a mouthpiece for the Israeli lobby which abused Bowen 



By Robert Fisk 



The BBC Trust's report on Jeremy Bowen's dispatches from the Middle East is pusillanimous, cowardly, outrageous, factually wrong and ethically dishonest. 



But I am mincing my words. 



The trust ? how I love that word which so dishonours everything about the BBC ? has collapsed, in the most shameful way, against the usual Israeli lobbyists who have claimed ? against all the facts ? that Bowen was wrong to tell the truth. 



Let's go step by step through this pitiful business. Zionism does indeed instinctively "push out" the frontier. The new Israeli wall ? longer and taller than the Berlin Wall although the BBC management cowards still insist its reporters call it a "security barrier" (the translation of the East German phrase for the Berlin Wall) ? has gobbled up another 10 per cent of the 22 per cent of "Palestine" that Arafat/Mahmoud Abbas were supposed to negotiate. Bowen's own brilliant book on the 1967 war, Six Days, makes this land-grab perfectly clear. 



Anyone who has read the history of Zionism will be aware that its aim was to dispossess the Arabs and take over Palestine. Why else are Zionists continuing to steal Arab land for Jews, and Jews only, against all international law? Who for a moment can contradict that this defies everyone's interpretation of international law except its own? 



Even when the International Court in The Hague stated that the Israeli wall was illegal ? the BBC, at this point, was calling it a "fence"! ? Israel simply claimed that the court was wrong. 



UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 called upon Israel to withdraw its forces from territories that it occupied in the 1967 war ? and it refused to do so. The Americans stated for more than 30 years that Israel's actions were illegal ? until the gutless George Bush accepted Israel had the right to keep these illegally held territories. Thus the BBC Trust ? how cruel that word "trust" now becomes ? has gone along with the Bush definition of Israel's new boundaries (inside Arab land, of course). 



The BBC's preposterous committee claims that Bowen's article "breached the rules [sic] on impartiality" because "readers might come away from the article thinking that the interpretation offered was the only sensible view of the war". 



Well, yes of course. Because I suppose the BBC believes that Israel's claim to own land which in fact belongs to other people is another "sensible" view of the war. The BBC Trust ? and I now find this word nauseous each time I tap it on my laptop ? says that Bowen didn't give evidence to prove the Jewish settlement at Har Homa was illegal. But the US authorities said so, right from the start. Our own late foreign secretary, Robin Cook ? under screamed abuse from Zionists when he visited the settlement? said the same thing. The fact that the BBC Trust uses the Hebrew name for Har Homa ? not the original Arab name, Jebel Abu Ghoneim ? shows just how far it is now a mouthpiece for the Israeli lobby which so diligently abused Bowen. 



Haaretz gave considerable space to the BBC's findings yesterday. I'm not surprised. But why is it that Haaretz's top correspondents ? Amira Hass and Gideon Levy ? write so much more courageously about the human rights abuses of Israeli troops (and war crimes) than the BBC has ever dared to do? Whenever I'm asked by lecture audiences around the world if they should trust the BBC, I tell them to trust Amira and Gideon more than they should ever believe in the wretched broadcasting station. I'm afraid it's the same old story. If you allow yourself to bow down before those who wish you to deviate from the truth, you will stay on your knees forever. 



And this, remember, is the same institution which said that to broadcast an appeal for medicines for wounded Palestinians in Gaza might upset its "neutrality". Legless Palestinian children clearly don't count as much as the BBC's pompous executives. 



How do we solve this problem? Well I can certainly advise viewers to turn to Sky TV's infinitely tougher coverage of the Middle East and ? I admit I contribute to this particular station ? I can recommend the courage with which Al-Jazeera English covers Gaza and the rest of the Palestinian-Israeli war. 



I can well see how BBC executives will say that this article of mine today is "over the top". Jeremy Bowen may indeed think the same. But the First World War metaphor would be correct. For Bowen and his colleagues are truly lions led by BBC management donkeys. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May  4 13:45:20 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 12:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Breaking the faith - Ottawa Citizen
In-Reply-To: <670409704.279611241466195307.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1034232951.280301241466320040.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Breaking+faith/1554202/story.html 

Ottawa Citizen????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?May 1, 2009 


Breaking the faith 

By Janice Kennedy 

Trucks will roll into Lansdowne Park in three weeks, ready to unload their cargoes of shiny new products for the big trade show. The products, innovative marvels of fine engineering, will be displayed, demonstrated and (their manufacturers hope) bought. 

Then, at an unknown point down the road in a place comfortably distant from Ottawa, some of these gadgets, gizmos and gleaming implements will be used to do precisely what they were designed to do. Some shiny new bit of high-tech efficiency, exhibited so effectively over two peaceful weekdays in May on a site by the quiet Rideau River to buyers strolling the aisles, morning coffees in hand ? this shiny new purchase will help to shred flesh, blow off human limbs, wipe out innocent lives, create indescribable depths of grief and add to the world?s sum total of hatred. 

CANSEC 2009, put on by the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI), is the country?s largest trade show for items manufactured for ?defence? and ?security.? (The words have such a comforting motherhood-and-apple-pie blandness to them, don?t they? Nothing about them even hints at their potential to devastate innocent civilian lives.) 

Most Ottawans with any kind of municipal memory are surprised that the trade show is being held at all on city property, since a ban has been in effect ? or so we thought ? since 1989, when city council voted 13-1 to prohibit defence industry trade shows on city grounds. 

The decision was made just four years after the mayoralty of the late Marion Dewar, the generous and peace-affirming activist who must have left traces of her moral courage behind, floating about through council chambers. 

But through the most legalistic of legal loopholes ? Lansdowne Park was briefly in regional governmental hands before returning to the amalgamated city fold ? the 1989 ban is deemed not to have survived the temporary ownership change. And so, game on. 

Mayor Larry O?Brien (still a shareholding director with his old company, Calian Technologies, which is exhibiting at CANSEC) has declared that the original ban was not as comprehensive as some people thought. 

Outraged peace activists and religious groups have been campaigning energetically against the show, but their petitions and demonstrations will likely meet with the same success people of good will everywhere usually achieve in the face of big swagger and big bucks. That is to say, nada. 

The outrage has to be more widespread. Maybe it would be, if the average citizen knew that CADSI, according to its own website, represents 700 Canadian-based member companies generating $10 billion annually in military and security sales ? half of which is exported. Or that ?they also sell an additional $20 billion of their world class technology-based product and service solutions to commercial customers at home and abroad.? 

Really? What customers? Abroad where? 

Sure, shows like this also feature products and technologies that do not maim and kill. They promote things that also help save lives in chaotic situations, both abroad and at home. No question. 

But let?s not fool ourselves into thinking that a ?defence and security? trade show is mainly about safety, security and emergency management for civilians, as the mayor has suggested. Let?s not be so delusional as to think that the primary purpose of the show is about instruments of peace. No, CANSEC is all about war. 

A recent letter to the editor, responding to outrage over the arms show?s appearance on city of Ottawa property, pointed to the economic benefits of such shows and observed that the city should not be bound by the ?agenda? of ?special interest groups.? 

(So where do I sign up for membership in this special interest group?) 

In the name of peace, countless communities and individuals around the world have done really tough things. In the United States, Catholic priests such as Louis Vitale and John Dear have gone to prison for peacefully protesting their country?s march to war and, more recently, its willingness to torture. 

Twenty-two years ago, New Zealand risked the wrath of the mighty U.S. by enshrining in national law its self-designation as a nuclear-free zone, which it remains to this day. More than a symbolic gesture, the New Zealand initiative not only made a powerful statement, but also interfered with American military plans to find a safe N.Z. harbour for nuclear-capable destroyers in the south Pacific ? putting a dent in U.S.-N.Z. relations. 

Around the world, municipalities from Vancouver to New York to Manchester have declared themselves nuclear-free zones. True, these actually are symbolic gestures ? but there?s nothing wrong with symbolism. Imagine the impact if more and more communities across the globe made, and meant, such symbolic gestures. 

Other places have participated in the surge toward peace by banning trade shows dedicated to arms and other martial instruments. One city took that initiative in April 1989 with a majority decision its decision-makers believed would last more than 20 years. 

No one is na?ve enough to think that banning CANSEC in Ottawa would put an end to war. That isn?t the point. But we do what we can, all of us, taking whatever small steps are possible for the longer journey, symbolic or otherwise. 

We take a stand. We make a statement. And then, despite the self-serving energies of the loophole-lovers and the backsliders among us, we stick to principle. 

Even if it?s 20 years old. 

Janice Kennedy?s column appears here on Sundays.

From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May  4 14:02:30 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 13:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] "Historic Suspicions"
Message-ID: <1197800986.289391241467350225.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002943.html 





? 

"Historic Suspicions" 





? 

By John Caruso 





? 

Here's Barack Obama speaking at the recent Summit of the Americas: 





? 

I think it's important to recognize, given historic suspicions, that the United States' policy should not be interference in other countries, but that also means that we can't blame the United States for every problem that arises in the hemisphere. 





? 

"Historic suspicions"? Yes, I imagine the International Court of Justice decision condemning the United States for its covert war against Nicaragua might have raised Nicaraguan suspicions of U.S. interference. And I guess the report of the UN's Historical Clarification Commission for Guatemala, documenting U.S. backing of the genocidal forces the U.S. had installed in the 1954 coup, might have made the Guatemalans suspicious as well. And I suppose watching U.S. planes, helicopter gunships, and warships destroying the El Chorrillo neighborhood of Panama during the 1989 invasion might also have given the Panamians some suspicions about U.S. interference. 





? 

(For just one second, imagine the U.S. reaction if Germany's Angela Merkel gave a speech in Israel calling out the "historic suspicions" of Jews regarding past German "interference" in their affairs. In fairness to Obama, he did subsequently refer to "past errors, where those errors have been made," though he also said that discussion of those purported errors only rises to the level of "stale debates"; I'll leave the analogy to you.) 





? 

By contrast, here's how Obama characterized Venezuela: 





? 

You take a country like Venezuela -- I have great differences with Hugo Chavez on matters of economic policy and matters of foreign policy. His rhetoric directed at the United States has been inflammatory. There have been instances in which we've seen Venezuela interfere with some of the -- some of the countries that surround Venezuela in ways that I think are a source of concern. 





? 

So centuries of extensively-documented U.S. intervention in Latin America can be dismissed as "historic suspicions"?but when we're talking about allegations pulled out of the collective ass of the U.S. government and leveled at an official enemy, there's no longer any need to qualify this "interference" (which any reasonable person should agree is rightly a "source of concern" to us, though Obama tried to keep this menacing threat in perspective by noting that "Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States"). 





? 

And this was Obama's laugh line in response to Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega's account of just a fraction of the vicious U.S. interference that produced these historic suspicions: 





? 

"I am very grateful that President Ortega didn?t blame me for things that happened when I was three months old," Obama said in his only direct reference to the Nicaraguan leader. 





? 

("I am very glad that Prime Minister Netanyahu didn't blame me for things that happened before I was born," Merkel said in her only direct reference to the Israeli leader.) The article also notes that Ortega "prompted a smirk from Obama when he referred to 'Yankee troops.'" Yes, what a hilarious anachronism! How amusing our victims can sometimes be! Like when the U.S.-backed Contras in Nicaragua would cut off men's testicles and leave them in their mouths? Hey, what's the matter, cat got your tongue? Oh, no, my mistake, you've got a mouthful of balls! Ha ha ha! Maybe Obama should have quipped, "I am very grateful that President Ortega didn't blame me for the U.S.-sponsored castrations and nun-raping that happened when I was still snorting cocaine in my youth." The laughs just never stop, do they? 





? 

The smirk in question?which, as this small survey of his comments indicates, was only the most visible sign of Obama's paternalistic contempt for the banana republicans all around him and their petty obsession with the hundreds of thousands of their citizens killed by direct and indirect U.S. intervention over the years?looked something like this: 





? 

[How these lesser beings disgust me!] 





? 

All of which illustrates why Obama truly is a perfect representative for the U.S.A., since he is, without a doubt, one of the most unbelievably sanctimonious assholes I've ever heard. 





? 

? John Caruso 


From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May  4 16:00:12 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 15:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Canada's Obama and the Cult of the Prof
Message-ID: <988026629.503481241474412742.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://www.counterpunch.org:80/tsao05042009.html 





? 

CounterPunch ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? May 4, 2009 





? 

The Apologetics of Michael Ignatieff 





? 

Canada's Obama and the Cult of the Prof 





? 

By Eugenia Tsao 





? 

The game is afoot. As the loathsome Stephen Harper gnashes his teeth in the nether corridors of 24 Sussex Drive, the newly coronated leader of Canada?s federal Liberals, the sometime-quisling sometime-polemicist Michael Ignatieff, gestures menacingly at the Prime Minister?s official residence, hoping, of course, that his prolific publication record will one day catapult him there. Headlines from coast to coast herald the dawn of a new era: with the election of the professorial Barack Obama below the 49th parallel and the sharp ascent of Dr. Ignatieff?s political career above it, academic credentials have suddenly become chic. Our political leaders, we are told, are going to be smart again. And smart guys always do the right thing, right? 





? 

Niccol? Machiavelli was a smart guy. When he wrote The Prince , his now-famous manifesto on the art of gaining and retaining power, he was in the nadir of an otherwise long and illustrious career as the foremost adviser to the Florentine statesman Piero Soderini. Following a coup in which Soderini was deposed by the Medicis, Machiavelli found himself unexpectedly out of favor, and was not long thereafter exiled to the Florentine hinterlands, where he spent eight years licking his wounds and writing manuals on military tactics and history. He set about leveraging The bitter political lessons that he had learned firsthand to win the ear of the freshly installed Lorenzo de? Medici, dedicatee of The Prince and, Machiavelli hoped, his new political patron. It is not so hard to shift sides once you see where the wind is blowing. 





? 

To the modern eye, Machiavelli?s writings seem to reveal a pathologically cutthroat personality; this is the man, after all, who once observed that ?it is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both,? and whose name has become synonymous with naked ambition and the guileful pursuit of power. Yet we would do well to remember that, in his own time and place, he was just a smart guy doing what all the other smart guys were doing: currying favor with the moneyed authorities, endorsing the acquisition of strategic resources through war, and deploying his unique elocutionary talents to those ends. Such activities are surely not unfamiliar to us. 





? 

?Where the willingness is great, the difficulties cannot be great,? Machiavelli counselled Lorenzo, ?if you will only follow those men to whom I have directed your attention.? I have spent much of the past year enduring similar entreaties from friends and acquaintances intent on persuading me that the Canadian political scene has been blessed with its own version of Barack Obama. Look at Michael Ignatieff, they urge fawningly. He?s published sixteen books that have been translated into twelve foreign languages; he produces films, writes fiction, has nine honorary doctorates, has held distinguished professorships at both Oxford and Cambridge, is the Chancellor Jackman Visiting Professor in Human Rights Policy at your own institution, the famed University of Toronto. Everything will turn out well, they eagerly insist, if we just follow the right man: the sophisticated Harvard literatus with the gilded tongue. 





? 

Rather than bore readers of this page with unimpressed witticisms?or exhaustive deconstructions of Ignatieff?s much-publicized advocacy of targeted assassinations, preemptive aggression, indefinite detention of suspects, and coercive interrogations ? I will confess simply that I do not quite understand this latest infatuation that has taken hold of the North American continent, this new weakness for political candidates with honors and accolades heaped on their r?sum?s. Perhaps it is a kind of allergic reaction to having labored eight years under the yoke of Yale University?s most notorious C student. But are we to believe that war crimes and curtailments of civil liberties take place only because political leaders are just not intelligent or accomplished enough? Are we to believe that it is through wisdom and integrity that these people have achieved their sundry distinctions, rather than through ambition and institutional gamesmanship? 





? 

?The promise given was a necessity of the past; the word broken is a necessity of the present.? When Machiavelli wrote these words, he surely could not have envisioned the expectant hand-wringing that has now come into vogue in left-liberal circles. ?The fact is,? as he had previously noted, ?that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous.? This is a principle familiar to the highly educated. Neither Obama?s nor Ignatieff?s well-documented equivocation on such things as the illegality of preventive war, the immorality and inefficacy of torture, and the universal applicability of international human rights law ought to be surprising . Both men have doubtless read the same World Court rulings and Amnesty International reports and Lancet studies as the rest of us; both nonetheless know full well that to evince moral courage on any of the above points would be political suicide, and so they elect to either stay silent or carefully knead their language so as to avoid alienating the wrong constituencies. 





? 

They?re smart guys, and, like our friend Niccol?, they, too, understand the merits of tacking into the wind. It?s a? lesson that one learns early in one?s career. Keep your mouth shut and your head down, and you will come out ahead. 





? 

I am, alas, a graduate student. Perhaps this colours my perspective. As I type these words, my desk is littered with densely worded journal articles and other forms of academic product whose rhetorical drapery serve, far more often, to obscure logic and reason than to enhance them. To be fair, this is a neither ubiquitous nor inevitable property of scholarly discourse. But as many public intellectuals and award-winning essayists will secretly tell you, if you wrap enough glittering prose around anything, it will assume the form of sculpture and become pleasing to those valuing style over substance. If you are able to perform when the spotlight hits?at the lectern, on the printed page, on the campaign trail, at the black tie gala?and if your rivals and competitors are not, you will take home the prize. 





? 

Barack Obama and Michael Ignatieff and other academician-politicians of their ilk know this. They have witnessed these principles at work throughout their professional lives, and they have learned, to their own delight, how to harness them to critical acclaim. This is old hat: precisely what university career counsellors call prudence and networking and curriculum vitae refinement. Why is anyone surprised? Like all the smartest kids on the block, they know exactly what they?re doing, and they?re in it for themselves. Those who find themselves feeling betrayed in the months and years to come may want to consider yet another Machiavellian apothegm: ?It is not titles that honor men; it is men that honor titles.? 





? 

Eugenia Tsao spends her leisure time studying medical anthropology at the University of Toronto. She can be reached at tsao.eugenia at gmail.com 





? 

For more on Michael Ignatieff?s apologetics, see: 





? 

Ignatieff, Michael. (2004). The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Excerpted in ?Lesser Evils,? New York Times Magazine , 2 May 2004, section 6, p. 46) 





? 

McQuaig, Linda. (2007). Holding the Bully?s Coat: Canada and the U.S. Empire . Toronto: Doubleday Canada. 



From fentona at shaw.ca  Mon May  4 17:45:15 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 16:45:15 -0700
Subject: [R-G] rabble gets roughed up at Liberal convention
Message-ID: <2E68B94C-BFA0-4277-8F90-A119CC2878BC@shaw.ca>

http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/rabble-staff/2009/05/rabble-gets-roughed-liberal-convention

rabble gets roughed up at Liberal convention
By Derrick O'Keefe
| May 4, 2009

Canada's participation, along with the United States and France, in  
organizing and supporting the 2004 coup against the democratically  
elected government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide is scarcely ever brought  
up in the mainstream media.

This has always struck me as irresponsible, given the extensive  
documentation of Canada's involvement in the coup's planning, and  
given its bloody aftermath. Utterly dismal conditions prevail to this  
day in Haiti, still under UN military occupation.

So when, over the weekend, I was at the Liberal convention where  
Michael Ignatieff was confirmed as the new leader, it seemed an  
opportune time to ask some former top Canadian officials about all  
this, given that it was the Liberals who were in power at the time.

First, I approached Bill Graham, the former Liberal foreign minister,  
and asked him if he had any regrets about Canada's role in  
overthrowing democracy in Haiti. He responded, "I'm proud of Canada's  
role." At the time of the coup, Graham had asserted that a  
"constitutional transition" was taking place in Haiti.

Recalling what Graham had told me in 2005 -- "[Colin] Powell called me  
and said Aristide requested a flight out [of Haiti]? -- I asked him if  
he now regretted dispatching Canadian troops on the word of a member  
of the Bush administration.

"Not at all," Graham said, adding that he trusted Powell against the  
word of Aristide himself, who, within hours of being spirited out of  
the country by U.S. Marines and flown to the Central African Republic,  
called friends in the U.S. to say he was the victim of a coup d'etat.

Following this exchange with Graham, I approached Paul Martin, who was  
Prime Minister when the coup took place. As I asked questions of  
Martin, I was aggressively bumped off by a man named Mario (according  
to the convention tag he was wearing).

I protested that I had the right to ask questions of Martin, and  
continued to attempt to do so. Again, Mario interseded aggresively,  
this time ripping my Flip video camera from my hand and smacking me in  
the face while he did so. Mario threw the camera to the ground,  
damaging the device (though I did manage to recover this image of  
Mario in action.)

After recovering the camera and its batteries, several colleagues and  
I followed Martin and his entourage into the Pan Pacific hotel,  
protesting this assault.

Since I was accredited media for the convention, I reported this  
incident to the Liberal Party's media desk. I spoke to Marc Roy, a  
Martin-era PMO spokesperson and party insider, who took my contact  
information and promised to get in touch with me promptly. Roy has not  
been in touch.

From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Mon May  4 18:29:25 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 09:29:25 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Single Most Important Reform
Message-ID: <49FF8865.6030306@ashisuto.co.jp>


by Michael Rowbotham

Prosperity (January 2002)


The interminable squabble between left and right on taxation and
spending priorities does not represent the full range of choices. The
real political option is embraced by the creation and supply of money by
government.

This completely opens up the economic options of extra funding,
increases the political choice of expenditure and offers the prospect of
true welfare.

How dare a government claim it cannot find the money to pay for this or
that essential service when they do not bother to create any money?

In the context of the responsibility of government to create money, the
annual budgets in which politicians divide up 'the national cake' are
nothing but a preposterous patronising pantomine; a cheap propaganda
exercise in debt-money economics, as a result of which workers and
businesses and various sectors of the economy are turned against each
other, and jealousy and social division are fostered.

The current position is that, whilst farmers, factory workers,
businessmen, inventors, house builders, teachers and hosts of others
work together to make available the wealth of a country, they are not
able to exchange the goods and services that they make without borrowing
money into existence. They cannot eat, sleep, take shelter or obtain
clothing for themselves and their families without borrowing to buy.

Despite the fact that the goods are available, and industries are
desperate to sell them, the people of our nation are only granted access
to the products of their economy if sufficient and increasing numbers of
them first go into debt. That this is an outrageous situation is beyond
any dispute.

To allow this arrangement to continue, indeed to worsen it by embroiling
people ever deeper into debt via mortgages, insurance, pensions, forcing
single parents back to work, manipulating the education system to
support employment, whilst all around us the economy is propelling
people into a future they have not chosen and at a pace they cannot
handle, is to usher in an era of such instability and tyranny, erected
upon falsehood and confusion, that the very future of all civilisation
and of life itself must be in serious doubt.

It is no exaggeration to claim that the reform of this debt-based
monetary supply system is the single most important area of reform
confronting us.

Reforming the financial system is more important than the war against
poverty and starvation, more important than the movement to protect the
environment, the struggle against pollution, the peace movement, the
fight against drugs and racism, and the battle for social justice and
welfare.

Financial reform is more important than all these other problems for the
simple reason that the current financial system is responsible, both
directly and indirectly for causing, or at least exacerbating them.

As a result, however fast people try to tackle these various issues
separately, the dominating economic background of an exploitative system
of wage-dependency ensures that the situation deteriorates faster than
the reforms can cope.

The Grip of Death, pages 324-325.

On this, at least, the IMF had it right.

_____

Please print out, photocopy and distribute these articles. Also copy and
paste them to emails, and circulate widely, and please include all the
essential contact information below. Thank you.

Essential Further Reading:

Prosperity: Freedom from Debt Slavery - is a four-page quarterly journal
which campaigns for publicly-created debt-free money, edited and
published by Alistair McConnachie. A four-issue subscription is
available for GBP 10 payable to Prosperity at 268 Bath Street, Glasgow,
Scotland, UK, G2 4JR
Tel: 0141 332 2214; Fax: 0141 353 6900
admcc at admcc.freeserve.co.uk  http://www.ProsperityUK.com
Or you can follow this link to our subscribe page:
http://www.prosperityuk.com/get_involved/subscribe/index.php

The Grip of Death: A study of modern money, debt slavery and destructive
economics by Michael Rowbotham [Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1998] and
Goodbye America! Globalisation, debt and the dollar empire by Michael
Rowbotham [Jon Carpenter Publishing, 2000] both available from the
address above.

http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/mosimprt.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 fentona at shaw.ca  Mon May  4 21:02:15 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 20:02:15 -0700
Subject: [R-G] The Anti-Empire Report
Message-ID: <97C1F765-7F7B-4492-9842-F9EF8D7387A5@shaw.ca>

The Anti-Empire Report

May 4th, 2009
by William Blum
www.killinghope.org
Some thoughts about torture. And Mr. Obama.

Okay, at least some things are settled. When George W. Bush said "The  
United States does not torture", everyone now knows it was crapaganda.  
And when Barack Obama, a month into his presidency, said "The United  
States does not torture"1, it likewise had all the credibility of a  
19th century treaty between the US government and the American Indians.

http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer69.html


From aiaif_2006 at yahoo.com  Tue May  5 07:06:20 2009
From: aiaif_2006 at yahoo.com (aiaif_2006 at yahoo.com)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 18:36:20 +0530 (IST)
Subject: [R-G] Defeat the imperialist intrigue in Nepal
Message-ID: <860099.48320.qm@web94805.mail.in2.yahoo.com>







Manik Mukherjee, General Secretary of International Anti-imperialist and People?s Solidarity Coordinating Committee (IAPSCC) issued the following statement on the current crisis in Nepal.:
? 
Defeat the imperialist intrigue in Nepal 
The IAPSCC strongly condemns the intrigues and conspiratorial activities of the imperialist powers which are at the root of the present crisis in Nepal. Ever since the democratically elected Government under the leadership of Mr. Prachanda was installed in Nepal all the imperialist powers including India have been instigating the internal reactionary forces to sabotage democracy and the peace process. IAPSCC is in full solidarity with Mr. Prachanda?s decision not to bow down to the unconstitutional actions of the reactionary forces in the Nepal Government. The authority of a civilian Government over armed forces is universally recognised in a democracy and interfering with this authority exposes the anti-people and anti-democratic manoeuvres of the reactionaries. The role of the Indian Government in this affair is deplorable. Intervening in the internal affairs of Nepal it had gratuitously advised Mr. Prachanda not to take any action against the errant
 army chief. This once again highlights the expansionist policy of imperialist India of bringing in the neighbouring countries under its sphere of influence and meddling in their internal affairs. The IAPSCC condemns such imperialist interventions in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. 


Issued By: 
Samir Sikdar 
Office Secretary





      Own a website.Get an unlimited package.Pay next to nothing.*Go to http://in.business.yahoo.com/

From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Tue May  5 07:14:27 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 22:14:27 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] This Side of Thunderdome
Message-ID: <4A003BB3.1070802@ashisuto.co.jp>


The Archdruid Report (April 30 2009)

Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society



If you want to make the gods laugh, an old proverb suggests, tell them
your plans. The three years since I first started posting these essays
online make a tolerably good case for that claim. When I launched The
Archdruid Report three years ago, I had no great expectations for the
project, and I certainly never expected to end up facing the business
end of a video camera on a Los Angeles sound stage, talking about Mad Max.

Still, that's exactly where I was yesterday, doing my peak oil talking
head routine while the camera rolled and the time I usually spend
writing my weekly post here went elsewhere (which is why this post is a
day later than usual). Warner Home Video is gearing up for a thirtieth
anniversary DVD rerelease of Mad Max {1}, with the usual assortment of
bonus tracks, and one of the bonuses will be a documentary feature
looking at the dystopian future portrayed in the Mad Max movies. When
the producers started looking for - what do you call experts on dismal
visions of the future? Doomologists? - my name came up; the result,
after a flurry of emails, was a quick flight down to Los Angeles.

It's popular these days to despise Los Angeles, and certainly there's a
lot about it to dislike; the gray smoky soup that passes for air comes
to mind, not to mention the relentless rush and clamor of seven million
people or so crammed into a modestly sized coastal valley between the
desert and the deep blue sea. Still, I have a grudging fondness for the
place. Though it often seems as though every single one of those seven
million people are there for one purpose - to make a fast buck or,
rather, as many fast bucks as possible - it's almost refreshing to see
that fact so nakedly on display, free of the bulky garments of hypocrisy
that so often bundle them up elsewhere.

It's also not too hard, while strolling along Promenade Park in Santa
Monica or peering through the smog at the harsh brown slopes of the
mountains all around, to glimpse what the area was like before it became
Exhibit A in any study of metastatic urban sprawl. Nor is it too hard to
imagine what the same region will be like a few centuries from now, when
the inevitable dieoff is a matter of fading memory and salvage from all
that sprawl will most likely be the economic mainstay of the small
population that remains. If you want to talk about apocalyptic futures,
in other words, greater Los Angeles is not a bad place to do it.

Nor is it an inappropriate place to talk about the way that our
collective imagination of the future is shaped by the most unlikely
influences. If you asked people to put together lists of believable
sources for visions of the future, low-budget action films would
probably not appear very often. Yet Mad Max and its two sequels have had
an extraordinary impact on the contemporary imagination. Suggest that
the near future will look like the settings of Zardoz {2} or Logan's Run
{3}, to name two other dystopian-future films of the same decade, and
you'll likely get blank looks from those who've forgotten the movies in
question, and horse laughs from those who do. By contrast, if you
suggest that we're likely headed toward a "Mad Max future", you can be
tolerably sure that everyone present will understand what you are
saying, and at least a few of them will agree with you.

Now of course this is partly because the story lines of Mad Max and its
sequels are old hat to anybody who hasn't been hiding under a rock for
the last four decades or so. Mad Max is simply another 1970s
good-cop-gone-rogue action film set in a vaguely defined future instead
of the present; the title character is a member of an elite highway
patrol whose running fight with a motorcycle gang ends up costing his
wife and son their lives, sending him on a quest for vengeance. The Road
Warrior maps the plot of a thousand and one Westerns - the lone
gunslinger seeking redemption by rescuing a community threatened by
bandits - onto a more detailed future of social collapse and brutal
violence. Even Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome, which strayed a little
further from this sort of formulaic plot, is pieced together from a
dozen or so reliable Hollywood themes.

As a framework for thinking about the future, a reliance on familiar
plot formulas has some severe and predictable problems. Think of the way
that the late and unlamented Bush administration based its foreign
policy on a storyline that was essentially borrowed from superhero
comics. We're the good guys, therefore anything we do to the bad guys is
justified; they're the bad guys, therefore their behavior is motivated
solely by their own badness, nothing need be done about the abuses they
claim to be avenging, and everyone can be expected to cheer when the
good guys clobber them. It's a familiar story line. Apply it to war and
politics in the real world, though, and it turns into an epic source of
failure.

The same risk faces attempts to use the formulaic framework of the Mad
Max movies in any simplistic way to make sense of the future. Still,
certain themes in the movies are at least worth some reflection. The
collapse of civilization over the course of the series, in particular,
is not a sudden thing. In the first movie, some semblance of government
and ordinary society still exists, though both are fraying
catastrophically; in the second, civil order has broken down temporarily
in a mad scramble for resources; in the third, new social structures
with their own laws have begun to emerge, and alternative energy
resources have come into their own - I can't think of another attempt to
portray a deindustrial future that has achieved the gritty realism of
Beyond Thunderdome's Bartertown, with its methane energy economy driven
by fermenting pig feces.

Nor, I am sorry to say, is the violence central to the film's storyline
entirely out of place. My inflight reading on the trips down to Los
Angeles and back again was an old favorite, John Morris' The Age of
Arthur (2001), the only really comprehensive attempt so far to use the
tools of history to make sense of the original context of the Arthurian
legend - the collapse, partial recovery, and final defeat of Roman
Britain in the fifth century. It's a hefty volume, but worth reading for
anyone who hopes to get a sense of what the collapse of a civilization
actually looks like. The collapse of social order was a lived reality at
that time; Lord Humongous, the hockey-masked leader of the raiders in
The Road Warrior, had a close equivalent in the canny Saxon pirate
Hengist, who took advantage of civil war among British magnates to
ravage Britain and lay the foundations for the later ascendancy of the
English; the fragmentary records of that time, with their references to
unchecked violence and the collapse of civilized life, find ample
confirmation from archeologists.

What makes so much current talk about a "Mad Max future" problematic, it
seems to me, is simply the assumption that this sort of catastrophic
unraveling will be a universal experience. This is a little like
suggesting that anyone who lived during the twentieth century must have
spent time huddling in an air raid shelter or been interned in a
concentration camp. In any future we are at all likely to face, the
collapse of social order will be a significant fact in some regions, and
the raids and mass migrations that swept away most of Roman Britain and
built the kingdoms of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy on its ruins will likely
have equivalents in certain places; this is the sort of thing that
happens when civilizations break down. Other places, however, will
follow very different trajectories, because another thing that happens
when civilizations break down is that historical events downshift to a
more local scale. To borrow Thomas Friedman's metaphor, civilizations
flatten out the Earth, but this is a temporary effect; when
civilizations decline and fall, roundness returns, and communities once
bound into a sprawling whole find themselves cut loose to shape their
own histories.

It may be possible to anticipate at least some of the regional
differences that will take shape as the industrial age comes to an end,
and next week's post will suggest some of the issues involved. In the
meantime, it might be a useful exercise for those of my readers
interested in exploring the subject to sort through their own images of
the future, to get some sense of how many of those images come from
media of the Mad Max variety, and to compare them with the way some
tolerably well documented example of collapse actually occurred - the
fall of Roman Britain is only one of many possibilities, though
libraries in the English-speaking world tend to be tolerably well
stocked with books on that particular example. Though the Mad Max movies
went zooming off beyond Thunderdome, most of us will likely end up a
good deal this side of it as the industrial age creaks and clatters
toward its end.

Links

{1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max

{2} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zardoz

{3} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run
_____

?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 (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He
lives in Ashland, Oregon.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/04/this-side-of-thunderdome.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  Tue May  5 10:50:08 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 09:50:08 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Washington Agency Creates Neoliberal University in Venezuela
Message-ID: <2B284318-66B8-487B-B120-301D6AAD169C@shaw.ca>

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4408

Washington Agency Creates Neoliberal University in Venezuela
April 30th 2009, by Eva Golinger

A United States institution linked to security and defense agencies in  
Washington, D.C. has established a program in Venezuela to train youth  
in the principles of "individual liberty, free markets, and limited  
governments."

Called the "El Cato-CEDICE University" (see: http://www.elcato.org/special/cato-univ-venezuela/lunes.html) 
, it is a combined initiative of the Cato Institute in Washington,  
D.C. and the Venezuelan organization, Center for the Dissemination of  
Economic Knowledge for Freedom (CEDICE). It also has the support of  
Venezuelan organizations including the Future Present Foundation,  
which was created by Yon Goicochea, a leader of the Justice First  
political party; National Unity, the coalition of opposition political  
parties created in 2008; and New Bases, the opposition student  
movement of the Metropolitan University.

The El Cato-CEDICE University is planning a seminar that will last  
three days, from Sunday May 24 to Tuesday May 26, 2009. The  
headquarters of this subversive event is the La Escondida ranch, one  
hour from Caracas. The participation fee is 150BsF (US$ 70). According  
to the material published by the Cato Institute, the event will cover  
themes such as "the new global agenda, the world financial crisis,  
populism in Latin America, youth as defenders of freedom, poverty and  
violence, rights to property, the challenges of institutions in the  
21st century, among others."

The "teachers" at the El Cato-CEDICE University include Gabriela  
Calderon, editor of the website ?elcato.org' and columnist for the  
rightwing newspaper El Universo in Ecuador; Daniel Cordova, dean of  
the Economics Department at the Peruvian University of Applied  
Sciences and also director of Pro-Capital Investment Project, an NGO  
financed by the United States; Otto Guevara, a Costa Rican politician  
and president of the party Free Movement and the Liberal Network of  
Latin America (RELIAL); Martin Krause, lecturer in the Higher School  
of Economics and Business Administration in Buenos Aires; Carlos  
Sabino from the Center for Global Prosperity of the Independent  
Institute in the U.S.; Jose Toro Hardy, Venezuelan economist for  
CEDICE; Alvaro Vargas Llosa from the Center for Global Prosperity of  
the Independent Institute in the U.S and a columnist for the  
Washington Post; and Yon Goicochea, a leader of the Justice First  
party and founder of the Future Present Foundation, an organization  
dedicated to training youth in the tactics of "gradual coup"[1] and  
subversion.

The seminar has scheduled conferences by the guest lecturers around  
themes such as "Economic Freedom and Human Progress", given by Jose  
Toro Hardy, "Promoting Ideas in Non-Free Countries" by the Ecuadorian  
Gabriela Calderon, and "Liberalism in the Political Arena" by the  
Costa Rican Otto Guevara, among others.

The Cato Institute is the entity which granted the "Milton Friedman  
Prize" to the leader of Justice First, Yon Goicochea, in 2008. As part  
of this recognition by one of the most ultra-conservative and neo- 
fascist institutions of the United States, Goicochea received US$  
500,000, part of which he used to create his Future Present  
Foundation. The Cato Institute was founded on the economic theories of  
the ultra-liberal Milton Friedman of the U.S., who was economic  
advisor to the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. This institute also  
served to promote the conservative ideology of the 80s promoted by  
Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and the group of the "Chicago Boys"  
who later implemented these policies in Latin American, causing a lot  
of misery and poverty and less progress and human prosperity. The Cato  
Institute is closely linked with the Military Industrial Complex and  
the security and defense agencies in Washington.

CEDICE is one of the organizations that have received the most  
financing from the agencies in Washington over the last 8 years, like  
[National Endowment for Democracy] NED, [U.S. Agency for International  
Development] USAID, and the Center for International Private  
Enterprise (CIPE), an entity of the State Department. Its director,  
Rocio Guijarra, signed the infamous Carmona Decree during the coup  
d'etat of April 2002 against the Venezuelan government, which resulted  
in the dissolution of the democratic institutions of Venezuela.

The fact that this "university" is opening its doors within Venezuelan  
territory is an indication of the destabilizing and subversive actions  
that the radical sectors of the opposition in Venezuela continue to  
conduct. The general population and the state security bodies should  
be alarmed that these foreign actors have come to this country to  
train a group of 50 young people in neoliberal doctrines and  
strategies of subversion. These organizations aren't filled with good  
intentions, but rather they are groups and political figures who have  
shown over the last few years that their principal objective is to  
other throw the revolutionary socialist government of President Hugo  
Chavez and implement a neoliberal-capitalist system in the country,  
subordinated to the interests of Washington.

In the past, leaders of the opposition like Yon Goicochea, have  
traveled overseas, financed by Washington agencies, to receive  
training and indoctrination in strategies of subversion and "gradual  
coup" tactics. Now, they want to give these workshops on Venezuelan  
soil, with the intention of capturing and recruiting Venezuelan youth  
to execute their undemocratic and ill-fated plans. This initiative is  
in addition to the dozen United States and European organizations and  
foundations such as USAID, NED, Freedom House, the International  
Republic Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the  
Konrad Adenauer Foundation (German), the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung  
Foundation (German), FOCAL (Canadian), that have financed political  
parties and NGOs of the opposition with over $50 million over the last  
8 years, promoting their actions of destabilization. The state  
security bodies should take appropriate actions to impede these  
foreign agencies from continuing to threaten the stability and  
progress of the country. And even less should they allow them to act  
in this manner on Venezuelan territory.

[1] Gradual coup, or golpe suave in Spanish, is the idea of  
incremental acts of sabotage, fear mongering, and media warfare to  
obstruct the government's policies.

Translated by Tamara Pearson 

From fentona at shaw.ca  Tue May  5 11:00:05 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 10:00:05 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Georgia says brief mutiny has ended
Message-ID: <CA460A70-D318-4247-A3BF-9CDD06E170EC@shaw.ca>

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090505.wgeorgia0505/BNStory/International/home


Georgia says brief mutiny has ended

MISHA DZHINDZHIKHASHVILI

Associated Press

May 5, 2009 at 8:38 AM EDT

TBILISI, Georgia ? Georgia said it had ended a brief mutiny at a  
military base near the capital today that broke out after the arrest  
of a former special forces commander accused of planning to disrupt  
NATO exercises.

President Mikhail Saakashvili said in a televised address that the  
mutiny was an isolated case and the situation in the country was fully  
under control. ?I personally led negotiations with the mutineers and  
suggested they turn in their weapons and give themselves up to police?  
and had suggested force could be used if they declined, he said.

Defence Minister David Sikharulidze earlier said he had been blocked  
from entering the base in Mukhrovani, about 30 kilometres from  
Tbilisi. The base's tank battalion of about 500 army personnel had  
announced that they would refuse to follow orders, he said.

The mutiny followed an announcement by the Interior Ministry that it  
had uncovered a Russian-supported plot to overthrow the government and  
had arrested the suspected organizers. The defence minister said the  
mutiny was in response to the arrests the night before.

But the Interior Ministry later backed off and said the coup plotters,  
backed by Russian troops, were intent mainly on disrupting NATO  
military exercises set to begin Wednesday in Georgia.

An official in Mr. Saakashvili's office said the mutiny was  
effectively over and that the intent of the mutineers seemed to be  
limited to disrupting the upcoming NATO exercises. There was no  
evidence, he said, that they planned a coup attempt. Neither is there  
any evidence of Russian involvement. He spoke on condition he not be  
identified because he was not authorized to speak on the record,

Russia, which fought a brief war against Georgia last year, has  
sharply criticized the exercises, which it said would encourage Mr.  
Saakashvili to rebuild its devastated army.

Mr. Saakashvili has been the target of more than three weeks of street  
protests by opposition demonstrators demanding he resign. His  
government has accused Russians of supporting the opposition.

The official in Mr. Saakashvili's office said: ?There's absolutely  
nothing going on in Tbilisi, at the base or anywhere in the country.?

He said the mutiny was inspired by a small group of disgruntled  
officers who were involved in a similar action at the same base in 2001.

Russia's NATO envoy Dmitri Rogozin was quoted by the Interfax news  
agency as saying the allegations of Russian involvement were ?crazy.?

Opposition leader and former Saakashvili ally Georgy Khaindrava said  
the reports of the planned coup were made up. ?It's nothing but a tall  
tale, and we've heard so many of them already,? Mr. Khaindrava said.  
?Saakashvili could not make up anything smarter.?

Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said the suspected coup  
plot was organized by a former special forces commander, Georgy  
Gvaladze. Mr. Gvaladze and an army officer on active duty have been  
arrested, the spokesman said.

He said the ministry has a video of Mr. Gvaladze talking to his  
supporters about the planned coup, and that he is shown saying that  
5,000 Russian troops will come to support the coup, planned for  
Thursday.

The NATO exercises, which continue through June 1, were originally  
planned to include about 1,300 personnel from 19 NATO and partner  
nations. But some former Soviet republics have recently decided not to  
take part.

Among the countries to back out was Armenia, which is dependent on  
Russia for its economic survival. Four other former Soviet republics ?  
Estonia, Latvia, Kazakhstan and Moldova ? and Serbia also had decided  
to pull out, the Russian newspaper Vedomosti reported today.



From shniad at sfu.ca  Tue May  5 14:57:47 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Fisk: A Historic Day For Iraq
In-Reply-To: <1175644344.841311241557025407.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <754482152.841451241557067871.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>


http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22525.htm 

The Independent????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? May 1, 2009 

A Historic Day For Iraq 

????? But not in the way the British want to believe 

????? By Robert Fisk 

One hundred and seventy-nine dead soldiers. For what? 179,000 dead Iraqis? 
Or is the real figure closer to a million? We don't know. And we don't care. We 
never cared about the Iraqis. That's why we don't know the figure. That's why 
we left Basra yesterday. 

????? I remember going to the famous Basra air base to ask how a poor Iraqi 
boy, a hotel receptionist called Bahr Moussa, had died. He was kicked to 
death in British military custody. His father was an Iraqi policeman. I 
talked to him in the company of a young Muslim woman. The British public 
relations man at the airport was laughing. "I don't believe this," my Muslim 
companion said. "He doesn't care." She did. So did I. I had reported from 
Northern Ireland. I had heard this laughter before. Which is why yesterday's 
departure should have been called the Day of Bahr Moussa. Yesterday, his 
country was set free from his murderer. At last. 

????? History is a hard taskmaster. In my library, I have an original copy 
of General Angus Maude's statement to the people of Baghdad - $2,000, it 
cost me, at a telephone auction a few days before we invaded Iraq in 2003, 
but it is worth every cent. "Our military operations have as their object," 
Maude announced, "the defeat of the enemy... our armies do not come into 
your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." And so 
it goes on. Maude, I should add, expired shortly afterwards because he 
declined to boil his milk in Baghdad and died of cholera. 

????? There followed a familiar story. The British occupation force was 
opposed by an Iraqi resistance - "terrorists", of course - and the British 
destroyed a town called Fallujah and demanded the surrender of a Shiite 
cleric and British intelligence in Baghdad claimed that "terrorists" were 
crossing the border from Syria, and Lloyd George - the Blair-Brown of his 
age - then stood up in the House of Commons and said that there would be 
"anarchy" in Iraq if British troops left. Oh dear. 

????? Even repeating these words is deeply embarrassing. Here, for example, 
is a letter written by Nijris ibn Qu'ud to a British intelligence agent in 
1920: "You cannot treat us like sheep... it is we Iraqi who are the brains 
of the Arab nation... You are given a short time to clear out of 
Mesopotamia. If you don't go you will be driven out." 

????? So let us turn at last to T E Lawrence. Yes, Lawrence of Arabia. In 
The Sunday Times on 22 August 1920, he wrote of Iraq that the people of 
England "had been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard 
to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a 
steady withholding of information... Things have been far worse than we have 
been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public 
knows." Even more presciently, Lawrence had written that the Iraqis had not 
risked their lives in battle to become British subjects. "Whether they are 
fit for independence or not remains to be tried. Merit is no justification 
for freedom." 

????? Alas not. Iraq, begging around Europe now that its oil wealth has run 
out, is a pitiful figure. But it is a little bit freer than it was. We have 
destroyed its master and our friend (a certain Saddam) and now, with our own 
dead clanking around our heels, we are getting out yet again. Till next 
time... 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Tue May  5 15:00:10 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Poor civilians flee Pakistan's assault on Taliban
In-Reply-To: <2FDA55B15EFD4FD8A217796C838BBA25@twubby.com>
Message-ID: <1191022968.842781241557210699.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




Globe and Mail? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? May 5, 2009 



PAKISTAN OFFENSIVE 



Poor civilians flee Pakistan's assault on Taliban 



Locals direct their anger toward the army as homes damaged, villages flattened in bid to rout militants from Buner district 



Saeed Shah 



Chinglai, Pakistan -- Impoverished farmer Zaroon Mohammad walked for two days with his scrawny cattle to escape Pakistan's new offensive against Taliban militants in Buner district, north of the country's capital. 



But rather than be happy about Pakistan's belated offensive to counter the militants who tried to annex his area, his anger - like other residents - is now directed at the army. 



"We didn't see any Taliban, they are up in the mountains, yet the army flattens our villages," said Mr. Mohammad, 45, walking with about a dozen cattle and the male members of his family. "Our house has been badly damaged. These cows are now our total possessions." 



The week-old operation in Buner won high praise in Washington, and in much of Pakistan, but the actual people affected were scathing of the army's heavy-handed tactics, which they allege have caused widespread damage to civilian property and have injured or killed ordinary villagers. In a battle for hearts and minds, Buner is being lost, even though locals do not support the Taliban. 



If the Buner refugees' version of events bears out, it would fit a pattern that has marked Pakistan's halting battle against Islamic extremists, a history that has seen the army watch developments from the sidelines until the problem becomes impossible to ignore and then go in with guns blazing. The same model was followed in previous military operations in Swat, and the tribal area along the Afghan border, and also in dealing with the extremists holed up at Islamabad's Red Mosque in 2007 - where an army raid, six months after the radicals had taken control of the place, resulted in a bloodbath. 



Even as the fighting rages in Buner, a much bigger war looms in the neighbouring district of Swat where fierce gun-battles broke out late yesterday between the army and Taliban fighters in the streets of district's main town of Mingora, while about 46 police officers were reportedly surrounded by militants at the electricity grid station. Earlier in the day, a military convoy was ambushed in Swat, killing one soldier and wounding two others. Swat is the Taliban stronghold, where a controversial three-month-old peace deal is now rapidly disintegrating into violence. 



Those fleeing the Buner violence, on the road south to the town of Swabi, accused the military of using poorly directed artillery and air power to pound civilian areas. Critics of the Pakistan army have repeatedly said that it appears incapable of "smart" counterinsurgency operations against a nimble enemy such as Taliban guerrillas, as it is still trained for conventional warfare led by tank battles. 



"They shouldn't use the army in this [indiscriminate] way. They should be targeted at the Taliban," said Saed Afsar Khan, who was leaving Buner with 18 members of his family and two cows. He estimated that 80 of the 400 houses were destroyed in his village of Kawga, near to the key conflict zone of Ambela. "I don't think they've killed even one Taliban. Only ordinary people." 



The Pakistani army waited for about 25 days after Taliban stormed into Buner from Swat before launching their response, and now appear to have used the kind of force that has alienated the population. Television pictures show tanks and helicopter gunships in action in Buner, a dirt-poor rural area. 



"Why did they not nip the evil in the bud? This is criminal negligence," said Sahibzada, a college teacher, who goes by one name, in Palodand village just outside Buner to the south, where he helps to organize relief for those running from the fighting. "They have caused huge financial losses for those who've been forced to flee and caused hatred among those people for their government." 



Buner is a stridently anti-Taliban district, where the people had raised their own militia to defend themselves against the extremists, so locals were potentially supportive of government's decision to take on the Taliban. A key grievance is a curious order given by a senior government official - the "commissioner" for the Malakand area in which Buner falls - to disband the anti-Taliban militia soon after the insurgents entered Buner. 



The delay in moving the armed forces against the extremists in Buner may have allowed them to entrench themselves and mass sufficient weapons and men to put up stiff resistance. The Taliban have managed to take hostage some 2,000 villagers in the Pir Baba area north of Buner, the army confirmed yesterday. 



While the refugees' estimates of civilian casualties are likely to be exaggerated as a result of their trauma, the army's rejection of any such damage is also likely to be questioned. 



"There are no reports I have of any civilian casualties," said Major-General Athar Abbas, the army's chief spokesman. "Or any collateral damage. We have made maximum efforts to avoid it." 



One reason why the Buner operation has likely resulted in civilian casualties is that ordinary people were given no instructions about how to leave the district and many were confused about the timing of the curfew, those fleeing said. A cause of further frustration was that little or no preparation was made for accommodating those who would be displaced by the fighting. 



There are no reliable figures so far for the number who have fled Buner. Those leaving describe Buner, which had a population of some 500,000, as having been practically emptied. According to the Al-Khidmat Foundation, an Islamic charity which is helping them, more than 150,000 have taken the road south to Swabi alone. The UNHCR, the refugee arm of the United Nations, has registered only around 18,000 individuals but counting is tricky as almost none of the displaced have gone into the camps now being set up for them outside Buner. 







Special to The Globe and Mail

From shniad at sfu.ca  Tue May  5 15:00:42 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:00:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Bloodshed to escalate with coming U.S. surge, Taliban says
In-Reply-To: <97C48F06B361457181C7771B71D961FB@twubby.com>
Message-ID: <151442998.843011241557242256.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




Globe and Mail ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? May 5, 2009 



THE AFGHAN MISSION 



Bloodshed to escalate with coming U.S. surge, Taliban says 



Fighters planning to ramp up violent summer campaign 



Jessica Leeder 



Kandahar, Afghanistan -- Taliban fighters say they are planning a bloody summer campaign of buried bombs and staged ambushes in rural areas and a rash of multiple co-ordinated suicide bombings and assassinations in urban Kandahar. 



Designed to spread terror across the most densely populated areas of this province, the militants' ramped-up battle plan is a response to the impending surge of U.S. troops and retrenching of other forces here. 



After two weeks of interviews with Taliban, close observers and Afghan government officials from some of the province's most troubled districts, a picture emerges of what to expect from what may be the most intense fighting season in years - and places nervous civilians squarely in the crosshairs. 



"We have new plans, new tactics," a Taliban logistics director based in the volatile Panjwai district says. He recently returned from high-level meetings with militant commanders in Quetta, Pakistan, and spoke about plans on condition his name remains unpublished. 



"The new strategy of fighting is very important for us," he said. "It will be very dangerous for the government and for foreign troops." 



Central to the summer strategy is a two-pronged terror campaign currently being mapped out by Taliban planners in a mountain refuge in northern Maywand district. The area links Afghanistan's Helmand and Kandahar provinces and is poised to become a focal point of the war when U.S. troops deploy there. 



Their plan will be carried out by young fighters who, in recent weeks, have been trickling into the notorious rural areas west of Kandahar city, armed with new machine guns and sustained by villagers' donations of dry bread and watery yogurt. 



When their commanders give the green light, these young militants, mainly between 18 and 30 years old, will instigate clashes on two fronts: the first will be across rural areas west of the city - the traditional summer battlefields for militants clashing with coalition troops. The second will be in urban Kandahar city, home to key provincial government offices and a hub for Canadian troops. 



Out-powered in rural areas by military weaponry, fighters there will carry machine guns and attempt to sharpen the results of their ambushes, but they will rely more on land mines and improvised explosive devices, sources say. 



Inside the city, insurgents plan to stage more frequent multi-bomber suicide attacks and targeted assassinations. Government officials and civilians who appear to be in favour of the current government will be hunted with new intensity. 



"If a man or woman is working with the government, or they are supporters of the government or of the foreigners, we want to kill them," said one Taliban organizer speaking through a Pashto translator. "We want to put the pressure on Kandahar city. And we want to dissolve the government." 



The militants' renewed focus on disrupting peace in Kandahar city comes at a time when Canadian troops are also setting their sights on the city. Under the command of Brigadier-General Jonathan Vance, Canada has for weeks been preparing to draw back from some of the remote outposts soldiers have been spread across - making room for the U.S. troop surge - and focus instead on securing urban Kandahar and the area immediately outside of it where the majority of the province's population resides. 



This regrouping, which will take shape as U.S. troops make their way into the theatre over the course of the coming months, represents a transformation in Canada's approach aimed to allow troops to make headway on the nation building projects. 



How locals respond to troops remains to be seen. In the city, confidence in both government and coalition forces has waned, and military officials acknowledge research confirms the forces' sunken popularity. 



Their approval ratings have not been helped by a spike in large-scale violence over the course of the past month. Militants successfully carried out deadly bombings at the governor's mansion and the provincial council offices. 



Assassinations have become a daily occurrence, so much so that victims of the gruesome killings only make the news now if they are well-known figures. 



In rural pockets, confidence in government and foreign military has also dropped. In some districts with a sparse military presence, landowners who were anti-Taliban last year say they've grown weary of ineffective government, corruption and poor security. 



All of that has made many long-time landowners wonder whether, if the Taliban cannot be beat, it's safer to simply join their cause. 



"Last year, people were trying to convince the Taliban not to fight. Now people feel it is their obligation ... to start fighting," said one middle-aged farmer from Maywand district, where militants say they maintain two fortified, armed positions. "People see the government as weak. They're not defending the common people. The government can't bring security," he said. 



Mullah Masood, Maywand's district leader, said allegiances to militants will not change until foreign stakeholders invest properly in Afghanistan. 



"My suggestion is for the foreigner to find work for the common people, the people who are poor," he said. 



"Find food for the children. Otherwise, this joining of the people with the Taliban will continue."

From shniad at sfu.ca  Tue May  5 15:03:49 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Afghan president Hamid Karzai picks ex-warlord as election
 running mate
In-Reply-To: <1774711102.843501241557307464.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <986301666.844461241557429515.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



WHY WE FIGHT : 



The Guardian????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 4 May 2009 





? 

Afghan president Hamid Karzai picks ex-warlord 

as election running mate 





? 

Appointment of ex-militia leader Mohammad Qasim Fahim is a 'terrible step 
backwards for Afghanistan', critics warn 





? 

Jon Boone in Kabul 





? 

Senior diplomats and human rights workers lashed out at Hamid Karzai's 
decision today to select a powerful warlord accused by western officials of 
involvement in criminal gangs and arms smuggling as a running mate in 
Afghanistan's presidential election. 





? 

Karzai's decision to defy international pressure and appoint Mohammad Qasim 
Fahim as one of his two vice-presidential candidates for the 20 August poll 
showed the world and the Afghan people that the president was "moving the 
country backwards", said a western diplomat in Kabul, who is close to the UN 
chief in the country, Kai Eide. 





? 

"I want to move to a situation where leaders and people who have a 
reputation for being involved in serious human rights violations disappear 
from the political landscape, and not the opposite," said the diplomat, who 
did not want to be named. 





? 

Karzai made his announcement today when he went to the Independent Election 
Commission in person to register as a candidate in the election, hours 
before leaving for meetings in Washington with President Barack Obama. 





? 

The former militia leader, who goes by the honorary title of Marshal Fahim, 
is disliked by many Afghans suspicious of the wealth he has acquired since 
2001 and disliked by the west for his opposition to the disbandment of the 
private armies of Afghanistan's warlords. An official with an international 
mission in Kabul said Mr Fahim had been linked to kidnap gangs operating in 
the capital. He is also accused of murdering prisoners of war during the 
mujahideen government in the 1990s. 





? 

Western diplomats have spent the last few weeks trying to dissuade Karzai 
from picking Fahim but the senior diplomat said the president refused to 
budge, arguing that the former militia leader would win him votes. It will 
also help split a powerful opposition grouping, the United National Front, 
which Mr Fahim is a leading member of but which is not backing one of 
Karzai's rivals for the presidential election. 





? 

Afghanistan's warlords, the regional barons who controlled the militias that 
fought the Soviets in the 1980s, have been a major obstacle in the country's 
post-2001 experiment with democracy. 





? 

For many of his critics, Karzai's biggest mistake was to bring many of the 
warlords into government after the US-led toppling of the Taliban regime. 
However, his defenders say he had no other choice after the international 
community deprived him of the resources he needed in the years immediately 
after 2001. 





? 

A separate western official said: "The question really is: if Karzai gets 
killed on August 21 [the day after the election date] who is the president? 
It's Marshal Fahim. If he is just put in the presidential palace and given a 
good car and nice life then fine. But if he gets involved in policy then 
it's goodbye to the future of Afghanistan." 





? 

Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch, added to the criticism of 
the president's selection. "To see Fahim in government would be a terrible 
step backwards for Afghanistan," he said. "He is one of the most notorious 
warlords in the country, with the blood of many Afghans on his hands from 
the civil war. He is widely believed by many Afghans to be still involved in 
many illegal activities, including running armed militias, as well as giving 
cover to criminal gangs and drug traffickers. The people of Afghanistan 
deserve better leadership. The president is insulting the country with this 
choice." 





? 

Fahim is also regarded as a hate figure by the Taliban and could possibly 
hinder efforts to kickstart a peace process between the Afghan government 
and members of the hardline movement. 





? 

In selecting Fahim the president made amends with a man who earned his spurs 
as a leader in the anti-Soviet jihad, serving the guerrilla commander Ahmed 
Shah Massoud. Fahim served as Karzai's vice president and defence minister 
in the transitional government after 2001. He was stopped from running as 
vice-president in Afghanistan's first democratic elections in 2004 by 
lobbying from the international community. 





? 

Like the other candidates in the race, Karzai was expected to create an 
ethnically balanced team. The president is Pashtun, Afghanistan's largest 
ethnic group comprising an estimated 40% of the population. While 
conventional wisdom holds that Pashtuns, who dominate the restive southern 
provinces, would not tolerate a leader from another ethnic group, they are 
not numerous enough to elect a president without the help of other 
communities. 





? 

It is hoped Marshal Fahim will help bring a substantial portion of northern 
ethnic groups, particularly from his Tajik community. Karim Khalili, the 
vice-president today announced as Karzai's other running mate, will be 
expected to deliver the Hazaras, a group of 4 million said to be descended 
from Genghis Khan. 





? 

Refugee to chief 





? 

General Mohammad Qasim Fahim is a member of the Tajik community, 
Afghanistan's second-largest ethnic group. Born in the Panjshir valley in 
1957, he became a refugee in Pakistan after the communist coup in 1978. He 
was a mujahideen fighter during the 1980s war, commanding troops in the 
central province of Parwan and Baghlan. He took over as military chief of 
the Northern Alliance two days before the World Trade Centre attacks, 
following the death of Ahmad Shah Massoud. 


From shniad at sfu.ca  Tue May  5 15:10:13 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?Torture=3A_America=E2=80=99s_Shame?=
In-Reply-To: <1851922850.846791241557651867.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <858548100.847931241557813352.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22535.htm 



America?s Shame 

By Eric Margolis 

May 02, 2009 " Lew Rockwell " -- N ations that use torture disgrace themselves. Armed forces and police that torture inevitably become brutalized and corrupted. "Limited" use of torture quickly becomes generalized. "Information" obtained by torture is mostly unreliable. 


I learned these truths over fifty years covering dirty "pacification" wars, from Algeria to Indochina, Central and South America, southern Africa, the Mideast, Afghanistan, and Kashmir in which torture was commonly used. 



In spite of all the historical evidence that torture is counterproductive, the Bush administration encouraged torture of anti-American militants (aka "terrorists") after the 9/11 attacks. The full story has not yet been revealed, but what we know so far is revolting and shameful. Britain and Canada were also complicit as they used information derived from torture and handed suspects over to be tortured. 



Many Americans and human rights groups are now demanding that the Bush administration officials who employed and sanctioned torture face justice. President Barack Obama hinted his new attorney general, Eric Holder, might investigate this whole ugly business. But the Obama White House clearly wants to dodge this issue. 



Republicans, who have become America?s champion of war and torture, are fiercely resisting any investigation, and lauding torture?s benefits. Just when it seemed impossible for the dumbed-down Republican redneck party to sink any lower, it has by endorsing torture as the American way. 



So, too, some senior intelligence and Pentagon officials including, dismayingly, Obama?s new CIA chief, Leon Panetta. He should know better. Many senior Congressional Democrats who sanctioned torture, or did nothing to stop it, are equally reluctant that the torture scandal be further investigated. 



Torture is a crime under US law. It is a crime under the Third Geneva Convention, and the UN?s Anti-Torture Convention, both of which the US signed. Kidnapping and moving suspects to be tortured in third countries is a crime. Torture violates core American values. 



In 1945, the US hanged Japanese officers for inflicting "water-boarding" (near-drowning) on US prisoners, which were deemed war crimes. Yet this is exactly what the CIA inflicted on its Muslim captives. FBI agents rightly refused to participate in the torture of al-Qaeda suspects, warning that it violated US law and could make them subject to future prosecution. 



Republicans and even Obama?s intelligence chief, Adm. Dennis Blair, claim some useful information was obtained by torture. That depends on what you call useful. Al-Qaeda is still in business. Osama bin Laden remains at large. Iraq and Afghanistan became monstrous fiascoes costing $1 trillion. US military and intelligence personnel who fall into hostile hands may now face similar tortures. 



In 2004, CIA?s inspector general reported there was no proof that use of torture had thwarted "specific imminent attacks." This comes from a recently declassified Justice Department memo. 



The director of the FBI, Robert Muller, one of Washington?s most upright, respected officials, also declared that torture had not prevented any attacks against the United States. Both findings directly contradict claims by America?s own Torquemada, Dick Cheney, that torture prevented major attacks. 



Torture did not protect America from a second major attack, as Republicans claim. In fact, it appears 9/11 was a one-off event, and al-Qaeda numbered only a handful of extremists to begin with, not the worldwide conspiracy claimed by the White House after it was caught sleeping on guard duty. Bush administration claims about imminent threats from dirty bombs and germ weapons such as anthrax were untrue. 



CIA "useful" torture information came from two suspects: Khalid Sheik Mohammed was tortured by near drowning 183 times ? six times daily for a month; and Abu Zubaydah, 83 times in August, 2003. 



Use a power drill (a favorite "investigative" tool of America?s Iraqi Shia allies) on Dick Cheney, and it would take only minutes to get him to admit he?s Osama bin Laden. 



A shocking US Senate report just revealed that after the Bush administration could not find the links it claimed existed between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, it tried, in best Soviet style, to torture its captives to admit that such links did, in fact, exist. That, of course, would have been a much better excuse for invading Iraq than the lies about weapons of mass destruction pointed at America. 



The Senate also reported CIA and Pentagon torture techniques were adopted from torture methods North Korea used in the 1950?s to compel American prisoners to confess to lies about germ warfare. 



In fact, North Korea learned its torture techniques from Soviet KGB instructors. KGB?s favorite tortures in the 1930?s and 40?s were merciless beatings, confinement in refrigerated cells, week-long sleep deprivation, and endless interrogations. I have seen the torture cells at KGB?s Lubiyanka HQ in Moscow. 



The CIA and US military copied these North Korean/Soviet torture methods, but also added contorted positions, and nakedness and humiliation, techniques learned from Israeli interrogators who used them to blackmail Palestinian prisoners into becoming informers. Hence all the naked photos from Abu Ghraib prison. 



American doctors and medical personnel supervised torture and devised and supervised techniques to mentally incapacitate prisoners through isolation, terrifying sensory deprivation, and injections of potent psychotropic drugs. 



Torture was authorized by President George W. Bush, VP Dick Cheney, Secretaries Don Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, and carried out by CIA chief George Tenet and the Pentagon?s secretive Special Operations Command. 



Four lickspittle lawyers and two bootlicking attorney generals provided sophistic legal briefs sanctioning torture. All should be disbarred and face an independent judicial commission. Not a whitewash, like the 9/11 Commission, but a real, independent legal body. Better, send the case to the UN International Court in The Hague. 



President Obama actually told CIA personnel that he does not want to prosecute the torturers because they were only following proper legal advice and orders. So did Nazi officials who killed millions. 



Nazi lawyers legally dismembered Germany?s Weimar democracy and imposed Nazi dictatorship in only two months after the "terrorist attack" on the Reichstag in Feb. 1933. Imposition of Hitler?s dictatorship followed proper legal channels. 



When I served in the US Army, I was taught that any illegal order, even from the president, must be refused and that mistreating prisoners was a crime. 



President Obama must show the world that America upholds the law, rejects torture of all kinds, and that no officials are above the law. Otherwise, there is no other way to prevent the recurrence of torture in the future. 



Eric Margolis [ send him mail ], contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada. He is the author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World . See his website . 

Copyright ? 2009 Eric Margolis 	? 


From fentona at shaw.ca  Tue May  5 16:29:18 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 15:29:18 -0700
Subject: [R-G] US bombing run kills dozens, Afghans say
Message-ID: <504A3F67-147F-4D73-884D-0817525BE935@shaw.ca>

US bombing run kills dozens, Afghans say

By RAHIM FAIEZ and JASON STRAZIUSO ? 2 hours ago

KABUL (AP) ? Bombing runs called in by U.S. forces killed dozens of  
civilians taking shelter from fighting between Taliban militants and  
Afghan and international troops, Afghan officials said Tuesday. The  
U.S. promised a joint investigation.

A provincial councilman said he saw about 30 bodies, many of them  
women and children, after villages bought them to a provincial capital.

Overall death toll estimates varied widely. Villagers estimated from  
70 to well over 100 civilians may have died, according to local and  
regional officials. But no government official could confirm such a  
toll.

Civilian deaths have caused increasing friction between the Afghan and  
U.S. governments, and President Hamid Karzai has long pleaded with  
American officials to reduce the number of civilian casualties in  
their operations. Karzai meets with President Barack Obama in  
Washington on Wednesday.

The latest fighting broke out Monday soon after Taliban fighters ?  
including Taliban from Pakistan and Iran ? massed in Farah province in  
western Afghanistan, said Belqis Roshan, a member of Farah's  
provincial council. The provincial police chief, Abdul Ghafar, said 25  
militants and three police officers died in that battle near the  
village of Ganjabad in Bala Baluk district, a Taliban-controlled area  
near the border with Iran.

Villagers told Afghan officials that they put children, women, and  
elderly men in several housing compounds in the village of Gerani ?  
about three miles to the east ? to keep them safe. But villagers said  
fighter aircraft later targeted those compounds, killing a majority of  
those inside, according to Roshan and other officials.

The top U.S. spokesman in Afghanistan, Col. Greg Julian, confirmed  
that U.S. coalition forces participated in the battle. Julian said  
five wounded Afghans sought medical treatment at a military base in  
Farah.

"We offer our condolences to those affected by today's operations and  
will immediately investigate the claims to determine what happened,"  
Julian said.

Abdul Basir Khan, another member of Farah's provincial council, said  
Farah's governor had hoped to send a delegation to the bombing site  
Tuesday to investigate, but that officials decided not to go because  
of how dangerous the region was. It wasn't clear when investigators  
might reach the village.

The United Nations often takes a lead role in investigating high- 
profile civilian death cases, but the U.N. doesn't have any officials  
in Farah province.

A Western official in Kabul said Marine special operations forces ?  
which fall under the U.S. coalition ? had called in the airstrikes.  
The official asked not to be identified because he wasn't authorized  
to release the information.

Khan said villagers brought bodies, including women and children, to  
Farah city to show the province's governor. Khan estimated that  
villagers brought about 30 bodies.

"It was difficult to count because they were in very bad shape. Some  
had no legs," Khan said.

Farah's hospital treated at least three wounded villagers, including  
an 11-year-old boy whose chest, arms and shoulders were completely  
bandaged. A girl named Shafiqa had bandages under her chin. Two of her  
toes were severed in the fighting.

"We were at home when the bombing started," she told AP Television  
News. "Seven members of my family were killed."

Khan said villagers told him more than 150 civilians had died, but he  
said he had no way to know whether that claim was true.

The issue of civilian deaths is complicated in Afghanistan.  
Journalists and human rights workers can rarely visit remote battle  
sites to verify claims of civilian casualties. U.S. officials say  
Taliban militants sometimes force villagers to lie and say civilians  
have died in coalition strikes.

But the villagers' claims on Tuesday were bolstered by the wounded at  
Farah's hospital shown on AP Television News. And Khan's account of  
several truckloads of bodies taken to Farah city added more weight to  
the claims.

Mohammad Nieem Qadderdan, the former top official in the district of  
Bala Baluk, said he saw dozens of bodies when he visited the village  
of Gerani.

"These houses that were full of children and women and elders were  
bombed by planes. It is very difficult to say how many were killed  
because nobody can count the number, it is too early," Qadderdan, who  
no longer holds a government position, told The Associated Press by  
telephone. "People are digging through rubble with shovels and hands."

Qadderdan said the civilian casualties were "worse than Azizabad," a  
reference to an August 2008 strike in a district immediately to the  
north of Bala Baluk.

An Afghan government commission found that an operation by U.S. forces  
killed 90 civilians in Azizabad, a finding backed by the U.N. The U.S.  
originally said no civilians died; a high-level investigation later  
concluded 33 civilians were killed.

After the Azizabad killings, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan,  
Gen. David McKiernan, announced a directive last September meant to  
reduce such deaths. He ordered commanders to consider breaking away  
from a fire-fight in populated areas rather than pursue militants into  
villages.

Associated Press writer Noor Khan in Kandahar contributed to this  
report.

From fentona at shaw.ca  Tue May  5 16:33:28 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 15:33:28 -0700
Subject: [R-G] U.S. has a 45-year history of torture
Message-ID: <B463E0BC-D33A-4091-A260-6D779DB6EF34@shaw.ca>

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-langguth3-2009may03,0,6987276.story

 From the Los Angeles Times
Opinion
U.S. has a 45-year history of torture
The difference between American involvement in South American  
atrocities in 1964 and 'enhanced interrogation' now is that some  
modern-day officials appear proud of themselves.
By A.J. Langguth

May 3, 2009

As President Obama grapples with accusations of torture by U.S.  
agents, I suggest he consult the former Senate majority leader, Tom  
Daschle.

I first contacted Daschle in 1975, when he was an aide to Sen. James  
Abourezk of South Dakota, who was leading a somewhat lonely campaign  
against CIA abuses.

At the time, I was researching a book on the United States' role in  
the spread of military dictatorships throughout Latin America. Daschle  
arranged for me to inspect the senator's files, and I spent an evening  
reading accounts of U.S. complicity in torture. The stories came from  
Iran, Taiwan, Greece and, for the preceding 10 years, from Brazil and  
the rest of the continent's Southern Cone.

Despite my past reporting from South Vietnam, I had been naive enough  
to be at first surprised and then appalled by the degree to which our  
country had helped to overthrow elected governments in Latin America.

Our interference, which went on for decades, was not limited to one  
political party. The meddling in Brazil began in earnest during the  
early 1960s under a Democratic administration. At that time,  
Washington's alarm over Cuba was much like the more recent panic after  
9/11. The Kennedy White House was determined to prevent another  
communist regime in the hemisphere, and Robert Kennedy, as attorney  
general, was taking a strong interest in several anti-communist  
approaches, including the Office of Public Safety.

When OPS was launched under President Eisenhower, its mission sounded  
benign enough -- to increase the professionalism of the police of  
Asia, Africa and, particularly, Latin America. But its genial  
director, Byron Engle, was a CIA agent, and his program was part of a  
wider effort to identify receptive recruits among local populations.

Although Engle wanted to avoid having his unit exposed as a CIA front,  
in the public mind the separation was quickly blurred. Dan Mitrione,  
for example, a police advisor murdered by Uruguay's left-wing  
Tupamaros for his role in torture in that country, was widely assumed  
to be a CIA agent.

When Brazil seemed to tilt leftward after President Joao Goulart  
assumed power in 1961, the Kennedy administration grew increasingly  
troubled. Robert Kennedy traveled to Brazil to tell Goulart he should  
dismiss two of his Cabinet members, and the office of Lincoln Gordon,  
John Kennedy's ambassador to Brazil, became the hub for CIA efforts to  
destabilize Goulart's government.

On March 31, 1964, encouraged by U.S. military attache Vernon Walters,  
Brazilian Gen. Humberto Castelo Branco rose up against Goulart. Rather  
than set off a civil war, Goulart chose exile in Montevideo.

Ambassador Gordon returned to a jubilant Washington, where he ran into  
Robert Kennedy, who was still grieving for his brother, assassinated  
the previous November. "Well, he got what was coming to him," Kennedy  
said of Goulart. "Too bad he didn't follow the advice we gave him when  
we were down there."

The Brazilian people did not deserve what they got. The military  
cracked down harshly on labor unions, newspapers and student  
associations. The newly efficient police, drawing on training provided  
by the U.S., began routinely torturing political prisoners and even  
opened a torture school on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro to teach  
police sergeants how to inflict the maximum pain without killing their  
victims.

One torture victim was Fernando Gabeira, a young reporter for Jornal  
do Brasil who was recruited by a resistance movement and later  
arrested for his role in the 1969 kidnapping of Charles Burke Elbrick,  
the U.S. ambassador. (Elbrick was released after four days.) In  
custody, Gabeira later told me, he was tortured with electric shocks  
to his testicles; a fellow prisoner had his testicles nailed to a  
table. Still others were beaten bloody or waterboarded. When Gabeira's  
captors said anything at all, they sometimes boasted about having been  
trained in the United States.

During the first seven years after Castelo Branco's coup, the OPS  
trained 100,000 Brazilian police, including 600 who were brought to  
the United States. Their instruction varied. Some OPS lecturers  
denounced torture as inhumane and ineffectual. Others conveyed a  
different message. Le Van An, a student from the South Vietnamese  
police, later described what his instructors told him: "Despite the  
fact that brutal interrogation is strongly criticized by moralists,"  
they said, "its importance must not be denied if we want to have order  
and security in daily life."

Brazil's political prisoners never doubted that Americans were  
involved in the torture that proliferated in their country. On their  
release, they reported that they frequently had heard English-speaking  
men around them, foreigners who left the room while the actual torture  
took place. As the years passed, those torture victims say, the men  
with American accents became less careful and sometimes stayed on  
during interrogations.

One student dissident, Angela Camargo Seixas, described to me how she  
was beaten and had electric wires inserted into her vagina after her  
arrest. During her interrogations, she found that her hatred was  
directed less toward her countrymen than toward the North Americans.  
She vowed never to forgive the United States for training and  
equipping the Brazilian police.

Flavio Tavares Freitas, a journalist and Christian nationalist, shared  
that sense of outrage. When he had wires jammed in his ears, between  
his teeth and into his anus, he saw that the small gray generator  
producing the shocks had on its side the red, white and blue shield of  
the USAID.

Still another student leader, Jean Marc Von der Weid, told of having  
his penis wrapped in wires and connected to a battery-operated field  
telephone. Von der Weid, who had been in Brazil's marine reserve, said  
he recognized the telephone as one supplied by the United States  
through its military assistance program.

Victims often said that their one moment of hope came when a medical  
doctor appeared in their cell. Now surely the torment would end. Then  
they found that he was only there to guarantee that they could survive  
another round of shocks.

CIA Director Richard Helms once tried to rebut accusations against his  
agency by asserting that the nation must take it on faith that the CIA  
was made up of "honorable men." That was before Sen. Frank Church's  
1975 Senate hearings brought to light CIA behavior that was deeply  
dishonorable.

Before Brazil restored civilian government in 1985, Abourezk had  
managed to shut down a Texas training base notorious for teaching  
subversive techniques, including the making of bombs. When OPS came  
under attack during another flurry of bad publicity, the CIA did not  
fight to save it, and its funding was cut off.

Looking back, what has changed since 1975? A Brazilian truth and  
reconciliation commission was convened, and it documented 339 cases of  
government-sanctioned political assassinations. In 2002, a former  
labor leader and political prisoner, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, was  
elected president of Brazil. He's serving his second term.

Fernando Gabeira went home to publish a book about kidnapping the  
American ambassador and his ordeal in prison. The book became a  
bestseller throughout Brazil, and Gabeira was elected to the national  
legislature. In an election last October, he came within 1.4  
percentage points of becoming the mayor of Rio de Janeiro.

But in our country, there's been a disheartening development: In 1975,  
U.S. officials still felt they had to deny condoning torture. Now many  
of them seem to be defending torture, even boasting about it.

A.J. Langguth is the author of "Hidden Terrors: The Truth About U.S.  
Police Operations in Latin America."


From shniad at sfu.ca  Tue May  5 16:54:36 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 15:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Biden tells AIPAC: Israel must support two-state solution
Message-ID: <2006294890.903781241564076702.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1083213.html 





? 

Haaretz ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 05/05/2009 



Biden tells AIPAC: Israel must support two-state solution 







By Natasha Mozgovaya and Barak Ravid , Haaretz Correspondents, and The Associated Press 





? 

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden pressed Israel on Tuesday to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in an address to the leading pro-Israel lobby during its annual conference in Washington. 





? 

"Israel has to work for a two state-solution. You're not going to like my saying this, but not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement ... and access to economic opportunity," Biden told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). 





? 

Biden also said the Palestinian Authority "must combat terror and incitement against Israel." 







The vice president reiterated U.S. commitment to Israel's security, saying: "With all the change you will hear about, there is one enduring, essential principle that will not change; and that is our commitment to the peace and security of the state of Israel." 





? 

"That is not negotiable. That is not a matter of change. That is something to be reinforced and made clear. It seems almost unnecessary to state it, but I want the word to go forth in here that no one should mistake it." 





? 

Biden's comments came ahead of a meeting between President Shimon Peres and President Barack Obama later on Tuesday and less than two weeks before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the White House. 





? 

As Netanyahu's visit to Washington on May 17 approaches, the United States has been sending strong messages on the establishment of a Palestinian state and Israeli settlement activity. 





? 

In a speech to the AIPAC on Monday, Netanyahu said he was ready to begin Israeli-Palestinian peace talks immediately but he made no reference to a Palestinian state. 





? 

General James Jones, national security adviser to Obama, told a European foreign minister a week ago that unlike the Bush administration, Obama will be "forceful" with Israel . 





? 

Meanwhile, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told AIPAC delegates on Monday night that two states for two peoples is the only solution the United States is committed to. 





? 

"Relations between Israel and the U.S. are unbreakable," Emanuel said before a gathering of 350 AIPAC donors, adding that "this is the moment of truth for Israel and the Palestinians." 





? 

He also declared that "Iran is the number-one threat to the Middle East," and noted that it is hard to make progress wherever Tehran is involved in the Middle East. 





? 

Emanuel called for Israeli-Palestinian cooperation if Iran is to be countered effectively. 





? 

He said the United States was trying to enter a dialogue with countries such as Syria and Iran, even though it was still unclear whether these countries would alter their behavior. He reiterated that the United States wants to talk with Iran in the hope that Tehran will relinquish its efforts to gain nuclear weapons. 





? 

Jones is the main force in the Obama administration stressing the Palestinian question and believes that the United States must become more intensively involved in the matter vis-a-vis both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. 





? 

Several days ago, a classified telegram was received in Jerusalem discussing a meeting between Jones and a European foreign minister. Jones told his European interlocutor that President George W. Bush had avoided actions on the Palestinian question that Israel opposed, but the Obama administration intended to change this practice and become more active. It would not make concessions on matters that Israel had committed to. 





? 

"The new administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question," Jones said. "We will not push Israel under the wheels of a bus, but we will be more forceful toward Israel than we have been under Bush." 





? 

Jones is quoted in the telegram as saying that the United States, European Union and moderate Arab states must redefine "a satisfactory endgame solution." 





? 

The U.S. national security adviser did not mention Israel as party to these consultations. 





? 

In the face of the strongly worded American signals, Netanyahu reiterated on Monday to the Knesset that "recognition of the State of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people is the necessary basis for genuine peace between us and our Palestinian neighbors." 





? 

In the upcoming days Uzi Arad, Netanyahu's national security adviser, will travel to London for a meeting with his American counterpart to discuss the meeting between the prime minister and Obama on May 18. 





? 

President Shimon Peres also addressed the AIPAC conference on Monday, and complimented the new U.S. president. He described Obama's election as having "engulfed the world with a huge wave of hope." 





? 

"President Barack Obama was elected at a time of difficult crises around the world," Peres said. "I am convinced that he has the abilities to transform these crises into opportunities." 





? 

Peres also said that "Israel is extending its arms with open hands for peace with all peoples, with all Arab states, with all the Arab peoples. To those who still stand with clenched fists I have only one word: enough. No more war. No more destruction. No more hate. Now is the time for change. The definition of success according to Israel is not by wars that were imposed on us and which we won, but by the peace we gained with some of our neighbors." 





? 

Peres' speech drew criticism from the main opposition party, Kadima, which accused the president of becoming a public relations agent for Netanyahu. 





? 

"Instead of being president of Israel he became president of the government," a source in Kadima said. 





? 

Former finance minister Roni Bar-On described Peres as a defense attorney for Netanyahu who was sent to the United States "to ease the hearing that will be held on May 18" before Obama. 





? 

Meanwhile, some observers in the United States have expressed concerns that the differences between Israel and the new U.S. administration are leading to a clash. 





? 

Robert Satloff, the director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he is concerned by the disagreements between Israel and the United States regarding Iran. 





? 

"If there is no complete agreement on all the details in dealing with this issue, there is a chance for the most serious dispute between the U.S. and Israel in the entire 61 years of relations between the two," Satloff said. 



From shniad at sfu.ca  Tue May  5 17:14:27 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 16:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] The Real News - McGovern warns Obama Afghanistan could
 undermine his domestic goals
In-Reply-To: <491AE86FF91A4768A4EB9C1D0188A616@twubby.com>
Message-ID: <350399256.1028671241565267038.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




donate to The Real News		logo

News stories 	May 5, 2009 
	McGovern warns Obama of LBJ legacy 
ANP: Obama runs the risk of hobbling his domestic goals if he continues to send troops into Afghanistan view 
	American workers outsourcing own jobs overseas 
Skewer-Onion: Report finds personal outsourcing is revolutionizing how Americans don't do their work view 
	The Promise '09 
To reach an audience in the millions 

view Make www.therealnews.com your homepage and see the latest stories as soon as they're posted. 

Help promote The Real News Network on YouTube by making our videos your favourites, rate them and add comments. Promoting our YouTube channel builds our community and helps spread the word about our development. 

If you use the Miro media player subscribe to the TRNN channel 

You received this message because you or someone using this email address requested it via a form at therealnews.com or via some other communication with The Real News Network. If you do not want to receive further updates from us, unsubscribe here . ?

From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Tue May  5 19:23:36 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 10:23:36 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] How Private, Commercial,
	National and International Money is Created
Message-ID: <4A00E698.3080404@ashisuto.co.jp>


abridged from the works of Michael Rowbotham

Prosperity (April 2000)


* How banks create money for Private and Commercial needs
* How banks create money for National needs
* How International or Third-World Debt is created
* How Coins and Notes are created
* The World Bank
* The International Monetary Fund

The financial system currently adopted by all nations is often described
as "debt based", since the process of going into debt is relied upon
almost exclusively to create and supply money to their economies. By the
action of lending to borrowers, commercial banks create credit and
advance this to industry, consumers and governments. This "bank credit"
circulates in the broader economy until such time as the loan is repaid.
Such "bank credit" now forms 96% of the money stock in most industrial
nations, with a mere four per cent the notes and coins created by
government, and free from a parallel debt.

Thus, almost the entire money stock is supported in circulation by vast
debts in four main sectors ...

* Private debts such as mortgages, loans, overdrafts, credit-purchases

* Industrial and commercial debts

* Government "national" debts

* International, including Third World debt

The supply of money is a direct product of borrowing, and debt maintains
this money in circulation. Modern debt is, in aggregate, quite
unrepayable. Furthermore, difficulty is experienced in the repayment of
individual debts in all four sectors.

(The Drive Behind Globalisation, 1998, pages 3-4)

Money is created in each of these four areas ...


How Banks Create Money for Private & Commercial Needs

If a bank makes a loan, nothing is lent, for the simple reason that
there is nothing of substance to lend. The bank makes what it terms a
loan against the amount of money deposited with it at that time. This is
all done with the utmost ease. The bank has simply to agree that a
person may take out a loan of, say, GBP 5,000. The person taking out the
loan can then spend GBP 5,000 and hey presto! GBP 5,000 of new
number-money has been created. No one with a bank account is sent a
letter telling them that the money in their account is temporarily
unavailable, because it has been lent to someone else. None of the
original accounts in the bank has been touched, reduced or affected.
Nobody else's spending power has been reduced, but GBP 5,000 of new
spending power has been created; GBP 5,000 of new number-money enters
the economy at the stroke of a bank managers pen, but GBP 5,000 of debt
has also been created.

Thus, whoever takes out the loan will then make purchases and payments
to other people, who will pay that new money into their bank accounts.
Result: more bank deposits! As soon as the loan in the example above is
spent, GBP 5,000 will find its way into the bank account of a car dealer
or DIY store; GBP 5,000 of apparently new money. This is money which has
supposedly been loaned but the banking system doesn't distinguish this
fact. It simply registers a new deposit, and regards it as new money.
Total deposits in the banking system have therefore increased by GBP
5,000. This is the boomerang effect of a bank loan by which a loan
rapidly creates an equivalent amount of new bank deposits in the banking
system. This effect was neatly summarised in a statement by Graham
Towers, former Governor of the Central Bank of Canada ... "Each and
every time a bank makes a loan, new bank credit is created - new
deposits - brand new money".

The new money will provide the banking system with the collateral for
more lending. This is the bolstering effect of a bank loan. As the total
money held by banks and building societies becomes swollen by loans
returning as new deposits this provides them with the basis for further
loans.

Perhaps the best description of this process of money creation was
provided by H D Macleod : "When it is said that a great London joint
stock bank has perhaps GBP 50,000,000 of deposits, it is almost
universally believed that it has GBP 50,000,000 of actual money to lend
out as it is erroneously called ... It is a complete and utter delusion.
These deposits are not deposits in cash at all, they are nothing but an
enormous superstructure of credit".

(The Grip of Death, Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1998, pages 11-13)


How Banks Create Money for National Needs

A country's national debt is completely separate from, and additional
to, the level of private and commercial debt directly associated with
the money supply. The United Kingdom national debt in 1998 stands at
approximately GBP 380 billion. If the private and commercial debt of GBP
780 billion and the national debt are added together, the total
indebtedness associated with the UK financial system stands at some GBP
1160 billion, which dwarfs the total money stock of GBP 640 billion! How
did this condition of overall negative equity come about? This excessive
indebtedness - which is a blatant misrepresentation of the real state of
economic wealth enjoyed by the nation - is a position shared by all the
developed nations.

The national debt is actually composed of thousands of pieces of paper
called stocks, bonds and treasury bills. These stocks and bills, known
as gilt-edged securities, or gilts, are essentially elaborate forms of
government IOU. These IOUs are issued because each year the government
fails to collect enough in taxes to cover the costs of its public
services and other spending - and it borrows money to cover this
shortfall. All government budgets overshoot by many billions of pounds,
dollars or deutschmarks annually. This leads to what is called the
borrowing requirement for that budget year. A country's national debt is
therefore the total still outstanding on all past years' borrowing
requirements; thus the UK national debt consists of GBP 380 billion of
these gilt edged IOUs, in the form of outstanding treasury bills and stocks.

The method of issuing these IOUs and administering the national debt is
quite simple. In order to obtain money to cover its annual spending
shortfall, an appropriate number of government stocks and bills are
drawn up by the Treasury. These are then sold, in fact they are
auctioned off in the money markets to the highest bidder. This is done
throughout the year to meet the shortage of revenue as it arises, and
the announcements, in the form of government advertisements, can be seen
regularly in the financial press. These stocks and bills are bought
because they promise to repay a larger sum of money at some future date,
and are sold at a price that promises a good return to whoever buys
them. They are usually denominated in considerable sums of GBP 1,000 or
more per bond and are bought by insurance companies, pension funds,
banks and trust funds ... anywhere that money accumulates as savings. By
selling these stocks, the government obtains the additional money it
needs for the public sector, making up the annual shortfall in what it
can gather by taxation.

As these government stocks mature and become due for payment, the
government has to find the money promised on those stocks, and pay it to
the financial institutions that bought them. But governments are unable
to pay this money owing on their past stock issues. Indeed, each
government is confronted by the current year's annual shortfall in
taxation receipts. The whole reason for the government issuing stock in
the first place was because it could not cover its expenditure through
taxation, and this annual shortfall is constant. There is no way a
government can pay the money it owes. How then can the government pay up
on its maturing stock? It has underwritten promises it cannot keep. What
happens is that the government obtains the money to meet the payments
due on maturing national debt stocks by selling more government stock to
the financial institutions - promising even more money in the future.
The government draws up enough new stock to cover the repayments due on
the old stock, sells this, and uses the money to pay off the old stock.
Of course, when this new stock matures it too has to be paid off from
the sale of yet more stock. The government manages to pay off the
national debt, and not pay it, at one and the same time ...

There is a pretence that this is not the true arrangement, since
repayment of national debt stocks is actually accounted as coming from
taxation, not from the sale of more bonds. But this repayment from
taxation creates such a massive shortage in government revenues that can
only be made up by the sale of more bonds so the net effect is that
repayment is constantly deferred by the sale of further government
bonds. This is what is referred to as interest on the national debt
although it is not really interest in the conventional banking sense,
but a constant rescheduling of a completely un-repayable debt. This
deferral is not, however, the end of the story ...

At the same time as deferring and re-mortgaging the existing level of
national debt, the government has to sell yet more stock to cover the
amount by which taxation falls below what is needed to support its
public services. The national debt therefore escalates, increasing by
the amount required to re-mortgage the past national debt, plus the
shortfall in revenues to fund the public sector. In 1960, the UK
national debt was GBP 26 billion; by 1980 it had risen to GBP 90
billion. The national debt in 1998 stands at nearly GBP 380 billion, and
is likely to reach a trillion pounds within the next twenty to 25 years.
In America, the national debt in 1960 stood at $240 billion; by 1997 it
had reached the level of $5,000 billion, or $5 trillion!

It should also be remembered that the money held by pension funds and
insurance companies, or whoever buys the government stocks, is money
that had to be borrowed into existence in the first place. In other
words, by this process, governments borrow money which has already been
borrowed into existence, and they thus create a second massive
institutional debt in respect of money which already has a debt behind
it! Adding the national debt to the total of private debt places a
country and its people in a position of overall negative equity, owing
far more on paper than the amount of money that exists in the economy.

(The Grip of Death, pages 96-98)

So, in summary: Governments draw up official treasury bonds, and these
are auctioned on the money markets. The bonds are bought by both the
banking and non-banking sectors. When the non-banking sector (pension
and insurance funds et cetera) purchases the bonds, saved monies are
recycled into the economy through government spending. When the banking
sector buys government bonds, banks and lending institutions create
credit: There is an increase in the money stock. This money is spent
into the economy through government spending.

(Creative Accountancy, 1998, page 29)


How Coins and Notes are Created

The significant point about coins and notes money created by the
government is that this money is created debt-free, and spent into the
economy by the government. This is a vital consideration, and it is
therefore important to appreciate precisely how this injection of
debt-free money is managed. Coins and notes are minted and printed by
the government at no cost, apart from that of materials. Of course,
governments have no particular need of these coins and notes; banks are
the institutions requiring a supply of cash. The government therefore
sells the coins and notes that it creates to banks, who pay by cheque,
and the government acquires the face value of those coins and notes in
number-money. The sum of money which the government obtains, and which
is debt-free so far as the government is concerned, is then added to
whatever taxation revenue has been raised to fund the public sector.
Thus, coins and notes are created by the government, and an amount
equivalent to the face value of those coins and notes is spent into the
economy as a direct, debt-free input.

(The Grip of Death, page 14)


How International or Third-World Debt is Created

The financial position of even the wealthiest nations is one of acute
financial pressure, with massive private and national debt, and
budgetary difficulty dominating the economy. How can the wealthy
nations, from a position of such perpetual monetary shortage and
insolvency, lend money to the developing nations? The answer is that
they do not. The money advanced to Third World nations is not money
loaned from the wealthy nations. These sums consist almost entirely of
monies that have been created, via the commercial banking mechanism,
specifically for the purpose of the loan concerned. In other words, the
same debt-based, banking process used to supply money to national
economies is also employed for the creation and supply of funds to
debtor nations.

Thus, these monies are not owed by debtor countries to the developed
nations, but to private, commercial banks.


The World Bank

Holding only a nominal reserve contributed by the wealthy members, the
World Bank raises large quantities of money by drawing up bonds and
selling these to commercial banks on the money markets of the world.
Thus, the World Bank does not itself create the money it advances to
Third World nations, but sells bonds to commercial banks which, in
purchasing these bonds, create money for the purpose. The World Bank
therefore functions along the lines of a country's national debt. Just
as with the government bonds of a country's national debt, when a
commercial bank makes a purchase of World Bank money-bonds, the
commercial bank creates additional bank credit. In essence, the World
Bank acts as broker for commercial banks, who are the actual
money-creation agents and who hold World Bank bonds in lieu of monies
they create in parallel with debts registered against Third World
nations. Although these loans may be denominated in pounds, dollars or
Francs, such loans advanced under the World Bank have no connection with
respective national economies, and in no sense represent monies loaned
by these nations, nor debts owed to them by developing nations. The
debts are owed to private, commercial banks (via the World Bank) in
respect of money they have created through the purchase of debt bonds.


The International Monetary Fund

The IMF presents itself as a financial pool an international reserve of
money, built up with contributions, known as quotas, from subscribing
nations - that is, most nations of the world. However, credit creation
accompanies almost every aspect of IMF funding ...

Twenty-five percent of each nation's IMF quota is paid in the form of
gold, the remainder in the nation's own currency. The 25% gold quota is
the only component of IMF lending capacity that does not, in some way,
constitute additional money created in parallel with debt.

The 75% of a nation's quota payable in national currency is invariably
funded by the government concerned through the sale of bonds, thus
adding to that nation's national debt. Therefore the IMF, whilst not
itself creating credit, places monetary demands on member countries for
quotas that can only be funded via each country's national deficit. This
involves the sale of government bonds to commercial banks, leading to
money creation by those banks. This source of revenue forms the main
fund of IMF monies available to developing nations.

Since the monetary demands on the IMF are constantly increasing, due to
rising demand for Third World loans, the quota demands by the IMF have
reached the point where (so-called) creditor nations such as America and
Britain are reluctant to undertake yet more bond issues and further
national debt to supply these funds. So, in recent years the IMF has
begun to circumvent the restrictions of its overall quota. By
co-operating directly with commercial banks to organise more substantial
loans than it can fund from its own quota resources, the IMF administers
loan packages made up in part from its own quotas and in part from
commercial sources. For example, of the $56 billion loan advanced under
the IMF to South Korea in the wake of the Asian crisis, only $20 billion
was contributed by the Fund; the remaining $36 billion was arranged by
direct co-operation with international commercial banks, which created
money for the purpose.

The total funds of the IMF were substantially increased and its function
and status as a money-creation agency clarified when, in 1979, the IMF
instituted Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). These SDRs were created, and
intended to serve, as an additional international currency. Although
these SDRs are credited to each nation's account with the IMF, if a
nation borrows these SDRs (defined in dollars) it must repay this
amount, or pay interest on the loan. Whilst SDRs are described as
amounts credited to a nation, no money or credit of any kind is put into
nations accounts. SDRs are actually a credit-facility just like a bank
overdraft; if they are borrowed, they must be repaid. Thus, the IMF is
now creating and issuing money in the form of a new international
currency, created in parallel with debt, under a system essentially the
same as that of a bank ... the IMF reserve being the original pool of
quota funds.

In summary, of the $2,200 billion currently outstanding as Third World
or developing country debt, the vast majority represents money created
by commercial banks in parallel with debt. In no sense do the loans
advanced by the World Bank and IMF constitute monies owed to the
creditor nations of the World Bank and IMF. The World Bank co-operates
directly with commercial banks in the creation and supply of money in
parallel with debt. The IMF also negotiates directly with commercial
banks to arrange combined IMF/commercial loan packages.

As for those sums loaned by the IMF from the total quotas supplied by
member nations, these sums also do not constitute monies owed to
'creditor' nations. The monies subscribed as quotas were initially
created by commercial banks through the agency of national debts.
Therefore both the contributing nation and the borrowing Third World
nation carry a burden of debt associated with these sums. Both quotas
and loans are owed, ultimately, to commercial banks.

(The Invalidity of Third World Debt, 1998, pages 14-17)

Also see article here for how Third World debt can be cancelled:
http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/cantwd.php

_____

Please print out, photocopy and distribute these articles. Also copy and
paste them to emails, and circulate widely, and please include all the
essential contact information below. Thank you.

Essential Further Reading:

Prosperity: Freedom from Debt Slavery - is a four-page quarterly journal
which campaigns for publicly-created debt-free money, edited and
published by Alistair McConnachie. A four-issue subscription is
available for GBP 10 payable to Prosperity at 268 Bath Street, Glasgow,
Scotland, UK, G2 4JR
Tel: 0141 332 2214; Fax: 0141 353 6900
admcc at admcc.freeserve.co.uk  http://www.ProsperityUK.com
Or you can follow this link to our subscribe page:
http://www.prosperityuk.com/get_involved/subscribe/index.php

The Grip of Death: A study of modern money, debt slavery and destructive
economics by Michael Rowbotham [Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1998] and
Goodbye America! Globalisation, debt and the dollar empire by Michael
Rowbotham [Jon Carpenter Publishing, 2000] both available from the
address above.

http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/moneymake.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 ashisuto.co.jp  Wed May  6 05:07:35 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 20:07:35 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Calling American Swine
Message-ID: <4A016F77.6020300@ashisuto.co.jp>


by Dmitry Orlov

Club Orlov (May 03 2009)


A lot of people are panicked by the swine flu (H1N1) that has recently
emerged in Mexico and has since spread across the American continent and
far beyond. Panicking is a perfectly normal human response to
frightening new things, one which we humans share with our relatives the
apes and the monkeys. And, just like them, once we are done panicking,
we try to find out what it was that had us panicked.

Swine flu seems like a flu like any, spread through coughing and
sneezing and (my personal favorite) wet kisses. If you catch it, you
will develop a high fever, your joints and muscles will ache, and a day
or so into it you might develop a dry cough. My friends in Mexico tell
me that misting your throat with a weak solution of grapefruit seed
extract effectively stops the cough. In three days or so your fever will
subside somewhat, and in a week to ten days you will recover. Unless
there are complications.

It just so happens that, for the next couple of weeks, I will be taking
the subway between East Boston and Downtown. It's just a short hop
through a harbor tunnel, but at the same time it is a commute between
Latin America (on the East Boston side) and New England. I hardly ever
hear any English on that train. I would bicycle, but the bike ride is
circuitous and very long. Perhaps you'd think that I should consider
myself directly in the path of this new contagion, but I probably am
not. The carriers are probably mostly tourists and other recent
travelers, not the local Latinos.

Flu kills hundreds of thousands of people every year, mainly because
they are not healthy to start with. All those drunken bums I see lolling
around the Financial District next to half-empty bottles of Listerine
antiseptic mouthwash look really unhealthy, and will probably die of
something sometime soon. I would venture a guess that their cause of
death will be noted as something other than terminal halitosis. Swine
flu seems like an impressive-sounding thing to put down on a death
certificate. The actual cause of death will probably be something like
"Despair" but that just doesn't sound scientific enough for us.

One thing that makes this particular panic interesting is that American
public officials are stoking the panic by declaring a state of
emergency. (Even our brave Vice President, "Amtrak" Joe Biden,
apparently forbid his family to ride public transportation.) There is a
simple reason behind these quick declarations of emergency: there is
quite a financial drought right now, state budgets are being cut and
public workers furloughed. By declaring a state of emergency, public
officials gain access to emergency funds. So swine flu is just an excuse
for them to vacuum up and spend some loose change.

Another thing that's peculiar is that some nations, notably China and
Russia, have banned the import of American pork. Many other countries
are following their example. The flu is not spread through eating pork,
and so banning it is an economic move and a symbolic gesture rather than
a medically motivated public safety measure. But the popular appeal of
the symbolism is irresistible: here they have a chance to ban American
Swine!

American Swine come in three main varieties: the Hog, the Bankster, and
the Neocon. The Hog is often a public safety menace, because factory
farming practices result in large groups of immunocompromised animals
confined in conditions that are perfect for incubating new diseases.
These practices should be banned, and banning American pork around the
world seems like a step in the right direction.

The Banksters who have crashed the world financial system through their
fraudulent activities should be banned around the world as well. In
addition, it would be nice if they were rounded up and herded into
capitalist reeducation camps, where, thanks to hard physical labor,
daily capitalist indoctrination sessions, and compulsory public
self-criticism, they would, over the course of months or years, be
reformed into model capitalists, ready to rejoin a free market economy.
Perhaps our Chinese friends would be nice enough to send over some
advisers, to help us set up these camps.

Unlike the Hogs and the Banksters, the Neocons who illegally murdered,
imprisoned and tortured countless civilians across the world should be
exported - extradited, that is, to stand trial at an international war
crimes tribunal. The list is not that long: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Rice, Gonzales and a few others. All the ones who "were only following
orders" are not important enough. The United States government is bound
by international treaty to either prosecute or extradite these people.
Since prosecution in the US is unlikely to be carried out properly,
extradition remains as the only option. President Obama's recent paying
of lip service to this being "a nation of laws" is no substitute for action.

Of the three varieties of American Swine, the actual pigs seem like the
least troublesome, swine flu notwithstanding. We should certainly do all
we can to stay healthy, but in the meantime we should stay focused on
doing something about the other two varieties of American Swine.

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/04/calling-american-swine.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 barmy_basket at yahoo.es  Wed May  6 05:57:07 2009
From: barmy_basket at yahoo.es (peripatetic)
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 13:57:07 +0200
Subject: [R-G] The Worst Case Scenario (Someone Has to Say It)]
Message-ID: <4A017B13.3070900@yahoo.es>

This is also the most likely scenario in my view. Excerpt:

"...In the interests of providing you with an alternate vision ?something 
outside the mainstream ?below are ten predictions for America through the 
year 2012. This is not boilerplate doom-saying. Rather, I am laying out 
in highly specific terms what will happen over the next three-odd years. 
Others have thrown around the term ?Depression?, but I am going to tell 
you precisely what it means for you, your investments, and your community.

When these predictions come true, I expect to be rewarded with a 
seven-figure consulting gig, a book contract, or a high-level position 
in whatever administration succeeds the doomed Obama team?that is, if 
anyone succeeds it at all.

Prediction one. The twenty-five-year equities bubble pops in 2009. U.S. 
and foreign equities markets will stop treading water and realign with 
economic reality. Stock prices will cease to reflect the ?greater fool? 
mentality and will return to being a function of dividend yields, which 
have long been miserable. The S&P 500 will sink below 500. In a bid to 
stem the panic, the government will enforce periodic ?stock market 
holidays?, and will vastly expand the scope of its short-selling 
prohibitions?eventually banning short-selling altogether.

Prediction two. With public pension systems and tens of millions of 401k 
holders virtually wiped out?and with the Baby Boomers retiring en 
masse?there will be tremendous pressure on the government to get into 
the stock market in order to bid up prices.

Therefore, sometime in 2010, the Federal Reserve will create and loan 
out hundreds of billions of fresh dollars to the usual well-connected 
suspects, instructing them to buy up stocks on the public?s behalf. This 
scheme will have a fancy but meaningless name?something like the 
?Taxpayer Assurance Equities Facility?. It will have no effect other 
than to serve as buyer of last resort for capitulating smart-money types 
who want to get out of stocks entirely.

Prediction three. Millions of new retirees?including white-collar people 
with high expectations for a Golden Retirement?will be left virtually 
penniless. Thousands will starve or freeze to death in their own homes. 
Hundreds of thousands will find themselves evicted and homeless, or will 
have to move in with their less-than-enthusiastic children. Already 
strained by the rising tide of the working-age unemployed, state and 
local welfare services will be overwhelmed, and by 2012 will have 
largely collapsed and ceased to function in many parts of the country.

Prediction four. ?Quantitative easing? will fail to restart previous 
patterns of lending and consumption. As the government sends out 
additional ?rebate? checks and takes ever-more drastic measures to force 
banks to lend, hyperinflation could take hold. However, comprehensive 
debt relief via a devaluation of the dollar is even more likely. This 
would entail the government issuing one ?new? dollar for some greater 
number of ?old? dollars?thus reducing both debts and savings 
simultaneously. This would make for a clean slate a la Fight Club.

As there are many more debtors than savers in the U.S., the vast 
majority would support devaluation. The Chinese and other foreign 
holders of our bonds would be screaming mad, but unable to do anything. 
Every country that has not found a way out of dollar-denominated reserve 
assets by 2012 will see its reserves eliminated.

Prediction five. The government will stop pretending that it can finance 
continuous multi-trillion-dollar deficits on the private market. By late 
2010, the sole buyers of new U.S. Treasury and agency bonds will be the 
Federal Reserve and a few derelict financial institutions under 
government control. This may or may not lead to hyperinflation. (See 
prediction four).

Prediction six. As the need for financial industry paper-pushers 
declines and people have less money to spend on lawyers and Starbucks 
(SBUX), unemployment will rise until the private sector has eliminated 
all of its excess capacity and superfluous or socially needless jobs. 
The government?s narrow unemployment figure (U3) will rise into the high 
teens by late 2010. The government?s broader unemployment figure (U6) 
will cease to be reported when it reaches 25 percent?it will simply be 
too embarrassing. Ultimately, one in three work-eligible Americans will 
be unemployed, underemployed, or never-employed (e.g. college grads 
permanently unable to find suitable work).

Prediction seven. With their pension dreams squashed, and their salaries 
frozen or cut, police and other local government workers will turn to 
wholesale corruption in order to survive. America?s ideal of honest, 
courteous, and impartial cops, teachers, and small-time local 
functionaries will have come to an end.

Prediction eight. Commercial overcapacity will strike with a vengeance. 
By 2012, thousands of enclosed malls, strip malls, unfinished 
residential developments, motels, truck stops, distribution centers, 
middle-of-nowhere resorts and casinos, and small-city airports across 
America will turn into dilapidated, unwanted, and dangerous ghost towns. 
With no economic incentive for their maintenance or repair, they will 
crumble into overgrown, plywood-and-sheet-rock ruins.

Prediction nine. By the end of 2010, tens of millions of households will 
have fallen behind on their mortgages or stopped paying altogether. Many 
banks will be unable to process the massive volume of foreclosure 
paperwork, much less actually seize and resell the homes.

Devaluation (as mentioned in prediction four) could ease the situation 
for those mortgage holders still afloat, but it would also eliminate any 
incentive for most banks to stay in the mortgage business. In any case, 
the housing market in many parts of the country will lock up 
completely?nothing bought or sold.

With virtually no loans being made, even the government will finally 
acknowledge that most banks are fundamentally insolvent. A general bank 
run will only be averted through a roughly one trillion-dollar 
recapitalization of the FDIC, courtesy of new money from the Federal 
Reserve.

Prediction ten. As an economy is never independent of the society within 
which it functions, the next few paragraphs will focus on social and 
political factors. These factors will have as much of an impact on 
market and consumer confidence as any developments in the financial sector.

Whether rightly or not, President Obama, having come to power at the 
dawn of this crisis, will be blamed for it by over 50 percent of the 
population. He will be a one-term president. In response to his 
perceived socialization of America, there will be a swarm of 
secessionist and extremist activity, much of it violent. Militias and 
armed sects will be more prominent than in the early 1990s. Stand-off 
dramas, violent score-settlings, and going-out-with-a-bang attacks by 
laid-off workers and bankrupted investors?already a national plague?will 
become an everyday occurrence.

For both economic and social reasons, millions of immigrants and guest 
workers will return to their home countries, taking their assets and 
skills with them. The flow of skilled immigrants will slow to a trickle. 
Birth rates will plummet as families struggle with uncertainty and 
reduced (or no) income.

Property crime will explode as citizens bitter over their own shattered 
dreams attempt to comfort themselves by taking what is not theirs. 
Mutinies and desertions will proliferate in an increasingly demoralized, 
over-stretched military, especially when states can no longer provide 
the educational and other benefits promised to their National Guard troops.

There will be widespread tax collection issues, and a huge backlash 
against Federal and state bureaucrats who demand three-percent annual 
pay raises while private sector wages remain frozen or worse. In short, 
the ?Tea Parties? of tomorrow will likely not be so restrained.

Finally, between now and 2012, we are likely to see another 
earth-shaking national embarrassment on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or 
Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. This will demonstrate conclusively 
to all Americans that their government, even under a savior-figure like 
Obama, cannot, in fact, save them.

By 2012, there will be a general feeling that the nation is in immediate 
danger of blowing up or coming apart at the seams. This fear will be 
justified, given that the U.S. has always been held together by the 
promise of a continuously rising material standard of living?the famous 
?pursuit of happiness??rather than any ethnic or religious ties. If that 
goes, so could everything else. We were lucky in the 1930s?we may not be 
so lucky again."
Read all here
http://seekingalpha.com/article/134820-the-worst-case-scenario-someone-has-to-say-it

http://webabuser.blogspot.com/










From fentona at shaw.ca  Wed May  6 10:49:14 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 09:49:14 -0700
Subject: [R-G] How to profit from the global recession
Message-ID: <4D2D0E65-CCF9-4972-A732-D0E95D0F67A1@shaw.ca>

http://briarpatchmagazine.com/2009/05/01/how-to-profit-from-the-global-recession/
How to profit from the global recession
By Anna Reitman
Briarpatch Magazine
May/June 2009

Everybody?s looking for a lifeline to pull themselves out of the  
global downturn. But with giant bailout packages failing to provide  
stability in the U.S. and grim predictions for the remainder of 2009,  
what are the emerging opportunities for secure and lucrative investment?

Financial experts the world over are surveying the wreckage of the  
global economy to devise a comprehensive investment strategy. They  
seek a strategy capable of turning high unemployment rates, huge  
pension losses, surging consumer bankruptcies and home foreclosures to  
their advantage.

One need look no further, though, than the human dramas playing out on  
the evening news. The arms trade is one industry virtually guaranteed  
to continue delivering higher than average returns during the global  
economic retrenchment.

The global trend towards increased military expenditures is evident in  
such recent opportunity zones as Israel/Palestine, the Democratic  
Republic of the Congo, South Ossetia and the ongoing skirmishes in  
Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Military expenditures worldwide have  
ballooned to more than $1 trillion a year and continue to rise. With  
no end in sight for the nine major and 17 smaller-scale armed  
conflicts in the world, brisk sales of arms and military equipment can  
be anticipated at least through 2012.

Free-market enthusiasts will be pleased to note, however, that these  
growth opportunities extend beyond the state-controlled defence  
industries of the world?s leading military powers. They also reach  
into the efficiently unregulated global market in small arms.

Mexico, for instance, is an emerging market that should not go  
overlooked. A strong narco-state transit hub, it is also the number  
one importer of small arms worldwide. As a fellow signatory to the  
North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada is in the enviable  
position of being one of Mexico?s top suppliers. With gang wars  
breaking out over lucrative drug routes that criss-cross the entire  
globe, demand for small arms to facilitate these conflicts will remain  
strong. Canada is well positioned to capitalize on this booming  
industry because of its leadership role in global hot spots like  
Afghanistan and Haiti.

Some investors may feel uncomfortable counting on criminal enterprise  
to deliver the returns they have come to expect. For those ?ethical?  
investors, there is an alternative. Privatized prisons in the United  
States have reliably delivered high returns, particularly during  
downturns in the business cycle. As unemployment, evictions and  
foreclosures increase, the prison population can also be expected to  
enjoy healthy growth. In the current ?tough on crime? political  
climate, cost savings from the reduction of non-essential services  
like medical care, food and correctional guard training could increase  
these profits considerably.

For those seeking to invest closer to home, the recent surge in public  
support for tougher approaches to crime in Canada may also lead to new  
markets for human incarceration service delivery. More privatized  
prisons in more countries should result in higher dividends for the  
ethical shareholder.

The average shareholder, though, is perhaps more adventurous in  
seeking out the next lucrative bubble - for them, arms are the new  
real estate.

The Japanese symbol for ?disaster capitalism? is composed of the  
symbols for ?danger? and ?opportunity.? Investors navigating the  
global financial crisis should remember that robust turnover in  
weapons inventory will, sadly, result in some collateral damage. The  
shrewd investor will seek out opportunities to turn collateral damage  
into collateral advantage. Construction companies, for instance, can  
vault over the housing slump and go directly to reconstruction  
contracts on territory that has been cleared of hostile occupants by  
warfare or natural disasters.

Similarly, local contracts can be gifted to Canada?s battered auto  
sector by retooling it to produce military vehicles. Other spinoff  
sectors sure to enjoy a collateral advantage are the energy,  
technology, pharmaceutical and security industries. This abundant  
economic activity will keep the discerning money manager sleeping  
soundly, investments tucked away safe.

Two-thousand-and-nine could yet be a comeback year. There is no need  
to worry about the future of the economy; the rules are operating just  
as they should.

Anna Reitman has worked as an adult educator and administrator in  
Canada, Uganda and Afghanistan. Her hobbies include selling  
Kalashnikov assault rifles and weapons-grade uranium.


Order this issue.

Subscribe to Briarpatch.

From shniad at sfu.ca  Wed May  6 12:43:07 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] (Video) Interview with Evo Morales about socialism and
	Bolivia today
In-Reply-To: <4A01C046.1050300@sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <821874371.1239321241635387001.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



(Video) Interview with Evo Morales about socialism and Bolivia today 

(The interview is in English) 



http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2009/05/video-interview-with-evo-morales-about.html 

?

From shniad at sfu.ca  Wed May  6 12:38:17 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Venezuelan President Calls for "Re-definition" of Socialist
	Party
In-Reply-To: <4A01D61F.2020704@sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <447080114.1237301241635097495.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



Venezuelanalysis.com????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? May 4th 2009 



Venezuelan President Calls for ?Re-definition? of Socialist Party? 
? 
by James Suggett? 

M?rida, May 4 th 2009? -- On his weekly talk show Al? Presidente on Sunday, Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez said the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), of which he is president, will undergo a "re-definition" in which sectarianism and corrupt party leadership must end and the party must strengthen its ties to social movements . 

The PSUV is "on course toward the redefinition of many things in the party's internal operating," Ch?vez said on the nationally televised talk show. "In the PSUV, we must distance ourselves from the tendencies of the past; we cannot let ourselves be trapped by sectarianism," he said. 

However, Ch?vez said this does not mean debate and difference of opinion are not allowed. "It is positive that there are internal currents, but they must have a political basis, not a personal one," he said. 

Ch?vez also told PSUV leaders not to take their leadership positions for granted and not to prioritize their personal concerns over those of the party's more than four million members. "We cannot permit a small group of unconditional [party leaders] to construct their personal projects over the hopes of the people," he said. 

Since Venezuelan voters approved a constitutional amendment to lift term limits on elected offices last February, Ch?vez has called for an acceleration of Venezuela's drive toward "21 st Century Socialism." His administration has revived land re-distribution to empower food production "communes," which are based on a new form of legally sanctioned social property. 

However, internal barriers to change persist within the party. Last month, a state police squad forcibly evicted more than sixty small farmers and workers from the National Lands Institute (INTI) who were demarcating idle and under-used private lands for re-distribution in the Portuguesa state. The state police fell under the responsibility of the the governor, who is a member of the PSUV national directorate. 

Ch?vez said on Sunday, "The party should be a strong articulator of the workers' movement, the students, the small farmers, women, the indigenous people, and all the social movements." 

In his weekly presidential op-ed column, which is published on Sundays and titled "Ch?vez's Lines," Ch?vez spoke of the importance of the workers' movement for the construction of Socialism in Venezuela. 

"There cannot be institutional or governing practices that contradict our pro-worker definition," Ch?vez said. "There cannot be a relationship of tutelage with respect to the workers... It is not the state, nor the government, nor the PSUV whose duty it is to organize and lead the workers; it is the workers themselves who must assume this historic responsibility." 

A commission of national party leaders has been formed to carry out a new membership drive for the next five weekends. The party will issue membership cards and update its membership registry. 

In addition, the commission has been tasked with organizing more socialist battalions at the local level, which will come together in a national congress of the PSUV in August to discuss the organizational structure and future direction of the party. 

Also, the party plans to found an editorial foundation to spur the ideological formation of its members. 

Ch?vez called for the creation of the PSUV after his re-election to a second presidential term in 2006, with the purpose of bringing together all the existing leftist parties that supported his presidency into one party whose leadership is democratically elected by the membership base. 

Last year, 2.5 million PSUV members went to the polls to choose the party's candidates for the mayoral and gubernatorial elections, making the PSUV the only political party to comply with Venezuela's constitutional requirement that party leaders and candidates for office be elected democratically within the party. 



Venezuelan President Calls for ?Re-definition? of Socialist Party? 
? 
by James Suggett? 

M?rida, May 4 th 2009? -- On his weekly talk show Al? Presidente on Sunday, Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez said the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), of which he is president, will undergo a "re-definition" in which sectarianism and corrupt party leadership must end and the party must strengthen its ties to social movements . 

The PSUV is "on course toward the redefinition of many things in the party's internal operating," Ch?vez said on the nationally televised talk show. "In the PSUV, we must distance ourselves from the tendencies of the past; we cannot let ourselves be trapped by sectarianism," he said. 

However, Ch?vez said this does not mean debate and difference of opinion are not allowed. "It is positive that there are internal currents, but they must have a political basis, not a personal one," he said. 

Ch?vez also told PSUV leaders not to take their leadership positions for granted and not to prioritize their personal concerns over those of the party's more than four million members. "We cannot permit a small group of unconditional [party leaders] to construct their personal projects over the hopes of the people," he said. 

Since Venezuelan voters approved a constitutional amendment to lift term limits on elected offices last February, Ch?vez has called for an acceleration of Venezuela's drive toward "21 st Century Socialism." His administration has revived land re-distribution to empower food production "communes," which are based on a new form of legally sanctioned social property. 

However, internal barriers to change persist within the party. Last month, a state police squad forcibly evicted more than sixty small farmers and workers from the National Lands Institute (INTI) who were demarcating idle and under-used private lands for re-distribution in the Portuguesa state. The state police fell under the responsibility of the the governor, who is a member of the PSUV national directorate. 

Ch?vez said on Sunday, "The party should be a strong articulator of the workers' movement, the students, the small farmers, women, the indigenous people, and all the social movements." 

In his weekly presidential op-ed column, which is published on Sundays and titled "Ch?vez's Lines," Ch?vez spoke of the importance of the workers' movement for the construction of Socialism in Venezuela. 

"There cannot be institutional or governing practices that contradict our pro-worker definition," Ch?vez said. "There cannot be a relationship of tutelage with respect to the workers... It is not the state, nor the government, nor the PSUV whose duty it is to organize and lead the workers; it is the workers themselves who must assume this historic responsibility." 

A commission of national party leaders has been formed to carry out a new membership drive for the next five weekends. The party will issue membership cards and update its membership registry. 

In addition, the commission has been tasked with organizing more socialist battalions at the local level, which will come together in a national congress of the PSUV in August to discuss the organizational structure and future direction of the party. 

Also, the party plans to found an editorial foundation to spur the ideological formation of its members. 

Ch?vez called for the creation of the PSUV after his re-election to a second presidential term in 2006, with the purpose of bringing together all the existing leftist parties that supported his presidency into one party whose leadership is democratically elected by the membership base. 

Last year, 2.5 million PSUV members went to the polls to choose the party's candidates for the mayoral and gubernatorial elections, making the PSUV the only political party to comply with Venezuela's constitutional requirement that party leaders and candidates for office be elected democratically within the party.

From shniad at sfu.ca  Wed May  6 13:00:29 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 12:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Open Letter to Barack Obama from Nobel Peace Prize Laureate:
 Stand Up to Israeli Apartheid
In-Reply-To: <347585385.1040381241566722088.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <979623743.1246831241636429544.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




http://www.counterpunch.org/maguire05012009.html 



CounterPunch ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? May 1 - 3, 2009 

An Open Letter to Barack Obama from a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 

Stand Up to Israeli Apartheid 



By Mairead Maquire 



Dear President Obama, 



I found your book ?Dreams from my Father? a moving and inspiring story of your own struggle to find your identity and purpose in life. You found it for sure, and today carry the hopes and dreams of so many people in our world. We pray for you and your family. We wish you all good health and happiness. You carry so much responsibility. We hope you will change the policies of USA (both domestic and Foreign) to people centred policies, based on the values and ethics which you try to live out in your life. 



Reading your book I was inspired by your involvement (during Sophomore year at University) in the South African anti-apartheid Divestment campaign. Your own words - ?I found myself drawn into a larger role ? contacting representatives of the African National Congress to speak on campus, drafting strategy, I noticed that people had begun to listen to my opinions.?, encouraged me to share with you the following opinions, and experiences, of many of the people I met during my most recent visit to Palestine/Israel. 



Earlier this month, I attended the 4th Bil?in International Conference on Popular Nonviolent Resistance held in Bil?in, near Ramallah, in the Israeli occupied Terrority of Palestine. Here, all the Palestinian people are asking of you, President Obama, is to listen to their opinions and use your position to help end the racist, apartheid policies of Israel, which continue to cause so much pain and suffering to them. Each week, for the past four years, the villagers (after prayers in the Mosque) walk to the Wall which has annexed much of their land, and cuts them off from their farms and olive groves, and their ability to make a living for their families. As you know, under International Law the Apartheid wall is illegal but Israel continues to ignore International Laws (and some 62 UN resolutions) and annex more land from the Palestinians, all the while demolishing Palestinian homes, building illegal settlements both in East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, and laying Siege to the Gaza strip (l and a half million people), thus breaking the Geneva Conventions and committing crimes against humanity. 



To visit Palestine is to walk with a people whose lives are being made unbearable by Israeli Policies of ethnic cleansing. Each year when I visit I ask myself ?how can the Palestinians bear so much suffering and still have hope?? The Philosopher Karl Jung says ?Go into your grief for there your soul will grow?. Being privileged to walk alongside the Palestinian people, one sees so much soul. Many are materially poor having been made refugees and often pauperised by Israeli occupation and siege, but their dignity, courage, and persistent resistance to injustice is awesome to witness. It reminds me of the magnificence of the human spirit and, I feel humbled to be welcomed as a friend of the people of Bilin, Ramallah, Gaza, and Palestine. I wish that you President Obama would go and walk with them as you walked in spirit with the people of South Africa in their great and inspirational anti-apartheid movement. 



Walking every week in the peaceful protest to the Apartheid wall, are Israeli activists and Internationals. It takes great courage to come from Israel to the occupied terrorities and oppose your own Government?s Policies and I pay tribute to the Israeli peace activists who continue to do so, often at the cost of punishment by the Israeli Government. Yet, they come, and here is the hope that not all Israelis support their Government?s racist and apartheid policies of siege, occupation and militarization of both Israel and Palestinian villages and towns. I also pay tribute to the Internationals who put their lives daily on the line to stand in solidarity with the Palestinians. Last month in the Village of Nilin, one young man from your own country of America, Tristan Anderson, was targeted by Israeli soldiers, and hit in the head with a gas canister. He is currently in intensive care, and we all hope he will recover. 



At the Bilin Conference an Israeli asked me ?how can we touch the hearts of the Israeli people? so they can change their Government?s policies?? I believe there is so much fear amongst the Israeli?s of ethnic annihilation but this fear can be dissolved by the politics of the heart. Israel should not be afraid of the Palestinians or Arab world. They are not the enemy and this can be borne witness to by the Israelis who come to stay in this village and who are taken care of, with such love, by the Bilin villagers. The Israeli people must make friends with the Palestinians and indeed the whole Arab world, and take seriously the peace agreement offered by the Arab countries. There will never be a military or armed struggle solution to the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict, as it is a political problem with a political solution. What is lacking is a real political will, on behalf of the Israeli Government, to enter seriously into all inclusive unconditional talks. 



During the peaceful protest to the wall, we were assaulted by the Israeli soldiers with teargas, and rubber bullets. Many of us were overcome with the teargas and others seriously hurt with steel tipped rubber bullets. On 17th April, 2009, at this wall, one of the protesters, Bassem Abu-Rahma, was hit in the chest with a teargas metal container and killed. He was a young man from the village much loved by all and his death caused great pain and anger particularly amongst his peer group. I marvelled at the skill of the Village Leaders and Muslim women, who kept reminding the young men that they must keep their protest peaceful, but the atmosphere felt like a pressure cooker with the lid about to blow. How much longer must this injustice to Palestinian people be allowed to continue unchallenged by your administration? If you do not insist upon Israel upholding its International responsibility immediately, this anger will grow and the daily humiliation of Palestine, by Israeli injustice and soldiers will push more people towards retaliatory violence. (As one of our great Irish poets W.B. Yeats wrote ?too long a sacrifice makes a stone of the heart?). 



I appeal to you President Obama, to change USA policies and stop supporting through military aid, etc, Israelis occupation of Palestine, and to move immediately to help lift the siege of Gaza and say to Israel ?enough is enough?. 



In the meantime I support the Bilin committee?s strategy of BDS in an attempt to get their freedom and rights. You, as a supporter and activist for South Africa?s BDS campaign know it succeeded in ending Apartheid as Nobel Peace Laureate 



Archbishop Tutu often reminds us. Such a strategy can work for Palestine too. Some South Africans Anti Apartheid leaders when visiting Israel have said it is much worse than the days of Apartheid in their country. However, I believe President Obama, you can do so much more than those of us who 



Support the BDS campaign. You can bring your experience in your own struggle for peace and freedom to help solve this problem. 



Love and hope gives us all courage and belief that peace and freedom is possible. 



God bless you and your family. 



Mairead Maguire won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976. 



www.peacepeople.com

From fentona at shaw.ca  Wed May  6 13:36:18 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 12:36:18 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Journalists required to submit to biometric scan in
	Afghanistan
Message-ID: <D5F076EB-EBB2-40B3-8668-4A61DDF7C33C@shaw.ca>

Journalists required to submit to biometric scan in Afghanistan

21 hours ago

OTTAWA ? Journalists covering the war in Afghanistan are now required  
to submit to a biometrics scan before being accredited to travel with  
NATO units or visit military bases.

The data, including fingerprints and a retina scan, are used to verify  
identity and apparently checked against an archive of known terrorists.

The new policy, recently posted on the International Security  
Assistance Force website, has not been enforced on Canadian reporters,  
most of whom operate out of Kandahar Airfield.

A legal expert described the new security crackdown as "strange and  
offensive" and said the Conservative government needs to be asking  
tough questions of its allies before any Canadian citizen submits to  
such a procedure.

Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel and expert in access to information,  
said Ottawa should know where the data is being stored, who has access  
to it and how it will be used.

"We are in Afghanistan to defend our values and one of our quasi- 
constitutional values is the right to privacy," Drapeau said Tuesday.

"I would question why they're using that."

Journalists are in Afghanistan to be the eyes and ears of their  
countries and should not be required to figuratively "strip down to  
your bare whatever unless there is a demonstrated need," he said.

Drapeau said he would have fewer concerns if the database was being  
used in an administrative fashion, to catalogue identification in the  
event a journalist is killed. But experience of the last few years  
suggests it will have other uses, he said.

NATO officials in Brussels and Kabul did not respond to requests for  
comment.

A Pentagon publication in the fall of 2007 suggested that the U.S.  
military, which lent the first biometrics equipment to the alliance,  
holds on to the data. It does not guarantee that the information will  
not be shared.

Submitting to the biometrics scan is voluntary, but the accreditation  
instructions noted that "media who do not submit all required  
information will not receive a badge" and that "media interested in  
visiting any ISAF locations (or requesting embed with any ISAF troops)  
in Afghanistan are required to be accredited."

The policy applies to all NATO bases in Afghanistan and goes part of  
the way to explaining why the alliance stopped accrediting journalists  
and issuing them camp passes at Kandahar Airfield in early March.

Reporters were given visitor's passes, which limit their movements and  
make it difficult to leave and return to the base after independently  
interviewing local Afghans. The orange tags also require the Canadian  
Forces to escort journalists at all times - a practice that is  
currently being ignored.

In the first week of March, an Italian photographer embedded with the  
Canadians and at least two other journalists were subject to escorts.  
The Canadian military has loudly protested the policy to the airfield  
commander, with no affect.

The Opposition Liberals and NDP, as well as the Canadian Association  
of Journalists, complained last week that the loss of accreditation  
opened the door to the intimidation of reporters who don't toe the line.

They also considered the visitor's pass system a disincentive to  
independent reporting of the increasingly bloody conflict.

If Canadian reporters want to avoid the restrictions of the visitor's  
pass, they'll have to travel to Kabul and submit to the biometrics  
accreditation.

The high-tech system was initially fielded in Iraq by U.S. forces  
handling prisoners at detention centres, but was quickly expanded and  
used to create identification cards for residents of the embattled  
city of Fallujah.

NATO first began experimenting with the technology in 2007, using  
equipment lent to the International Security Assistance Force by the  
U.S. The idea at the time was to screen local Afghans working at  
military bases.

In fact the Biometrics Automated Toolset is credited with catching  
several suspected insurgents in the Kabul area. Military units  
throughout the country routinely tap into the database.

While the U.S. has not forced the system on NATO, the Pentagon  
publication The Guardian noted American commanders were eager to see  
the technology put to use.

"An informal expectation exists within some U.S. ranks that NATO and  
ISAF should adopt U.S. policies and processes based on the U.S.  
experience," said the winter 20078 edition.

"NATO and ISAF welcome the U.S. experience with biometric systems."

An expanded screening program that included journalists was ordered  
late last winter.

Copyright ? 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Wed May  6 13:31:42 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 12:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] The Black Book of Canadian foreign policy -- tour and piece
In-Reply-To: <546082451.1259231241638237707.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1067837160.1259531241638302844.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

From: "Yves Engler" <yvesengler at hotmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 11:38:53 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: Black book tour and piece 

For information on the the Black book of Canadian foreign policy tour: 
http://blackbook.foreignpolicy.ca/ 
pls forward to anyone who might be interested. 
yves 

Two weeks ago military forces trained by the Canadian Special Operational Regiment subdued a hijacker who took command of a Halifax-based CanJet plane at an airport partly run by Vancouver Airport Services. While Canadian companies and institutions played a major role in these events this drama did not take place in Canada. It happened in Montego Bay. 
? 
Canada has long been influential in Jamaica and across the English-speaking Caribbean. Some prominent Canadians once wanted to add Britain?s Caribbean colonies to Canada?s expanding territory. In the late 1870s the Canada First Movement sought "a closer political connection" with the British West Indies. By the early 1900s official Canadian policy supported annexing the British Empire?s Caribbean possessions (the various islands as well as British Honduras [Belize] and Guyana). 
? 
The West Indies Union movement reached its apex in the early 1900s, but the idea continued to find support after World War One. At the end of the conflict the other British Dominions (South Africa, Australia and New Zealand) that fought alongside London were compensated with German properties. With no German colonies nearby Ottawa asked the Imperial War Cabinet if it could take possession of the British West Indies as compensation for Canada?s defence of the Empire. London balked 

Ottawa's push to wrest control of the British Caribbean was spurred by insurance and banking companies, which entered the region when the Halifax Banking Company signed an agreement in 1837 with the Colonial Bank, a London headquartered operation that had a preeminent place in the British Caribbean. Prior to opening a branch in Montr?al, in 1882, the Merchants Bank of Halifax (later the Royal Bank) established itself in Bermuda. Most of the other major Canadian banks quickly followed suit. According to The Economist, by April 2008 Canadian banks controlled "the English-speaking Caribbean?s three largest banks, with $42 billion in assets, four times those commanded by its forty-odd remaining locally owned banks." 

Canada has also played an important military role in the region. Ottawa has trained Jamaica?s security forces since not long after the country's independence in 1958. Canada, notes Canadian Caribbean Relations in Transition, "cooperated closely with Jamaica in setting up the latter?s national security organizations. Cadet training schemes were followed by reciprocal high-level military visits and consultations. Aircraft were sold to Jamaica and pilot training was undertaken. Technical assistance was initiated and expanded to include joint training exercises." 

Canadian military training in Jamaica has been particularly controversial. When "a battalion of 850 Canadian troops landed in the mountainous Jamaican interior to conduct a tropical training exercise" in the early 1970s, Abeng, a leftist Jamaican paper, cried foul. The paper?s editors claimed Ottawa was preparing to intervene to protect Montr?al-based Alcan?s bauxite facilities in the event of civil unrest and/or in case a socialist government took office. 

While numerous books dealing with Canadian-Caribbean relations scoff at Abeng?s accusations, the archives confirm the paper?s suspicions. "Subsequent [to 1979] planning for intervention seems to bear out the Abeng accusations," notes military historian Sean Maloney. Code-named, NIMROD CAPPER, "the objective of the operation revolved around securing and protecting the Alcan facilities from mob unrest and outright seizure or sabotage." 

Later, Canadian military planning resumed from where NIMROD CAPPER began with an exercise titled "Southern Renewal" beginning in 1988. Maloney explains: "In this case a company from two RCR [Royal Canadian Reserves] was covertly inserted to ?rescue? Canadian industrial personnel with knowledge of bauxite deposits seized by Jamaican rebels and held hostage." 

The Canadian navy has intervened repeatedly in the Caribbean. According to Maloney, "Since 1960, Canada has used its military forces at least 26 times in the Caribbean to support Canadian foreign policy. In addition, Canada planned three additional operations, including two unilateral interventions into Caribbean states." 

Canadian soldiers garrisoned Bermuda from 1914-1916 and St. Lucia from 1915-1919. They also replaced British forces in Jamaica from 1940-1946, as well as in Bermuda and the Bahamas during segments of this period. 

Perceptions of race underlay the use of Canadian troops during World War Two. According to Canadian Defence Minister Norman Rogers, the governor of Jamaica "had intimated that it will be risky to remove all white troops." The situation in the Bahamas was even more sensitive. In June 1942 rioting broke out over the low wages received by black labourers. Canadian troops arrived in the Bahamas just after the riots and their main task was to protect a paranoid governor, the Duke of Windsor 

While the English Caribbean rarely registers on Canadians' political radar it's the region of the world where Canada's has had the greatest influence. But the sentiment that Canada has imperial tendencies in the Caribbean is widely held there. "Canada is in fact, already sometimes classed with the United States and Britain as an imperialist exploiter in Jamaica and elsewhere," noted a book published in 1988. In the midst of protests in the early 1970s against Canadian banks in Trinidad, an External Affairs official noted that "we?re not colonialists by intent, but by circumstances. We?ve taken on a neocolonial aura there." When RCMP officers were hired to run Antigua?s police force in early 2008 a Canadian expat explained how "some see a climate of neocolonialism." 

Yves Engler is the author of The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy. To find about his book tour in May/June: http://blackbook.foreignpolicy.ca/

From shniad at sfu.ca  Wed May  6 16:22:20 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Keep Jobs In Canada
In-Reply-To: <1C7A275EC07A442799FCA76746DE3AFF@twubby.com>
Message-ID: <409266714.1338471241648540075.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>


National Unemployment Clock | Keep Jobs In Canada 

http://www.keepjobsincanada.ca/ 

From fentona at shaw.ca  Wed May  6 16:31:11 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:31:11 -0700
Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Afghanistan=92s_disasters_of_war?=
Message-ID: <5CEA8A5F-6C9F-49FB-8EB1-3EDFBC0C5578@shaw.ca>

H/T: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/05/afghanistan-insurgency-tactics.html

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17804

9 May 2009 | issue 2150

Afghanistan?s disasters of war

The latest downward spiral for the occupation cannot be solved by  
sending in more troops or spreading the war to Pakistan, writes Simon  
Assaf

The Hydra in Greek mythology was a beast with nine heads. When one was  
cut off another two would grow in its place. This is an apt  
description of the West?s dilemma in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Some eight years after the battle for ?hearts and minds? in  
Afghanistan was supposedly won, the occupation is spinning into a deep  
crisis.

The Pakistani Taliban, insurgents who are allied to the resistance in  
Afghanistan, triggered global panic last month when they took control  
of Buner, a region some 60 miles north of Pakistan?s capital Islamabad.

An offensive by the Pakistani army was able to them drive out, but not  
before Hillary Clinton, the new US secretary of state, warned of an  
?existential threat to Pakistan.?

The deepening malaise of the war is laid bare here. A key battle for  
Afghanistan is now being waged on the edges of Islamabad.

Clinton?s comment reflects the deep fear that the war is now in danger  
of destroying Pakistan.

The stakes could not be higher. The US, Nato and their allies in the  
Afghan government hold little sway over Afghanistan outside Kabul. Now  
even sections of the capital are beginning to slip away from their  
control.

Any support the occupation enjoyed during its early years has melted  
away. Heavy casualties from air strikes fuel growing anger, as do  
?night raids? ? assaults on villages suspected of harbouring  
resistance fighters.

This anger is translating to tacit support for the insurgents.

Supplies

The isolation of the occupation inside Afghanistan has become further  
complicated by the fact that the foreign troops are hopelessly  
surrounded.

Afghanistan is landlocked and dependent on supplies that are shipped  
through Pakistan. This route winds through the insecure insurgent  
areas in the north of the country.

In recent months insurgents have attacked supply columns, hijacked  
scores of armoured vehicles and set fire to military stores in the  
port city of Karachi.

The occupation has had to turn for help from Afghanistan?s neighbours  
such as Iran ? which has some influence in the west of the country.  
This region is home to Shia Muslims, who are hostile to the Sunni  
Taliban.

Some Nato countries, such as France and Germany, want to tempt the  
Iranians into letting them use their ports to resupply the Nato troops.

But any such deal would come with a hefty price tag. Iran is in  
conflict with the West over Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, economic  
sanctions and its nuclear programme.

The alternative is to look to the unstable states of Turkmenistan and  
Uzbekistan on Afghanistan?s northern border.

Here Russia holds sway. It did get the governments to open supply  
routes. But it can always choose to close them again.

So Russia holds a powerful tool to use against the US and the European  
powers when it comes to key issues such as the accession of Georgia  
and Ukraine to Nato, or the missile defence shield along Russia?s  
western frontiers.

To avoid such pressure the coalition is desperate to resolve the  
situation on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which has  
been given the unfortunate tag of the ?Af-Pak war?.

The new US strategies were unveiled by Barack Obama in March.

He is attempting to pour more troops into Afghanistan in the hope this  
will buy time to strengthen the Afghan army.

But there is a limit to what the US can supply and, as Bush discovered  
before Obama, Nato is reluctant to commit large numbers of troops.

Its leaders are coming to realise that it will take more than greater  
troop numbers to turn the battle around.

There are currently about 60,000 US and 58,000 other international  
troops in Afghanistan. The extra 20,000 soldiers the US is sending are  
too few to make any lasting military impact.

At the height of the Russian occupation in the 1980s there were  
150,000 troops fighting alongside a 132,000 strong Afghan army.

By contrast this occupation is struggling to maintain the local force  
of 80,000 soldiers.

Obama?s strategy also involves abandoning Afghan president Hamid  
Karzai, and opening negotiations with the ?moderate Taliban? ? local  
insurgent organisations.

Karzai, however, is proving stubborn. He has called snap elections in  
August in an attempt to head off plans to unseat him. He has been  
granting concessions to Islamists as an attempt to boost his standing.

The latest compromise involves dumping what few rights are enjoyed by  
Shia Muslim women.

His negotiations with elements of the Taliban, sponsored by Saudi  
Arabia, have so far failed to produce any real breakthrough.

Now any chance of winning over sections of the local resistance has  
been put in danger as many of the new troops will be used to destroy  
the vast opium poppy plantations.

This is seen as vital in ?cutting the lifeline of the insurgency?.

But the occupation is taking a big risk by opening up a new front on  
Afghanistan?s desperate farmers ? many of whom have joined the  
resistance as a way of defending their crop.

The success or failure of the Af-Pak strategy is hostage to the  
biggest gamble of all ? spreading the war into Pakistan in the hope of  
wiping out the insurgents? sanctuaries.

The recent events near Islamabad are a testament to how badly off  
track this approach has become.

The current occupiers of Afghanistan face the same dilemma as all  
those that came before.

To secure control over the towns the occupation troops must push into  
the farmlands, mountains and valleys.

This has been the pattern of fighting over the past seven years.

This strategy of ?hot pursuit? was successful at first. But it came to  
a halt when the resistance fighters began escaping across  
Afghanistan?s long and porous border with Pakistan.

So the US sent in unmanned Predator drones armed with deadly payloads  
of missiles to hunt them down.

According to The News newspaper in Pakistan only ten of the 60 drone  
attacks so far have found their target, killing 14 insurgent leaders.

The rest have hit civilian areas and killed at least 687 people.

The popular revulsion at the use of these drones embarrassed  
Pakistan?s government at first, and quickly fed support for a nascent  
insurgency in the tribal regions.

As this rebellion grew, the US and its allies pushed Pakistan?s  
military to move into the border region, breaking a long standing if  
uneasy truce.

Disaster

The military forays ended in disaster. Defeat undermined Pakistan?s  
dictator Pervez Musharraf and has seriously compromised the government  
that replaced him.

Many young men have joined the ranks of the insurgency. As one tribal  
elder explained, ?Our youths have become bitterly angry. The  
courageous among them have joined Taliban, no matter whether they  
agree with their philosophy or not.?

Now the US wants to expand its range to the vast and volatile  
Baluchestan region of northwestern Pakistan.

These attacks could stir the region, which also spills into eastern  
Iran, to join the growing insurgency.

In reference to an increase in the use of drones, Obama recently  
declared, ?We will insist that action be taken, one way or another,  
when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets.?

The spillover of the war has come to represent a serious  
destabilisation of Pakistan. As the Pakistani Taliban grew with the  
revulsion at the US war, so did the range of its demands.

It built on longstanding anger at central government corruption and  
revived the demands of the secessionist movements that once held sway  
in the regions.

By adopting the Af-Pak strategy, Obama has made the war his own.

But one of the new president?s dilemmas is inherited from George  
Bush?s administration. To retreat would be a recognition of the  
greatest military disaster for the US since Vietnam.

To remain and try to win the war risks not only losing Afghanistan,  
but also Pakistan ? a loss that would be deeply troubling for  
imperialism.

It is for this reason that the war has become, in the words of Neil  
Abercrombie, the head of the US Congress?s Armed Services  
Subcommittee, a ?colossal geopolitical blunder?.

The following should be read alongside this article:
? Stalemate in Helmand
? Guy Smallman's photos: Misery in Kabul

? Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you  
include an active link to the original.

...

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17805

This article should be read after: ? Afghanistan?s disasters of war
Stalemate in Helmand

Nothing illustrates the problems of the occupation more than the  
hapless misadventure of British troops in the Helmand province in  
southern Afghanistan.

According to intelligence sources quoted by the influential Royal  
United Services Institute (Rusi), Taliban leader Mullah Omar ordered  
his forces in September 2008 to concentrate on pinning down British  
troops in Helmand.

In 2006, occupation forces poured into the region in an attempt to  
expand the remit of the Afghan government.

Instead the move widened and deepened the resistance to foreign forces.

The Taliban hoped a ?hard pounding? of British soldiers would draw in  
troops from other regions, freeing up the insurgency to spread. The  
tactic seems to be working.

The bulk of the new surge of US troops are heading to the region to  
bail out the British forces, while the British officers have been  
complaining that they have insufficient troops and equipment to fend  
off the insurgents.

The heavy fighting has forced Britain to bolster its forces there by  
sending in more reservists and part time soldiers.

In his grim assessment of the war, General Sir Michael Rose warned,  
?It is clear that in Afghanistan coalition forces have now reached  
their limit of exploitation with regards to manpower?.

It is tempting to lay the blame for the miscalculation in the Helmand  
province on a misguided decision by the Ministry of Defence. But the  
rot goes deeper.

Michael Clarke, the director of Rusi, said of the dilemma, ?The  
coalition can lose the Afghan campaign by losing in Helmand, but it  
cannot win it there.

?It can lose the whole campaign on the home front through a disaster  
in Helmand, but it cannot win on the ground in Afghanistan itself  
without significant victories elsewhere.?

The battle for control in Helmand shows the desperation of an  
occupation running out of options, and spiralling towards disaster.

? Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you  
include an active link to the original.

From shniad at sfu.ca  Wed May  6 16:25:54 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Understanding the smearjob that was done on the Durban Review
 Conference
Message-ID: <224765752.1340251241648754108.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



(A version of this article will be published in the May / June 2009 issue of Canadian Jewish Outlook magazine .) 





? 

Understanding the smearjob that was done on the Durban Review Conference 





? 

By Sid Shniad 





? 

In 2001, the United Nations convened the World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in Durban, South Africa, to deal with a range of issues related to racism and its legacies, including the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, the appropriation of the land and resources of the world?s indigenous peoples, and the human rights of the Palestinians. 



? 



The government of Israel responded to the anti-semitic actions of a few marginal NGOs which participated in Durban by branding the entire WCAR ? widely seen as a high water mark in the international battle against racism ? as an anti-semitic ?hatefest?. This became the pretext for Israel and its allies to walk out of the conference in an attempt to prevent Israel?s behaviour vis-?-vis the Palestinians as well as other vitally important matters from being addressed. 





? 

The U.S. government, which had been adamant in its refusal to address the legacy of the slave trade and the attendant call for reparations long before the Durban conference was convened, seized the opportunity and joined the Israeli walkout. Although the WCAR had to proceed without Israel and the U.S., it was able to produce a ground-breaking document known as the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) that addressed a range of issues rooted in racism and laid out a plan for dealing with them. Following standard practice, the UN set up a review conference to assess the progress made in addressing the Programme of Action contained in the DDPA. This conference was convened in Geneva in late April. 





? 

In 2007, Canada?s Harper government embraced the Israeli-Zionist contention that the 2001 Durban conference had been an anti-semitic ?hatefest? and became the first government in the world to announce that it would boycott the DDPA Review. Exploiting the opportunity to undermine debate on the very topics they were determined to avoid ? Palestine and reparations for the slave trade ? ? Israel and the United States subsequently joined the Canadian-led boycott. 





? 

The Canadian, Israeli and American governments? efforts to undermine the Durban Review were complemented by an extensive, elaborate campaign on the part of Zionist and pro-Israeli organizations. As a reporter for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency explained, 





? 

For nearly a year before the anti-racism confab, Jewish and pro-Israel groups lobbied hard to get Western countries to boycott the gathering... 





? 

Indeed, during the months leading up to the conference, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, noted several times that an orchestrated campaign was behind Western threats to boycott the conference, dubbed Durban II. 





? 

?The conference process has been the subject of ferocious and often distorted criticism by certain lobby groups focused on single issues,? she said... [1] 





? 

Despite these efforts to undermine the DDPA Review, an impressive array of delegates from around the world gathered in Geneva from April 20 through 24 to carry it out. Unfortunately, the opening day of the conference was dominated by controversy generated by the appearance of Iranian President Mahmoud Admadinejad, who has gained international notoriety for attempting to cast doubt on the Nazi holocaust. In the event, Admadinejad?s speech dealt with a range of issues, with the bulk of it criticizing Israel?s expulsion of Palestinians from their land in 1948, its continuing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the unquestioning support that Israel receives from the United States and other countries of the West. 



? 



Traumatized by the abuse it received at the hands of the Israel Lobby described above, the UN refused to allow side events focusing on Israel and Palestine to take place inside the Palais des Nations. But members of many Israel Lobby groups circumvented this rule by giving their Zionist-dominated workshops titles which gave the appearance of offering presentations on topics addressing subjects related to racism. But the speeches and discussions in these sessions featured over-the-top rants from stars like Bernard-Henri L?vy, Natan Sharansky, Alan Dershowitz, Elie Wiesel and Jon Voight about Iranian and Palestinian "anti-semitism," "nazism" and allegations of racism against Israelis. 



? 



These high profile apologists for everything Israeli were just part of an extensive array of Zionist organizations that participated in the Durban Review en masse. Rather than contributing to a substantive debate, these groups disrupted the conference and made it difficult for other participants to discuss their issues. In one workshop on Islamophobia, Palestinians were described by a member of the World Jewish Congress as a people ?who educate their men to rape their children.? (Imagine the banner headlines that would have been generated in Canada?s Asper-dominated press if Arabs or Muslims had made similar anti-Jewish remarks.) The disruptions became so extreme that the United Nations ended up removing the credentials of hundreds of the Zionist delegates at mid-week and expelling them from the remainder of the conference. 



? 



The aggressive, in-your-face approach of these Zionist forces generated a significant backlash among conference participants. While a strong commitment to combating anti-semitism was reiterated throughout, there was a buzz within the conference about the destructive, abusive tactics deployed by the various Zionist organizations. Despite these disruptive tactics, the Review Conference managed to generate some excellent analysis and participants were able to engage in spirited debate. In the end, the recommendations generated by the 2001 conference at Durban were reaffirmed by the participants in this Review. 



? 



The Review Conference featured a number of outstanding speakers and panellists. Michel Warschawski of the Alternate Information Center in Israel provided a particularly powerful analysis of the significance of the original Durban conference and the events that have transpired since. According to Warschawski, the Durban conference marked a major success in the struggle against colonialism ? so successful that it became a catalyst for an alliance of Zionist and neoconservative elements determined to mount a global counter-offensive and roll back the progress that the forces opposed to colonialism made there. 



? 



Warschawski traced how this counter-offensive focused initially on terrorism, shifting later to Islamic terrorism, and finally ended up indicting Islam itself as the enemy. All this was promoted under the rubric of the Clash of Civilizations, with Judeo-Christianity portrayed as engaged in a battle to the death with Islamic Barbarism in an open-ended war. [2] Those who rejected this framework were accused of being anti-semitic. 





? 

In an aside, Warschawski countered the hysterical Zionist insistence that anti-semitism is growing by leaps and bounds, noting that while it continues to exist, European anti-semitism is coming from right wing Christian sources rather than those rooted in Islam. He concluded his comments on this subject on a positive note, offering evidence that anti-semitism is in fact declining over time. 



? 



Warschawski argued that Palestine is the frontline in this war and that the Israeli Wall constitutes the dividing line between Judeo-Christian ?Civilization? and Islamic ?Barbarism?, with the underlying issue being the attempt by the Zionists and neoconservatives to re-impose empire, which has been badly shaken by 40 years of successful anti-colonial struggle. He noted that in the context of the Durban Review and the attempts to weaken and undermine it, progressive forces had been put on the defensive and forced backwards, explaining that this is what the boycott campaign and the attempts to disrupt the conference from within had been all about. Warschawski concluded by imploring activists to dedicate themselves to ensuring that they are fully prepared for the upcoming Durban Plus Ten review so that the original, successful struggle can be resumed. 



? 

Criticizing the Harper government?s boycott, a coalition of the groups from Canadian civil society that participated in the Review Conference issued a statement addressing our common concerns and met with the U.N. Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights to explain them. Our collective experience at the Durban Review Conference shows that it is vitally important for civil society to have its voice is heard and its issues addressed in world forums like this to ensure that the Durban Programme of Action is followed . Without the presence of civil society to counter them, highly organized campaigns by groups like the Israel Lobby and its political allies will bring this vitally important process to an end. 



? 



? 



? 

Sid Shniad is a co-chair of Independent Jewish Voices Canada. He was one of the three-member IJV delegation to the Durban Review Conference in Geneva. 





[1] The Jewish conspiracy against Durban II (No, seriously) , Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April 29, 2009 





? 



? 


[2] This view of the world lies at the core of Zionism. Theodore Herzl, the father of modern political Zionism, envisioned that the Jewish state he advocated would play an essential role in the clash between the West and barbarism. In his words, ?Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home.... We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.? Der Judenstaat ? (The Jewish State), 1896. Accessible online at www.mideastweb.org/jewishstate.pdf , page 13. 





? 

Former Israeli Prime Minister, current Defence Minister Ehud Barak gave voice to the same perspective when he commented that ? We ... live in a modern and prosperous villa in the middle of the jungle. ? Address by Foreign Minister Ehud Barak To the Annual Plenary Session of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council , February 1996. 



? 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Wed May  6 17:11:42 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 16:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Vancouver comedian Charles Demers on Ignatieff
In-Reply-To: <72FFE0C724E146DB8A661B1AE2996870@twubby.com>
Message-ID: <1662264427.1359451241651502334.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

This 'Third Rail' segment from the new TV program the CityNews List features writer and comedian Charlie Demers on newly crowned Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdLjGko_iik 

"Ignatieff, in his book [True Patriot Love], explains 'countries begin to die when people being to think that life is elsewhere and start to leave.' Apparently, the only thing that can bring those countries back to life is if those same people come back, decades later, on the condition that they get to be king..." 

The CityNews List airs weeknights at 6:30pm and 11:00pm on Vancouver CityTV (Ch.13) 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Wed May  6 17:16:42 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 16:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] FBI Inspector General Reports 35 Percent Error Rate On Terror
 Watchlist
In-Reply-To: <8DC766D1BD2B4835B6E264B985DD2888@shmuel>
Message-ID: <295462386.1361601241651802768.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>





From: Linda Paris [lparis at dcaclu.org] 
Sent: May 6, 2009 3:35 PM 
Subject: FBI Inspector General Reports 35 Percent Error Rate On Terror Watchlist 




FBI Inspector General Reports 35 Percent Error Rate On Terror Watchlist 





FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 


May 6, 2009 





CONTACT: Mandy Simon, (202) 675-2312; media at dcaclu.org 





WASHINGTON ? A report released today by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General found that the FBI?s terrorist watchlist may contain a 35 percent error rate. The audit revealed that large portions of the list are governed by no formal processes for updating or removing records.?The audit confirms that the nation?s watchlist system is massively broken. 





?This report strongly suggests that hundreds of thousands of people are being wrongly identified as terrorists,? said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.??This is yet more confirmation of what we?ve been saying for years ? that the watchlist is not only unfair for travelers, but it is also a waste of scarce resources.?It is time for Congress to haul the watchlist policymakers up to Capitol Hill to answer some tough questions.? 





The audit also confirms the ACLU?s estimates that the terror watchlist consists of an unmanageable and non-credible 1.1 million names as of December 2008.?In ?The Federal Bureau of Investigation?s Terrorist Watchlist Nomination Practices? inspector general auditors reviewed 68,669 of those identities and found 24,000 were out of date.?In a closer inspection of the out of date records, the auditors found a majority of this sample did not even belong on a watchlist. 





Last year, the ACLU noted the addition of the one millionth record on the terror watchlist.?At the time, federal officials called the count ?overblown.? ? 





In addition to confirming the ACLU?s 2008 count, today?s report also documents a widespread failure to scrub the lists by removing names after cases have been closed.?For example, one subject stayed on the watchlist for almost five years after the case was resolved; two people on the list were dead.?The FBI attempted to place one individual on the watchlist by reclassifying that person as an international terrorist after already having been cleared of wrongdoing by an FBI investigation. 





The report also identified more than 50,000 records with no explanation of why they were on the list, making it impossible to remove them.?It described the controls for placing many names on the list as ?weak or nonexistent.? 





?This IG report reveals just what a comedy of errors the watchlist is,? said Chris Calabrese, attorney with the ACLU Technology and Liberty Program.??But we did not need this report to know there is a problem with the effectiveness of any terrorist watchlist that includes over a million names. It certainly explains why Congressman John Lewis and Senator Edward Kennedy have problems when they try to fly.? 





For ACLU news release on the one millionth name on the watchlist, go to http://www.aclu.org/privacy/35968prs20080714.html 




# # # 




If you would rather not receive future email messages from American Civil Liberties Union, let us know by clicking here. 
American Civil Liberties Union, 125 Broad Street 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004-2400 United States

From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Wed May  6 20:24:25 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 11:24:25 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] How to Cancel Third World Debt
Message-ID: <4A024659.3000208@ashisuto.co.jp>


by Michael Rowbotham

Prosperity (September 2001)


From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Wed May  6 23:31:16 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 14:31:16 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Anti-Empire Report
Message-ID: <4A027224.4080406@ashisuto.co.jp>


by William Blum

www.killinghope.org (May 04 2009)


Some thoughts about torture. And Mr Obama.

Okay, at least some things are settled. When George W Bush said "The
United States does not torture", everyone now knows it was crapaganda.
And when Barack Obama, a month into his presidency, said "The United
States does not torture" {1}, it likewise had all the credibility of a
19th century treaty between the US government and the American Indians.

When Obama and his followers say, as they do repeatedly, that he has
"banned torture", this is a statement they have no right to make. The
executive orders concerning torture leave loopholes, such as being
applicable only "in any armed conflict" {2}. What about in a
"counter-terrorism" environment? And the new administration has not
categorically banned the outsourcing of torture, such as renditions, the
sole purpose of which is to kidnap people and send them to a country to
be tortured. Moreover, what do we know of all the CIA secret prisons,
the gulag extending from Poland to the island of Diego Garcia? How many
of them are still open and abusing and torturing prisoners, keeping them
in total isolation and in indefinite detention? Total isolation by
itself is torture; not knowing when, if ever, you will be released is
torture. And the non-secret prisons? Has Guantanamo ended all its forms
of torture? There's reason to doubt that. {3} And what do we know of
what's happening now in Abu Ghraib and Bagram?

And when Obama says "I don't believe that anybody is above the law", and
then acts in precisely the opposite fashion, despite overwhelming
evidence of criminal torture - such as the recently leaked report of the
International Committee of the Red Cross and the Bush Justice Department
"torture memos" - it's enough to break the heart of any of his fans who
possess more than a minimum of intellect and conscience. It should be
noted that a Gallup Poll of April 24/25 showed that 66% of Democrats
favored an "investigation into harsh interrogation techniques on
terrorism suspects". If the word "torture" had been used in the
question, the figure would undoubtedly have been higher.

Following the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003, President Bush went on
TV to warn the people of Iraq: "War crimes will be prosecuted. War
criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, I was just
following orders." {4}

"Objectively, the American public is much more responsible for the
crimes committed in its name than were the people of Germany for the
horrors of the Third Reich. We have far more knowledge, and far greater
freedom and opportunity to stop our government's criminal behavior,"
observed James Brooks in the Online Journal in 2007.

On February 10, the Obama Justice Department used the Bush
administration's much-reviled "state secrets" tactic in a move to have a
lawsuit dismissed - filed by five detainees against a subsidiary of
Boeing aircraft company for arranging rendition flights which led to
their torture. "It was as if last month's inauguration had never
occurred", observed the New York Times. {5}

And when Obama says, as he does repeatedly, "We need to look forward as
opposed to looking backwards", why is it that no one in the media asks
him what he thinks of the Nuremberg Tribunal looking backwards in 1946?
Or the Church Committee of the US Senate doing the same in 1975 and
producing numerous revelations about the criminality of the CIA, FBI,
and other government agencies that shocked and opened the eyes of the
American people and the world?

We're now told that Obama and his advisers had recently been fiercely
debating the question of what to do about the Bush war criminals, with
Obama going one way and then another and then back again, both in
private and in his public stands. One might say that he was "tortured".
But civilized societies do not debate torture. Why didn't the president
just do the obvious? The simplest? The right thing? Or at least do what
he really believes.

The problem, I'm increasingly afraid, is that the man doesn't really
believe strongly in anything, certainly not in controversial areas. He
learned a long time ago how to take positions that avoid controversy,
how to express opinions without clearly and firmly taking sides, how to
talk eloquently without actually saying anything, how to leave his
listeners' heads filled with stirring cliches, platitudes, and slogans.
And it worked. Oh how it worked! What could happen now, as President of
the United States, to induce him to change his style?

The president and the Director of the CIA both insist that no one at the
CIA who was relying on the Justice Department's written legal
justification of methods of "enhanced interrogation" should be punished.
But the first such approval was dated August 1 2002, while many young
men were arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the previous nine
months and subjected to "enhanced interrogation". Many were sent to
Guantanamo as early as January 2002. And many others were kidnaped and
sent to Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and other secret prisons to be tortured
beginning in late 2001. So, at least for some months, the torturers were
not acting under any formal approval of their methods. But they still
will not be punished.

I love that expression "enhanced interrogation". How did our glorious
leaders overlook calling the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki "enhanced explosive devices"?

Lord High Dungeon Master Richard Cheney is upset about the recent
release of torture memos. He keeps saying that the Obama administration
is suppressing documents that show a more positive picture of the
effectiveness of interrogation techniques, which he claims produced very
valuable information, prevented certain acts of terrorism, and saved
American lives. Hmmm, why am I skeptical of this? Oh, I know, because if
this is what actually happened and there are documents which genuinely
and unambiguously showed such results, the beleaguered Bush
administration would have leaked them years ago with great fanfare, and
the CIA would not have destroyed numerous videos of the torture sessions.

But in any event, that still wouldn't justify torture. Humankind has
aspired for centuries to tame its worst behaviors; ridding itself of the
affliction of torture has been high on that list. There is more than one
United States law now prohibiting torture, including a 1994 law making
it a crime for US citizens to commit torture overseas. This was recently
invoked to convict the son of former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor.
There is also the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of
Prisoners of War, ratified in 1949, which states in Article 17:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be
inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any
kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be
threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous
treatment of any kind."


Thus it was that the United States has not called the prisoners of its
War on Terror "prisoners of war". But in 1984, another historic step was
taken, by the United Nations, with the drafting of the "Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment" (came into force in 1987, ratified by the United States in
1994). Article 2, section 2 of the Convention states:

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a
threat of war, internal political instability or any other public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture".

Such marvelously clear, unequivocal, and principled language, to set a
single standard for a world that makes it increasingly difficult for one
to feel proud of humanity. We cannot slide back. If today it's deemed
acceptable to torture the person who supposedly has the vital
"ticking-bomb" information needed to save lives, tomorrow it will be
acceptable to torture him to learn the identities of his alleged
co-conspirators. Would we allow slavery to resume for just a short while
to serve some "national emergency" or some other "higher purpose"?

If you open the window of torture, even just a crack, the cold air of
the Dark Ages will fill the whole room.

"I would personally rather die than have anyone tortured to save my
life". - Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who lost
his job after he publicly condemned the Uzbek regime in 2003 for its
systematic use of torture. {6]

With all the reports concerning torture under the recent Bush
administration, some people may be inclined to think that prior to Bush
the United States had very little connection to this awful practice.
However, in the period of the 1950s through the 1980s, while the CIA did
not usually push the button, turn the switch, or pour the water, the
Agency ...

* encouraged its clients in the Third World to use torture;

* provided the host country the names of the people who wound up as
torture victims, in places as bad as
Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram;

* supplied torture equipment;

* conducted classes in torture;

* distributed torture manuals - how-to books;

* was present when torture was taking place, to observe and evaluate how
well its students were doing. {7}

I could really feel sorry for Barack Obama - for his administration is
plagued and handicapped by a major recession not of his making - if he
had a vision that was thus being thwarted. But he has no vision - not
any kind of systemic remaking of the economy, producing a more equitable
and more honest society; nor a world at peace, beginning with ending
America's perennial wars; no vision of the fantastic things that could
be done with the trillions of dollars that would be saved by putting an
end to war without end; nor a vision of a world totally rid of torture;
nor an America with national health insurance; nor an environment free
of capitalist subversion; nor a campaign to control world population ...
he just looks for what will offend the fewest people. He's a "whatever
works" kind of guy. And he wants to be president. But what we need and
crave is a leader of vision.


Another jewel in the crown, Miss Hillary

During the presidential campaign much was made of Obama's stated
promises to engage in direct talks with Iran, as opposed to the Bush
administration's refusal to speak to the Iranians and threatening to
attack them and bomb their nuclear facilities. This was one more example
of the much-vaunted "change" that Obama was going to bring. But, in
actuality, it wouldn't be much of a change. Mid-level American officials
did in fact occasionally meet with Iranian officials, most notably after
the September 11 attacks in 2001 and in mid-2003 after the US invasion
of Iraq. These meeting were always in secret. {8} There were also at
least three publicly-announced meetings between the US and Iran in 2007,
primarily dealing with the fighting in Iraq. And now that Obama is in
power, what do we find? We find his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton,
testifying April 22 before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and stating:

"We actually believe that by following the diplomatic path we are on
[speaking to Iran], we gain credibility and influence with a number of
nations who would have to participate in order to make the sanctions
regime as tight and as crippling as we would want it to be".

Would it be unfair to say that she's implying that a reason for talks
with Iran is that the US could get more international support when it
decides to cripple that country? Is crippling a country the United
States is at peace with supposed to be part of the "change" in US
foreign policy? Is Iran expected to be enthusiastic about such talks? If
the talks collapse, will the United States use that as an excuse for
bombing Iran? Or will Israel be given the honor?

Later in the hearing, Clinton declared: "We are deploying new approaches
to the threat posed by Iran".

I would love to have been a member of the House committee so I could
have had the following exchange with the Secretary of State:

Congressman Blum: Do we plan to impose sanctions on France?

Secretary Clinton: I don't understand, Congressman. Why would we impose
sanctions on France?

Congressman Blum: Well, if we impose sanctions on Iran on the mere
suspicion of them planning to build nuclear weapons, it seems to me we'd
want to impose even stricter sanctions on a country which already
possesses such weapons.

Secretary Clinton: But France is an ally.

Congressman Blum: So let's make Iran an ally. We can start with ending
our many sanctions against them and calling off our Israeli attack dogs.

Secretary Clinton: But Congressman, Iran is a threat. Surely you don't
see France as a threat? What reason would France have to use nuclear
weapons against the United States?

Congressman Blum: What reason would Iran have to use nuclear weapons
against the United States? Other than an irresistible desire for mass
national suicide.

If Congressman Blum had pursued this line of questioning, it might well
have culminated in some Orwellian remark by dear Hillary, such as the
one she treated us to a few days later when speaking to reporters in
Iraq. As the Washington Post reported it: "Clinton played down the
latest burst of violence, telling reporters she saw 'no sign' it would
reignite the sectarian warfare that ravaged the country in recent years.
She said that the Iraqi government had 'come a long, long way' and that
the bombings were 'a signal that the rejectionists fear Iraq is going in
the right direction'." {9}

So ... the eruption of violence is a sign of success. In October 2003,
President George W Bush, speaking after many resistance attacks in Iraq
had occurred, said: "The more successful we are on the ground, the more
these killers will react". {10}

And here is General Richard B Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, speaking in April 2004 about a rise in insurrection and fighting
in Iraq over nearly a two-week period: "'I would characterize what we're
seeing right now as a - as more a symptom of the success that we're
having here in Iraq', he said ... explaining that the violence indicated
there was something to fight against - American progress in building up
Iraq". {11}

War is Peace ... Freedom is Slavery ... Ignorance is Strength. I
distinctly remember when I first read 1984 (1958) thinking that it was
very well done but of course a great exaggeration, sort of like science
fiction.

Clinton was equally profound on May 1, speaking to an assemblage of
State Department employees. Discussing Venezuela and Bolivia, she said
that the Bush administration "tried to isolate them, tried to support
opposition to them, tried to turn them into international pariahs. It
didn't work. We are going to see what other approaches might work." Oh
... uh ... how about NOT trying to isolate them, NOT supporting their
opposition, NOT trying to turn them into international pariahs? How
about the National Endowment for Democracy, the Agency for International
Development, and the US Embassy NOT trying to subvert their revolutions?
And when she says "It didn't work", one must ask: Work to what end? To
return the two countries to their previous condition of client-states?
Perhaps like with Nicaragua, about whom the Secretary of State said
improving relations was important to counter Iran's growing influence.
She noted that "the Iranians are building a huge embassy in Managua. You
can only imagine what it's for." {12} I can only imagine what Ms Clinton
imagines it's for. What is the new American Embassy in Iraq - the
biggest embassy in the entire history of the world, in the entire
universe - What is that for? Another example of Obamachange that means
no change. What is it with American officials? Why are they so
insufferably arrogant and hypocritical?


Notes

1. Washington Post, February 24 2009

2. See, for example, "Executive Order - Ensuring Lawful Interrogations",
January 22 2009

3. See The Observer (London), February 8 2009 for an account of how
conditions were still very awful at Guantanamo as of that date.

4. Video of Bush:- http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22511.htm

5. New York Times, February 10 2009, plus their editorial of the next
day. In April, a federal appeals court ruled that the detainees' lawsuit
could proceed.

6. Testimony before the International Commission of Inquiry On Crimes
Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration, session of
January 21 2006, New York City

7. See William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
(2002), chapter 5.

8. The Independent (London), May 27 2007

9. Washington Post, April 26 2009

10. Washington Post, October 28 2003

11. New York Times, April 16 2003

12. Associated Press, May 1 2009


William Blum is the author of:-

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War Two
(Common Courage Press, 1995)

Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (Zed Books, 2002)

West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir (Soft Skull Press, 2002)

Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire (Common
Courage Press, 2004)


Portions of the books can be read, and copies purchased, at
http://www.killinghope.org and previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read
at this website.

To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to
bblum6 at aol.com with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name and
city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in
case I'll be speaking in your area.

Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite.

Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I'd
appreciate it if the website were mentioned.

http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer69.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 May  7 10:26:14 2009
From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:26:14 -0400
Subject: [R-G] CAIR's Humanitarian Mission to Iran for Saberi, Momeni,
	and Levinson
Message-ID: <cd351fdc0905070926u6075eb3et93d05f10380129c4@mail.gmail.com>

<http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/elyousseph070509.html>
CAIR's Humanitarian Mission to Iran for Saberi, Momeni, and Levinson
by Mahmoud El-Yousseph

The current relation between the U.S. and Iran is not pretty; in fact,
it is like a roller-coaster ride.  This is bad news for Muslims in
America and abroad.

Iran is bitter over its billions of dollars in frozen assets still in
U.S. banks for the last three decades, following the takeover of our
embassy in Tehran.  Moreover, the U.S. government maintains a hostile
attitude, insistent on quashing Iran's ambitions to build a peaceful
nuclear program.  There are nine other nations on this planet earth
who have a nuclear program, but no one gives a hoot!

Iran also has faults of its own.  Its human rights records are not
flattering, especially when it comes to U.S. citizens living in Iran.
That does not help reduce tensions between the two nations either.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is not sitting on the
sideline as spectator, but rather wants to do something to narrow the
gap between the U.S. and Iran.  CAIR, which is a leading
Muslim-American civil liberties group, has assembled a delegation to
fly to Iran on short notice to resolve some of the outstanding issues.
 The group as of this writing is awaiting visas and entry permits.

Among the items the group will discuss with Iranian officials are the
statuses of Roxana Saberi, Esha Momeni, and Robert Levinson.

Roxana Saberi: a journalist who was sentenced recently to eight years
in jail on espionage charges.  The Fargo, North Dakota native was born
to an Iranian father and Japanese mother.  She was elected as Miss
North Dakota in 1997.  Iran claimed first that she purchased a bottle
of wine and then that she was working without press credentials.  She
just celebrated her 33rd birthday in jail.

Esha Momeni: a graduate student at California State University.  Like
Miss Saberi, she is also a U.S.-born citizen.  Her parents are
Iranians and she is a dual national.  Miss Momeni was arrested in Iran
in October 2008 after she allegedly passed another car illegally.  She
was released later, but her research materials were confiscated and
she was banned from leaving Iran to continue her study.

Robert Levinson: a former FBI agent who mysteriously disappeared two
years ago on the Iranian island of Kish.  The CAIR delegation is
carrying a letter from Mr. Levinson's family to be delivered to
Iranian officials, with the hope that the letter might crack the case.
 The Swiss government, which acts on behalf of U.S. interests in Iran,
did not have much luck solving this case.

CAIR's mission is an attempt to use its cultural and religious common
ground with Iran in order to open a door that otherwise would remain
closed.

Contrary to its critics, CAIR does care about America and wants
America to be a better and a safer place not only for Muslims but for
all of us.

Let's give credit where credit is due.  Here are a few examples of
CAIR's actions in the last nine years:

    * CAIR took out full-page ads in the Washington Post (16 September
2001) and the New York Times (9 March 2003) to condemn the 9/11
attacks, and it urged all American Muslims to contribute money, donate
blood, and help with the medical relief operation.

    * CAIR came to the defense of a Jewish reporter who worked for a
Kansas City newspaper and who was fired from her job one day after she
married a Palestinian.
    * When four members of the Christian Peacemaker Team were taken
hostage in Iraq in 2005, CAIR demanded their immediate and
unconditional release, stating that harming them would not advance the
cause of innocent Iraqi prisoners held by U.S. forces.
    * After American journalist Jill Carrol was taken hostage in Iraq
in 2006, CAIR risked the life of its own members by sending a
delegation to Iraq to plead for her release.  Eventually she won her
freedom.

CAIR, which has a solid patriotic record, should be commended for its
humanitarian mission.  This was also done in compliance with the
Islamic teaching which calls on Muslims to "forgive those who
oppressed you, give to whomever deprived you, and reach out to the one
who ignored you."

Make no mistake, when CAIR was preparing for this "mission of mercy,"
the group was speaking for seven million American Muslims who want
nothing more than normal and better relations between their country
and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Mahmoud El-Yousseph a retired USAF Veteran in Ohio. Contact:
<elyousseph6 at yahoo.com>.


From fentona at shaw.ca  Thu May  7 10:49:19 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 09:49:19 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Military Deeply Involved in Christian Reality Television Show
Message-ID: <86410301-36A0-4D70-AFD1-0D2D449CCBF0@shaw.ca>

http://www.pubrecord.org/religion/565-military-deeply-involved-in-christian-reality-television-show.html

Military Deeply Involved in Christian Reality Television Show
Written by Jason Leopold
Wednesday, 06 May 2009 00:00

By Jason Leopold

The Pentagon was involved in the production of a cable program that  
featured two so-called ?extreme? missionaries embedded with a U.S.  
Army unit in Afghanistan trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.

The popular reality series, "Travel the Road," aired on the Trinity  
Broadcasting Network and featured Will Decker and Tim Scott, two so- 
called "extreme" missionaries who travel the globe to ?preach the  
Gospel to the ends of the earth and encourage the church to be active  
in the Great Commission.?

The other cable program green-lit by the Pentagon is ?God?s Soldier,?  
which aired in September on the Military Channel, and was filmed at  
Forward Operating Base McHenry in Hawijah, Iraq. It features an Army  
chaplain openly promoting fundamentalist Christianity to active-duty  
U.S. soldiers in Iraq in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), a watchdog  
organization, amended a federal lawsuit it filed against the  
Department of Defense last year, currently in federal District Court  
in Kansas City, Kansas to ?include these despicable unconstitutional  
promotions of fundamentalist Christianity in the combat zones of Iraq  
and Afghanistan,? said MRFF founder and president Mikey Weinstein.

Part of the second season of ?Travel the Road? was filmed on location  
in Afghanistan and aired in April 2006, where Decker and Scott were  
embedded with the Army, and shows numerous scenes of the men  
accompanying U.S. Army soldiers on patrol.  The missionaries are also  
filmed evangelizing the local Afghans by distributing New Testaments  
to them in their native Darri language.

In one scene, an Army Chaplain named Capt. Brad Hanna of the Oklahoma  
National Guard, talks about the possibility of a ?revival? in  
Afghanistan and says he frequently speaks to Afghans about converting  
to Christianity. Hanna was made a full-time support chaplain for the  
Oklahoma National Guard after he returned from Afghanistan.

Additionally, Decker and Scott prominently cite SSgt. Sheldon Hoyt,  
who was stationed in Afghanistan with the Oklahoma National Guard?s  
45th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Battalion, 179th Infantry Regiment, as  
playing a hands-on role in helping the missionaries facilitate their  
proselytizing as opposed to simply being a tour guide of sorts.

In sanctioning Decker and Scott?s work, the Pentagon appears to have  
committed numerous constitutional violations as well as breached  
military regulations such as United States Central Command's General  
Order 1-A, which strictly prohibits any proselytization in the Middle  
Eastern theater of operations.

Last year, U.S. military personnel launched a major initiative to  
convert thousands of Iraqi citizens to Christianity also by  
distributing Bibles and other fundamentalist Christian literature  
translated into Arabic to Iraqi Muslims.

An article published on the website of Mission Network News reported  
that Bible Pathway Ministries, a fundamentalist Christian  
organization, disclosed that the organization provided thousands of a  
special military edition of its Daily Devotional Bible study book to  
members of the 101st Airborne Division of Fort Campbell, Kentucky,  
currently stationed in Iraq.

The project "came into being when a chaplain in Iraq (who has since  
finished his tour) requested some books from Bible Pathway Ministries  
(BPM).?

?The resulting product is a 6"x9" 496-page illustrated book with  
embossed cover containing 366 daily devotional commentaries, maps,  
charts, and additional helpful information," the Mission Network News  
report said.

Chief Warrant Officer Rene Llanos of the 101st Airborne told Mission  
Network News, ?the soldiers who are patrolling and walking the streets  
are taking along this copy, and they're using it to minister to the  
local residents.?

"Our division is also getting ready to head toward Afghanistan, so  
there will be copies heading out with the soldiers," Llanos said. ?We  
need to pray for protection for our soldiers as they patrol and pray  
that God would continue to open doors. The soldiers are being placed  
in strategic places with a purpose. They're continuing to spread the  
Word.?

Karen Hawkins, a BPM official, said military chaplains "were trying to  
encourage [soldiers] to be in the Word everyday because they're in a  
very dangerous situation, and they need that protection."

The distribution of the Bibles and Christian literature came at the  
same time that U.S. Marines guarding the entrance to the city of  
Fallujah handed out ?witnessing coins? to Sunni Muslims entering the  
city that read in Arabic on one side: "Where will you spend eternity??  
and "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" on the other.

But it?s the military chaplains who have been criticized for allegedly  
force-feeding soldiers a form of fundamentalist Christianity  
originating from highly controversial, apocalyptic "End Times"  
evangelists and their mega-churches. Evangelical Christians have  
become such a dominating presence in the military?s chaplain corps  
that the Air Force held a four-day Spiritual Fitness Conference at  
Hilton Hotel in Colorado Springs in 2005 for chaplains and their  
families.

The U.S. Constitution says the federal government is prohibited from  
using the machinery of the state to promote any single religion. But,  
disturbingly, ?God?s Soldier,? produced with the full co-operation of  
the 2-27 Infantry Battalion "Wolfhounds,? and ?Travel the Road? comes  
off more like an advertisement for fundamentalist Christianity and a  
promotional tool for the faith.

?God?s Soldier? was co-produced by Jerusalem Productions, a British  
production company whose "primary aim is to increase understanding and  
knowledge of the Christian religion and to promote Christian values,  
via the broadcast media, to as wide an audience as possible."

Before ?God?s Soldier? aired on Sept. 10, the Discovery Channel, which  
owns the Military Channel, advertised the program by stating that it  
would feature several Army Chaplains from a wide variety of  
denominations discussing their work in the military.

?Follow a group of U.S. Army Chaplains from different faiths on a tour  
of duty in Iraq as they comfort wounded and dying soldiers, reassure  
panicked and depressed soldiers, as well debriefing those soldiers  
that return from their tours of duty," the marketing literature for  
?God?s Soldier? said.

Instead, ?God?s Soldier,? zeroed in on one chaplain, Capt.. Charles  
Popov, who appears in the first scene of the program in a godlike pose  
looking down upon the military base and urging soldier to attend  
Christian Bible study.

"Hey this is God,? Chaplain Popov says. ?Come to Bible study tonight  
at 1900. Purpose Driven Life. You only have 25,000 days in your life,  
and probably half of it's gone.?

The author of the book, ?Purpose Driven Life,? that Popov referenced  
is Rick Warren, the leader of a fundamentalist mega-church in Southern  
California. In a recent interview with Fox News pundit Sean Hannity,  
Warren said, "the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It  
has to just be stopped.... In fact, that is the legitimate role of  
government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish  
evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers."

MRFF?s research has found that ?The Purpose Driven Life? is second  
only to the Bible itself as the most widely promoted religious book to  
our military.

In another scene from ?God?s Soldier,? Popov is featured blessing a  
group of soldiers about to go out on a patrol.

"I pray that you would give them the ability to exterminate the enemy  
and to accomplish the task that they're been sent forth by God and  
country to do. In Christ's name I pray. Amen,? Popov says as he leads  
the group of soldiers in prayer. ?Every soldier should know Romans 13,  
that the government is set up by God, and the magistrate, or the one  
who wields the sword -- you have not swords but 50 cals and  
[unintelligible] like that -- does not yield it in vain because the  
magistrate has been called, as you, to execute wrath upon those who do  
evil."

Popov is studying toward a Brigade Chaplain supervisory position and  
the rank of Major at Ft. Jackson, South Carolina's US Army Chaplain  
School in the Army C-4 class.

Another clip from ?God?s Soldier? contains what appears to be a  
violation of strict regulations governing Army chapels: a large cross- 
shaped window covering about a third of the height of the door.

"The actions of Army chaplain Popov are abominable beyond measure even  
when slightly judged by constitutional standards,? said Mikey  
Weinstein, founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom  
Foundation. ?Look, damn it, let?s call it what it is. [Popov] and his  
approving Army superiors are the quintessential poster-child for the  
treason; yes treason, of aiding and abetting our enemies.

?Indeed, they are creating the most prolific recruiting weapon ever  
imagined for the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists comprising al- 
Qaeda, the Taliban, the insurrectionists and the Jihadists. Chaplain  
Popov and his lickspittle Army lapdogs have tragically painted the  
wretched perception that this conflict is between the righteous armies  
of Jesus against the evildoers of all Islam. This conflict of  
religious extermination has happened before. They called it The  
Crusades.?

Since he launched his watchdog organization four years ago, Weinstein  
said he and MRFF have been contacted by more than 10,000 active duty  
and retired members of the U.S. Armed Forces, many of who served or  
serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who identify themselves as  
Christians. They told Weinstein that they were ?severely? pressured by  
their military chain of command to convert to Christianity.

Weinstein, the author of "With God on Our Side: One Man's War Against  
an Evangelical Coup in America's Military." and a former White House  
attorney under Ronald Reagan, general counsel H. Ross Perot and an Air  
Force Judge Advocate (JAG), has exposed scores of cases in which the  
Department of Defense has promoted and sanctioned fundamentalist  
Christian proselytizing among U.S. soldiers in violation of the U.S.  
Constitution, established federal case law and military regulations.

The most egregious case of the Pentagon?s close ties with Christian  
fundamentalist groups was formally investigated by the Pentagon?s  
inspector general, as a result of a highly publicized complaint lodged  
by Weinstein?s group, in 2007 in which high-ranking Defense Department  
officials appeared in a promotional video in uniform promoting the  
fundamentalist organization Christian Embassy.

In a 45-page inspector general report, Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack  
Catton, Army Brig. Gen. Bob Caslen, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, Maj.  
Gen. Peter Sutton, and a colonel and lieutenant colonel whose names  
were redacted were found to have "improperly endorsed and participated  
with a non-Federal entity while in uniform."

Caslen was formerly the deputy director for political-military affairs  
for the war on terrorism, directorate for strategic plans and policy,  
joint staff. He was reassigned to the prestigious position of West  
Point Command of Cadets overseeing the 4,200 cadets at the US Military  
Academy at West Point. Caslen told DOD investigators he agreed to  
appear in the video upon learning other senior Pentagon officials had  
been interviewed for the promotional video.

At least one senior military official defended their actions,  
according to the inspector general's report, saying the "Christian  
Embassy had become a 'quasi-Federal entity,' since the DOD had  
endorsed the organization to General Officers for over 25 years."

?These unconscionable efforts by the leadership of our American armed  
forces to portray our United States military as the avenging Army of  
Jesus must stop here and now,? Weinstein said. ?It is directly leading  
to the emboldening of our enemy which, in turn, is maiming and killing  
brave American service men and women.

From fentona at shaw.ca  Thu May  7 13:43:12 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:43:12 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Exposing Counterfeit COIN
Message-ID: <0B9F1B0F-15C1-44F4-98AC-9EED609EB085@shaw.ca>

http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2009/05/06/gian-gentile-exposing-counterfeit-coin/

Gian Gentile: Exposing Counterfeit COIN
by Kelley B. Vlahos, May 07, 2009

I found myself talking with a rather prominent journalist in  
Washington the other night. The subject was the war in Iraq and in  
Afghanistan. And COIN ? counterinsurgency imagined and inculcated as  
the new (Petraeus) Doctrine, the new field manual, the new heroic  
battlefield narrative, made entirely so because of the 2007-2008 Surge  
operations in Iraq.

It?s population-centric counterinsurgency that clears, holds and  
builds, while winning hearts and minds, turning local populations  
against the bad guys and building up civic institutions and the  
legitimacy of the central government. Certainly not new theory, but  
dusted off and tweaked by Gen. David Petraeus & Co. for the Army?s new  
field manual released in December 2006, dovetailing conveniently with  
the Surge plan crafted by the neoconservatives at the American  
Enterprise Institute (and ultimately appropriated by the Bush  
Administration) in the same month.
gentile2
So I won?t just shut-up and accept the Surge Narrative as it is given  
to us now, because I think that there are huge flaws to it that must  
be corrected so that we can get to a more balanced understanding of  
it, and the years that came before it ~ Gian Gentile, Small Wars  
Journal blog, Jan. 2009

Today, it is the blueprint du jour for President Barack Obama?s  
inherited Long War, in fact, supporting it is a litmus test for one?s  
position and status in his national security apparatus.

So what? ? the journalist seemed to suggest, looking incredulous that  
there was even a hint of drama here. The Surge was a success, how  
could there be anyone or anything to legitimately take on the bright  
lights of the COIN constellation now orbiting the President? Players  
like Michele Flournoy, undersecretary of defense for policy at the  
Pentagon and Kurt Campbell, the co-founder of their think tank, Center  
for a New American Security (now a greased-up policy feeder for the  
administration). He?s been nominated by Obama to become the Assistant  
Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs.

As a reporter myself, I was a bit nonplussed. A quick Google search  
would find that there is indeed an energetic debate ? not only about  
the aforementioned "COINdinistas," now shaping policy for "Af-Pak,"  
but more importantly, about the validity of COIN and of the vaunted  
Surge itself.

Hadn?t you heard of Gian Gentile?

He shook his head.

He?s active duty. He?s West Point, I pressed on. He?s at the forefront  
of this pushback against COIN.

The journalist shook his head. He let me write down Gentile?s name.  
Looking skeptical, he moved on.

It really shouldn?t be a surprise, that members of the elite news  
media ? particularly the ones who don?t necessarily focus on a  
national security beat ? fasten easily onto the conventional narrative  
and "move on" condescendingly, satisfied their knowledge is au courant  
and complete.

Army Colonel Gian Gentile just doesn?t fit into their equation, though  
his name is known well enough, if only at the U.S Military Academy,  
military journals, critical foreign policy webzines like Antiwar.com,  
and as a foil and vexation for the COIN-centric blogs, the doctrine?s  
biggest promoters, like Small Wars Journal and Abu Muqawama (a moniker  
for Andrew Exum, Iraq war veteran and senior fellow at Flournoy?s CNAS).

To the rest of the world, the mainstream media included, Col. Gentile  
is kind of a ghost. Persistent and clever, sometimes noisome and  
everywhere. That he might remain invisible to people inside-the- 
beltway is only a problem in that information gatekeepers like the  
aforementioned journo, craft narratives about the war ? about future  
wars ? without the consistent insight of the contrary view. As  
consumers of the news ? as Americans ? we should demand the whole scoop.

The scoop is that Gentile, a 51-year-old former cavalry squadron  
commander in Iraq, now director of the military history division at  
West Point, has been putting his job in the Army on the line everyday,  
doing interviews with people like me, questioning the emerging  
historical record on the War in Iraq, the Surge and COIN. He  
challenges the historical pretexts used to merchandise and sell COIN,  
particularly by chief operators like retired Lt. Col. John Nagl  
(formerly with Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld, now president of CNAS). He  
throws cold water on the inescapable panegyrics to Petraeus and Gen.  
Ray Odierno (see Tom Ricks, a senior fellow at CNAS and a Washington  
Post military correspondent).

He warns that under the current influence of these "crusaders" (as  
tagged by Professor Andrew Bacevich back in October 2008), the  
military is shifting headlong and too far into COIN, bleeding the  
conventional force in favor of what he fears is a institutionalized  
role of global security change agents, nation-builders and cops.

He says the emperor has no clothes.

"I try to apply an historian?s sensibility to problems and in my  
writing, to make arguments based on the evidence available," he tells  
Antiwar.com. "When I got back from Iraq, there wasn?t much ?otherwise  
thinking? going on. There wasn?t much questioning of the direction we  
were heading. One can end up with this group think approach."

Gentile has written extensively about why the Petraeus Surge narrative  
has become both a symbol and byproduct of group think, and is now  
seemingly impenetrable thanks to a growing canon of after-action  
literature that place the "success" of the operation squarely on  
clear, hold and build ? including of course, more boots on the ground.

"First of all, that didn?t happen in Iraq. But you pick up any number  
of books," he said, "they basically accept the standard Iraq War  
narrative." Which is, in short: before 2007, the Army didn?t prepare  
or focus on counterinsurgency. The Army finally sees the light, and  
wielding the updated counterinsurgency manual (FM 3-24) (co-written by  
Petraeus, with the aid of officers like Nagl), leads five additional  
brigades "surging" into Baghdad and pursuing new COIN principles in Al  
Qaeda strongholds. Violence is reduced to acceptable levels, providing  
"space" for political reconciliation.

First of all, Gentile says, "it places too much emphasis on the role  
of the additional brigades, armed ? the narrative goes ? with the new  
COIN doctrine," said Gentile.

Aside from the sectarian cleansing in Baghdad ? where the few  
remaining Sunnis now live walled off, and in tiny urban enclaves ?  
Gentile zeros in on what he believes were the two critical events that  
made the real reduction in violence happen. First, Muqtada al Sadr?s  
decision to stand down his rebel forces in the summer of 2007. Second,  
the U.S Army?s decision to start paying off some 90,000 Sunni  
militiamen and former insurgents to turn against al Qaeda.

"In my opinion, the two necessary and controlling reasons for lowering  
the violence in Baghdad in the second half of 2007 had little to do  
with the increased number of U.S. combat brigades practicing so-called  
new counterinsurgency tactics," Gentile said in an interview a year ago.

He hasn?t changed his mind. Instead, he?s spent the last 12 months  
arguing his points, and taking quite a few personal hits along the  
way. Most publicly, in Thomas Ricks? much-celebrated, The Gamble:  
General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq,  
2006-2008, the author takes aim at Gentile by throwing into question  
his command in West Baghdad in 2006 (indeed, Gentile has argued that  
the Army was already adapting and practicing counterinsurgency methods  
on a general basis long before the Petraeus Brain Trust moved in.  
Ricks? book clearly disputes this).

"Certainly, I have received pushback from other forums, and other  
media," Gentile says. "The Gamble, the way (Ricks) wrote about me and  
my squadron in 2006, I think it was a direct pushback against me for  
being critical of the counterinsurgency doctrine and the sort of  
triumphal narrative that has emerged over the last year or so."

Gentile?s own attacks against COIN standard-bearers have been both  
withering and precise. In his counterpoint to Nagl?s "Let?s Win the  
Wars We?re In" for the current Joint Force Quarterly:

"Retired Army lieutenant colonel John Nagl, author of Learning to Eat  
Soup with a Knife, is so cocksure of the efficacy of Army combat power  
that he believes it will have the ability not only to dominate land  
warfare in general but also to ?change entire societies?? We are  
organizing ourselves around the principle of nationbuilding rather  
than fighting. For defense thinkers such as Nagl, that principle has  
turned into a synthetic consensus. To repeat, how else can one explain  
his most profound and deeply troubling statement that the Army, in the  
future, will have the capability to ?change entire societies?? In this  
sense, the caricature of Nagl as a ?crusader? seems correct."

For his part, Nagl has not backed down. "We need the ability to kill  
people and break things with our Army, absolutely. But we also need,  
in this modern era, we need an Army that can protect people and build  
things. And what we?re doing is looking for the right balance between  
those two," he told PRI?s The World radio program earlier this month.

Velvety smooth, and hardly unpalatable to an American public with no  
more appetite for blood and bombs, say critics, but it cannot perfume  
the stinky reality that this is Bush Doctrine, with a few new liberal  
bells and whistles, all over again.

"Gentile is one of the few officers with the guts and brains to tell  
the truth at a time when the truth is very unpopular," says Ret. Army  
Col. Douglas MacGregor, another dissident voice in the beltway  
wilderness. Like Gentile, he struggled to be heard during the Bush  
years against the preponderant neoconservative din. Today, it is the  
liberal interventionists, mostly Clinton-era throwbacks with a taste  
for nation building from the Balkan Wars. "Sadly, men like Gentile are  
currently in short supply."

Gentile became a commissioned officer through the ROTC program at UC  
Berkeley in 1986, and received his masters and PhD from Stamford  
University after three years in the field in Germany and Korea. While  
teaching at West Point, where he says "academic freedom really does  
mean something," he frequently dusts it up on the milblogs, where he  
is alternately excoriated and saluted, if not a bit patronized, even  
by his friends.

"Now here?s a question: Isn?t there anyone other than Gian Gentile  
willing to take up the anti-COIN crusade? Where is everyone else? I  
want to ask him that when he visits the 202 area code in the next few  
weeks," wrote Abu Muqawama, aka Exum, back in January.

But public sentiment may be shifting closer to Gentile and MacGregor,  
as current events ? foreign and domestic ? threaten the durability of  
the Surge success story and the open-ended military and civilian  
commitment Obama?s policymakers are setting up for Pakistan and  
Afghanistan.

"I don?t think the fundamental issues that have divided (Iraq) have  
been resolved. I think what we have done over the last year is frozen  
those issues in place, but we haven?t resolved them," Gentile charges.  
"I think, what you are seeing with the increasing attacks today, are  
the emergence of those differences again," he said. Pointing to recent  
reports that the Sunni Awakening, now abandoned by the Americans to  
the hostile Shia authority, are becoming restive, he said, "I think  
there may be some cooperation there ? some cooperation between Sunni  
and al Qaeda elements there."

Deny it they may, says Gentile, but today?s policymakers are promoting  
a similar Surge strategy for Afghanistan (See congressional  
testimonies by Flournoy and Chief Af-Pak envoy Holbrooke this week:  
clear, hold and build, with more boots on the ground, more civilian  
experts, more COIN). As an active duty officer, Gentile won?t question  
current plans outright, but he left me with this:

"As soldiers, our role is to do whatever we are told to do by our  
civilian masters. However, my experience is, that the idea of using  
military force to change entire societies ? to use John Nagl?s words ?  
at the barrel of a gun, is highly problematic and it is not as clean  
and as clear and as sensible as I think our own COIN doctrine makes it  
seem to be," he said. "I saw what it is like changing the entire  
society at the barrel of a gun in Baghdad in 2006, it wasn?t as simple."

Gentile laughed when he thought of the ribbing he might get among the  
COIN-set, being interviewed by a site with the name "Antiwar."  
Ultimately, he doesn?t care. He is driven by a sincerity his  
detractors cannot touch, and a personal mission not to let current war  
doctrine go unchallenged. He might just have a ghost of a chance. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Thu May  7 13:38:34 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Israel deliberately forgets its history
In-Reply-To: <1422554266.1368211241652662743.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <981332211.1584261241725114299.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




http://mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel 



Le Monde Diplomatique ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 



Zionist nationalist myth of enforced exile 



Israel deliberately forgets its history 



An Israeli historian suggests the diaspora was the consequence, not of the expulsion of the Hebrews from Palestine, but of proselytising across north Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East 



By Schlomo Sand 



Every Israeli knows that he or she is the direct and exclusive descendant of a Jewish people which has existed since it received the Torah?( 1 ) in Sinai. According to this myth, the Jews escaped from Egypt and settled in the Promised Land, where they built the glorious kingdom of David and Solomon, which subsequently split into the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. They experienced two exiles: after the destruction of the first temple, in the 6th century BC, and of the second temple, in 70?AD. 



Two thousand years of wandering brought the Jews to Yemen, Morocco, Spain, Germany, Poland and deep into Russia. But, the story goes, they always managed to preserve blood links between their scattered communities. Their uniqueness was never compromised. 



At the end of the 19th?century conditions began to favour their return to their ancient homeland. If it had not been for the Nazi genocide, millions of Jews would have fulfilled the dream of 20?centuries and repopulated Eretz Israel, the biblical land of Israel. Palestine, a virgin land, had been waiting for its original inhabitants to return and awaken it. It belonged to the Jews, rather than to an Arab minority that had no history and had arrived there by chance. The wars in which the wandering people reconquered their land were just; the violent opposition of the local population was criminal. 



This interpretation of Jewish history was developed as talented, imaginative historians built on surviving fragments of Jewish and Christian religious memory to construct a continuous genealogy for the Jewish people. Judaism?s abundant historiography encompasses many different approaches. 



But none have ever questioned the basic concepts developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Discoveries that might threaten this picture of a linear past were marginalised. The national imperative rejected any contradiction of or deviation from the dominant story. University departments exclusively devoted to ?the history of the Jewish people?, as distinct from those teaching what is known in Israel as general history, made a significant contribution to this selective vision. The debate on what constitutes Jewishness has obvious legal implications, but historians ignored it: as far as they are concerned, any descendant of the people forced into exile 2,000 years ago is a Jew. 



Nor did these official investigators of the past join the controversy provoked by the ?new historians? from the late 1980s. Most of the limited number of participants in this public debate were from other disciplines or non-academic circles: sociologists, orientalists, linguists, geographers, political scientists, literary academics and archaeologists developed new perspectives on the Jewish and Zionist past. Departments of Jewish history remained defensive and conservative, basing themselves on received ideas. While there have been few significant developments in national history over the past 60 years (a situation unlikely to change in the short term), the facts that have emerged face any honest historian with fundamental questions. 



Founding myths shaken 



Is the Bible a historical text? Writing during the early half of the 19th?century, the first modern Jewish historians, such as Isaak Markus Jost (1793-1860) and Leopold Zunz (1794-1886), did not think so. They regarded the Old Testament as a theological work reflecting the beliefs of Jewish religious communities after the destruction of the first temple. It was not until the second half of the century that Heinrich Graetz (1817-91) and others developed a ?national? vision of the Bible and transformed Abraham?s journey to Canaan, the flight from Egypt and the united kingdom of David and Solomon into an authentic national past. By constant repetition, Zionist historians have subsequently turned these Biblical ?truths? into the basis of national education. 



But during the 1980s an earthquake shook these founding myths. The discoveries made by the ?new archaeology? discredited a great exodus in the 13th century BC. Moses could not have led the Hebrews out of Egypt into the Promised Land, for the good reason that the latter was Egyptian territory at the time. And there is no trace of either a slave revolt against the pharaonic empire or of a sudden conquest of Canaan by outsiders. 



Nor is there any trace or memory of the magnificent kingdom of David and Solomon. Recent discoveries point to the existence, at the time, of two small kingdoms: Israel, the more powerful, and Judah, the future Judea. The general population of Judah did not go into 6th century BC exile: only its political and intellectual elite were forced to settle in Babylon. This decisive encounter with Persian religion gave birth to Jewish monotheism. 



Then there is the question of the exile of 70?AD. There has been no real research into this turning point in Jewish history, the cause of the diaspora. And for a simple reason: the Romans never exiled any nation from anywhere on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. Apart from enslaved prisoners, the population of Judea continued to live on their lands, even after the destruction of the second temple. Some converted to Christianity in the 4th?century, while the majority embraced Islam during the 7th century Arab conquest. 



Most Zionist thinkers were aware of this: Yitzhak Ben Zvi, later president of Israel, and David Ben Gurion, its first prime minister, accepted it as late as 1929, the year of the great Palestinian revolt. Both stated on several occasions that the peasants of Palestine were the descendants of the inhabitants of ancient Judea?( 2 ). 



Proselytising zeal 



But if there was no exile after 70?AD, where did all the Jews who have populated the Mediterranean since antiquity come from? The smokescreen of national historiography hides an astonishing reality. From the Maccabean revolt of the mid-2nd century BC to the Bar Kokhba revolt of the 2nd century AD, Judaism was the most actively proselytising religion. The Judeo-Hellenic Hasmoneans forcibly converted the Idumeans of southern Judea and the Itureans of Galilee and incorporated them into the people of Israel. Judaism spread across the Middle East and round the Mediterranean. The 1st century AD saw the emergence in modern Kurdistan of the Jewish kingdom of Adiabene, just one of many that converted. 



The writings of Flavius Josephus are not the only evidence of the proselytising zeal of the Jews. Horace, Seneca, Juvenal and Tacitus were among the Roman writers who feared it. The Mishnah and the Talmud?( 3 ) authorised conversion, even if the wise men of the Talmudic tradition expressed reservations in the face of the mounting pressure from Christianity. 



Although the early 4th century triumph of Christianity did not mark the end of Jewish expansion, it relegated Jewish proselytism to the margins of the Christian cultural world. During the 5th century, in modern Yemen, a vigorous Jewish kingdom emerged in Himyar, whose descendants preserved their faith through the Islamic conquest and down to the present day. Arab chronicles tell of the existence, during the 7th century, of Judaised Berber tribes; and at the end of the century the legendary Jewish queen Dihya contested the Arab advance into northwest Africa. Jewish Berbers participated in the conquest of the Iberian peninsula and helped establish the unique symbiosis between Jews and Muslims that characterised Hispano-Arabic culture. 



The most significant mass conversion occurred in the 8th century, in the massive Khazar kingdom between the Black and Caspian seas. The expansion of Judaism from the Caucasus into modern Ukraine created a multiplicity of communities, many of which retreated from the 13th century Mongol invasions into eastern Europe. There, with Jews from the Slavic lands to the south and from what is now modern Germany, they formed the basis of Yiddish culture?( 4 ). 



Prism of Zionism 



Until about 1960 the complex origins of the Jewish people were more or less reluctantly acknowledged by Zionist historiography. But thereafter they were marginalised and finally erased from Israeli public memory. The Israeli forces who seized Jerusalem in 1967 believed themselves to be the direct descendents of the mythic kingdom of David rather than ? God forbid ? of Berber warriors or Khazar horsemen. The Jews claimed to constitute a specific ethnic group that had returned to Jerusalem, its capital, from 2,000 years of exile and wandering. 



This monolithic, linear edifice is supposed to be supported by biology as well as history. Since the 1970s supposedly scientific research, carried out in Israel, has desperately striven to demonstrate that Jews throughout the world are closely genetically related. 



Research into the origins of populations now constitutes a legitimate and popular field in molecular biology and the male Y chromosome has been accorded honoured status in the frenzied search for the unique origin of the ?chosen people?. The problem is that this historical fantasy has come to underpin the politics of identity of the state 
 of Israel. By validating an essentialist, 
 ethnocentric definition of Judaism it encourages a segregation that separates Jews from non-Jews ? whether Arabs, Russian immigrants or foreign workers. 



Sixty years after its foundation, Israel refuses to accept that it should exist for the sake of its citizens. For almost a quarter of the population, who are not regarded as Jews, this is not their state legally. At the same time, Israel presents itself as the homeland of Jews throughout the world, even if these are no longer persecuted refugees, but the full and equal citizens of other countries. 



A global ethnocracy invokes the myth of the eternal nation, reconstituted on the land of its ancestors, to justify internal discrimination against its own citizens. It will remain difficult to imagine a new Jewish history while the prism of Zionism continues to fragment everything into an ethnocentric spectrum. But Jews worldwide have always tended to form religious communities, usually by conversion; they cannot be said to share an ethnicity derived from a unique origin and displaced over 20 centuries of wandering. 



The development of historiography and the evolution of modernity were consequences of the invention of the nation state, which preoccupied millions during the 19th and 20th centuries. The new millennium has seen these dreams begin to shatter. 



And more and more academics are analysing, dissecting and deconstructing the great national stories, especially the myths of common origin so dear to chroniclers of the past. 















More about Schlomo Sand. 



Translated by Donald Hounam 



Shlomo Sand is professor of history at Tel Aviv university and the author of Comment le people juif fut invent? (Fayard, Paris, 2008) 



( 1 ) The Torah, from the Hebrew root yara (to teach) is the founding text of Judaism. It consists of the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. 



( 2 ) See David Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben Zvi, Eretz Israel in the past and present , 1918 (in Yiddish), and Jerusalem, 1980 (in Hebrew); Yitzhak Ben Zvi, Our population in the country , Executive Committee of the Union for Youth and the Jewish National Fund, Warsaw, 1929 (in Hebrew). 



( 3 ) The Mishnah, regarded as the first work of rabbinic literature, was drawn up around 200 AD. The Talmud is a synthesis of rabbinic discussions on the law, customs and history of the Jews. The Palestinian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 5th centuries; the Babylonian Talmud was compiled at the end of the 5th century. 



( 4 ) Yiddish, spoken by the Jews of eastern Europe, was a Germano-Slavic language incorporating Hebrew words. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Thu May  7 13:40:14 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:40:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Face to Face with History
In-Reply-To: <844855784.273961241214702000.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1228838857.1584841241725214373.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/04/racism-israel-conference-face 



New Statesman ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? April 29, 2009 



Face to Face with History 



By Martin Jacques 



I can think of only one international body that can lay claim to a semblance of democracy: the United Nations. All the other organisations that regard themselves as global ? the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation ? are creations of the west and their power structures reflect that fact. This is the reason why the United States has always had a troubled relationship with the UN; it is the one organisation where it is not assured of getting its own way. On the contrary, it often finds itself hugely outnumbered, resolutions on the Middle East and Israel being a classic trigger. That, rather than being strapped for cash, is why the US has always been so reluctant to pay its dues. So, it was no surprise to find the US boycotting this year?s UN World Conference against Racism in Geneva, or that it walked out of the first such meeting in Durban in 2001. America is invariably on the defensive on such occasions . 



Of course, western countries are bound to be on the back foot at any conference or gathering on racism. It is not that racism is an exclusively white phenomenon; every race is capable of and engages in racism. It is wishful thinking to believe that it is a solely Caucasian affliction: Rwanda, the civil war in Sri Lanka, Han Chinese attitudes towards Tibetans and Uighurs, or the prejudice shown by host populations virtually everywhere towards migrants, are just a few examples. 



Racism, alas, is universal, but its impact has varied greatly, depending on the power of the particular people acting upon their prejudices. That is why white culpability has been far greater in the modern world than that of any other race. Slavery, colonialism and the less blatant forms of discrimination that have been associated with US hegemony ? on display in American behaviour towards the people of Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay ? have been inextricably intertwined with racism. Indeed, colonialism and slavery would have been inconceivable without racism, it being their rationale and justification. 



Any UN conference on racism is therefore bound to be an extremely uncomfortable experience for western nations, especially the US. It is an occasion when the developed, former colonial world meets the developing, generally colonised world. The former much prefer to treat their colonial history with amnesia (which has become Britain?s default mode in relation to its past), but the UN gathering is an instance where that is not possible. The old imperial powers come face to face with the past, as the argument at Durban over reparations for those countries that suffered from colonialism and slavery well illustrates. The flashpoint at this conference ? and, indeed, the previous one ? has been Israel and its attitude towards the Palestinians. Given that Israel has been central to US foreign policy in a region that has been its greatest priority, it was entirely predictable that the Americans would seek to prevent criticism of either themselves or the Israelis. 



In fact, the Israelis offer a sad example of the intractable and ubiquitous nature of racism. After the horrific suffering of the Jews during the Holocaust, the west sought to salve its conscience by taking land from the Palestinians, in an area that had been colonised by the European powers, and using it to help establish the Zionist state of Israel. The latter has, unfortunately, always borne many of the characteristics of a transplant, and was bitterly resented by those whose land was stolen. At the same time, Israel identified itself with the west, to which it looked for sustenance and protection, never seeking to establish a modus vivendi with its neighbours. This attitude was reciprocated. 



And so, history has frozen in the Middle East, the paralysis taking the form of a state of war that has lasted longer than a half-century. The way many Arabs in Israel are treated as second-class citizens, and the brutality and cruelty shown during the Israeli assault on Gaza early this year, are eloquent testimony to the racism endemic in Israel. It is ironic that a people who suffered from racism on such an enormous scale should themselves display the same kind of attitude towards the Palestinians and their neighbours. It suggests that people do not necessarily learn from their history; and that those who have suffered so grievously may themselves even be particularly vulnerable to the same way of thinking as a result of their experiences. 



There was little, if any, chance of these issues being explored in a useful way at the conference: they are too fraught. But that is not a reason to boycott or walk out. On the contrary, there is an absolute need for a serious global forum on racism. If it is difficult to talk about the phenomenon at home, it is far more difficult to do so at an international level. As a result, the incidence of racism ? and its impact and effects ? are hugely underestimated both domestically and internationally. 



No people like to admit to their own racism; the response is invariably one of denial. This makes the UN conferences on racism ? and there have only been two this decade ? important and worthwhile events. They represent an acknowledgement that it is a global problem. They offer a forum where such issues can be aired, however sensitive they may be. They oblige the west to face up to its history and engage in a discussion with those whom it has discriminated against. 



In this way, they might even assume some of the characteristics of a global truth and reconciliation commission. But that would require western countries to participate rather than boycott, and engage in a full-hearted manner, rather than walk out when words are being spoken that they would rather not hear. 



Martin Jacques writes fortnightly in the New Statesman 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Thu May  7 13:40:42 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Pakistan: Towards Theocracy?
In-Reply-To: <1834018350.1367611241652560780.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <352643319.1585021241725242335.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




http://www.countercurrents.org/hoodhoy160309.htm 



Countercurrents ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? March 16, 2009 



Towards theocracy? 



Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy 





State and society in Pakistan today 



FOR 20 years or more, a few of us in Pakistan have been desperately sending out SOS messages, warning of terrible times to come. Nevertheless, none anticipated how quickly and accurately our dire predictions would come true. It is a small matter that the flames of terrorism set Mumbai on fire and, more recently, destroyed Pakistan?s cricketing future. A much more important and brutal fight lies ahead as Pakistan, a nation of 175 million, struggles for its very survival. The implications for the future of South Asia are enormous. 



Today a full-scale war is being fought in FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas), Swat and other ?wild? areas of Pakistan, with thousands dying and hundreds of thousands of IDPs (internally displaced people) streaming into cities and towns. In February 2009, with the writ of the Pakistani state in tatters, the government gave in to the demand of the TTP (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, the Pakistani Taliban Movement) to implement the Islamic Sharia in Malakand, a region of FATA. It also announced the suspension of a military offensive in Swat, which has been almost totally taken over by the TTP. But the respite that it brought was short-lived and started breaking down only hours later. 



The fighting is now inexorably migrating towards Peshawar where, fearing the Taliban, video shop owners have shut shop, banners have been placed in bazaars declaring them closed for women, musicians are out of business, and kidnapping for ransom is the best business in town. Islamabad has already seen Lal Masjid and the Marriot bombing, and has had its police personnel repeatedly blown up by suicide bombers. Today, its barricaded streets give a picture of a city under siege. In Karachi, the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM), an ethnic but secular party well known for strong-arm tactics, has issued a call for arms to prevent the Taliban from making further inroads into the city. Lahore once appeared relatively safe and different but, after the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team, has rejoined Pakistan. 



The suicide bomber and the masked abductor have crippled Pakistan?s urban life and shattered its national economy. Soldiers, policemen, factory and hospital workers, mourners at funerals, and ordinary people praying in mosques have been reduced to hideous masses of flesh and fragments of bones. The bearded ones, many operating out of madrassas, are hitting targets across the country. Although a substantial part of the Pakistani public insists upon lionising them as ?standing up to the Americans?, they are neither seeking to evict a foreign occupier nor fighting for a homeland. They want nothing less than to seize power and to turn Pakistan into their version of the ideal Islamic state. In their incoherent, ill-formed vision, this would include restoring the caliphate as well as doing away with all forms of western influence and elements of modernity. The AK-47 and the Internet, of course, would stay. 



But, perhaps paradoxically, in spite of the fact that the dead bodies and shattered lives are almost all Muslim ones, few Pakistanis speak out against these atrocities. Nor do they approve of military action against the cruel perpetrators, choosing to believe that they are fighting for Islam and against an imagined American occupation. Political leaders like Qazi Husain Ahmed and Imran Khan have no words of kindness for those who have suffered from Islamic extremists. Their tears are reserved for the victims of predator drones, whether innocent or otherwise. By definition, for them terrorism is an act that only Americans can commit. 



Why the Denial? 



To understand Pakistan?s collective masochism, one needs to study the drastic social and cultural transformations that have made this country so utterly different from what it was in earlier times. For three decades, deep tectonic forces have been silently tearing Pakistan away from the Indian subcontinent and driving it towards the Arabian peninsula. 



This continental drift is not physical but cultural, driven by a belief that Pakistan must exchange its South Asian identity for an Arab-Muslim one. Grain by grain, the desert sands of Saudi Arabia are replacing the rich soil that had nurtured a rich Muslim culture in India for a thousand years. This culture produced Mughal architecture, the Taj Mahal, the poetry of Asadullah Ghalib, and much more. Now a stern, unyielding version of Islam ? Wahabism ? is replacing the kinder, gentler Islam of the sufis and saints who had walked on this land for hundreds of years. 



This change is by design. Twenty-five years ago, under the approving gaze of Ronald Reagan?s America, the Pakistani state pushed Islam on to its people. Prayers in government departments were deemed compulsory, floggings were carried out publicly, punishments were meted out to those who did not fast in Ramadan, selection for university academic posts required that the candidate demonstrate knowledge of Islamic teachings, and jehad was declared essential for every Muslim. 



Villages have changed drastically, driven in part by Pakistani workers returning from Arab countries. Many village mosques are now giant madrassas that propagate hard-line Salafi and Deobandi beliefs through oversized loudspeakers. They are bitterly opposed to Barelvis, Shias and other Muslims, who they do not consider to be proper Muslims. Punjabis, who were far more liberal towards women than Pashtuns, are now also beginning to take a line resembling the Taliban. Hanafi law has begun to prevail over tradition and civil law, as is evident from recent decisions in the Lahore High Court. 



In the Pakistani lower-middle and middle-middle classes lurks a grim and humourless Saudi-inspired revivalist movement which frowns on every expression of joy and pleasurable pastime. Lacking any positive connection to history, culture and knowledge, it seeks to eliminate ?corruption? by regulating cultural life and seizing control of the education system. 



?Classical music is on its last legs in Pakistan; the sarangi and vichtarveena are completely dead,? laments Mohammad Shehzad, a music aficionado. Indeed, teaching music in public universities is violently opposed by students of the Islami Jamaat-e-Talaba at Punjab University. Religious fundamentalists consider music haram . Kathak dancing, once popular with the Muslim elite of India, has no teachers left. Pakistan produces no feature films of any consequence. 



As a part of General Zia-ul-Haq?s cultural offensive, Hindi words were expunged from daily use and replaced with heavy-sounding Arabic ones. Persian, the language of Mughal India, had once been taught as a second or third language in many Pakistani schools. But, because of its association with Shiite Iran, it too was dropped and replaced with Arabic. The morphing of the traditional ?khuda hafiz? (Persian for ?God be with you?) into ?allah hafiz? (Arabic for ?God be with you?) took two decades to complete. The Arab import sounded odd and contrived, but ultimately the Arabic God won and the Persian God lost. 



Genesis of Jehad 



One can squarely place the genesis of religious militancy in Pakistan to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and the subsequent efforts of the U.S.-Pakistan-Saudi grand alliance to create and support the Great Global Jehad of the 20th century. A toxic mix of imperial might, religious fundamentalism, and local interests ultimately defeated the Soviets. But the network of Islamic militant organisations did not disappear after it achieved success. By now the Pakistani Army establishment had realised the power of jehad as an instrument of foreign policy, and so the network grew from strength to strength. 



The amazing success of the state is now turning out to be its own undoing. Today the Pakistan Army and establishment are under attack from religious militants, and rival Islamic groups battle each other with heavy weapons. Ironically, the same Army ? whose men were recruited under the banner of jehad, and which saw itself as the fighting arm of Islam ? today stands accused of betrayal and is almost daily targeted by Islamist suicide bombers. Over 1,800 soldiers have died as of February 2009 in encounters with religious militants, and many have been tortured before decapitation. Nevertheless, the Army is still ambivalent in its relationship with the jehadists and largely focusses upon India. 



Education or Indoctrination? 



Similar sentiments exist in a large part of the Pakistani public media. The commonly expressed view is that Islamic radicalism is a problem only in FATA and that madrassas are the only jehad factories around. This could not be more wrong. Extremism is breeding at a ferocious rate in public and private schools within Pakistan?s towns and cities. Left unchallenged, this kind of education will produce a generation incapable of living together with any except strictly their own kind. Pakistan?s education system demands that Islam be understood as a complete code of life, and creates in the mind of the schoolchild a sense of siege and constant embattlement by stressing that Islam is under threat everywhere. 



The government-approved curriculum, prepared by the Curriculum Wing of the Federal Ministry of Education, is the basic road map for transmitting values and knowledge to the young. By an Act of Parliament, passed in 1976, all government and private schools (except for O-level schools) are required to follow this curriculum. It is a blueprint for a religious fascist state. 



The masthead of an illustrated primer for the Urdu alphabet states that it has been prepared by Iqra Publishers, Rawalpindi, along ?Islamic lines?. Although not an officially approved textbook, it has been used for many years by some regular schools, as well as madrassas, associated with the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), an Islamic political party that had allied itself with General Pervez Musharraf. 



The world of the Pakistani schoolchild was largely unchanged even after September 11, 2001, which led to Pakistan?s timely desertion of the Taliban and the slackening of the Kashmir jehad. Indeed, for all his hypocritical talk of ?enlightened moderation?, Musharraf?s educational curriculum was far from enlightening. It was a slightly toned-down copy of that under Nawaz Sharif which, in turn, was identical to that under Benazir Bhutto, who inherited it from Zia-ul-Haq. 



Fearful of taking on powerful religious forces, every incumbent government refused to take a position on the curriculum and thus quietly allowed young minds to be moulded by fanatics. What might happen a generation later has always been a secondary matter for a government challenged on so many sides. 



The promotion of militarism in Pakistan?s so-called ?secular? public schools, colleges and universities had a profound effect upon young minds. Militant jehad became part of the culture on college and university campuses. Armed groups flourished, invited students for jehad in Kashmir and Afghanistan, set up offices throughout the country, collected funds at Friday prayers, and declared a war without borders. Pre-9/11, my university was ablaze with posters inviting students to participate in the Kashmir jehad. After 2001, this slipped below the surface. 



The madrassas 



The primary vehicle for Saudi-ising Pakistan?s education has been the madrassa. In earlier times, these had turned out the occasional Islamic scholar, using a curriculum that essentially dates from the 11th century with only minor subsequent revisions. But their principal function had been to produce imams and muezzins for mosques, and those who eked out an existence as ?moulvi sahibs? teaching children to read the Quran. 



The Afghan jehad changed everything. During the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, madrassas provided the U.S.-Saudi-Pakistani alliance the cannon fodder needed for fighting a holy war. The Americans and the Saudis, helped by a more-than-willing General Zia, funded new madrassas across the length and breadth of Pakistan. 



A detailed picture of the current situation is not available. But, according to the national education census, which the Ministry of Education released in 2006, Punjab has 5,459 madrassas followed by the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) with 2,843; Sindh 1,935; Federally Administrated Northern Areas (FANA) 1,193; Balochistan 769; Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) 586; FATA 135; and Islamabad capital territory 77. The Ministry estimates that 1.5 million students are getting religious education in the 13,000 madrassas. 



These figures could be quite off the mark. Commonly quoted figures range between 18,000 and 22,000 madrassas. The number of students could be correspondingly larger. The free room, board and supplies to students, form a key part of their appeal. But the desire of parents across the country is for children to be ?disciplined? and to be given a thorough Islamic education. This is also a major contributing factor. 



Madrassas have deeply impacted upon the urban environment. For example, until a few years ago, Islamabad was a quiet, orderly, modern city different from all others in Pakistan. Still earlier, it had been largely the abode of Pakistan?s hyper-elite and foreign diplomats. But the rapid transformation of its demography brought with it hundreds of mosques with multi-barrelled audio-cannons mounted on minarets, as well as scores of madrassas illegally constructed in what used to be public parks and green areas. Now, tens of thousands of their students with little prayer caps dutifully chant the Quran all day. In the evenings they swarm around the city, making bare-faced women increasingly nervous. 



Women ? the Lesser Species 



Total separation of the sexes is a central goal of the Islamists. Two decades ago the fully veiled student was a rarity on Pakistani university and college campuses. The abaya was an unknown word in Urdu; it is a foreign import. But today, some shops in Islamabad specialise in abaya . At colleges and universities across Pakistan, female students are seeking the anonymity of the burqa . Such students outnumber their sisters who still dare show their faces. 



While social conservatism does not necessarily lead to violent extremism, it does shorten the path. Those with beards and burqas are more easily convinced that Muslims are being demonised by the rest of the world. The real problem, they say, is the plight of the Palestinians, the decadent and discriminatory West, the Jews, the Christians, the Hindus, the Kashmir issue, the Bush doctrine, and so on. They vehemently deny that those committing terrorist acts are Muslims or, if faced by incontrovertible evidence, say it is a mere reaction to oppression. Faced with the embarrassment that 200 schools for girls were blown up in Swat by Fazlullah?s militants, they wriggle out by saying that some schools were housing the Pakistan Army, who should be targeted anyway. 



The Prognosis 



The immediate future is not hopeful: increasing numbers of mullahs are creating cults around themselves and seizing control over the minds of worshippers. In the tribal areas, a string of new Islamist leaders have suddenly emerged: Sufi Mohammad, Baitullah Mehsud, Fazlullah, Mangal Bagh?. The enabling environment of poverty, deprivation, lack of justice, and extreme differences of wealth is perfect for these demagogues. Their gruesome acts of terror and public beheadings are still being perceived by large numbers of Pakistanis as part of the fight against imperialist America and, sometimes, India as well. This could not be more wrong. 



The jehadists have longer-range goals. A couple of years ago, a Karachi-based monthly magazine ran a cover story on the terrorism in Kashmir. One fighter was asked what he would do if a political resolution were found for the disputed valley. Revealingly, he replied that he would not lay down his gun but turn it on the Pakistani leadership, with the aim of installing an Islamic government there. 



Over the next year or two, we are likely to see more short-lived ?peace accords?, as in Malakand, Swat and, earlier on, in Shakai. In my opinion, these are exercises in futility. Until the Pakistan Army finally realises that Mr. Frankenstein needs to be eliminated rather than be engaged in negotiations, it will continue to soft-pedal on counter-insurgency. It will also continue to develop and demand from the U.S. high-tech weapons that are not the slightest use against insurgents. There are some indications that some realisation of the internal threat is dawning, but the speed is as yet glacial. 



Even if Mumbai-II occurs, India?s options in dealing with nuclear Pakistan are severely limited. Cross-border strikes should be dismissed from the realm of possibilities. They could lead to escalations that neither government would have control over. I am convinced that India?s prosperity ? and perhaps its physical survival ? demands that Pakistan stays together. Pakistan could disintegrate into a hell, where different parts are run by different warlords. Paradoxically perhaps, India?s most effective defence could be the Pakistan Army, torn and fractured though it may be. To convert a former enemy army into a possible ally will require that India change tack. 



To create a future working alliance with the struggling Pakistani state, and in deference to basic democratic principles, India must be seen as genuinely working towards some kind of resolution of the Kashmir issue. It must not deny that the majority of Kashmiri Muslims are deeply alienated from the Indian state and that they desperately seek balm for their wounds. Else the forces of cross-border jehad, and its hate-filled holy warriors, will continue to receive unnecessary succour. 



I shall end this rather grim essay on an optimistic note: the forces of irrationality will surely cancel themselves out because they act in random directions, whereas reason pulls in only one. History leads us to believe that reason will triumph over unreason, and humans will continue their evolution towards a higher and better species. Ultimately, it will not matter whether we are Pakistanis, Indians, Kashmiris, or whatever. Using ways that we cannot currently anticipate, people will somehow overcome their primal impulses of territoriality, tribalism, religion and nationalism. But for now this must be just a hypothesis. 







Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy is Professor and Chairman of the Physics Department at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad. He graduated and also received Phd from MIT and continues to do research in Particle Physics. He received the?Baker Award?for? Electronics in 1968 and the Dr. Abdul Salam?Prize for Mathematics in 1984. He has authored various scientific research papers in peer-reviewed journals . Hoodbhoy is also a prominent environmental and social activist and regularly writes on a wide range of social, cultural and environmental issues. He is the chairman of Mashal, a non-profit organization which publishes Urdu books on women's rights, education, environmental issues, philosophy and modern thought.? 


From shniad at sfu.ca  Thu May  7 13:51:49 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:51:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors circulates
 dispassionate analysis of current political scene
In-Reply-To: <1402394258.1589561241725858120.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <550062246.1589881241725909988.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>






? 	? 

????????????????????? 



Obama prepares to throw Israel under the bus 



(And the West is next) 



Wednesday , May 6, 2009 



As predicted here repeatedly ? Obama is attempting to throw Israel under the Islamist bus, and he?s getting American Jews to do his dirty work for him. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly told the Israel lobbying group AIPAC on Sunday that efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians. General James Jones, National Security Adviser to Obama, reportedly told a European foreign minister a week ago that unlike the Bush administration, Obama will be ?forceful? with Israel. Ha?aretz reports: 

Jones is quoted in the telegram as saying that the United States, European Union and moderate Arab states must redefine ?a satisfactory endgame solution.? The U.S. national security adviser did not mention Israel as party to these consultations. 



Of course not. If you are going to throw a country under the bus, you don?t invite it to discuss the manner of its destruction with the assassins who are co-ordinating the crime. As I said here months ago, the appointment of Jones and the elevation of his post of National Security Adviser at the expense of the Secretary of State was all part of the strategy to centralise power in the hands of those who want to do Israel harm. 



Yesterday Vice-President Joe Biden and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry turned the thumbscrews tighter, telling Israel to stop building more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement. 



This is all not only evil but exceptionally stupid. The idea that a Palestine state will help build a coalition against Iran is demonstrably absurd. The Arab states are beside themselves with anxiety about Iran. They want it to be attacked and its nuclear programme stopped. They are desperately fearful that the Obama administration might have decided that it can live with a nuclear Iran. 



The idea that if a Palestine state comes into being it will be easier to handle Iran is the opposite of the case: a Palestine state will be Iran , in the sense that it will be run by Hamas as a proxy for the Islamic Republic. The idea that a Palestine state will not compromise Israel?s security is ludicrous. 



It is of course, by any sane standard, quite fantastic that America is behaving as if it is Israel which is holding up a peace settlement when Israel has made concession after concession ? giving up Sinai, giving up Gaza, offering all the territories to the Arabs in return for peace in 1967, offering more than 90 per cent of them ditto in 2000, ditto again to Mahmoud Abbas in the past year -- only to be attacked in return by a Palestinian terrorist entity, backed in its continued aggression, let us not forget, by the countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has made no concessions at all and is not being pressured to do so . 



It is not the aggressor here but the victim of aggression that America is now choosing to beat up. In any sane world, one might think the Americans would be piling the pressure on the Palestinians to renounce their genocidal ambitions against Israel, to stop teaching and training their children to hate and kill Jews, to adhere to the primary requirement in the Road Map that they must dismantle their infrastructure of violence as the first step in the peace process; one might think, indeed, that they would view Mahmoud Abbas?s repeated statements that the Palestinians will never accept Israel as a Jewish state to be the main impediment to peace. 



But no. The repeated professions that America will never jeopardise Israel?s security are stomach churning when Obama is actually blaming Israel for measures it has taken to safeguard its security ? the settlements were always first and foremost a security measure, and the travel restrictions are there solely to prevent more Israelis being murdered ? and trying to force it to abandon them. Today comes further news that Obama will also try to force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons ? which it only has as a last ditch insurance against the attempt to annihilate it to which several billion Arabs remain pledged. 



Of course Obama doesn?t care that Hamas would run any Palestinian state. Of course he doesn?t care that Israel would be unable to defend itself against such a terrorist state. Because he regards Israel as at best totally expendable, and at worst as a running sore on the world's body politic that has to be purged altogether (see this bleak assessment by Sultan Knish ). His administration is proceeding on the entirely false analysis that a state of Palestine is the solution to the Middle East impasse and the route to peace in the region. What that state will look like or do is something to which at best the administration's collective mind is shut and at worst makes it a potential cynical accomplice to the unconscionable. So Israel is to be forced out of the West Bank. Far from building a coalition against Iran, Obama is thus doing Iran?s work for it. 



None of this, however, should come as the slightest surprise to anyone who paid any attention to Obama?s background, associations and friendships before he became President and to the cabal of Israel-bashers, appeasers and Jew-haters he appointed to his administration, with a few useful idiots thrown in for plausible deniability. 



American Jews, meanwhile, are reacting as predicted ? with a total absence of spine. ?As IsraelMatzav? reports, AIPAC was sending delegates to visit Congress to 'convince' Representatives and Senators to sign a petition calling for a two-state solution. Inspired! Almost eighty per cent of American Jews voted for Obama despite the clear and present danger he posed to Israel. They did so because their liberal self-image was and is more important to them than the Jewish state whose existence and security cannot be allowed to jeopardise their standing with America?s elite. 

But the ordinary American people are a different matter. They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel?s Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and certainly America?s Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk. 



This is shaping up to be the biggest crisis in relations between Israel and America since the foundation of Israel six decades ago. Those who hate Israel and the Jews will be gloating. This after all is precisely what they hoped Obama would do. To any decent person looking on aghast, this is where the moral sickness of the west reaches the critical care ward. 



http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3590646/%20obama-prepares-%20to-throw-%20israel-under-%20the-bus.thtml 




The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP. All Articles and Content Copyright ?2007 by The Spectator (1828) Ltd. All Rights Reserved 




	? 	

A safe and secure Israel is vital to world interest. 
A safe and secure Israel is a prerequisite to genuine peace in the world. 


Visit us at www.cjhsla.org www.cjhsla.org 



Children Of Jewish Holocaust Survivors (CJHSLA) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to the protection of freedom and actively promotes the right of the State of Israel to not only exist, but to flourish, as a Jewish state. CJHS insists that the moral imperative derived from the last Holocaust commits all people of good will to prevent the next one. 

CJHS operates solely on donations, all of which are greatly appreciated.?????? 


Please make your tax deductible checks payable to: CJHSLA 

	? 

Successful web sites and E-letters by Site Me Inc. E-mail Tel: 818-735-4957 

To forward this email use this link . 
To be removed?from our mailing list click here . 





From fentona at shaw.ca  Thu May  7 14:36:20 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:36:20 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Criminalizing Criticism of Israel
Message-ID: <B85506C1-463B-4106-AD6C-CEF28C1AA128@shaw.ca>

http://counterpunch.org/roberts05072009.html

  May 7, 2009
The End of Free Speech?
Criminalizing Criticism of Israel

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel  
Lobby?s bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act.  This legislation  
requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-semitism world wide.

To monitor anti-semitism, it has to be defined.  What is the  
definition?  Basically, as defined by the Israel Lobby and Abe Foxman,  
it boils down to any criticism of Israel or Jews.

Rahm Israel Emanuel hasn?t been mopping floors at the White House.
As soon as he gets the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passed, it  
will become a crime for any American to tell the truth about Israel?s  
treatment of Palestinians and theft of their lands.

It will be a crime for Christians to acknowledge the New Testament?s  
account of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus.

It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel  
Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written  
resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the  
Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent  of the US  
Senate and 99 per cent  of the House of Representatives, while the  
rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity.

It will be a crime to doubt the Holocaust.

It will become a crime to note the disproportionate representation of  
Jews in the media, finance, and foreign policy.

In other words, it means the end of free speech, free inquiry, and the  
First Amendment to the Constitution. Any facts or truths that cast  
aspersion upon Israel will simply be banned.

Given the hubris of the US government, which leads Washington to apply  
US law to every country and organization, what will happen to the  
International Red Cross, the United Nations Commission on Human  
Rights, and the various human rights organizations that have demanded  
investigations of Israel?s military assault on Gaza?s civilian  
population?  Will they all be arrested for the hate crime of  
?excessive? criticism of Israel?

This is a serious question.

A recent UN report, which is yet to be released in its entirety,  
blames Israel for the deaths and injuries that occurred within the  
United Nations premises in Gaza.  The Israeli government has responded  
by charging that the UN report is ?tendentious, patently biased,?   
which puts the UN report into the State Department?s category of  
excessive criticism and strong anti-Israel sentiment.

Israel is getting away with its blatant use of the American government  
to silence its critics despite the fact that the Israeli press and  
Israeli soldiers have exposed the Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the  
premeditated murder of women and children urged upon the Israeli  
invaders by rabbis.  These acts are clearly war crimes.

It was the Israeli press that published the pictures of the Israeli  
soldiers? T-shirts that  indicate that the willful murder of women and  
children is now the culture of the Israeli army.  The T-shirts are  
horrific expressions of barbarity.  For example, one shows a pregnant  
Palestinian woman with a crosshairs over her stomach and the slogan,  
?One shot, two kills.?  These T-shirts are an indication that Israel?s  
policy toward the Palestinians is one of extermination.

It has been true for years that the most potent criticism of Israel?s  
mistreatment of the Palestinians comes from the Israeli press and  
Israeli peace groups.  For example, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and  
Jeff Halper of ICAHD have shown a moral conscience that apparently  
does not exist in the Western democracies where Israel?s crimes are  
covered up and even praised.

Will the American hate crime bill be applied to Haaretz and Jeff  
Halper?  Will American commentators who say nothing themselves but  
simply report what Haaretz and Halper have said be arrested for  
?spreading hatred of Israel, an anti-semitic act??

Many Americans have been brainwashed by the propaganda that  
Palestinians are terrorists who threaten innocent Israel.  These  
Americans will see the censorship as merely part of the necessary war  
on terror.  They will accept the demonization of fellow citizens who  
report unpalatable facts about Israel and agree that such people  
should be punished for aiding and abetting terrorists.

A massive push is underway to criminalize criticism of Israel.   
American university professors have fallen victim to the well  
organized attempt to eliminate all criticism of Israel.  Norman  
Finkelstein was denied tenure at a Catholic university because of the  
power of the Israel Lobby.  Now the Israel Lobby is after University  
of California  (at Santa Barbara,) professor Wiliam Robinson.   
Robinson?s crime:  his course on global affairs included some reading  
assignments critical of Israel?s invasion of Gaza.

The Israel Lobby apparently succeeded in convincing the Obama Justice  
(sic) Department that it is anti-semitic to accuse two Jewish AIPAC  
officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, of spying.  The Israel  
Lobby succeeded in getting their trial delayed for four years, and now  
Attorney General Eric Holder has dropped charges.  Yet, Larry  
Franklin, the DOD official accused of giving secret material to Rosen  
and Weissman, is serving 12 years and 7 months in prison.

The absurdity is extraordinary.  The two Israeli agents are not guilty  
of receiving secrets, but the American official is guilty of giving  
secrets to them!  If there is no spy in the story, how was Franklin  
convicted of giving secrets to a spy?

Criminalizing criticism of Israel destroys any hope of America having  
an independent foreign policy in the Middle East that serves American  
rather than Israeli interests.  It eliminates  any prospect of  
Americans escaping from their enculturation with Israeli propaganda.

To keep American minds captive, the Lobby is working to ban as anti- 
semitic any truth or disagreeable fact that pertains to Israel.  It is  
permissible to criticize every other country in the world, but it is  
anti-semitic to criticize Israel, and anti-semitism will soon be a  
universal hate-crime in the Western world.

Most of Europe has already criminalized doubting the Holocaust.  It is  
a crime even to confirm that it happened but to conclude that less  
than 6 million Jews were murdered.

Why is the Holocaust  a subject that is off limits to examination? How  
could a case buttressed by hard facts possibly be endangered by kooks  
and anti-semitics?  Surely the case doesn?t need to be protected by  
thought control.

Imprisoning people for doubts is the antithesis of modernity.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the  
Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good  
Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts at yahoo.com

  

From shniad at sfu.ca  Thu May  7 14:43:30 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] B'nai Brith Canada Thought Police Going All Out to Stop
 Production of Seven Jewish Children
In-Reply-To: <116021.87070.qm@web45716.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <488956829.1625731241729010092.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



From: B'Nai Brith Communications [communications at bnaibrith.ca] 
Sent: May 7, 2009 
Subject: 'City-funded theatre should not be staging ground for play that 
promotes anti-Jewish hatred,' says B'nai Brith Canada 

'City-funded theatre should not be staging ground for play 

that promotes anti-Jewish hatred,' says B'nai Brith Canada 

TORONTO, May 7, 2009 - B'nai Brith Canada has contacted Toronto Mayor David 
Miller to ask that he use his good offices to ensure that the city-funded 
Theatre Passe Muraille does not become a staging ground for the inflammatory 
drama, Seven Jewish Children. The Jewish human rights organization has 
characterized this play as "blatantly propagandist" and "aimed at 
delegitimizing not only Israel, but its Jewish supporters worldwide".? Seven 
Jewish Children is scheduled to run from May 15 - 17th. 

"The City of Toronto should not allow a venue that it funds to be the 
staging ground for a divisive play that promotes anti-Jewish hatred," said 
Frank Dimant, B'nai Brith Canada's Executive Vice President. "As its name 
denotes, 'Seven Jewish Children' does not even pretend to target Israel 
exclusively. It is clearly aimed at maligning Jews, depicting them as 
oppressors of Palestinians, blood-thirsty aggressors and child killers. It 
disturbingly inverts history, using Holocaust imagery to allege that the 
Jews, once the victims, are actively teaching their own children callous 
disregard for the suffering of others. 

"We call on Mayor Miller to ensure that our tax dollars are not 
inadvertently being used for the promotion of a play whose thrust is 
antisemitic. It is unthinkable that the City would allow this communal 
theatre to be used as a venue for promoting hatred and discord amongst its 
citizens, as this play threatens to do." 

-30- 

For more information, please contact Karen Lazar, National Director of 
Communications: 
416-633-6224 X 140 (office) / 416-312-9173 (cell) 

B'nai Brith Canada has been active in Canada since 1875 
as the Jewish community's foremost human rights agency

From shniad at sfu.ca  Thu May  7 14:48:23 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] The trouble with Tamiflu
In-Reply-To: <2670C465-DB5E-4E51-8F75-D8852A56D706@telus.net>
Message-ID: <1177862891.1627601241729303244.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/07/tamiflu-swine-flu-drugs/print 

The Guardian??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 7 May 2009 



The trouble with Tamiflu 

The companies behind the two leading anti-flu drugs are making millions out of the crisis. But just how effective are their products? Sarah Boseley reports? 

????? Sarah Boseley? 

It was a sight that would have gladdened the heart of Dr Severin Shwan, chief executive of Roche, one of the biggest drug companies in the world. A long line of well-heeled parents assembled on a bank holiday weekend at a British private school, Alleyn's in south London, patiently waiting their turn to receive a packet of Roche's drug Tamiflu from staff. Five pupils had been diagnosed with? swine flu ?and the school had been closed. The pills were intended to stave off infection among the children who had been sent home. 

The board of Roche, a Swiss-based company which has globalised the name it inherited from its founder, Fritz Hoffmann-La Roche in 1896, must be laughing. It has a drug which has become a household name and been stockpiled by the millions of boxes all over the world, against a potential pandemic that the World Health Organisation (WHO) warns is almost upon us. Roche has supplied governments with 220m courses worldwide. The UK has stored enough to treat half the population. And yet Tamiflu is of limited use. 

There are two drug contenders to reduce the impact of a flu pandemic - Tamiflu (oseltamivir) and the? GlaxoSmithKline ?(GSK) drug Relenza (zanamivir), which is similar but more complicated to use because it must be inhaled - not easy if people have breathing problems. But Relenza, too, is being stockpiled around the world, to the delight of a small Australian company called Biota Holdings - the company that developed Relenza and licensed it to GSK. Biota's share price leapt 16% last week when GSK announced it had sold $46m-worth of the flu drug, giving Biota $32.3m in licensing fees. 

Relenza and Tamiflu are known as neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs). Two other, older flu drugs, amantadine and rimantadine, are now of little use because flu viruses have become resistant to them over the years. Nobody claims Tamiflu and Relenza cure flu, but they were licensed after trials that showed they mitigated its severity and reduced the length of the illness by about a day. Unfortunately, you have to take them within 48 hours of symptoms starting. 

The government's contingency plan envisages that any of us who start to cough and splutter would ring a flu hotline, where a nurse would give us a diagnosis over the phone and then prescribe the drugs which our nominated "flu buddy" will pick up from the chemist. But the most important element of this arrangement, some will say, is that it keeps the flu sufferer out of the way of the rest of us. Dr Tom Jefferson, of the Cochrane Collaboration in Rome, headed the most authoritative, non drug-company conducted (and therefore without the vested interests) review yet done on the flu drugs. He is appalled that such drugs could be widely used and relied on as the solution to a flu pandemic at the expense of things that really work - like washing your hands dozens of times a day. 

The Cochrane review, carried out in 2006 but regularly updated, most recently this year, says the NIs do not stop people becoming infected, although they do decrease the amount of virus sprayed from people's noses when they sneeze all over you in the bus or office. They can also reduce the complications of flu, such as bronchitis and pneumonia. The review concluded that they might be of some help in a pandemic, but strongly recommended they should not be handed out routinely or used for normal winter flu outbreaks. 

To Jefferson's horror, however, the WHO has recommended that the drugs should be used against seasonal flu - the usual forms of flu that hit us every winter - so that doctors get used to giving them, and patients to taking them, ahead of a pandemic. "Wide-scale use of antivirals and vaccines during a pandemic will depend on familiarity with their effective application during the inter-pandemic period," it reasons. 

"It is more than madness," says Jefferson. "Especially as we don't know what the real reasons for that recommendation are." Doctors who work for the drug companies, carrying out their studies or sometimes simply allowing their name to be attached to the paper, also advise the WHO, he points out. 

He argues that there is a very real possibility of resistance developing to the drugs if they are handed out like Smarties. Viruses are clever organisms, and evolve super-fast and efficiently. Treat a virus with drugs and you must hit it hard enough and for long enough to eliminate it. If the dose is not strong enough, or the patient stops taking the drugs mid-course, the virus will evolve into a form that can overcome the drug. It is then a resistant strain. This is a major problem with the Aids virus, HIV, for which many new drugs have had to be developed. Bacteria behave the same way - penicillin, once a wonder drug, is now of little use. 

Jefferson points out that although Tamiflu is only eight years old, resistance has already set in. Last year a strain of winter flu was circulating in the US that was found to be resistant to Tamiflu. In the South East Asia bird flu outbreak, there was resistance among 16% of children given the drug and among two out of eight Vietnamese people aged between 8 and 35, according to the Cochrane review. 

This resistance is inevitable, says Jefferson, if you believe in the theory of natural selection, in which organisms evolve to overcome threats to their survival. "We know that has already happened with Tamiflu. It has happened with amantadine, which has been around since the 60s." Of course, governments and the public want magic bullets. There is a belief that where there is an illness, there must be a cure. Handing out drugs reduces panic. People are more likely to stay put at home where they cannot infect too many people if they feel they are being treated. 

And there is is a role for Tamiflu in severe and complicated cases caught early. But Jefferson balks at the idea of drug hand-outs at schools. "The spread will stop, but only because the children have been sent home," he says. 

The most important trial in disease prevention of the last 50 years was carried out in 2005 by a US doctor called Stephen Luby. "For that he should receive a Nobel prize," says Jefferson. Luby carried out a randomised trial in squatter settlements in Karachi, promoting hand-washing in half the families. Children under five who regularly washed their hands had half as many episodes of diarrhoea, impetigo and acute respiratory infection. It saved lives. If the big pandemic hits, washing hands will save more lives than Tamiflu, he predicts. 

Meanwhile Tamiflu is sought everywhere. In 2005, Roche asked for help in manufacturing enough of the stuff to satisfy world demand and it got 300 offers from other manufacturers. It has now established 19 partners to produce the drug in 10 locations on three continents. It has also given licences to Indian and Chinese generic companies to make it for the developing world. If only it really was a miracle cure. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Thu May  7 15:04:54 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 14:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] (The Real News) US strike in Afghanistan kills dozens
In-Reply-To: <BAA0FC0406F342EE88614C8D4B82BA5AEDC3615173C7E546@response.therealnews.com>
Message-ID: <1515092270.1637291241730294830.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




donate to The Real News		logo

News stories 	May 7, 2009 
	US strike in Afghanistan kills dozens 
Afghan villagers yesterday mourned relatives buried in mass graves after US-led airstrikes view 
	The Promise '09 	
To reach an audience in the millions view 


From shniad at sfu.ca  Thu May  7 15:23:42 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 14:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave
Message-ID: <73752585.1646881241731421958.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91371629 





? 

NPR ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? June 11, 2008 





? 

Mississippi School Holds First Interracial Prom 





? 

Mississippi integrated its public schools in 1970, but segregation still haunts parts of the culture. One example of this could be found at Charleston High School. The Delta town had maintained a system of separate proms ? organized privately ? for black and white students. 





? 

As far back as 1997, actor Morgan Freeman, a Charleston local, offered to pay for the dance if everyone could go. This year, officials finally accepted the offer. A Canadian film crew led by Paul Saltzman documented the event for the upcoming Prom Night in Mississippi. 





? 

A photographer working with the crew says people in Charleston didn't question the segregated dances. But as the big night approached, the importance of the change became clear. Catherine Farquharson followed several kids as they washed their cars and had their hair done. 





? 

She describes one encounter in an African-American beauty parlor, in which an elderly woman who'd been part of the civil rights movement stopped in to see what the hubbub was about. The woman ended up giving an impromptu testimony about the history these young people were about to make. "It was almost like it didn't occur to a lot of the kids, until the day of the prom, how important what was going on really was," Farquharson reports. 





? 

Student Chasidy Buckley says that Charleston's first interracial prom made for a happy and comfortable night. Some white parents wouldn't let their kids go, and some insisted on holding a private prom for their kids. But mostly, Buckley says, students enjoyed themselves ? even if they'd expected a boring formal. 





? 

"It was just magnificent," Buckley says. "That night, when we stepped in that door, everybody just had a good time. We proved ourselves wrong. We proved the community wrong, because they didn't think that it was going to happen." 





? 

Buckley says the school has decided to host a prom next year, giving black and white kids another chance to dress up and step out. "It's going to continue to go on in our school, and if it continues to go on in our school, then our community will continue to improve," she says. "It'll impact them, too, because once they see that blacks and whites can come together in school and have fun together, then they'll see that the community can change, too." 





? 

On the Web: The Jackson Free Press column that inspired this story . 





? 

Plus: The Jackson Free Press editor responds . 



From fentona at shaw.ca  Thu May  7 15:53:01 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 14:53:01 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Legends of the fail
Message-ID: <193D362D-18C3-428F-9EDE-E48158B926F9@shaw.ca>

Ahmed also appeared on Democracy Now! today:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/7/pak

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090508/REVIEW/705079996/1008

Legends of the fail

     * Last Updated: May 07. 2009 2:29PM UAE / May 7. 2009 10:29AM GMT

Manan Ahmed examines the decades-old tradition of experts predicting  
that Pakistan is sure to collapse any day now.

Times are bleak for the state of Pakistan, if the international media  
is to be believed. For the past six weeks, the world?s newspapers have  
charted the apparently unstoppable march of the Taliban toward  
Islamabad ? with daily reminders that their forces are ?only 100  
miles? and then ?only 80 miles? and then ?only 60 miles? from the  
capital. That Pakistan is a ?failed state? or ?on the brink? no longer  
even requires elaboration: it is the universal consensus among pundits  
and ?area experts? alike.

In the United States, the news articles have begun to game out the  
fall of the regime: the New York Times, hardly alone in its  
hyperventilating, has run two stories in as many weeks about America  
courting the opposition leader Nawaz Sharif as a replacement for  
Pakistan?s prime minister, Asif Ali Zardari. The counterinsurgency  
guru David Kilcullen, a former adviser to General David Petraeus, has  
suggested in print that the state could fail within six months, while  
Petraeus himself warns that the next two weeks will be decisive, and  
that the army may have to return to power to prevent a total collapse.

The notion of Pakistan as a ?failed state? has roots far deeper than  
the last few years; it was first deemed to have ?failed? in the early  
1960s, and this framework has dominated discussion of Pakistan in  
America from the days of the Cold War to the War on Terror. The  
surprisingly long history of the rhetoric of failure reveals that  
America?s engagement with Pakistan has rarely, if ever, transcended  
narrow strategic aims ? and that, for the United States, the solution  
to Pakistan?s problems has always been, and will always be, the strong  
hand of a military ruler.

It was that under the rule of the military usurper Field Marshal  
Muhammad Ayub Khan that Pakistan was adopted as a Cold War ally and  
held up as a model ?developing nation?. During Khan?s tenure, Pakistan  
was said to enjoy the benefits of a so-called ?developmental  
dictatorship? ? many dams were built and much cement was poured.

The US even helped Ayub Khan engineer an election victory in 1965. But  
shortly thereafter, he foolishly went to war with India; his  
popularity plummeted, and his flashy foreign minister, Zulfiqar Ali  
Bhutto, began a national campaign for a democracy based on socialist  
principles. Bhutto?s rise ran afoul of the ?domino theory? intended to  
check the spread of Communism; it was in this context that Pakistan  
was first crowned a ?failed state? ? giving rise to decades worth of  
books and studies with titles like The Failure of Democracy in  
Pakistan (1962), The Failure of Parliamentary Politics in Pakistan,  
1953-1958 (1967), Pakistan: Failure in National Integration (1968),  
Ethnic Conflict and the Failure of Political Integration in Pakistan  
(1973), Pakistan, Failure in Nation Building (1977) and Pakistan On  
the Brink (2004).

By 1979, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, another military  
dictator, Zia ul-Haq, ruled Pakistan, and the country once again  
became a pivotal US ally, funnelling arms and funds to the mujahideen  
across the border. The billions in US military aid during that decade  
of armed conflict had two direct consequences for the present  
situation. First, the Pakistani army became a monster on steroids,  
stacked against the fragile civil and bureaucratic state. And second,  
the guerrilla-trained militias that ejected the Russians found  
themselves in charge of the country next door. But Zia?s demise in  
1988, and Pakistan?s return to democracy, rendered it a ?failed state?  
all over again.

The ?failed state? rubric dominated the 1990s, as Pakistan became a  
nuclear power while stagnating economically under the burden of  
crippling foreign debt. But the attacks of September 11 brought  
Pakistan back into the American fold as a ?close ally in the War on  
Terror?, under the leadership of Pervez Musharraf, who took power in a  
1999 coup. If Pakistan was on the brink of failure, few in America  
wanted to talk about it ? at least until 2007, when Musharraf?s firing  
of the chief justice sparked street protests that eventually led to  
his resignation. The exiled leaders Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif  
returned to contest the state?s first democratic elections in more  
than a decade. Now the floodgates opened: a Newsweek cover story in  
October 2007 dubbed Pakistan ?the most dangerous place in the world?,  
nicely setting the tone for everything we?ve heard since.

This decades-long tendency to reduce Pakistan?s complexity to either  
?failure? or ?stability? reflects, above all, a glaring poverty of  
knowledge about the real lives of 175 million Pakistanis today. Since  
2007 alone, they removed a dictator from military and civilian power  
without firing a single shot, held the first national election since  
1997 ? in which right-wing radical parties were soundly rejected ? and  
launched a secular movement for justice.

None of this matters, we are told, because Pakistan is facing ?an  
existential threat? from ?violent extremists?, as a State Department  
spokesman said on Monday. US generals and media commentators are  
hinting that a military takeover may be the only way to arrest the  
imminent ?failure? ? to combat the ?Talibanisation? of Pakistan and  
keep the dreaded nukes from ?falling into the hands? of terrorist  
groups.

A comically exaggerated version of reality underpins such concerns.  
There are roughly 400 to 500 Pakistani Taliban fighters in the Buner  
region (the area deemed to threateningly close to Islamabad) and  
15,000 to 20,000 operating in the region between Peshawar and the  
north-west borders of Pakistan. Meanwhile, the number of active  
Pakistani army personnel ranges around 500,000, supported by an annual  
budget of approximately $4 billion. In comparison, the Taliban in  
Afghanistan and Pakistan make an estimated yearly revenue of around  
$400 million from the heroin trade ? only a fraction of which makes it  
to the Pakistani wing in the rural north-west of the country. As a  
threat to a large and diverse nation-state, 40 per cent of whose  
population lives in urban centres like Karachi (with its 18 million  
residents) the rural Taliban fighters are not terribly intimidating.

Pakistan is neither Somalia nor Sudan, nor even Iraq or Afghanistan.  
It is a thoroughly modern state with vast infrastructure, a fiercely  
critical and diverse media, an active, global economy and strong ties  
with regional powers such as China and Iran. It is not a ?failed  
state? ? it even has met its debt payments to the World Bank and IMF  
at the expense of providing electricity to its citizens. It has a  
deeply entrenched civil bureaucracy. The ?failed state? rhetoric  
obscures these realities. It hides the fact that religious-based  
parties have never garnered more than 10 per cent of the seats in any  
election. According to its 1973 constitution Pakistan is an Islamic  
state, but it is home to multiple forms of religious expression, and  
the majority of Muslims in Pakistan embrace a model of Islam more  
syncretic than the Deobandi Salafism of the Taliban. The majority  
province of Punjab is ethnically, linguistically, politically and  
economically far more diverse than the northwestern valley of Swat ?  
and it is home to a well-entrenched landed elite unlikely to cede  
authority to the Taliban. Sindh has its own landed elite ? as well as  
a powerful urban political party, MQM ? neither of whom show any  
inclination to welcome the Taliban.

Even if Pakistan is not going to capitulate to the Taliban, it does  
face grave dangers, and the ?failed state? rhetoric ? dangerous in its  
own right ? forces our attention away from them. In Baluchistan, as a  
direct result of Musharraf?s heavy-handed military policies, a civil  
war has been brewing since 2005, and there is no military solution to  
that unrest. At the same time, anti-Americanism is rising across the  
country in reaction to the campaign of missile strikes from unmanned  
US drones, which have killed nearly 1000 civilians since August 2008.  
The drones have emboldened religious conservatives who decry ?US  
imperialism? at work in Pakistan, and they are gaining strength with  
every tally of civilian casualties. The Tehrik Taliban-e Pakistan  
control in Swat is less a victory for that ragtag militia than a  
demonstration of the Army?s unwillingness to fully engage them.

The monotonous drone of ?failure? implies that the fragile democracy  
currently in place is not worth preserving. It encourages the  
marginalisation of the civilian government and boosts the claims of  
both the military and the militants. Pakistan?s salvation has never  
been and will never be in the military?s hands. The country?s future  
lies with the millions of Pakistanis who are working to sustain  
democracy ? and what must be defended is their resilience and  
strength, to prevent the self-fulfilling prophecies of failure.

Manan Ahmed, a historian of Islam in South Asia at the University of  
Chicago, blogs at Chapati Mystery.

From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Thu May  7 17:23:22 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 08:23:22 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Case for Monetary Reform
Message-ID: <4A036D6A.8070602@ashisuto.co.jp>


by Bill Clarke

Prosperity (July 2001)


Where Does Real Economic Power Lie?

The development of the global market, particularly in the spheres of
free trade, the instantaneous movement of capital and the trading of
currencies, means that to a very great extent national governments have
lost the power to control their economies.

These developments have come about because most governments have
accepted the theory that they should not interfere in the running of the
economy but should leave it to business men and financiers.

The handing over of control of interest rates to central banks is
confirmation that politicians have surrendered the economic field to
financiers. Further confirmation is in the almost wholesale deregulation
of financial markets.

Governments have the same attitude to the global markets. Around $2
trillion are traded daily on global currency markets purely for
speculative reasons - to make profits, not to finance legitimate trade -
and governments do nothing about it despite the damage caused to the
value of their currencies and to their economies.

Further proof that financiers are in the driving seat is that they can
make profit by buying majority shareholdings in companies. Then, using
borrowed money, they can strip the assets - that is, sell off anything
of value - sack thousands of employees and destroy whole sections of
industries in order to pay good returns to shareholders and those who
lent money. The market value of shares and the dividends paid are all
that matter to them. The pivotal role of bankers and other financial
institutions confirms that money and the pursuit of profit are the
determining factors of economic activity. The financiers and the
multinationals are in power, not the politicians.

We are at the mercy of profiteers who determine what shall be done and
not done, and governments which stand aside and do nothing to protect
the jobs or the well-being of the people.

In effect, governments have surrendered the interests and welfare of the
people to the not-so tender mercies of financiers and tycoons. This
should be seen as a dereliction of duty on the part of politicians who
are there to serve the people.


Learning About Money

An essential part of this financially-dominated economy is the way money
is created. Despite, the central role that money plays in all our lives,
there is an appalling ignorance about it.

This ignorance is caused by the mystique which has been fostered by
bankers and financiers that money matters are far too difficult for
ordinary people to understand. They have spread the idea, aided and
abetted by economists, that understanding and controlling money should,
therefore, be left to the experts.

The truth is that the essential facts about money are simple. When they
are known by the general public they will start asking questions and
demanding that the government should do something about reforming the
injustices which bankers are allowed to perpetrate. There will be a
demand for governments to right the wrongs which banker control of money
is causing.


Five Ways the Man in the Street is Bamboozled

1. He thinks that money is created by the government, through the Mint
and the Bank of England, and it consists largely of notes and coins.

Fact:  Only three per cent of money is in the form of notes and coins
created by the government.


2. He believes that when banks lend money then the money which is
borrowed is that which other bank customers have deposited.

Fact: The money one borrows from a bank is not depositors' money at all.
It is new money created by the simple process of writing the amount of
the loan on the credit side of the borrower's account. Ninety seven
percent of all money in circulation originates in this way. If banks
actually lent their depositors' money it would not be available when
they wanted it. If someone wanted to draw out money and was told,
"Sorry, we've lent it to Joe Blow", he would be justifiably annoyed.

In other words, 97% of money is not "real" money at all but credit, just
figures in a bank's ledger or computer. It is created out of nothing.
Yet is used and accepted as real money. To all intents and purposes it
is money. Borrowers buy houses with it, pay wages and buy raw materials
with it, and spend it in many ways. Yet it is just figures in a ledger
transferred from one account to another. It is called various things -
credit, bank-money, number-money, cheque-money, debt-money, electronic
money. Whatever it is called, it is used and trusted because people know
they can obtain real money, notes and coins, if they want.


3. He believes that there is strict control and regulation by the
government, of banks and building societies.

Fact: The belief that there are strict controls over what banks and
building societies can and cannot do is also false. There are no
statutory deposits which banks at one time had to lodge with the Bank of
England. There are no fractional reserves of currency to be held by a
bank as security for loans. All that has gone in the deregulation so
beloved by financiers and, now, politicians. The only stipulation now is
that banks must deposit with the Bank of England, 0.35% of their assets,
which consist mainly of the loans they have made. This paltry percentage
shows that borrowers have no real security, no proper regulations to
protect them. The banks, however, have the property of borrowers,
pledged as collateral, as security.


4. He believes that the interest he pays for the loan is a legitimate
charge because it is other people's money he is borrowing.

Fact: Interest is considered to be a recompense for lenders giving up
the use of their money, for the sacrifice they make by not spending it
on satisfying immediate needs or pleasures.

This may be so for depositors but it is not so for banks which create
money out of thin air when they make a loan. They are charging a tribute
- interest - for money which did not exist before the loan was made. So
they are getting money, in the form of interest, for nothing. It would
be legitimate for them to charge a fee for administering the loan but
that would be far smaller than the interest they charge.


5. He is persuaded that if he cannot pay back his debt then it is right
that the bank should take his property to reimburse itself.

Fact: The borrower owes a debt which has to be paid, in regular
installments, plus the interest, or legal penalties come into force. If
the borrower defaults - cannot pay - then his property which he put up
as security for the loan is legally confiscated and used to reimburse
the bank, no matter what distress and hardship is suffered by the
borrower, be it the loss of a home or a business. Whatever the reason,
debts must be paid, and on time.

Remember, though, this money was created out of thin air. It was debt-money.


Remember 97% of All Money Starts as Debt

Most people, however, are in debt. The total amount owed is greater than
the total money supply. Sixty per cent of debt is for mortgages.
Business debt is increasing as more is borrowed to keep enterprises
afloat with the intensification of competition caused by the global market.

There is a chronic shortage of ready money, which means there is not
sufficient purchasing power to buy all the goods and services on offer.
This endemic shortage of spending money is brought about because of the
debt burden that most people have.

If they want to keep their homes and businesses they must make regular
payments to service their debts.

This is the basic reason that governments are loath to raise direct
taxes. It reduces still further people's spending money and the total
demand for goods and services. As a result not enough government revenue
is raised from taxation to meet essential services.


The National Debt

The amount of the taxation shortfall is called the budget deficit and is
compensated for by government borrowing from the private sector, mainly
from banks.

The total of this debt is called the national debt. It has to be paid
back, eventually, by the taxpayers. In practice, when the Treasury
Bonds, which the government sells as a means of borrowing money from the
private sector, are due to be paid, the government issues new bonds -
borrows new money - to pay back the old ones plus interest.

Let us consider the money which the government obtains from banks buying
Treasury Bonds. Where does it come from? You've guessed it. It is
created out of thin air, in the same way as the money for your mortgage
was. It isn't real money. It's credit, debt-money. When financial
enterprises such as pension funds or insurance companies buy Treasury
Bonds, also called gilts, the money used is the savings of their
customers so it is money already in existence being recycled, used again.

The money banks use to buy gilts is not. It's created on the spot, out
of nothing. So the government is in hock to the banks for money which
did not exist until it was borrowed.

At this point you are most likely asking the same question which many
people are now asking. If the banks can create money out of nothing to
lend to the government as debt, with all the burdens that places on the
taxpayer, why on earth doesn't the government create money for itself,
at least for public services, and remove the burden of having to borrow
money?


Government-Created Money

If the government funded its budget deficits by creating money (instead
of the banks doing if for them, at a high cost to the taxpayer) it would
not be debt-money and no interest would be paid. It would be money for
the essential public services to spend. It would not have to be paid back.

The cry which we hear so often these days from the government,
economists, bankers and other "experts" is, "There is not enough money.
Government and council services have to be cut." So nurses are sacked,
old people's homes closed, schoolteachers made redundant, the London
underground allowed to fall into disrepair, and so on. All this is
brought about because not enough is raised in taxes, for the reasons
outlined above, and because the government is reluctant to increase the
national debt. In fact, it is trying to cut it down. So there is a
chronic shortage of money for public services.

If the government created the money it needs, many of these problems
would disappear. Why doesn't it do it?


Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

Again, the "experts" are brought in. Remember, these people are the
bankers, financiers, economists, all with a vested interest in things
financial staying as they are.

They say, "Government can't just print money for what it needs. It would
increase the amount of money in circulation, prices would rise and the
value of money fall. In other words, it would cause inflation with all
its subsequent woes, which we are desperately trying to offset. The Bank
of England Monetary Committee is regulating the interest rate in order
to stop inflation. We can't have the government creating money and
adding to their problems." Are these "experts" right?


The Way to Prevent Inflation

They are only telling half the story. Remember how we pointed out that a
mystique has been created around money to the effect that it must be
left to the experts?

Part of this mystique is based upon not revealing the facts about money,
about who is really in control of it and who mainly benefits from the
status quo. When they are forced to do some explaining, they muddy the
water, and tell only part of the story. They say that government-created
money would be inflationary but they don't say the same about
bank-created money. They don't tell us that governments, if they want
to, can regulate the amount of bank lending, as they used to do.

The "experts" remain silent on these matters because they don't want a
public discussion of them.

They don't want ordinary people hearing the idea that we can have
debt-free money, with all its benefits. This would lead to a popular
demand for government debt-free money and for banks to be regulated. No
wonder the bankers, and the media in which they have investments, don't
want it discussed. The least said about it the better, for them.

Monetary reformers want to spill the beans, let the cat out of the bag,
reveal the true state of affairs.

Bank lending can be controlled by several methods: statutory deposits
can be re-introduced, whereby an effective proportion of a bank's assets
must be lodged with the Bank of England. The fractional reserve can be
brought back, whereby banks must keep in cash a fraction of the loans
they make. Bank-created credits can also be reduced by regulating the
terms and conditions under which they are made.


The Real Reason for Government Not Creating Money

So the "inflation" bogey is just an excuse especially if legislation to
control bank lending were to be put into place.

What then is the real reason for government failing to provide adequate
essential services which the people need?

The continuation of the system which puts government, and consequently,
the nation, in hock to the banks and other private financial
institutions gives the government more political power.

It can push through policies which are unpopular by using the "No money,
we must cut back" excuse. It can use the same excuse to stand by and see
basic industries destroyed and workers put out of work.

We are not told that money is a man-made device by which to finance the
exchange of goods and service and should be used as man's servant
instead of his master.

We are kept in the dark about the fact that when something is socially
desirable, such as a new hospital or a new school, and when the
materials and unemployed builders are available, and when only the
shortage of money is stopping the project, then debt-free money could be
created by the government and the project could go ahead with the
consequent benefits for all.

There is a conspiracy of silence shrouding monetary reform. It is never
raised in Parliament, never discussed in the media. The whole topic of
government-created money is taboo.

We are trapped in the hidebound thinking of those in favour of the
status quo. It is understandable that bankers and those who profit from
the present system want to keep quiet about it.

However, it is inexcusable for politicians and the media to go along
with it. Why do they do so? Largely, the media is in hock to the bankers
and financial tycoons.

The politicians have swallowed the bankers' theory that money matters
are best left in the hands of financiers. We have to force them into
debate and show that the theory is false.


Mobilisng Opinion for Fair and Sensible Money

So it is unlikely that our Parliamentary representatives, the people
with the political power to change the present system of creating money,
are going to do anything to put things right without pressure from the
general public, from the electorate.

People have to be informed as to the true state of affairs so that
public opinion will change and monetary reform can be put on the
political agenda.

If they can see that they are going to lose votes then politicians will
start to listen.

We need much more public discussion of these vital matters.

_____

Please print out, photocopy and distribute these articles. Also copy and
paste them to emails, and circulate widely, and please include all the
essential contact information below. Thank you.

Essential Further Reading:

PROSPERITY: Freedom from Debt Slavery - is a four-page quarterly journal
which campaigns for publicly-created debt-free money, edited and
published by Alistair McConnachie. A four-issue subscription is
available for GBP 10 payable to PROSPERITY at 268 Bath Street, Glasgow,
Scotland, UK, G2 4JR
Tel: 0141 332 2214; Fax: 0141 353 6900
admcc at admcc.freeserve.co.uk  http://www.ProsperityUK.com
Or you can follow this link to our subscribe page:
http://www.prosperityuk.com/get_involved/subscribe/index.php

The Grip of Death: A study of modern money, debt slavery and destructive
economics by Michael Rowbotham [Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1998] and
Goodbye America! Globalisation, debt and the dollar empire by Michael
Rowbotham [Jon Carpenter Publishing, 2000] both available from the
address above.

http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/casefmr.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 critical.montages at gmail.com  Fri May  8 00:58:59 2009
From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 02:58:59 -0400
Subject: [R-G] Ahmadi-Nejad Takes to the Streets
Message-ID: <cd351fdc0905072358w4120841bu5d300d1cc6e4968f@mail.gmail.com>

<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0754e6a-3b68-11de-ba91-00144feabdc0.html>
Ahmadi-Nejad takes to the streets
By Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Karaj
Published: May 8 2009 03:00 | Last updated: May 8 2009 03:00

In his four years as president, Mahmoud AhmadiNejad has made his tours
of provincial cities the centrepiece of attempt to portray himself as
protector of the Iranian people.

The thousands who gathered in the city of Karaj last weekend had the
same demands as the millions who have attended previous events. They
carried letters - to deliver to Mr AhmadiNejad in person - demanding
cash or help with all sorts of other problems, from education to
employment and housing.

What made this event different was the timing. Tomorrow is the final
day for candidates to register for the June 12 presidential elections
and the visit to Karaj, 30kms west of Tehran, had the feel, according
to Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's critics, of an election rally.

The president has yet to register officially but, along with the other
leading candidates, is expected to so by the end of tomorrow.

Rivals argue that such visits so close to the election mean that the
state is essentially funding Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's campaign and his
promises made at such gatherings are an effort to buy votes. In
reaction, state television took the unusual step of not broadcasting
live footage of the Karaj trip.

That will have little impact on supporters such as Farideh, a
58-year-old woman who says she recently met the fundamentalist
president andrecited a poem she had written in praise of Mr
Ahmadi-Nejad's humility. She also sought and received a loan to buy a
new computer.

Farideh says she is a member of the basij , the 10m- strong voluntary
arm of the elite Revolutionary Guards, which had a crucial role in
mobilising people to vote for Mr Ahmadi-Nejad in 2005.

Reformists consider the involvement of the basij - described as the
eyes and ears of the Islamic republic - in the election as illegal,
because the constitution bans military groups from playing any role in
politics. But Farideh insists she has decided to do so as an
individual. "I am proud to say I have set up an election headquarters
in Zone 17 [a poor neighbourhood in Tehran]," she says, adding that
exp-enses are met from the donations of ordinary people.

After meeting the president and securing a 10m-rial loan ($994, ?758,
?677) for the computer, she received a cheque in three days. She now
uses that computer to copy CDs of the president's biography "to show
people how simple his lifestyle is and that the dowry of his daughter
was less than an orphan girl".

She says she has also printed campaign banners and will talk to people
to persuade them to re-elect the president.

On a working day in Karaj, most of the thousands attending Mokhaberat
football stadium had financial problems, from expensive housing and
unemployment to such issues as unaffordable treatment for infertility,
or for disabled -children.

"I've heard some organisations in Karaj are not efficient enough to
deal with your problems," Mr Ahmadi-Nejad told the crowd. "Are we
allowed to keep them in the system?" he asked, like a showman. People
shouted "No!" in reply. He promised to remove such officials and to
act for people's welfare.

Many at the gathering credited the president for a recent fall in
housing costs, without linking him to the global financial crisis. He
was also praised for increasing incomes, in particular for retired
people.

Retired government employees have in the past year seen their pensions
increase by an average of 50 per cent, and there is the promise of a
further rise next month. Government workers such as teachers have
already benefited from a jump in salaries and have been told more is
coming.

But these wage rises, which are likely to feature prominently in the
election campaign, come despite high unemployment and with inflation
at 25.4 per cent, leading to fresh criticism of Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's
economic policy. Unofficial opinion polls carried out by different
political groups still suggest Mr AhmadiNejad is ahead of his rivals,
with about 35 per cent of the votes.

But the same polls suggest that Mir-Hossein Moussavi, a leftist former
prime minister, is closing in on the president. Backed by Mohammad
Khatami, the former president, Mr Moussavi is considered the main
reformist rival. That has led analysts to expect a second-round vote,
as no one is likely to secure above 50 per cent of the vote, the
amount needed to win via one round.

"Mr Moussavi is good but we know Mr Ahmadi-Nejad more," says Parivash,
40, another Karaj resident.


From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Fri May  8 05:09:57 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 20:09:57 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Bottom
Message-ID: <4A041305.10407@ashisuto.co.jp>


Clusterfuck Nation

by Jim Kunstler

Comment on current events by the author of
The Long Emergency (2005)

www.kunstler.com (May 04 2009)


Euphoria managed to out-run swine flu last week as the epidemic-du-jour,
with "consumer" confidence jumping and the big bank stocks nudging up.
The H1N1 virus fizzled for now, at least in terms of kill ratio, though
we're warned it might boomerang in the fall with a vengeance. No one was
surprised to see Chrysler roll over like a possum on a county highway,
but the memory of their muscle cars will linger on like a California
surfing song. Here in the northeast, where Sundays are not spent at the
Nascar oval, the spring foliage reached the tenderly explosive stage and
it was hard to feel bad about anything.

For now, the "bottom" is in - that is, the bottom of this society's
ability to process reality. It may continue for a month of so, even
after the "stress test" for banks is finally let out of the massage
parlor with a "happy ending". But events are underway that are beyond
the command of personalities. We're done "doing business" in all the
ways that we've been used to, but we just can't get with the new
program. Let's count the ways:

1. The revolving credit economy is over. It's over because we can't
increase energy inputs to the system, which is one way of saying "peak
oil". Of course hardly anybody believes this right now because the price
of oil crashed nine months ago, along with global manufacturing and
trade. But nothing has changed on the peak oil scene - except perhaps
that ever more new oil projects have been cancelled for lack of
financing, which will boomerang on us (even if swine flu doesn't) in the
form of much lower future oil production. In any case, the credit fiesta
is over, and the "consumer" economy with it, because industrial growth
as we have known it is over. It's over globally, too, though all regions
of the world will not experience its demise the same way at the same rate.

The Asian nations may swap things around a while longer but China is
basically screwed. They have less oil left than we have (which is
saying, not much at all) and they won't corner the rest of the global
oil market without starting World War Three. Meanwhile, they're running
out of water and food. Good luck becoming the next global hegemon. Oh,
and Japan imports ninety percent of its energy; India over eighty
percent. Fuggeddabowdit.

Credit will not vanish everywhere overnight - even in the USA - because
it is not distributed equally everywhere. But it will vanish in layers,
and here in the USA a very broad layer of the lower and middle classes
are now losing their access to it in one way or another - personally, in
small business - and they will never get it back. Anyone who intends to
thrive in the years just ahead had better plan on doing it on the basis
of accounts receivable - and what they receive might not even
necessarily come in the form of US dollars. It may come in the form of
gold or silver or in the promise of reciprocal services rendered.

This has enormous implications for two of the items in which our
credit-dispensing operations are most deeply vested: houses and cars.
Unfortunately, these are exactly the things that economic life has been
based on for decades in our nation, which leads to the next categories:


2. The suburban living arrangement is over, along with all its
accessories and furnishings. Taken as "all of a piece", the suburban
expansion was one sixty-year-long orgasm of hypertrophy. We did it
because we could. We won a world war and threw a party. We had lots of
cheap land and cheap oil. It made lots of people lots of money and all
its usufructs have become embedded in our national identity to the
dangerous degree that the loss of them will provoke a kind of national
psychotic breakdown. In fact, it already has. The completely unrealistic
expectation that we can resume this way of life is proof of it.

The immediate problem is that we can't build anymore of it. The next
problem will be the failure of the stuff that already exists. The first
stage of that is now palpable in the mortgage foreclosure fiasco and,
just beginning now, the tanking of malls, strip centers, office parks
and other commercial property investments. The latter will accelerate
and become visible very quickly as retail tenants bug out and weeds
start growing where the Chryslers and Pontiacs once parked. The next
stage, which involves large demographic shifts in how we inhabit the
landscape, has not quite gotten underway.


3. The Happy Motoring fiesta is over. You'd think that with Chrysler
crawling into the bankruptcy court, and GM just weeks away from the same
terminal ceremony, the news media would begin to suspect that the
foundation of everyday life in this country was cracking. Instead, all
we hear is blather about "market share" shifting to Toyota. News flash:
not only will we make fewer automobiles in the USA, but Americans will
buy far fewer cars made anywhere. We'll keep the current fleet moving a
while longer, but when it's too beat to repair, we won't be changing it
out for a new fleet - despite all the fantasies about hybrids,
plug-and-drive electrics, and so on. The masses will be too broke to buy
these things. What's more, they will be very resentful of the shrinking
economic "elite" who can afford them. And, anyway, our roads and
highways are destined to fall apart very quickly because there is no way
we can sustain the necessary rate of normal maintenance. Meanwhile, we
remain completely un-serious about public transit - even about fixing
the vestiges that still exist. The airline industry, of course, will be
toast inside of five years.


4. Our food production system is approaching crisis. There's no way we
can continue the petro-agriculture system of farming and the Cheez
Doodle and Pepsi Cola diet that it services. The public is absolutely
zombified in the face of this problem - perhaps a result of the diet
itself. President Obama and Agriculture Secretary Vilsack have not given
a hint that they understand the gravity of the situation. It is probably
one of those unfortunate events of history that can only impress a
society in the form of a crisis. It also happens to be one of the few
problems we face that public policy could affect sharply and broadly -
if we underwrote the reactivation of smaller, local farm operations
instead of shoveling money to giant "agribusiness" (or Citibank, or
Goldman Sachs, or AIG ... ). I maintain that this may be the year that
the crisis gets our attention, because capital is suddenly harder to get
than fossil-fuel-based fertilizer.


All these epochal discontinuities present themselves, for the moment, as
a season of muted "hope" and general apathy. The days are suddenly mild.
We've resumed old and happy habits of grilling meat outdoors and
motoring to those remaining places that were not blanketed with
franchised food huts and discount malls. We have a new, charming
president with an appealing family. Newly-minted dollars are flowing to
the "shovel-ready". The new bad news is less bad than the old bad news
(or seems to be). And the year just past has been such a bummer that our
hard-wired human nature tells us that good things must be just around
the corner.

Personally, I think a lot of good things await us, but not the ones
we're expecting - not a return to buying slurpees on credit cards. It
will be very salutary to leave behind the junk empire we've accumulated
and move into an epoch of quality and purpose. For the moment, though,
our hopes reside elsewhere.

_____

My new novel of the post-oil future, World Made By Hand, is available at
all booksellers.

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2009/05/te-bottom.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 shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  8 10:50:14 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 09:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Is the U.S. funding human rights abuses in Gaza?
In-Reply-To: <1005369783.-915776837@org.orgDB.mail.democracyinaction.org>
Message-ID: <1149702528.39461241801414008.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>






How will the terrible devastation 
in Gaza make us safer? 






Not in USA? click here. 



I write to you as a Jewish woman who is both American and Israeli. I have lived in Israel for over 50 years, and I can tell you that I have had enough of wars and insecurity. 



America keeps on sending us billions of dollars in weapons every year. And yet, Israel has become the least safe country for Jews to live in (except for war zones such as Afghanistan, where no one is safe). 

    ? Nowhere else in the world since WWII have we Jews lived through 12 wars/battles/campaigns--all in less that 61 years. 
    ? Nowhere else in the world since WWII have so many Jews been killed in violence--over 23,000 since Israel came into being. 
    ? Nowhere else in the world have so many Jews been injured. 



And yet, we have no security.? 61 years of the use of force have not brought us Israelis one iota of security. 

To make matters worse, those of us who are seeking peace find ourselves harassed by the Israeli police. A number of my colleagues have had their computers confiscated, been called to interrogations, or have been made to sign declarations forbidding them to talk with one another. To add insult to injury, the police actions were carried out on Israel's Memorial Day to send a subtle message to the public that our activism may compromise Israel's security. 

Our crime? We dared to ask questions. We dared to ask whether militarism was the only way. We are undeterred. We will continue asking. 

It is your time to ask too. 



If you are an American , please take a moment right now to call on Congress to ask the question: what happened with your US tax dollars in Gaza? 

If you live in another country , ask yourself whether your government is involved in this trade of weapons and destruction . 

Here in Israel, we do not need more US weapons.? We need you to help us achieve peace-real peace. 

There can be no peace, however, until the Palestinians have justice.? The Palestinian catastrophe since 1948 has included expulsion from their homes and lands, and for those who remained in the West Bank and Gaza, extra-judicial executions, land confiscations, no freedom of movement, nor the freedom to build homes and communities, Palestinians live always with the fear of Israeli military incursions.? Since September 29, 2000 Israel has killed 6,248 Palestinians. 1,487 of these have been children. 

Israel's Memorial Day is the saddest day in the year for me, not only because of those who are already buried, but because of all those who might be killed for generations to come unless you help us achieve a just peace. 

Sincerely, 



A 77 year old grandmother who immensely wants her grandchildren and all the children in the area to have a future to look forward to. 








    ? Nowhere else in the world since WWII have we Jews lived through 12 wars/battles/campaigns--all in less that 61 years. 
    ? Nowhere else in the world since WWII have so many Jews been killed in violence--over 23,000 since Israel came into being. 
    ? Nowhere else in the world have so many Jews been injured. 



And yet, we have no security.? 61 years of the use of force have not brought us Israelis one iota of security. 

To make matters worse, those of us who are seeking peace find ourselves harassed by the Israeli police. A number of my colleagues have had their computers confiscated, been called to interrogations, or have been made to sign declarations forbidding them to talk with one another. To add insult to injury, the police actions were carried out on Israel's Memorial Day to send a subtle message to the public that our activism may compromise Israel's security. 

Our crime? We dared to ask questions. We dared to ask whether militarism was the only way. We are undeterred. We will continue asking. 

It is your time to ask too. 



If you are an American , please take a moment right now to call on Congress to ask the question: what happened with your US tax dollars in Gaza? 

If you live in another country , ask yourself whether your government is involved in this trade of weapons and destruction . 

Here in Israel, we do not need more US weapons.? We need you to help us achieve peace-real peace. 

There can be no peace, however, until the Palestinians have justice.? The Palestinian catastrophe since 1948 has included expulsion from their homes and lands, and for those who remained in the West Bank and Gaza, extra-judicial executions, land confiscations, no freedom of movement, nor the freedom to build homes and communities, Palestinians live always with the fear of Israeli military incursions.? Since September 29, 2000 Israel has killed 6,248 Palestinians. 1,487 of these have been children. 

Israel's Memorial Day is the saddest day in the year for me, not only because of those who are already buried, but because of all those who might be killed for generations to come unless you help us achieve a just peace. 

Sincerely, 



A 77 year old grandmother who immensely wants her grandchildren and all the children in the area to have a future to look forward to. 










To unsubscribe, click here . 


From citizen at comcast.net  Fri May  8 11:57:35 2009
From: citizen at comcast.net (Bob Anderson)
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 11:57:35 -0600
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Case for Monetary Reform
In-Reply-To: <4A036D6A.8070602@ashisuto.co.jp>
Message-ID: <C629CEAF.2A7C0%citizen@comcast.net>

Bill,
    Is this what is known as double entry ledger keeping, accounting?

Very interesting,
Thanks,

Sincerely,
Robert L Anderson (Bob)
324 Richmond Dr SE
Albuquerque, NM 87106
505-858-0882
<citizen at comcast.net>

> From: Bill Totten <shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp>
> Reply-To: <BillTottenWeblog-owner at yahoogroups.com>, "Radical anti-capitalist
> environmental discussion." <rad-green at lists.econ.utah.edu>
> Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 08:23:22 +0900
> To: <citizen at comcast.net>
> Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Case for Monetary Reform
> 
> 
> Fact: The money one borrows from a bank is not depositors' money at all.
> It is new money created by the simple process of writing the amount of
> the loan on the credit side of the borrower's account. Ninety seven
> percent of all money in circulation originates in this way. If banks
> actually lent their depositors' money it would not be available when
> they wanted it. If someone wanted to draw out money and was told,
> "Sorry, we've lent it to Joe Blow", he would be justifiably annoyed.
> 
> In other words, 97% of money is not "real" money at all but credit, just
> figures in a bank's ledger or computer. It is created out of nothing.
> Yet is used and accepted as real money. To all intents and purposes it
> is money. Borrowers buy houses with it, pay wages and buy raw materials
> with it, and spend it in many ways. Yet it is just figures in a ledger
> transferred from one account to another. It is called various things -
> credit, bank-money, number-money, cheque-money, debt-money, electronic
> money. Whatever it is called, it is used and trusted because people know
> they can obtain real money, notes and coins, if they want.




From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  8 12:08:23 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Israelis could attack Iranian reactor without U.S. approval
In-Reply-To: <1246329998.1709331241739844158.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1380066116.82281241806103157.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Israelis+could+attack+Iranian+reactor+without+approval/1571827/story.html 



Vancouver Sun ?????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? May 7, 2009 

Israelis could attack Iranian reactor without U.S. approval 




By Dan Williams 



When he first got word of Israel's sneak attack on the Iraqi atomic reactor in 1981, U.S. President Ronald Reagan privately shrugged it off, telling his national security adviser: "Boys will be boys!" 



Would Barack Obama be so sanguine if today's Israelis made good on years of threats and bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, yanking the United States into an unprecedented Middle East eruption that could dash his goal of easing regional tensions through revived and redoubled U.S. outreach? 



For that matter, would Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu readily take on Iran alone, given his country's limited firepower and the risk of stirring up a backlash against the Jewish state among war-weary, budget-strapped Americans? 



Obama is no Reagan. And many experts believe the two allies are now so enmeshed in strategic ties -- with dialogue at the highest level of government and military -- that complete Israeli autonomy on a major issue like Iran is notional only. 



So while no one questions Israel's willingness to attack should it deem U.S.-led talks on curbing Iranian uranium enrichment a dead end, such strikes would almost certainly entail at least last-minute coordination with Washington. 



Israel would want to ensure that its jets would not be shot down by accident if overflying U.S.-occupied Iraq, and to give Americans in the Gulf forewarning of possible Iranian reprisals. 



"Whether or not Israel got the green light from Washington to attack Iran is almost immaterial, as everybody in the region would believe that the U.S. was complicit," said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 



One U.S. diplomat envisaged Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak telephoning Pentagon chief Robert Gates, unannounced, "to give a heads-up and explain" once the mission were under way. 



Gates and the U.S. military brass have voiced distaste for pre-emptive strikes on Iran, which says its uranium enrichment is for legitimate electricity production, not weapons. But their public comments have acknowledged that Israel could break rank. 



"I do not doubt that Israel will do what it thinks it needs to do, regardless of whether the U.S. approves," said Mark Fitzpatrick, non-profileration expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. 



"Israel would seek forgiveness, not permission." 



A retired Israeli general who advises the government on strategic issues suggested there was a tacit synchronicity in recent messages about Iran from Israel and the United States: 



"The Israeli threat adds urgency to Obama's calls for diplomatic engagement, and should Israel take things into its hands, the Americans retain wriggle room, some deniability." 



Israel's bombing in 2007 of what the CIA described as a North Korean-built reactor in Syria may provide a precedent. 



According to a source familiar with the operation, Israel carried out the sortie alone, but only after "letting the Americans know that something like this could happen. It's the difference between informing, and seeking consent." 



It was the United States that published the allegations about the bombed site, pitting its clout as a superpower against Syrian denials. Israel was spared the burden of proving its case. 



As both Obama and Netanyahu head new governments, the Israeli former general said any joint strategy would go unformed at least until the leaders held their first summit on May 18. 



"There's a sense that no decision has been made on either side," he said. 



"My impression is that the current American statements are for the record, to convince the international community about the seriousness of the Obama administration's efforts to talk Tehran into a solution." 



Reuters 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  8 12:07:50 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Open Letter to President Obama calling for a Nuclear Free
 Middle East
In-Reply-To: <884983896.1619761241728293302.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <647228418.81911241806070839.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>






This letter was send to President Obama. The Washington Post refused to publish it in a form of an article. Please help to publish it as wide as possible.? It is time for the international community to confront Israel on this issue. 



Best, 



Gideon?? 




? 

Gideon Spiro , Journalist 

P.O.Box 16202 Tel Aviv 61161 ? Israel 

Tel/Fax ?? +972 (0) 3 5222 869 

--------------------------------------------------- 



April 19, 2009 

President ?? Barack Obama ??????????????????????????????????????? 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Washington DC 20500 

United States 



Dear Mr. President, 



I am an Israeli journalist and human rights activist writing to ask for your intervention in preventing nuclear conflagaration in the Middle East . ? 



On April 17 2009, the prestigious Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which is often referred to as "Israel?s New York Times ,? published an oped - ? authored by its senior commentator on military and security affairs - calling for Israeli military action against the Iranian nuclear project. [1] 



When a newspaper that is considered liberal and moderate publishes such an article - at a time when an extreme right-wing government is assuming power - alarm bells should start ringing. 


The task of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear arms is an important one, and the way to achieve that objective is not by military action, but through an international effort to create a Middle East free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It is impossible to achieve that objective without dealing with the main cause of the Middle East nuclear arms race - Israel . 


Israel pushed the Middle East onto a course of a WMD -race. As a result of the brave actions of nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu - who exposed in a Sunday Times interview in 1986 what was going on behind the walls of the nuclear reactor in Dimona - we know that Israel is armed with hundreds of atom and hydrogen bombs. If we take into account the additional biological and chemical weapons that Israel produces in the Nes Ziona Biological Institute, a frightening picture emerges: a state, smaller than most Congressional Districts in the United States , that is a powder-keg of weapons of mass destruction . 



And this is without even mentioning its vast quantities of conventional arms. 


An Israeli attack on Iran would likely produce disastrous consequences which could draw the region into a nuclear conflict that would bring about the annihilation of states in the region. In this scenario, Israel is liable to be wiped out. The newly-appointed Foreign Minister of Israel Avigdor Lieberman, a settler and war-monger who in the past has threatened Egypt with the bombing of the Aswan Dam, is now a key player in the operation of Israel ?s nuclear trigger. It is an historical irony that Israel , which is home to many Holocaust survivors, has become a hotbed of radical leaders who would create the next holocaust ? a nuclear holocaust. 



But the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran will extend far beyond our region. It is most likely they will have devastating global consequences that will also cause massive harm to the United States . ? 



Intelligence agencies all over the world are competing between themselves in assessing Iran ?s nuclear capability. The estimates vary and are sometimes diametrically opposed to each other. The truth is that no one knows what Iran is hiding in its facilities, but it can be helpful to draw an analogy from Israel ?s case. 



Today we know that Israel developed nuclear arms while deceiving the United States government. You surely have learned the story of your predecessor, President John F. Kennedy, who tried to prevent Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons. He knew the dangers to regional and global stability that this program entailed. But the government of Israel succeeded in deceiving the American nucelar inspectors who were sent to Dimona, and the rest ? as the common expression goes ? is history. The Iranians are no less sophisticated than Israel . 



The situation in which Israel maintains a nuclear monopoly cannot last forever because a nuclear Israel is a constant incentive for others to equip themselves with similar arms. The only effective and peaceful way to end this destructive WMD -race is through regional nuclear disarmament. And here is where you, ? as President of the United States , can assume a history-making leadership role . 


The United States and Israel are allies ?a mantra repeated by every American politician but not thouroughly analyzed. In reality, this alliance has a specail nature: one country finances and the other is financed. Israel ?s power rests to a great extent on US military and economic aid. Without the billions of dollars that the US transfers to it, Israel would be unable to finance the Occupation, the settlements, the army, and of course, its nuclear arsenal. 


Mr. President, you were elected as the harbinger of a new era of rapproachment between hostile nations, a struggle against global pollution, and the elimination of nuclear weapons. To achieve these goals, it is necessary to rein in Israel , compel it to accept a regime of nuclear disarmament in our region, and oblige it to open all its nuclear facilities and missile sites to international inspection. Ditto for Iran and the other states in the Middle East . 



In a volatile region like ours, in which Jews and Muslims claim a direct link with the Almighty and even purport to speak in His name, the existence of nuclear weapons is a grave threat to world peace. This is particularly true with regards to Israel and Iran , where many people believe in the Armageddon as a prelude to redemption, and some of these radicals are serving in key governmental positions. It is high time American leaders demanded from all actors in the region a policy of mutual disarmament, thus preventing the disasaterous consequences of a nuclear conflagaration. 


I implore you to act in the spirit of this letter before it is too late. 



Respectfully, 




Gideon Spiro 

Founding member of The Israeli Committee for A Middle East ? Free from Atomic, Biological and Chemical Weapons. ?? 







[1] Yossi Melman, I Would Advise Netanyahu to Attack Iran, Haaretz , http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1078897.html 



? 


? 

Gideon Spiro , Journalist 

P.O.Box 16202 Tel Aviv 61161 ? Israel 

Tel/Fax ?? +972 (0) 3 5222 869 

--------------------------------------------------- 



April 19, 2009 

President ?? Barack Obama ??????????????????????????????????????? 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Washington DC 20500 

United States 



Dear Mr. President, 



I am an Israeli journalist and human rights activist writing to ask for your intervention in preventing nuclear conflagaration in the Middle East . ? 



On April 17 2009, the prestigious Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which is often referred to as "Israel?s New York Times ,? published an oped - ? authored by its senior commentator on military and security affairs - calling for Israeli military action against the Iranian nuclear project. [1] 



When a newspaper that is considered liberal and moderate publishes such an article - at a time when an extreme right-wing government is assuming power - alarm bells should start ringing. 


The task of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear arms is an important one, and the way to achieve that objective is not by military action, but through an international effort to create a Middle East free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. It is impossible to achieve that objective without dealing with the main cause of the Middle East nuclear arms race - Israel . 


Israel pushed the Middle East onto a course of a WMD -race. As a result of the brave actions of nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu - who exposed in a Sunday Times interview in 1986 what was going on behind the walls of the nuclear reactor in Dimona - we know that Israel is armed with hundreds of atom and hydrogen bombs. If we take into account the additional biological and chemical weapons that Israel produces in the Nes Ziona Biological Institute, a frightening picture emerges: a state, smaller than most Congressional Districts in the United States , that is a powder-keg of weapons of mass destruction . 



And this is without even mentioning its vast quantities of conventional arms. 


An Israeli attack on Iran would likely produce disastrous consequences which could draw the region into a nuclear conflict that would bring about the annihilation of states in the region. In this scenario, Israel is liable to be wiped out. The newly-appointed Foreign Minister of Israel Avigdor Lieberman, a settler and war-monger who in the past has threatened Egypt with the bombing of the Aswan Dam, is now a key player in the operation of Israel ?s nuclear trigger. It is an historical irony that Israel , which is home to many Holocaust survivors, has become a hotbed of radical leaders who would create the next holocaust ? a nuclear holocaust. 



But the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran will extend far beyond our region. It is most likely they will have devastating global consequences that will also cause massive harm to the United States . ? 



Intelligence agencies all over the world are competing between themselves in assessing Iran ?s nuclear capability. The estimates vary and are sometimes diametrically opposed to each other. The truth is that no one knows what Iran is hiding in its facilities, but it can be helpful to draw an analogy from Israel ?s case. 



Today we know that Israel developed nuclear arms while deceiving the United States government. You surely have learned the story of your predecessor, President John F. Kennedy, who tried to prevent Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons. He knew the dangers to regional and global stability that this program entailed. But the government of Israel succeeded in deceiving the American nucelar inspectors who were sent to Dimona, and the rest ? as the common expression goes ? is history. The Iranians are no less sophisticated than Israel . 



The situation in which Israel maintains a nuclear monopoly cannot last forever because a nuclear Israel is a constant incentive for others to equip themselves with similar arms. The only effective and peaceful way to end this destructive WMD -race is through regional nuclear disarmament. And here is where you, ? as President of the United States , can assume a history-making leadership role . 


The United States and Israel are allies ?a mantra repeated by every American politician but not thouroughly analyzed. In reality, this alliance has a specail nature: one country finances and the other is financed. Israel ?s power rests to a great extent on US military and economic aid. Without the billions of dollars that the US transfers to it, Israel would be unable to finance the Occupation, the settlements, the army, and of course, its nuclear arsenal. 


Mr. President, you were elected as the harbinger of a new era of rapproachment between hostile nations, a struggle against global pollution, and the elimination of nuclear weapons. To achieve these goals, it is necessary to rein in Israel , compel it to accept a regime of nuclear disarmament in our region, and oblige it to open all its nuclear facilities and missile sites to international inspection. Ditto for Iran and the other states in the Middle East . 



In a volatile region like ours, in which Jews and Muslims claim a direct link with the Almighty and even purport to speak in His name, the existence of nuclear weapons is a grave threat to world peace. This is particularly true with regards to Israel and Iran , where many people believe in the Armageddon as a prelude to redemption, and some of these radicals are serving in key governmental positions. It is high time American leaders demanded from all actors in the region a policy of mutual disarmament, thus preventing the disasaterous consequences of a nuclear conflagaration. 


I implore you to act in the spirit of this letter before it is too late. 



Respectfully, 




Gideon Spiro 

Founding member of The Israeli Committee for A Middle East ? Free from Atomic, Biological and Chemical Weapons. ?? 







[1] Yossi Melman, I Would Advise Netanyahu to Attack Iran, Haaretz , http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1078897.html 



?

From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  8 12:50:30 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Israel: The Kingdom of Lies
In-Reply-To: <1334150011.98851241808418916.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1935598246.100511241808630803.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15062 

The Kingdom of Lies 
? 
'Racism in Israel is not like racism in other states.' 
? 
By Jeremy Salt - Ankara 

Racism is common to most and probably all societies. Laws never seem entirely to eliminate it. It was the essential tool in the creation of modern settler states. The United States could not have come into existence without the obliteration of North American Indian cultures and of large numbers of the people themselves. They had to die so the US could be born. In Australia the indigenous people of Tasmania were wiped out to the last man, woman and child, while on the mainland the tribes were massacred, confined, stripped of their ancestral land and eventually turned into fringe dwellers. Until recently Australia had a prime minister who could deny that aboriginal children of mixed ?blood? were taken from their parents up to the 1930s and refused to issue any expression of remorse for their mistreatment. More recent targets of racism have been Lebanese and Vietnamese immigrants, while the Howard federal government?s racist treatment of Iraqi and?Afghan refugees and asylum seekers remains one of the most shameful chapters of Australia?s history. ? 

In the US the election of a colored president would have been inconceivable until very recently. It was so unbelievable that people wept when Barack Obama won the elections. ? 

Racism comes in many shades. Discrimination against people on the grounds of skin color, ethnicity or religion is a basic human rights issue, a first cousin to discrimination, harassment and denial of opportunity on the basis of gender. President Mahmud Ahmedinejad, in his recent speech at the Durban Review Conference in Geneva, drew attention to Israel as a racist state but Iran has serious issues of its own to deal with. Homosexuality in Iran is treated as a crime. Gays and prostitutes are executed in public. The Bahais have been the victims of discrimination and persecution throughout Iran?s modern history and this remains the case today. They have no legal identity in Iran. On all of these issues, Iran is itself vulnerable to criticism on the grounds of human rights, which does not, of course, detract in any way from his criticism of Israel. The outrage directed against Ahmedinajad obscured the real issue at the heart of what he was saying: is?Israel a racist state? ? 

In settler societies such as the United States, Australia and Canada, the crude racism which drove invasion and colonization mostly belongs to the past, when there was an active concept of race, allied with the categories of civilization, barbarism and savagery. The North American Indian was regarded by the white settlers as a savage, perhaps noble, mean or cunning, but a savage ?redskin? nevertheless. In Australia the indigenous people were scarcely counted as human beings. It was not until the 1960s that they were even given the vote. The same relegation of ?Negroes? to a contingent category of humanity (at best) justified slavery and segregation in the southern states of the United States. The dehumanization of all of these groups was essential to the colonizing process (including the colonization of Algeria after the French invasion of 1830) and the enrichment of white settlers. ? 

All modern ?western? colonial settler states share the same characteristics, i.e. the obliteration of indigenous cultures and the displacement of people from their land. This was true of the North American settlers, the Australian colonists and the Boers who eliminated the Herero people of southwest Africa in the early 20th century. Treaties in which the indigenous people were compelled to consent to the invasion and settlement of their land were signed in North America and New Zealand but not in Australia, where the colonists regarded the indigenous people as less than human and could therefore assert that the land was ?empty?. There are numerous parallels here with Zionism not only on the basis of an ?empty? land being settled or of civilization being brought to a ?primitive? people but in the double nature of the colonialism. In North America and Palestine, settlement was fostered by a distant government against which the settlers?eventually rebelled before declaring their ?independence?. 

Gradually, mostly only in the last half century, laws and attitudes changed. This rolling process met with resistance at every stage from those who justified discrimination on the basis of the Bible or racist genetic theories. Not until the 1960s and 1970s were racially discriminatory laws eliminated from the statute books in modern settler states such as the US and Australia, which does not mean that structural racism has been eliminated. It has not. It can be measured in education, health and welfare statistics, while episodes of racism involving police and the public at large show that attitudes are harder to change than laws. ? 

The difference between Israel and these other settler states is partly one of timing. Israel was founded not at the beginning or the middle of the historical cycle of the settler state phenomenon but right at the end. Israel is a paradox ? a settler state arising at the beginning of the post-colonial era. Across Africa, southeast Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, national liberation movements challenged powers unwilling to voluntarily relinquish the territories they had seized in the 19th century. The right of native people to self-determination was expressed in the UN Charter. It was at this precise moment that Israel was established. At a time when universal values were being emphasized Israel headed in the opposite direction. 

The Holocaust generated enormous emotional support across the western world for the establishment of Israel. It might not have been the ?pretext? for its creation of Israel, as Mahmud Ahmedinejad is reported to have said in Geneva, but it was certainly exploited by the Zionists to make sure that Israel came into existence. Refugees from Europe might have gone elsewhere, but for ideological reasons the only place the Zionist movement wanted them to go was Palestine. The media joined the chorus calling for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine as a solution to the refugee problem and an antidote to anti-semitism. In fact removing the victims from the scene of the crime was no answer to the historical problem of European anti-semitism. Their ?solution? allowed European governments to evade responsibility for the consequences of actions in which all of them were in some way complicit. A people who were in no way responsible for the massive?crimes which had been committed against Jews were being made to pay for them. Their rights and interests were treated with as much indifference or disdain as anti-semites had traditionally treated the rights and interests of Jews. The export of the ?Jewish problem? to Palestine was in its own way anti-semitic. 

Within the British government there were objections but only for financial reasons. Britain was broke and could not afford the extra cost of policing Palestine were 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe to be admitted as the Zionists and President Truman were demanding in 1946. ?Even within the US administrations there were reservations. How, for example, could the principle of self-determination be reconciled with the denial of the right of the majority of the people of Palestine to decide their own future? Would not a ?socialist? Jewish state in Palestine further the ambitions of the USSR in the Middle East? And what of America?s interests and its relations with the Arab world? They could only be seriously damaged by support for this project. ? ? 

Ultimately it was Truman and not the UN who decided that Israel would be created in Palestine. Without his direct intervention the partition vote would never have got across the finishing line at the UN General Assembly. It still has to remembered that the vote was only a recommendation, anyway, swept aside when Ben-Gurion, ignoring the provisions of the partition plan, made a unilateral declaration of ?independence? in the name of the state of Israel six months after the plan was passed. In essence it was no different from the declaration of UDI made in the 1960s by the Rhodesian Prime Minister, Ian Smith. In the name of ?independence?, both Smith and David Ben-Gurion declared war on the right of an indigenous people to determine their own future on their own land. One got away with it and one did not. ? 

What kind of state Israel would become was predetermined. In Israel today there are individuals and organizations fighting for coexistence with the Palestinians but since the beginning of Zionist settlement such voices have always spoken from the margins. From Herzl?s time onward it was understand within the mainstream that the Palestinians would never give up their land voluntarily and somehow would have to be removed from it. Thus Israel deliberately set itself from the beginning not just against the Palestinians but against the entire population of the Middle East, for whom Palestine (with Jerusalem at its heart) was an inalienable part of the Arab-Islamic heritage. Zionist justification rested on the argument that the ?Jewish people? were the true indigenous people of Palestine and that Muslims and Christians were present only as ?caretakers? whose role in history had now come to an end. The secondary moral position was that the suffering?of Jews throughout history added up to a stronger claim than the rights of the Palestinians, a line of reasoning supported by Arthur James Balfour in 1917. The end justified the means. If it took the deprivation of Palestinian rights for a Jewish state to come into existence, so be it. 

In a land in which the vast bulk of the population was not Jewish, a Jewish state could only be constructed by taking one inherently racist measure after another. If the state were to be Jewish so would land ownership and labor. The conditions written into the charter of the Jewish National Fund and other land-purchasing organizations stipulated that land once acquired could never be retained to non-Jewish hands. This ?extra-territorialisation? of land as it was described by a British commission of inquiry sent to Palestine fuelled the Palestinian rebellion of 1936-39. Exclusive Jewish access to the land was followed through after 1948 by the destruction of approximately 500 villages and the passage of ?absent property? and ?present absentee? laws which prevented even Palestinians remaining inside Israel from returning to the property they owned. 

Security laws were another means of separating the Palestinians from their land. Consolidation of the Jewish presence on the land has continued through the attempt to erase the Palestinian presence in Jaffa and other cities inside the ?green line?. 

On the other side of the green line the tactics are cruder and more obvious. Open demographic war is being waged against the Palestinians in East Jerusalem while in Hebron the centre of the city has been closed down and residents around the market moved out in the name of ?security?, i.e. the protection of racist and fanatical Jewish settlers living in the heights above. Across the occupied West Bank it is the armed interlopers who describe the Palestinians as interlopers and ?infiltrators? of their own occupied land. All of their vandalism, bullying, harassment of men, women and children, destruction of property and uprooting of olive trees and occasional killing is underwritten by the state, and yet the state is outraged when the charge of racism is raised in Geneva. The colonization of the territories is not incidental or accidental racism but the carefully thought out strategic and ideological racism of a racist state. The fact that it?continues every single day is testimony to Israel?s contempt for universal values and international law. ? ? ? ? ? ? 

Just as the land would have to be the exclusive possession of the Jewish ?people? (as 93 per cent of it is now legally classified), so it could only be worked by Jewish labor. Jewish employers were explicitly prohibited from hiring ?Arab? workers in the 1920s and 1930s. Until the 1960s the central Israeli labor organization, the Histadrut, would only admit Jewish members. In practice, labor discrimination has never worked perfectly because of the low cost of ?Arab? labor compared to ?Jewish? labor and because of the Palestinian need to work, a situation which has led to Palestinian laborers building the settlements being constructed on their own occupied land. When the Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir visited Gaza in the 1970s she expressed shock, not at the establishment of Jewish settlements on expropriated land, but at the use of ?Arab? labor to work the land for the settlers. ? 

As Israel was the state for Jews wherever they lived and not for all the people who lived within its borders (so to speak, seeing that Israel has never actually declared its borders), the laws would have to be framed accordingly. The Nationality Law automatically conferred Israeli citizenship only on Jews (i.e born of a Jewish mother). The Law of Return granted the ?right? of ?return? to Jews who had never lived in Palestine while denying the right of return to Palestinians who had lived there for generations. Some families could trace their origins in Palestine back to the Islamic conquest of the 7th century. ? 

The structural discrimination against the Palestinians can be measured in socio-economic statistics dealing with poverty, unemployment, access to government services and education, house construction and funding for municipalities. Taking their cue from the government, and the openly racist statements made by senior political, military and religious figures, describing the Palestinians as ?two legged animals?, ?drugged cockroaches?, ?insects?, ?snakes? and ?a cancer?, large numbers of Israelis polled have said they do not want to live in the same apartment blocks as ?Arabs? and in fact would like to see them out of the state altogether. The racism coming out of the mouths of rabbis and religious seminaries, couched in terms of an exclusive Jewish right to ?Eretz Israel?, with many of the students or graduates of these seminaries living in the most aggressive of the West Bank settlements, is amongst the worst. ? 

Having set out on this path Israel has followed it unswervingly. One flagrant violation of human rights must be followed by another. Without war and without racism in spirit, deed and law there can be no Zionism and no ?Jewish state?. The Palestinians have been pursued wherever they have gone because by their presence they constitute an existential threat to Israel. Over the years the attitudes of the Israeli mainstream towards the Palestinian ?enemy? have grown even harsher. Palestinian armed struggle, suicide bombings and the rocketing of settlements near Gaza are not connected with the policies pursued by Israel against the Palestinians for six decades but with some ex nihilio desire to kill Jews and destroy Israel. This state of mind is deliberately cultivated from the top with the aim of keeping Israel?s Jewish citizens in a state of permanent readiness for the next war. The recent ?war? in Gaza was approved by more than 80 per cent of?Israel?s Jewish population. The misrepresentation of a massive military onslaught on a largely defenseless civilian population as a ?war? allowed the civilian mainstream to justify the crimes that were being committed. Israelis looked on with indifference and even with approval as ?our boys? killed hundreds of people in three weeks, most of them civilians and 400 of them children. The media turned into a kingdom of lies. Every specious argument of the political and military establishment was accepted without question and transformed into truth. 

The racist t-shirts printed by Israeli ?soldiers? engaged in the attack on Gaza were only the surface manifestation of a much deeper psychosis. The t-shirts captured the attention of the outside world in a way that slow, structural, incremental racism never does. Literally every day brings some new or continuing manifestation of Israeli state racism to the surface. After 50 years the beduin are still being driven off their traditional land in the Naqab. Palestinians married to Israelis are prevented from living inside Israel with their spouses and families. The recently declared Jerusalem Regional Master Plan is inherently racist but apparently too complex for the outside media to work out its implications. It embodies the next stage of programmed discrimination that has continued without letup since 1967. The Jerusalem municipality is itself an illegal and racist body whose ?master plan? is a template for the further ?Judaisation? of?Jerusalem whatever the cost to the Palestinians. It must be remembered that until 1948 Palestinian Muslims and Christians owned about 70 per cent of the property in West Jerusalem and all but one or two per cent of the property in the east. They did not forfeit their rights to their houses and land. Their rights have simply been usurped. In normal legal parlance the appropriation of their property is known as theft. For the first time since the Crusaders massacred Jews and Christians in the 11th century Jerusalem is being transformed into a city for a people of only one religious denomination. Under Arab and Ottoman rule Jerusalem remained a polyglot city. What the Jerusalem municipality and the state of Israel both want is a city cleansed of its non-Jewish population except for tourists and a colorful ethnic remnant hanging around the old city. ? 

Is all of this racist? Of course it is. In fact, those who care to study the UN?s Convention on Genocide, passed in 1948 as Zionist militias were still driving Palestinians off their land and destroying their villages, will see that Israel?s behavior meets some of the criteria of article 2 of the convention which describes genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group: 

(a) killing members of the group 
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group 
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part 

Israelis involved in the struggle against racism and occupation are fighting an uphill battle. The structural discrimination of the state against its non-Jewish citizens and against the Palestinians living in the occupied territories (as well as the Syrians living on the occupied Golan Heights) is a motor driving Israel and its people from one extreme to another. Thirty years ago it was regarded as unthinkable that Menahim Begin could ever be Israel?s Prime Minister but Begin was followed by Yitzhak Shamir, Benyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Olmert. All of them come out of the same school of Revisionist Zionism. Now revisionism is the mainstream, the labor movement is marginalized and Israel has again elected Netanyahu as its Prime Minister. He in turn has chosen as Foreign Minister the crude, arrogant, provocative and openly racist West Bank settler Avigdor Liebermann. 

Racism in Israel is not like racism in other states, which is usually a matter of changing laws and slowly working on public opinion. In Israel racism is so deeply embedded in Zionist ideology and the structure of the state that without racism Israel cannot remain the state that it has become. Yet there are no signs that the Israeli people or the politicians they are electing as their leaders have any intention of changing direction. When they have a powerful military and when they are under no pressure from the outside world they see no reason to change. In its blockade of Gaza Israel has been supported from the beginning by the US, the EU and the Quartet. None of these venerable authorities could see any reason for Israel to be punished or restrained even after the killing of 1400 Palestinians in Gaza from late December 2008 to mid-January 2009. Their indulgence encourages a dangerous state of mind. The politicians, the generals, the rabbis, the media?commentators and the academics know that they are in the right and that everyone else is in the wrong. The outrage at criticism, the arrogance, the self-righteousness, the self-justification, the endless claims of moral superiority and the contempt and hatred of the Palestinians are extremely disturbing. Israel is not a small, weak state in the middle of nowhere. It is a powerful state, armed with nuclear weapons, in the middle of the Middle East. The refusal of the ?international community? to restrain states which live outside the law has led to many disasters in the past. The species of animal life known as homo sapiens has a poor record when it comes to averting calamities ahead of time. In the Middle East the creation of Israel brought disaster down on the heads of the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab countries. The states which created Israel have not yet taken responsibility for the consequences of their actions, but have rather made 
?themselves more complicit in the crimes still being committed. As long as the disaster is someone else?s (and not Israel?s) they do not seem to be concerned. How else can this be understood but as their own racism? Do they have to be pushed to the point where they are directly and unavoidably involved in Israel?s confrontation with the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab world to realize the consequences of what they have done these past six decades? ? 

- Jeremy Salt is associate professor in Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. Previously, he taught at Bosporus University in Istanbul and the University of Melbourne in the Departments of Middle Eastern Studies and Political Science. Professor Salt has written many articles on Middle East issues, particularly Palestine, and was a journalist for The Age newspaper when he lived in Melbourne. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  8 13:03:05 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Greider: Testicular Politics: Obama Is Getting Punked By the
 Big Dogs of Banking
In-Reply-To: <474843748.104701241809144134.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1997892044.105941241809385570.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/138189/testicular_politics:_obama_is_getting_punked_by_the_big_dogs_of_banking,_does_he_have_the_balls_to_do_what's_right/?page=entire 

Testicular Politics: Obama Is Getting Punked By the Big Dogs of Banking, 
Does He Have the Balls to Do What's Right? 

By William Greider, 
The Nation. April 24, 2009 

What we are witnessing is a high-stakes melodrama of glandular politics. 
Will Obama roll over or fight back? 

The big dogs of banking and finance are playing a rough game of bump-and-run 
with our president, trying to knock him off balance and demonstrate their 
dominance. The best names in Wall Street -- Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase -- 
pumped out happy talk about quarterly earnings, then announced that they 
intend to give back the government's money (more than $50 billion, if 
counted honestly). The crisis, they announce, is over for them. They want to 
be free of official meddling in their private affairs. The arrogance is 
breathtaking, even for Wall Street bankers. 

??Forget the financial numbers. What we are witnessing is a high-stakes 
melodrama of glandular politics. This rival power center, though gravely 
weakened, is contesting for control with the president. Think of dogs 
circling one another to establish who will be leader of the pack. For three 
decades, the Wall Street guys in good suits have ruled the economy, 
demanding deference from the political system and from corporate 
managements, too. Those who failed to follow them were punished, either 
through stock prices or election financing. Despite their catastrophic 
failure, the surviving bankers and financiers are trying to hold on to their 
thrones. 

??For the last couple of weeks, they have poked the kid in the chest and 
mocked his economic advisors with condescending gestures. Jamie Dimon of the 
Morgan bank handed Treasury Secretary Geithner a fake check for $25 billion. 
They threw complicating wrenches into the government's financial rescue 
plan. Their essential message, crudely colloquial, was intended for Barack 
Obama : "You don't have the balls to take charge of us." 

??The question is: Are they right? Obama seems cowed by their bluster. He 
certainly looks reluctant to take them on in a public way or refute their 
version of reality. This president wants to govern through public-spirited 
cooperation. The financial titans play hardball in return. I say "seems" 
because we do not yet know about Obama and how he will resolve this mess. 
The administration has been stalling action on the troubled banks, as if it 
believes in its own wishful forecasts about an early recovery for the 
economy. The bankers trumped him by announcing, hey, things are already 
better for us. So back off. 

??The bankers think they have the president cornered. His rescue plan cannot 
possibly succeed without much more money -- hundreds of billions more -- 
that Congress will be extremely reluctant to provide (Obama hasn't yet had 
the nerve to ask for it). The bankers' offer to return their welfare checks 
is a cute gesture, but a bluff. They know Obama's government is committed to 
save them, whatever it costs. As usual, the big dogs want to have it both 
ways -- take the public's money but promise nothing in return. 

??Roughly speaking, that has been Obama's posture, too. He acts as though 
the old order must be restored with public money, but without forceful 
government direction. He can call their bluff if he has the courage -- shut 
down a couple of big banks, take control of the system -- and the public 
would cheer. During the campaign, Obama demonstrated he is a great 
teacher -- his political vision changed the country. But we do not yet know 
if he is a confident political leader willing to use his power against 
formidable adversaries in order to get his way. Every potential rival is now 
taking his measure. Weakness would doom him. 

??The financial crisis poses the first great moral dilemma of the Obama 
presidency. Sometime in the next few months, he will be compelled to choose 
between his technocratic inclinations -- rescuing certain financial 
institutions deemed "too big to fail" -- and the obvious moral wrongness of 
his policy of rewarding the very players who caused our national disaster. 
The broad public does not doubt that this is morally wrong. I saw a Zogby 
opinion poll the other day that said only 6 percent of the public supports 
the financial bailouts. Obama is on the wrong side of that bipartisan 
consensus. 

??The moral dilemma in the financial crisis is oddly parallel to Obama's 
reluctant approach on the torture issue. The president bravely made public 
the sickening documents from the Bush administration that reveal how CIA and 
Justice Department officials rationalized their illegalities and authorized 
crimes against humanity. Yet the president said it would be wrong to 
prosecute (or even investigate) any of the CIA agents or military officers 
who committed these crimes. Likewise, we are told it would be wrong to 
punish the financial malefactors or look too closely into how they 
engineered the gross fraud and false valuations that destroyed trillions of 
dollars in American wealth. Let's not dwell on the past, the president says, 
let's look forward. 

??But everything Obama does now -- or fails to do -- becomes an inescapable 
precedent for the future, defining the true meaning of law and moral 
principle. The president's rationale on government-led torture sounds 
dangerously close to the line of defense invoked by Nazi war criminals at 
Nuremberg. We were only following orders. CIA barbarians are invited to hide 
behind that excuse. 

??So in a sense are the bankers from Wall Street. They were merely doing 
what the financial markets wanted and what the government allowed. Rescuing 
these players now, while declining to force fundamental structural changes 
on the banking system, would essentially ratify the bankers' arrogant 
beliefs. They are too important to fail. The government will never let it 
happen. Despite their destructive behavior, they will be allowed to remain 
in power and free to do it all again. 

??I do not doubt the president's good intentions, but if he is not vigilant, 
the "Obama precedent" could prove to be an ugly legacy. His name might 
someday be linked to wilful evasion of misdeeds and the degradation of law 
and moral principle. When great crimes are committed in the future by 
government or by powerful private interests, people in authority might 
decide to let them go by, citing the national interest and recalling how 
Barack Obama dealt with similar events.

From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  8 13:48:43 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Afghan war costs to overtake Iraq in 2010: Pentagon
Message-ID: <732130018.120761241812123029.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gBziAOJEJlHrQNrMRm8GoESMNN_Q 





? 

Agence France Presse ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? May 7, 2009 





? 

Afghan war costs to overtake Iraq in 2010: Pentagon 





? 

Washington ? The cost of fighting the war in Afghanistan will overtake that of the Iraq conflict for the first time in 2010, Pentagon budget documents showed Thursday. 





? 

On top of the basic defense budget of 533.7 billion dollars, the White House is requesting a further 130 billion dollars for overseas missions, including 65 billion for Afghanistan and 61 billion for Iraq. 





? 

"This request is where you're going to first see the swing of not only dollars or resources, but combat capability, from the Iraqi theater into the Afghan theater," Navy Vice Admiral Steve Stanley, director of force structure for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters. 





? 

Some 136,000 US troops are currently stationed in Iraq, but they are set to be progressively withdrawn by the end of 2011, in accordance with a security pact signed between Washington and Baghdad in late 2008. 





? 

The withdrawal from Iraq will be accompanied by a buildup in Afghanistan, which President Barack Obama has made a priority of his administration, dispatching 21,000 extra troops to the region to combat an emboldened insurgency. 





? 

US forces in Afghanistan are set to reach 68,000 by the end of this year. 





? 

The United States has about 45,000 troops in Afghanistan, the bulk of a foreign deployment of roughly 70,000 soldiers tasked with hunting down armed Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants, as well as stabilizing the country. 





? 

The funds are part of a total 663.7-billion-dollar Pentagon spending plan that aims "to try to reshape the military to have more capability to fight irregular and unconventional war while maintaining a balance of conventional capability, and modernize with those themes in mind," budget documents said. 





? 

The 130 billion dollars for "overseas contingency operations," include a 1.5-billion-dollar "Commander's Emergency Response Program" to fund urgent reconstruction and humanitarian aid needs on the ground. 





? 

In 2009, funds for that program had been equally distributed between Iraq and Afghanistan, which each received 700 million dollars. But in 2010, the bulk of the funds -- 1.2 billion dollars -- will go to Afghanistan. 





? 

The Defense Department is also requesting 700 million dollars to "accelerate the development of Pakistan's counterinsurgency capabilities and operations in support of US efforts" in Afghanistan, according to budget documents. 





? 

Obama, who has unveiled a regional approach to the war in Afghanistan, has pledged 1.5 billion dollars over five years in military and financial aid to Pakistan, which he has placed at the center of the fight against Al-Qaeda. 





? 

The plan includes a focus on Al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan's lawless western border region and boosting civilian efforts to build up both Afghanistan and Pakistan, notably in agriculture and education. 



From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  8 13:58:31 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Republicans warn Obama's Attorney General on torture
In-Reply-To: <156321420.123081241812585807.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <949840699.123911241812711465.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>





Is this the real reason why Obama doesn't want to indict the criminals from the Bush 

Administration -- because they're all complicit? 



http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/07/1925394.aspx 





? 

MSNBC ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? May 7, 2009 





? 

Republicans warn Holder on torture 





? 


From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  8 14:04:41 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced
	Interrogations'
Message-ID: <1974230095.126311241813081411.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/cia_says_pelosi_was_briefed_on.html?hpid=news-col-blog 



? 

Capital Briefing ???????????????????????????? News and analysis from the Hill ?????????????????? ?????????? May 8, 2009 



? 

CIA Says Pelosi Was Briefed on Use of 'Enhanced Interrogations' 





? 

By Paul Kane 





? 

Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used. 





? 

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 





? 

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him. 





? 

The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested. 





? 

In a carefully worded statement, Pelosi's office said today that she had never been briefed about the use of waterboarding, only that it had been approved by Bush administration lawyers as a legal technique to use in interrogations. 





? 

"As this document shows, the Speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002. The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used," said Brendan Daly, Pelosi's spokesman. 





? 

Pelosi's statement did not address whether she was informed that other harsh techniques were already in use during the Zubaydah interrogations. 





? 

In December 2007 the Washington Post reported that leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees had been briefed in the fall of 2002 about waterboarding -- which simulates drowning -- and other techniques, and that no congressional leaders protested its use. At the time Pelosi said she was not told that waterboarding was being used, a position she stood by repeatedly last month when the Bush-era Justice Department legal documents justifying the interrogation tactics were released by Attorney General Eric Holder. 





? 

The new memo shows that intelligence officials were willing to share the information about waterboarding with only a sharply closed group of people. Three years after the initial Pelosi-Goss briefing, Bush officials still limited interrogation technique briefings to just the chairman and ranking member of the House and Senate intelligence committees, the so-called Gang of Four in the intelligence world. 





? 

In October 2005, CIA officials began briefing other congressional leaders with oversight of the intelligence community, including top appropriators who provided the agency its annual funding. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam and an opponent of torture techniques, was also read into the program at that time even though he did not hold a special committee position overseeing the intelligence community. 





? 

A bipartisan collection of lawmakers have criticized the practice of limiting information to just the "Gang of Four", who were expressly forbidden from talking about the information from other colleagues, including fellow members of the intelligence committees. Pelosi and others are considering reforms that would assure a more open process for all committee members. 



From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  8 14:29:25 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Study: Poverty fueling Muslim tension with West
Message-ID: <1161698188.135731241814565718.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_MUSLIM_INTEGRATION?SITE=MOSTP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT 





? 

AP News ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? May 7, 2009 





? 

Study: Poverty fueling Muslim tension with West 





? 

Poverty, not religious differences, fueling Muslim tensions with the West, report claims 





? 

David Stringer 



Associated Press writer 





? 

London ? Joblessness and poverty are a more potent source of tension between Muslims and wider European and U.S. society than religious differences, one of the first major studies of Muslim integration since the Sept. 11 terror attacks claimed on Thursday. 





? 

Attacks by Islamic extremists on the United States, and European capitals like Madrid and London, have sparked debate about whether a failure of Muslims to integrate into Western society has fueled extremism and created divisions between communities. 





? 

But a study of around 10,000 people in 27 countries by the Gallup polling company claims non-Muslims ? including the public and lawmakers ? have misunderstood the attitudes of Muslims in the West, stifling attempts to promote better understanding. 





? 

Muslims in the West are more patriotic, more tolerant and more likely to reject violence than the rest of Western society believes they are, the study claims. 





? 

Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and a faith adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama, said the surveys exposed as myths many ideas about the relationship between Muslims and the rest of society. 





? 

"This research shows that many of the assumptions about Muslims and integration couldn't be more wide of the mark," she said. "European Muslims want to be part of the wider community and contribute to society." 





? 

The study found that only 10 percent of British Muslims consider themselves integrated into British society, compared to 46 percent of French Muslims and 35 percent of German Muslims. Mogahed, an Egyptian-American Muslim, said unemployment and access to education were key factors in isolating Muslims in the West. 





? 

The study found that 38 percent of British Muslims said they had a job, lower than the figure for the British general public ? 62 percent ? and lower than Muslims in Germany or France, where 53 percent and 45 percent respectively said they were employed. 





? 

Mogahed said that Muslims, particularly in Britain and France, feel marginalized because they have more difficulty finding jobs than non-Muslims, and typically have lower incomes. 





? 

"Economic integration may become more precarious in light of the current financial crisis affecting Europe," she said. 





? 

Another key finding of the study was that that Muslims don't prioritize their faith over patriotism, Mogahed said. 





? 

The study found that 77 percent of British Muslims feel a strong sense of British identity, compared to 50 percent of the country's non-Muslims. In France, around half of Muslims and non-Muslims say they feel a strong sense of patriotism. 





? 

Attempts to create a greater sense of national identity among Muslims have been a key concern for European lawmakers, particularly in Britain ? where British-born Muslims have been behind several attempted terror attacks since 2001. 





? 

Four suicide bombers who killed 52 commuters and themselves in an attack on London's subway and bus network on July 7, 2005 where born in Britain ? three with family ties to Pakistan. 





? 

Gallup conducted multiple surveys in 27 countries in 2008. Polls of the general public typically questioned around 1,000 people, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. 





? 

The company said polls of Muslims involved samples of 500 people, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points. 



From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Fri May  8 15:20:03 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 06:20:03 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Negative Consequences of the
	Debt-Based Money System
Message-ID: <4A04A203.2040402@ashisuto.co.jp>


by Richard Greaves

Prosperity (November 2001)


1) Goods and Services are Much More Expensive

The cost of borrowing by producers, manufacturers, transporters, and
retailers all has to be added to the price of the final product.


2) Consumers Have Much Less Money to Spend

They are burdened by the cost of mortgages, overdrafts, credit cards,
personal loans and as a result of 1 and 2 above ...


3) There is a Surplus of Goods and Services

... because the population can't afford to buy up all the goods and
services being produced. This in turn creates ...

4) Cut Throat Competition

Businesses try to cut prices and costs to grab a share of this limited
purchasing power in the economy, as illustrated by:

Wages being held down as much as possible.

Shedding of jobs. Both of these reduce people's spending power even more.

Retailers importing cheap products from abroad where wages are much lower.

Production of cheaper goods that don't last as long.

Protection of the environment a low priority.

Mergers and take-overs - corporations get bigger and bigger, driven to
search out new markets.

Big companies shifting production to poorer countries which have cheap
non-unionised labour and the least stringent safety and environmental
laws or ...

Demanding large government subsidies and tax free incentives as the
price for setting up new production or not relocating abroad.


5) Inflation

This is guaranteed because producers constantly have to borrow more, and
must add the cost of that increased borrowing to the price of the goods
produced.

Why is it that when the bankers hike their prices (that is, put up
interest rates) this is supposed to reduce inflation?

It doesn't. It's just that there's a delay in industry putting up prices.

Initially, industry is forced to hold or even reduce its prices with its
profits down, or even sustain losses, in a desperate bid to sell its
products in an economy where the money available for spending has been
reduced, because of higher interest payments being made to the banks.

Inflation may be held in check or even reduced temporarily, but
eventually industry must put its prices up in order to recover these
higher costs.

This most readily happens when interest rates come down, more people
borrow, and money supply and consumer spending increases. Inflation then
races ahead.

The fact that - in a debt based economy - levels of borrowing cum money
creation have to keep on rising, and thereby adding to the overall
burden of interest payments, guarantees that inflation will be present
as long as we have an economy based on an increasing burden of debt.


6) Negative Effects on International Trade

Surplus goods in the national economy have to be disposed of somehow.
The obvious way to do this is to try to export them!

The absurdity is that every nation is trying to do this, because of the
same fundamental problem at home.

This creates frenzied competition in world markets and masses of near
identical goods madly criss-crossing the globe in search of an outlet.

Instead of international trade being based on reciprocal mutually
beneficial arrangements where nations supply each others' genuine needs
and wants, the whole thing becomes a cut-throat competition to grab
market share in order to stay solvent in a debt based economy.

Big corporations demand unrestricted access to every nation's market -
so called "free" trade.

The European Union "single market", the North American Free Trade
Agreement and the World Trade Organisation are the best examples of the
drive to open up all national markets.

Exporting is good for a nation's economy because when exported goods are
paid for, this brings money into the exporting nation?s economy free of
debt.

The money to pay for them was borrowed from banks in the importing nation.

That money is lost to the importing nation's economy, but the debt that
created that money still has to be repaid by the importer out of the
remaining money in the importing nation's economy.

If a nation can become a big net exporter, for a time its economy will
boom with all the debt-free money coming in - a trade surplus will exist.

Importing is not so good for a nation's economy because if some nations
are building up trade surpluses in this way, others must be net
importers and building up trade deficits.

Ultimately, those with big deficits can no longer afford to import,
since so much money is sucked out of their economies leaving a
proportionally increasing burden of debt behind.


7) Third World Debt

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was set up to provide an
international reserve of money supposedly to help nations with big deficits.

In practice it makes matters worse. A nation with a big deficit has to
seek a bail out from the IMF.

But this comes in the form of a loan, repayable with interest.

Like loans from a commercial bank, IMF loans are money created out of
nothing, based on a cash reserve pool, which is provided by western
nations who go into debt to provide it (see "National Debt" below).

The nation with the deficit goes even more heavily into debt.

It will however be able to carry on trading and importing goods from the
wealthier nations.

As a result, much of this borrowed IMF loan money flows into the
economies of wealthier Western nations.

However, the repayment obligation, including the interest payments,
remains with the debtor nation.

This is the horror of third world debt - the poorest nations borrow
money to bolster the money supply of the richer nations. In order to
secure income to pay the loan and interest, and redress the trade
balance, these poorest nations must export whatever they can produce.

Thus they exploit every possible resource - stripping forests for
timber, mining, giving over their best agricultural land to providing
luxury foodstuffs for the West, rather than providing for local needs.

Today, for nations in Africa, Central and South America and elsewhere,
the revenue from their exports does not even meet the interest payments
on these IMF loans (and other loans from Western banks).

The sums paid in interest over the years far exceed the amounts of the
original loans themselves.

The result is a desperate shortage of money in their economies -
resulting in cutbacks in necessities such as basic health and education
programmes.

Grinding poverty exists in nations with a great wealth of natural resources.

Structural Adjustment Programmes - these are now attached to IMF loans
and include conditions that recipient countries will reduce or remove
tariff barriers and "open up their markets to foreign competition" - in
other words take surplus goods off another country that can't be sold at
home.


8) War

War means enormous increases in national debt and enormous profits for
the banks

Massive government borrowing and money creation by banks is required to
fund a war effort.

Financiers and bankers have covertly funded both sides in both World
Wars and many other conflicts before and since.

Having profited from war leaving nations with massive debts and more
beholden than ever to them, the banks then fund reconstruction.


9) National Debt

British national debt now stands around GBP 400 billion - the annual
interest on that debt is around GBP 25-30 billion. The government can
only pay it by taxing the population as a whole, so we pay! National
debt is up from GBP 26 billion in 1960 and GBP 90 billion in 1980.

Successive governments have borrowed this money into existence over the
years.

Instead of creating it themselves and spending it into the economy on
public services and projects, boosting the economy and providing jobs,
they get banks to create it for them and then borrow it at interest. And
we pay it back in our taxes!

It all started in 1694 when King William needed money to fight a war
against France. He borrowed GBP 1.2 million from a group of London
bankers and goldsmiths.

In return for the loan, they were incorporated by royal charter as the
"Bank of England" which became the government's banker. Interest at
eight per cent was payable on the loan and taxes were imposed on a whole
range of goods to pay the interest.

This marked the birth of national debt. Ever since then, the world over,
governments have borrowed money from banks and taxed the population to
pay the interest.


How the Government Borrows Money

When governments borrow money, in return they issue to the lender,
exchequer or treasury bonds - otherwise known as government stocks or
securities.

These are basically IOU's - promises by government to repay the loan by
a particular date, and to pay interest.

They are taken up by banks, but also by individuals with money to spare,
including wealthy ones in the banking fraternity and, in more recent
years, pension and other investment funds.

When government securities are taken up by banks, this is money
creation, out of nothing, at the stroke of a pen.

Banks are creating money as loans, out of nothing, by lending it into
existence to the government in very much the same way as they do to
individuals and companies.

The government now has new money in the form of loans to spend on its
requirements, such as public services.

If this money were not borrowed into existence in this way, there would
be less economic activity as a result.

Under this system national debt is money issued to the government and,
as such, has become a vital part of the total money supply of any modern
nation.

The government constantly tells us that "there isn?t enough money",
because it knows that the cost of borrowing money this way has to be
passed on to the taxpayer. Instead, it sells off state assets and now
gets the private sector to fund public services instead.


The Constant Increase in National Debt

In the same way that under the present system, industry and individuals
must keep borrowing more and more to enable interest payments to be kept
up on their existing loans, so government must constantly borrow more
and more to keep up interest payments on its existing loans.

Furthermore, when a particular government stock is due for repayment,
the government simply borrows more by issuing new government stocks.

And it's we who pay for it in our taxes!


An Alternative - Phasing Out The National Debt

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The
element that makes the bond good makes the bill good." Thomas Edison,
The New York Times (December 06 1921)

Government could stop borrowing money at interest, and start creating it
itself by spending it - debt free - into the economy on public projects
and services, at the same time creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

It already does this to a limited extent - the amount it receives from
banks when it sells cash to them is added to the public purse and is
available for spending on public services and projects.

For a start we could, at least, fund the interest payments on the
National Debt by government created debt-free money, instead of by
taxation - as advocated by James Gibb Stuart in his book The Money Bomb
(available for GBP 5 payable to Prosperity, at the address below).


A Democratic Imperative

Seeking to redistribute what money there is by taxing the rich to pay
for services for the less well off does nothing to solve the problem of
the overall shortage of money in the economy caused by the debt based
money supply - a problem which most socialists have yet to recognise.

The nation's economy is our economy. We create the real wealth through
our ingenuity, enterprise and hard work. The current banking system
operates as a massive drain on that public wealth as well as
concentrating power and control in the hands of a tiny, private minority.

Money is the means of facilitating the exchange of goods and services.

There is nothing wrong with creating it out of nothing, because this is
the only way to provide the means of exchange.

What is wrong is that the right to do this has been allowed to pass to
private interests who create it as loans for private profit.

Can we not ultimately incorporate the humanitarian principles of a fair
distribution of wealth that underlies socialism with the dynamic
benefits of a free enterprise economy that lies at the heart of capitalism?

For as long as the power to create money is in the hands of private
interests who do it for profit and control, we can never say that we
live in a democracy.

On this, at least, the IMF had it right.

_____

Please print out, photocopy and distribute these articles. Also copy and
paste them to emails, and circulate widely, and please include all the
essential contact information below. Thank you.

Essential Further Reading:

PROSPERITY: Freedom from Debt Slavery - is a four-page quarterly journal
which campaigns for publicly-created debt-free money, edited and
published by Alistair McConnachie. A four-issue subscription is
available for GBP 10 payable to PROSPERITY at 268 Bath Street, Glasgow,
Scotland, UK, G2 4JR
Tel: 0141 332 2214; Fax: 0141 353 6900
admcc at admcc.freeserve.co.uk  http://www.ProsperityUK.com
Or you can follow this link to our subscribe page:
http://www.prosperityuk.com/get_involved/subscribe/index.php

The Grip of Death: A study of modern money, debt slavery and destructive
economics by Michael Rowbotham, [Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1998] and
Goodbye America! Globalisation, debt and the dollar empire by Michael
Rowbotham, [Jon Carpenter Publishing, 2000] both available from the
address above.

http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/negcon.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 shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  8 17:00:04 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 16:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] This is what occupation looks like (video)
In-Reply-To: <381175.3756.qm@web39806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1145974231.196721241823604243.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



This is what occupation looks like 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysIaQUJWBdk 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Fri May  8 17:56:11 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 16:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Red light flashing
In-Reply-To: <4A04BFAC.9010405@edcorrigan.ca>
Message-ID: <1373082101.216901241826971923.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2009/050709/letters.html 

Montreal Mirror??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ?May 7, 2009 

Red light flashing 

By John Dirlik 

The transformation took a few short years. The election of Harper?s camouflaged Reform Party, coupled with the sale of Hollinger?s vast media empire to ultra-Zionist Canwest Global, has changed the face of Canada?s political landscape beyond recognition. And like the proverbial frog in its frying pan oblivious to the rising heat, Canadians ignored the creeping dangers only to wake up engulfed by a reactionary smoke pervading every nook and cranny of public life. 

We find ourselves a laughing stock after our newly appointed minister of science proclaims he?s unwilling to deny creationism or even confirm evolution. Ottawa bars the entry of elected British MP George Galloway because of his views on Afghanistan. We ditch Kyoto, pull out of Durban, and remain the only Western country refusing to seek the repatriation of its citizens incarcerated in Guantanamo. 

We cut funding for English language classes given by an Arab organization because it too loudly supported Palestinian rights, while our ministers lobby international forums in London to?have criticism of Israel?declared a form of anti-Semitism.? 

We?re the first country in the world to participate in the collective punishment of Gaza, and the only country to veto a UN resolution calling for a ceasefire. When a Canadian UN peacekeeper and dozens of Canadians are killed by Israeli shells during its 2006 Lebanon offensive, Ottawa accepts Israel?s version over that of UN eyewitnesses, and as Palestinian children are later incinerated by phosphorous bombs in Gaza, Canada solemnly invokes Israel?s ?right to defend itself.? 

American travellers used to sew the maple leaf on their backpacks. Canada was respected not only for its role as an honest broker in the Middle East but also for its progressive social policies that rivalled those of Nordic countries. 

Now, politicians must pass an Israel loyalty test. Those deemed insufficiently faithful are skewered by Canwest, which is essentially a Likud mouthpiece. When not demonizing Palestinians or fabricating stories about Jews in Iran forced to wear Stars of David, it funds lectures by Christian fundamentalists like Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, who declares that ?there are no holy Islamic sites in Jerusalem? and contemptuously refers to the ?so-called Palestinians.? Denying Palestinian nationhood and erasing the 1300-year Islamic connection to Jerusalem may be vile historical revisionism on par with the crudest Holocaust-denial, but that does not prevent Canwest chairman David Asper from personally introducing Farah as an ?inspiration to us all.? 

With a national media owned by the Jewish equivalent of an Ernst Z?ndel and a governing party imbued with the Bible Belt mindset of a Jerry Falwell, Canadians are facing an unprecedented ideological onslaught. This cultural crusade is waged with messianic zeal by deep-pocketed and well-connected?disciples who use mudslinging and character assassinations with devastating effect. But?a recent string of high profile wins has made them overly brazen and bloated with a hubris too glaring to ignore. A tipping point is being reached. Canadians were slow to smell the smoke, but the red lights are now flashing.

From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Sat May  9 05:17:52 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 20:17:52 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] A Trillion Dollars for the Banks
Message-ID: <4A056660.4050301@ashisuto.co.jp>


How About a Second Opinion?

by Dean Baker

CommonDreams.org (April 06 2009)


Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wants to have the government lend up
to a trillion dollars to hedge funds, private equity, funds and the
banks themselves to clear their books of toxic assets. The plan implies
a substantial subsidy to the banks. It is likely to result in the
disposal of these assets at far above market value, with the government
picking up the losses.

As much as we all want to help out the Wall Street bankers in their hour
of need, taxpayers may reasonably ask whether this is the best use of
our money. After all, the $1 trillion that is being set aside for this
latest TARP variation is equal to 300 million SCHIP kid years {1}.
Congress has had heated debates over sums that were a small fraction of
this size. To give another useful measuring stick, the Geithner plan
could fund one million of the Woodstock museums that were the main prop
of Senator McCain's presidential campaign.

The core problem is that many of our big banks are bankrupt. If they had
to acknowledge the losses that they have incurred on their housing
related loans (and increasing their loans in commercial real estate)
Citigroup, Bank of America, and many other large banks would be
insolvent. Thus far, they have avoided reality by keeping these loans on
their books at inflated prices.

The Geithner plan is an effort to rescue the banks by using government
funding to prop up the price of these bad loans to levels that will
allow the banks to stay solvent. It is not clear that the plan is big
enough to accomplish this goal, but that is the basic intention. If it
doesn't work, then presumably Geithner will come out with another TARP
permutation that involves giving the banks even more money.

There is an alternative. Rather than using government money to keep them
alive, we could force the banks to go through a type of managed
bankruptcy process like the one that is currently being proposed for
General Motors and Chrysler.

Geithner has supposedly ruled out the bankruptcy option because when he,
along with Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, tried letting Lehman Brothers
go under last fall, it didn't turn out very well. Of course, it is not
necessary to go the route of an uncontrolled bankruptcy that Geithner
and Company pursued with Lehman.

The government could set up an arranged bankruptcy under which creditors
have accepted conditions in advance. While this may not be easy to
negotiate, the government does have enormous bargaining power in
pursuing such a deal. The creditors (other than insured deposits, which
will be paid in full) of these banks may end up with nothing if the
government just let the banks sink.

The prospect of even an arranged bankruptcy of a major bank will
undoubtedly shake up markets, but many safeguards have been put in place
since the Lehman collapse. If the stock market goes down for a few weeks
or months, who cares? Running the economy to serve the stock market is a
sure recipe for disaster; if President Obama fixes the economy, the
stock market will do just fine in the long run.

Anyhow, the Geithner crew insists that there are no alternatives to his
plan; we have to just keep giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the
banks. Perhaps Geithner is right. But before we throw such huge sums
away, further enriching the bankers who wrecked the economy, maybe we
should get a second opinion.

Suppose that Congress appropriated a modest chunk of money to have
independent economists put together teams to construct alternative
plans. Why not give MIT professor Simon Johnson, a former chief
economist of the IMF, $5 million to hire a crew to outline his preferred
path? Congress could give Joe Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner and
one-time chief economist to President Clinton, who is also a harsh
critic of the Geithner plan, a similar sum to put together his own team.

These economists could develop their best plans and put them out for
public consumption. Geithner's crew can then tell us why their plans are
unworkable and we must instead hand over the money to banks.

Given how much money Geithner wants to spend - putting it in the hands
of the folks that brought on this economic crisis - it would seem
appropriate to first examine all the alternatives. After all, we could
find out what our options are in this case for the price of just a few
AIG executive bonuses. That has to be a good deal in anyone's book.

_____


Dean Baker {2} is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research {3} (CEPR). He is the author of The Conservative Nanny State:
How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer {4, 5}
and the more recently published Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall
of The Bubble Economy {6} He also has a blog, "Beat the Press", where he
discusses the media's coverage of economic issues. You can find it at
the American Prospect's web site. [7]

Links:

{1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program

{2} cepr at cepr.net

{3} http://www.cepr.net/

{4}
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1411693957?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1411693957&adid=1Q1525S4DMNAXAYFQ8EV&

{5} http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

{6}
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0981576990?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0981576990&adid=1RZEQ5WA6XE33K5W9Q5P&

{7} http://www.prospect.org/deanbaker

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/06-14


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 May  9 09:45:11 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 08:45:11 -0700
Subject: [R-G] 'Israel occupation worse than swine flu'
Message-ID: <412F1945-2AE0-4F83-AFDE-1A725F73965E@shaw.ca>

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=94054&sectionid=351020202

'Israel occupation worse than swine flu'
Fri, 08 May 2009 17:53:26 GMT

The Israeli crackdown on a Bilin protest
Activists have taken up the cudgels on behalf of a free homeland,  
claiming that the swine flu-ridden Palestine would hurt less than the  
one under the occupation of Israel.

On Friday, the Palestinian and foreign activists in the West Bank  
village of Bilin renewed their complaint of the Israeli occupation,  
AFP reported.

"The world today is extremely interested in swine flu because it has  
killed people but it has forgotten that what we suffer from is worse,"  
one protester, Abdullah Abu Rahmeh was quoted as saying.

"We are trying to draw the world's attention to a virus that is much  
more dangerous than swine flu, the virus of the Israeli occupation  
that has caused the deaths of thousands of Palestinians," he added.

They wore protective masks and unfurled banners reading "put an end to  
occupation flu."

The demonstrators usually protest at Tel Aviv's erection of a 723- 
kilometer separation wall in the nearby village of Ni'lin. The barrier  
encroaches upon vast expanses of the Palestinian land under the  
pretext of 'protecting' Israeli settlers - who on the same day had  
killed a Palestinian.

Israel, which has detected seven cases of affliction with the A(H1N1)  
strain of the flu, was the first to report sufferers in the Middle East.

Since its April outbreak, the viral disease has reportedly hit 2,371  
people the world over.

The US-based anti-Semitism watch, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL),  
has accused the Arab media of taking advantage of the contagion to  
provoke aversion towards the Jews, Jerusalem Post reported on Tuesday.

The center targeted dailies such as the Qatari Al-Watan and UK-based  
Al-Quds al-Arabi's publication of cartoons which depicted the Israeli  
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a swine.

HN/MD


From fentona at shaw.ca  Sat May  9 09:46:44 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 08:46:44 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Huge U.S. camp arises in Afghan Desert of Death
Message-ID: <86831A0A-E989-4FCA-8E9B-40910473910C@shaw.ca>

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSISL43643820090507

Huge U.S. camp arises in Afghan Desert of Death
Thu May 7, 2009 3:29pm EDT

By Andrew Gray

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan (Reuters) - A huge U.S. military camp is  
taking shape in the baking heat of southern Afghanistan for thousands  
of extra U.S. troops charged with defeating a resurgent Taliban.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Camp Leatherneck, with concrete  
blast walls and semi-cylinder sand-colored tents, on Thursday as he  
surveyed preparations for what will be the biggest wave yet in a year  
that is seeing U.S. troop numbers doubled.

The camp is being constructed in Helmand province next to a British  
base, Camp Bastion, as Marines and other forces dramatically expand  
their presence in the most violent area of Afghanistan and heartland  
of the Taliban movement.

Construction workers clambered on the wooden frame of a new  
headquarters building as Gates spoke at the camp, where the majority  
of more than 8,000 marines now flowing into southern Afghanistan are  
expected be based.

"This place was desert at the end of January. I mean: nothing, said  
Navy Captain Jeff Borowy," the top U.S. military engineer in southern  
Afghanistan.

"Now you've got a 443-acre secure facility," he told reporters  
traveling with Gates.

ATLANTIC WAY

Miles of sand walls topped with coils of barbed wire line the roads at  
the camp, linked to its British neighbor by a street nicknamed  
Atlantic Way.

If placed end to end in the United States, the sand walls at  
Leatherneck and eight other sites being built for the troop influx in  
southern Afghanistan would stretch for a distance of 175 km (110 miles).

The marines at Camp Leatherneck are also building a giant parking area  
for helicopters and airplanes by laying down a mat of metal alloy on  
the desert floor. With a length of 4,860 feet a width of 318 feet, the  
mat will be the second largest of its kind in the world and the  
biggest in a combat zone, said Marine Lieutenant Colonel David Jones,  
commander of the Marine Wing Support Squadron 371, based in Yuma,  
Arizona.

The new bases are a tangible sign of the increased resources devoted  
to Afghanistan by U.S. President Barack Obama, who accused his  
predecessor George W. Bush of neglecting the war in Afghanistan to  
focus on the conflict in Iraq, which Obama opposed.

Even before he completed a review of Afghanistan and Pakistan  
strategy, Obama ordered 17,000 extra U.S. troops to Afghanistan,  
including the 12,000 Marines.

"We are now resourcing our counterinsurgency appropriately," said U.S.  
Army Brigadier General John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in  
southern Afghanistan.

"Our allies have done the heavy lifting for us in the southern region  
for a long time," he added. "The Brits, the Canadians, the Dutch have  
taken a lot of casualties."

Getting supplies to the remote desert -- named the Desert of Death by  
local tribesmen because of its extreme summer heat and desolation --  
and building the camps in time for the influx of troops has posed  
challenges, Borowy said. In one innovative attempt to deal with the  
conditions, marines bagged up recycled water from camp showers and  
kitchens and used it to prepare sand for the aircraft parking area.

"We're in the middle of the desert so getting water's pretty  
interesting," Borowy said.

(Editing by Peter Graff)


From fentona at shaw.ca  Sat May  9 09:52:01 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 08:52:01 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Afghans riot over air-strike atrocity
Message-ID: <5EE5E176-DFC5-444C-91BF-325C0BE49B3A@shaw.ca>

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghans-riot-over-airstrike-atrocity-1681070.html

Afghans riot over air-strike atrocity

Witnesses say deaths of 147 people in three villages came after a  
sustained bombardment by American aircraft. Patrick Cockburn, in  
Herat, reports

Friday, 8 May 2009

Shouting "Death to America" and "Death to the Government", thousands  
of Afghan villagers hurled stones at police yesterday as they vented  
their fury at American air strikes that local officials claim killed  
147 civilians.

The riot started when people from three villages struck by US bombers  
in the early hours of Tuesday, brought 15 newly-discovered bodies in a  
truck to the house of the provincial governor. As the crowd pressed  
forward in Farah, police opened fire, wounding four protesters.  
Traders in the rest of Farah city, the capital of the province of the  
same name where the bombing took place, closed their shops, vowing  
they would not reopen them until there is an investigation.

A local official Abdul Basir Khan said yesterday that he had collected  
the names of 147 people who had died, making it the worst such  
incident since the US intervened in Afghanistan started in 2001. A  
phone call from the governor of Farah province, Rohul Amin, in which  
he said that 130 people had died, was played over the loudspeaker in  
the Afghan parliament in Kabul, sparking demands for more control over  
US operations.

The protest in Farah City is the latest sign of a strong Afghan  
reaction against US air attacks in which explosions inflict massive  
damage on mud-brick houses that provide little protection against bomb  
blasts. A claim by American officials, which was repeated by the US  
Defence Secretary Robert Gates yesterday in Kabul, that the Taliban  
might have killed people with grenades because they did not pay an  
opium tax is not supported by any eyewitnesses and is disproved by  
pictures of deep bomb craters, one of which is filled with water. Mr  
Gates expressed regret for the incident but did not go so far as to  
accept blame.

The US admits that it did conduct an air strike at the time and place,  
but it is becoming clear, going by the account of survivors, that the  
air raid was not a brief attack by several aircraft acting on mistaken  
intelligence, but a sustained bombardment in which three villages were  
pounded to pieces. Farouq Faizy, an Afghan radio reporter who was one  
of the first to reach the district of Bala Baluk, says villagers told  
him that bombs suddenly, "began to fall at 8pm on Monday and went on  
until 10pm though some believe there were still bombs falling later".  
A prolonged bombing attack would explain why there are so many dead,  
but only 14 wounded received at Farah City hospital.

The attack was on three villages ? Gerani, Gangabad and Koujaha ? just  
off the main road. It is a poppy growing area of poor farmers and  
there were several fields of poppies near the villages. The Taliban  
are traditionally strong here and the police and soldiers waiting  
around the villages were said by eyewitnesses to be frightened. This  
would explain why Afghan army commanders might have been eager to call  
for US airstrikes, though they would have needed the agreement of  
American special operations officers.

Provincial officials, including the governor Rohul Amin, say that in  
the lead-up to the bombing there was heavy fighting between hundreds  
of Taliban and the Afghan Army and police. Going by Mr Faizy's account  
there had been, "a fight some seven or eight kilometres from the three  
villages in which two Afghan Army and a US Humvee were destroyed. A  
third Afghan Army vehicle was captured." Three police were killed and  
four wounded, as was one American and one Afghan army soldier. This  
was hardly a major military engagement, but the pro-government forces  
seem to have got the worst of it and their burned out vehicles still  
stand in the road.

The loss of life in Afghanistan from air strikes is often worse than  
in Iraq where houses are more modern and usually have basements. In  
the villages in Farah, people were living in compounds with mud brick  
walls which crumbled easily. Pictures of the aftermath of the attack  
show people standing beside the remains of a relative which often only  
looks like a muddy pile of torn meat. One elderly white bearded man,  
said by neighbours to have lost 30 members of his family, squats  
despairingly beside a body that has been torn into shreds. Among the  
few wounded to stay alive is a child with a badly burned face.

One reason why US bombing inflicts such heavy civilian casualties in  
Afghanistan and Iraq is that both are very poor countries in which  
houses are very crowded. When the US used air strikes and heavy  
artillery with little restraint in the siege of Fallujah in 2004 it  
caused serious loss of life. Wedding parties in both countries have  
often been mistaken for "terrorist" gatherings and bombed.

In Afghanistan opinion polls show that support for the Taliban and for  
armed attacks on foreign forces rises sharply after events like the  
bombing in Farah. President Hamid Karzai frequently criticises the US  
military for wantonly inflicting civilian casualties, attacks which  
his opponents say is an opportunistic effort to burnish his  
nationalist credentials.

The Taliban increasingly use tactics developed by insurgents in Iraq,  
notably suicide bombing on a mass scale and IEDs, or mines in the road  
detonated by a control wires or electronically. In Helmand province  
yesterday a suicide bomber killed 12 civilians in an attack on a  
foreign military convoy near the bazaar of the town of Gereshk. No  
foreign troops were killed by the explosion, though two were wounded.



From fentona at shaw.ca  Sat May  9 09:52:14 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 08:52:14 -0700
Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Pentagon=92s_Black_Budget_Grows_to_More_Th?=
 =?windows-1252?q?an_=2450_Billion?=
Message-ID: <83AB40CF-1E12-432E-999F-B3C7305977CE@shaw.ca>

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pentagons-black-budget-grows-to-more-than-50-billion/

Pentagon?s Black Budget Grows to More Than $50 Billion (Updated)

     * By Noah Shachtman
     * May 7, 2009  |

top-secret-movie-posterThe Pentagon wants to spend just over $50  
billion on classified programs next year, newly-released Defense  
Department budget documents reveal. ?That?s the largest-ever sum,?  
according to Aviation Week?s Bill Sweetman, a longtime black-budget  
seer ? a three percent increase over last year?s total.

It makes the Pentagon?s secret operations, including the intelligence  
budgets nested inside, ?roughly equal in magnitude to the entire  
defense budgets of the UK, France or Japan,? Sweetman adds. All in  
all, about seven and a half percent of the Defense Department?s total  
spending is now classified.

Black-world weapons-buying ?remains dominated by the single line  
item,? according to Sweetman. (You can find it under the Air Force?s  
?other procurement? section, on page F-21 here.) ?This year?s number  
stands just above $16 billion. In inflation-adjusted terms, that?s 240  
per cent more than it was ten years ago.?

Many of the secret budgets still remain clandestine, however. In the  
research budget, the line item for a ?Special Program?of the super- 
secret National Security Agency is a string of zeros. Same goes for an  
NSA ?Cyber Security Initiative? kitty. And don?t even ask about NSA?s  
?Intelligence Support to Information Operations? account. That?s a  
blank slate, too.

Some other fun facts, buried in the Pentagon?s just-released budget  
docs:

     * Money for ?Directed Energy Technology? ? real-life ray gun  
research ? jumps from $62.7 million last year to $105.7 million in 2010.
     * Cash for ?Prompt Global Strike Capability Development? ?  
weapons that can hit anywhere on the planet, in just a few hours ?  
jumps from $74.1 million to $166.9 million.
     * The high-flying Global Hawk drones get an an extra $486.8  
million.
     * The Office of the Secretary of Defense is pushing $75 million  
in new alt-fuel and alt-power projects ? from ?Landfill Gas Energy  
Capture? to a ?Tactical, Deployable Micro-Grid.?
     * The Maui Space Surveillance System gets a major downgrade, from  
$36.3 million to a mere $5.8 million. Aloha, space-watchers!

UPDATE:CQ?s Tim Starks reports that ?the budget would also allocate an  
unspecified amount to the new ?Imagery Satellite Way Ahead? program, a  
joint effort between the Office of the Director of National  
Intelligence and the Department of Defense designed to revamp the  
nation?s constellation of spy satellites.?

     The mostly classified plan would include new, redesigned ?electro- 
optical? satellites, which collect data from across the  
electromagnetic spectrum, as well as the expanded use of commercial  
satellite imagery. Although the cost is secret, most estimates place  
it in the multibillion-dollar range.

[Image: OBB]



From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  9 12:31:22 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 11:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Fascism, the next generation
Message-ID: <1665268000.281051241893882953.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090509.wfocus09/BNStory/International/home?cid=al_gam_mostemail 

Globe and Mail May 9, 2009 

Fascism, the next generation 

A young member of the right-wing Jobbik Hungarian Guard is covered by her mother's coat during an inauguration ceremony in Budapest's Heroes Square October 25, 2008. (Reuters) 

Anna Porter 

TAT?RSZENTGY?RGY, HUNGARY ? With its cream-coloured houses, red tile roofs, white church and spring flowers, Tat?rszentgy?rgy has all the trappings of a bucolic village. 

But at the far end of the cemetery, on the outskirts of town, there is a freshly dug grave covered with plastic flowers and a few wilting lilies. Beneath a large wreath of white silk roses, a simple marker reads: ?Csorba Robert 1981-2009; Csorba Robert Jr. 2004-2009: Rest in Peace.? 

Father and son lie together ? just as they died together. 

On the evening of Feb. 23, the community of 1,200 about 50 kilometres south of Budapest was the scene of a deadly attack on members of Hungary's Roma minority. 

It wasn't the first ? there have been at least 18 assaults with seven lives lost in the past year ? and others have died since. But the killing of Robert Csorba and his five-year-old son have made the village a symbol of evil in a country that, in the same year little ?Robika? was born, joined the European Union with high hopes for a bright, post-communist future. 

I have come to Tat?rszentgy?rgy because I am writing a book about what Europe has become in the 20 years since the Iron Curtain parted and members of the former Soviet bloc welcomed democracy. The new freedom, I have found, has brought something that its proponents never anticipated: public demonstrations of spite, racism and intolerance. 

The dark forces of hatred have been embraced by people so unhappy with what that future has brought, they've gone looking for someone to blame. 

Now, the world is awakening: This week, Hungary called in the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation to help track down the killers, and raised the reward for their capture to more than $250,000. 

The great Polish intellectual Adam Michnik says that ?Central Europe came as a messenger not only of freedom and tolerance, but also of hatred and intolerance. It is here that the last two world wars began.? 

It is also here that the Holocaust was perpetrated. 

Researching Kasztner's Train, my 2007 book on the wartime fate of Hungary's Jewish community, was a horrific reminder of how easily nations can slip into carnage. But the war ended in 1945. Who would have thought that less than 65 years later, the ghosts of that demonic past would come crawling out of their graves? 

BULLETS MEANT FOR A CHILD 

The Csorbas lived at the end of a row of Roma homes on an unpaved road leading to a small forest and patches of cultivated land. The house is painted a bright marigold, and near the door that was blown open when a Molotov cocktail exploded, you can still see brush strokes amid bullet holes in the wall at just the right height for a five-year-old. Charred timbers are all that remain of the roof and the windows are gaping holes, while the floor inside is covered in glass, blackened bits of furniture, torn blankets and, face down in one corner, a doll. 

The men came shortly after midnight, Robert Csorba's father, Csaba, tells me. He says his granddaughter, Bianka, remembers seeing something fly through the window and then flashes of light and shattering glass. After that, the smoke and flames made it hard to see. Robert must have grabbed his son, run out the door, and been cut down by blasts from a shotgun fired at close range. 

Bianka, 6, was hit, and lost two fingers, but survived, as did her mother and the baby. ?She is a strong little girl,? says Erzsebet, her grandmother. 

Erzsebet and Csaba live a few metres away. Wakened by the gunshots, they ran out to find Robert's house in flames, his wife and daughter screaming. Mr. Csorba leads me to the place where his son and grandson fell, just a few steps from the door. ?He was still breathing when I found him. But he was terribly quiet. I felt the bullet wounds with my fingers. He tried to speak, but the bullets had pierced his lungs.? 

The police didn't arrive for about half an hour. Even then, Mr. Csorba says, they ?stopped up the road, and the men came strolling down here, as if nothing much had happened. 

?The ambulance came about half an hour after. I kept telling them to get my boy to the hospital fast. I know about lead pellets. My son could have survived, but none of them believed us.? 

The medics tried to revive the boy, but barely glanced at his father, so Mr. Csorba, an army veteran, cleaned the wounds himself. ?I don't know much about medicine, but lead will kill you if not removed fast.? He says the authorities wouldn't agree that arson was to blame. The police and medics insisted the fireplace had exploded, while firefighters said they suspected an electrical fire. No one examined the bullet holes or paid any attention when Mr. Csorba told them he had heard gunfire. As they moved around in the house, one man stepped on the remnants of a bottle that could have held the gas. 

The lines on his face make him look much older, but Mr. Csorba is only 45 and his tearful wife a year younger. Roma, who make up 6 per cent of the 10 million Hungarians, start families very early. 

?It's one of our problems,? says Aladar Horvath, a leader of the Roma Civic Rights Movement, who reached the scene from Budapest soon after the police left. ?Too many children, too young, and almost impossible to find work. The rules don't work when it comes to Gypsies. The job is already filled when you show up and they see you're one of us. And the house is no longer available. They don't want us as neighbours.? 

Mr. Horvath has accompanied me back to Tat?rszentgy?rgy. A self-professed ?troublemaker,? who refuses to accept that Roma do not deserve a better life, he made sure the crime investigation headquarters in Budapest sent a unit to the village. But by then, few traces of heavy boots remained on the ground, and there was no one to back up little Bianka's claim she had seen a big black car nearby. 

Mr. Horvath says that in the last census only a third of Hungary's 600,000 Roma admitted to being Roma. The nervousness is understandable ? even though as many as 1.5 million European Roma may have fallen victim to Hitler's ?final solution,? today I see them being singled out for criticism in national newspapers, and hear about cig?nyb?n?z?s (a relatively new word in Hungarian that means ?Gypsy crime?) as callers to radio shows complain of Roma taking over their neighbourhoods. 

JUST STEP ON THE GAS 

Just as the Nazis came to power amid the Great Depression, hard times are being blamed for the current resurgence of the far right. Some observers suspect that in Hungary the seed was sown on Oct. 15, 2006, when 44-year-old teacher Lajos Szogi was beaten to death in front of his two daughters after his car bumped an 11-year-old Roma girl. No one was charged, but news outlets assumed the killers were Roma and launched coverage so sensational that one journalist advised anyone unlucky enough to hit a Roma child just to step on the gas. 

Also in 2006, Hungary's Socialist government decided to replace its delegate to a United Nations agency that fights discrimination against women. 

The incumbent was Krisztina Morvai, a graduate in law from Budapest's renowned E?tv?s Lor?nd University who'd gone on to study at the University of London and been a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Wisconsin before joining the European Human Rights Committee in Strasbourg. 

But upon learning that, after four years, her time in New York was up, the human-rights champion with a Jewish husband fired off a surprising letter in which she accused the government of trading her for a ?Zionist? because she was pro-Palestinian. 

Today, the youthful-looking blonde with a soft voice, a gentle smile and an alluring manner has her sights on a bigger prize. All signs indicate that two weeks before her 46th birthday on June 22, she will be elected to the EU's ruling body carrying the standard of a party so far to the right that critics call it ?neo-Nazi.? 

Prof. Morvai (she teaches law at her alma mater) is the leading candidate in the June 7 European Parliament elections for Jobbik, a party whose full name in Hungarian means ?more to the right? and whose policies certainly fit the bill. 

To see this rising political star in action, I attend a Jobbik rally in Budapest and watch as she makes her way to the podium, greeted by the crowd as though she is a celebrity. Many of her fans have been handed a flyer asking if they mind being ?beggars? in their own country ? Jobbik has struck a chord with its attacks on foreign companies that enjoy tax-exempt status in Hungary. 

But Prof. Morvai also has other targets in mind. She opens by distinguishing between ?our kind? and ?their kind,? making it very clear that, as well as liberals, socialists and people employed by big corporations, the latter includes Jews and Roma. ?Will you stand by,? the flyer asks, ?while government throws more aid at Gypsy criminals?? 

She tells the crowd that it's time for Hungarians to ?take back? what is theirs, and party vice-president Zoltan Balczo complains that Jews have ?colonized? the country and draws a cheer by cracking a joke about Gypsies. 

As they speak, enormous flags from ancient Hungary adorn the walls and the gathering is ringed by members of Magyar Garda, or Hungarian Guard, the uniformed paramilitary that Jobbik created in 2007. Now said to number in the thousands and to play a leading role in the party, the Garda has thought better of its early affection for black shirts, yet carries a red and white banner identified with Hungary's wartime Nazi regime. 

Glaring at anyone who moves, the Garda are clad in black leather and have, in some cases, arrived by motorcycle. Today, everything is peaceful, but they have sparked controversy in the past by holding marches in most of the small towns where Roma have been killed, inspiring supporters to come out and applaud. In Budapest, they have paraded in front of the parliament building, tangled with riot police and once brought along a white horse in honour of Miklos Horthy, the leader of Hungary when its Jews were sent to Auschwitz. 

The Garda has grown in tandem with the rising violence against the Roma. As well as the seven fatalities since last November, the barrage of Molotov cocktails has seen a two-year-old nearly burned to death. The killers' usual modus operandi is to throw the flaming bottle of gasoline into a house on the outskirts of a village and then shoot the occupants as they flee. But two weeks ago, Jeno Koka, a worker at a pharmaceutical factory northeast of Budapest, was gunned down as he left home for the night shift. A few days later, five Roma children were beaten badly by masked men as they waited for a bus. 

Jozsef Bencze, the chief of Hungary's national police, says he thinks there are only four or five bombers, and they've had military training. But there appear to be no suspects and, despite the big reward and FBI assistance announced this week, Roma leaders are not optimistic. ?I used to believe in a political solution,? Aladar Horvath tells me. ?I no longer do. There are too many lies, too much play-acting. Pretending that you care does not add up to caring. The system itself is compromised.? 

As a result, the Roma have formed self-defence units (not especially effective, considering that an activist in Tat?rszentgy?rgy was burned out while she was off on patrol) and begun to mount public demonstrations. A mass rally is planned for next Saturday in front of Hungary's parliament, as well as in 10 Czech cities. 

JOBBIK COMES TO CANADA 

All this may seem far away to Canadians, but distance is no guarantee of immunity. Recent reports have shown a spike in Roma refugee claimants ? 570 Czechs, mostly Roma, in January and February alone. And just 18 months ago, Krisztina Morvai came to call, making public appearances at Carleton University in Ottawa and Hungarian House in Toronto. The latter event drew a crowd of 250, and her call to reclaim territory lost after the First World War seemed to resonate with older people, still upset that the Treaty of Versailles deprived Hungary of more than half its land and people. 

There was a lone protester at the Toronto event ? a man who arrived with a message of dissent written on his umbrella ? as soon as he opened it, he was unceremoniously ejected from the meeting. 

At the time, Prof. Morvai and her party were little more than a blip on the political radar. Today it's assumed that she will soon have a place on the European stage. 

As I say goodbye in Tat?rszentgy?rgy, Erzsebet Csorba shows me a photo of her son and grandson. In the wooden casket that is their final resting place, Robert has his arms around Robika as though still trying to protect him. 

Despite all the animosity, past and present, Erzsebet is mystified that things are suddenly being taken to such extremes. ?I don't understand it,? she says. ?Why they killed my beautiful boys.? 

Toronto writer Anna Porter is the author, most recently, of the award-winning Kasztner's Train. Her book on democracy in Central Europe will be published next year. 

------------- 

ROMA UNWELCOME IN CANADA TOO 

Saddled with an ancient reputation for everything from petty larceny to kidnapping, the Roma have faced persecution ever since their ancestors arrived from India in the 14th century. 

Strange as it may seem, their lot in Eastern Europe improved under communism, when a drop in official discrimination led to jobs at big state-run industries. 

But with the fall of the Berlin Wall, most such enterprises passed into private hands and were subjected to the rigours of capitalism. Roma were often among the first to lose their jobs, rekindling traditional animosities. 

Not that the problem is limited to the east. As the Roma resume migrating in search of peace and better prospects, Western nations are trying to keep them out. Italy has been especially inhospitable, confining them to camps and requiring they be fingerprinted. 

Now, Canada's mettle is being tested. While in Prague this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper came under fire for "soft" regulations that allow hundreds of Roma to seek asylum here. Last year, only Mexico, Haiti and Colombia produced more refugee claimants than the Czech Republic, where the Roma, like their Hungarian counterparts, face increasing hostility. 

They aren't especially welcome here. Mr. Harper described the situation as "a real concern" and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is expected in Prague in July to try to halt the flow. 

Staff 



From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  9 12:53:27 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 11:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Pepe Escobar on how the rebranded "war on terror" is being
 sold as a PAKISTANI war
In-Reply-To: <35749930.213571241826299561.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1018050517.283111241895207106.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>






	
	
	donate to The Real News		logo

	
	
News stories 	May 8, 2009 
	
	
	
	
	
More from The Real News 
Watch more news stories on the economy, US politics and the climate change crisis from around the world view 


	
	
		Killing them softly with air strikes 
Pepe Escobar on how the rebranded "war on terror" is being sold as a PAKISTANI war view 

	
		Panic grips Pakistan's Buner as fighting intensifies 
Al Jazeera: More than 300,000 people have fled the area as troops battle Taliban fighters view 

	
		US strike in Afghanistan kills dozens 
Afghan villagers yesterday mourned relatives buried in mass graves after US-led airstrikes view 

	
		White people in America 
Skewer-TheDailyShow: White people in America, The Children view 

	
		Single-payer advocates protest Senate hearing 
Chair of Finance Committee takes single-payer plan off the table and calls for "more police" view 
	
	
	The Promise '09 
To reach an audience in the millions 
	
	view Make www.therealnews.com your homepage and see the latest stories as soon as they're posted. 

Help promote The Real News Network on YouTube by making our videos your favourites, rate them and add comments. Promoting our YouTube channel builds our community and helps spread the word about our development. 

If you use the Miro media player subscribe to the TRNN channel 

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a web page instead. 
	You received this message because you or someone using this email address requested it via a form at therealnews.com or via some other communication with The Real News Network. If you do not want to receive further updates from us, unsubscribe here . 
	

From suzannedk at gmail.com  Sat May  9 13:17:40 2009
From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 21:17:40 +0200
Subject: [R-G]
	=?windows-1252?q?Pentagon=92s_Black_Budget_Grows_to_More_Th?=
	=?windows-1252?q?an_=2450_Billion?=
In-Reply-To: <83AB40CF-1E12-432E-999F-B3C7305977CE@shaw.ca>
References: <83AB40CF-1E12-432E-999F-B3C7305977CE@shaw.ca>
Message-ID: <dce6f8b40905091217v7e46d16bt8119c8b9d2b5a862@mail.gmail.com>

In Tim Shorrock's book "Spies for Hire" he states that the intelligence
services total budget is approximately 70 billion a year.  that figure make
Noah's 50 billion look like like an understatement.

Suzanne                      suzannedk at gmail..com

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Anthony Fenton <fentona at shaw.ca> wrote:

>
> http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pentagons-black-budget-grows-to-more-than-50-billion/
>
> Pentagon?s Black Budget Grows to More Than $50 Billion (Updated)
>
>     * By Noah Shachtman
>     * May 7, 2009  |
>
> top-secret-movie-posterThe Pentagon wants to spend just over $50
> billion on classified programs next year, newly-released Defense
> Department budget documents reveal. ?That?s the largest-ever sum,?
> according to Aviation Week?s Bill Sweetman, a longtime black-budget
> seer ? a three percent increase over last year?s total.
>
> It makes the Pentagon?s secret operations, including the intelligence
> budgets nested inside, ?roughly equal in magnitude to the entire
> defense budgets of the UK, France or Japan,? Sweetman adds. All in
> all, about seven and a half percent of the Defense Department?s total
> spending is now classified.
>
> Black-world weapons-buying ?remains dominated by the single line
> item,? according to Sweetman. (You can find it under the Air Force?s
> ?other procurement? section, on page F-21 here.) ?This year?s number
> stands just above $16 billion. In inflation-adjusted terms, that?s 240
> per cent more than it was ten years ago.?
>
> Many of the secret budgets still remain clandestine, however. In the
> research budget, the line item for a ?Special Program?of the super-
> secret National Security Agency is a string of zeros. Same goes for an
> NSA ?Cyber Security Initiative? kitty. And don?t even ask about NSA?s
> ?Intelligence Support to Information Operations? account. That?s a
> blank slate, too.
>
> Some other fun facts, buried in the Pentagon?s just-released budget
> docs:
>
>     * Money for ?Directed Energy Technology? ? real-life ray gun
> research ? jumps from $62.7 million last year to $105.7 million in 2010.
>     * Cash for ?Prompt Global Strike Capability Development? ?
> weapons that can hit anywhere on the planet, in just a few hours ?
> jumps from $74.1 million to $166.9 million.
>     * The high-flying Global Hawk drones get an an extra $486.8
> million.
>     * The Office of the Secretary of Defense is pushing $75 million
> in new alt-fuel and alt-power projects ? from ?Landfill Gas Energy
> Capture? to a ?Tactical, Deployable Micro-Grid.?
>     * The Maui Space Surveillance System gets a major downgrade, from
> $36.3 million to a mere $5.8 million. Aloha, space-watchers!
>
> UPDATE:CQ?s Tim Starks reports that ?the budget would also allocate an
> unspecified amount to the new ?Imagery Satellite Way Ahead? program, a
> joint effort between the Office of the Director of National
> Intelligence and the Department of Defense designed to revamp the
> nation?s constellation of spy satellites.?
>
>     The mostly classified plan would include new, redesigned ?electro-
> optical? satellites, which collect data from across the
> electromagnetic spectrum, as well as the expanded use of commercial
> satellite imagery. Although the cost is secret, most estimates place
> it in the multibillion-dollar range.
>
> [Image: OBB]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  9 13:12:38 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 12:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Study Surprisingly Finds 47% of Israeli-Jews Believe that the
 1948 Palestinian Refugees were Expelled by Israel
Message-ID: <912243093.284881241896358111.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

http://www.tc.edu/news/article.htm?id=6811 

Teachers College, Columbia University 4/6/2009 

Study Surprisingly Finds 47% of Israeli-Jews Believe that the 1948 Palestinian Refugees were Expelled by Israel 

First Study of its Kind Finds the Collective Memory of Israeli-Jews is Critical of Israel's Role in the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian Conflict 

NEW YORK, NY April 6, 2009 ? A new public opinion survey finds surprising attitudes on the part of Israeli Jews regarding Israel?s ongoing conflict with Arabs and Palestinians. With regard to the main historical event of the conflict -- the 1948 Palestinian exodus -- 39% of Israeli Jews surveyed believe expulsion by Israel was one of the factors leading to that exodus, in addition to Palestinian fear and the call of Arabs/Palestinian leaders to leave. An additional 8% believe the refugees were primarily expelled, adding up for a total of 47% that believe expulsion took place. In contrast, only 41% accept the Zionist narrative that rejects even partial expulsion and claims Palestinians left due to their own accord. 

In addition, 46% believe that Israel and the Arab/Palestinian people have been equally responsible for the outbreak and continuation of the conflict. In contrast, only 43% hold the Zionist narrative primarily blaming the Arab/Palestinian people, and 4% blame the Jews. 

?Collective memory? is a group?s viewpoint of history. In general, the study found Israeli Jews? collective memory to be significantly critical of Israel?s role in the conflict. They have somewhat rejected the ?Zionist narrative? of the conflict which holds the Arabs/Palestinians primarily responsible for the conflict. 

Preliminary results from the study were released in January and have been reported in the media in five languages in countries around the world. The authors have continued to analyze the data and post new findings (view findings at http://www.tc.edu/news/article.htm?id=6812). 

Rafi Nets-Zehngut, an Israeli, a Fellow at the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution at Teachers College, Columbia University, and Daniel Bar-Tal, a faculty member at the School of Education at Tel Aviv University, conducted the study in summer 2008. 

?Typically, societies involved in intractable conflicts like the Israeli-Arab/Palestinian conflict adopt a collective memory of the conflict that is biased to a large degree and self-serving, as is part of the Zionist narrative,? says Nets-Zehngut. ?If such study had been conducted between the 1950s and the 1970s, surely a much higher percentage of Israeli Jews would have held the Zionist narrative. The fact that we found this memory of the conflict to be somewhat critical (even though the conflict is still going on) is encouraging. It suggests that the Israeli-Jewish society has changed to become more critical, open and self-reflective, allowing it to adopt less biased narratives.? 

However, Daniel Bar-Tal believes that the Israeli-Jewish society still has a significant way to go in changing its collective memory to become less biased and self serving. Many Israeli Jews still believe a Zionist narrative of many issues in the history of the conflict ? a simplistic memory of the conflict which portrays Israel in a positive light and the Arabs/Palestinians in a negative one. ?Holding such a Zionist narrative serves as an obstacle to peace since it promotes negative emotions, mistrust, de-legitimization and negative stereotypes of Arabs and Palestinians,? Bar-Tal said. 

For example, regarding a more recent event ? the failure of the Summer 2000 peace negotiations between then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat ? Israeli Jews took a harder line. Fifty six percent believe that Arafat declined a very generous peace offer by Barak because he did not want peace with Israel, versus only 25% who believe both parties were responsible for the failure and 3% who believed that Barak was responsible. Likewise, 60% replied that in the 1947 United Nations' partition plan of the Land of Israel/Palestine the Palestinians received an equal or larger part of the territory, relative to their percentage of its population. However, the facts are that the partition plan, which was rejected by the Palestinians, offered them (about 2/3 of the total population then) a smaller part of the territory (only 44%). 

The study found older people, and the more religious ones to be more likely to believe the Zionist narrative. Further more, those supporting the Zionist narrative were significantly less likely to support peace agreements with the Palestinians and Syria ? pointing to the important role of collective memory in conflicts. In addition, a strong connection was found between the collective memory of "past Jewish persecution" (regarding anti-Semitism and the Holocaust) and the diagnosed collective memory of the conflict. People holding a significant memory of Jewish persecution are much more likely to adopt a Zionist narrative. This memory of persecution is discussed as one of the determinants of Israel's conduct along the conflict ? and this study provides support for its impact. 

The study is funded by a grant awarded by the IRPA (International Peace Research Association) Foundation to Nets-Zehngut, who came up with the idea to research this topic. It was conducted among a representative sample of 500 Israeli Jews through Dialog, a well-established Israeli center for public opinion research. The questions in the survey examined the collective memory regarding 25 major issues associated with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, ranging from the late 19th century to the beginning of the 21at centaury. The aim is to publish the findings in a book. This study is related to further research by Nets-Zehngut, which examined the way seven primary Israeli social and state institutions (e.g., the media and the Israeli army) presented the causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus during the years of 1949-2004. These institutions had major impact on the Israeli-Jewish collective memory discussed above. 

Teachers College is the largest graduate school of education in the nation. Teachers College is affiliated with Columbia University, but it is legally and financially independent. The editors of U.S. News and World Report have perennially ranked Teachers College among the nation?s leading graduate schools of education. 

The College?s ICCCR (International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution) is committed to developing knowledge and practice to promote constructive conflict resolution, effective cooperation, and social justice. 

For more information, please visit the college?s Web site at www.tc.columbia.edu. Learn about ICCCR at www.tc.columbia.edu/icccr. 


From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  9 13:23:36 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 12:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] The paradox of Israel's pursuit of might
In-Reply-To: <660661907.285671241896986830.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1503304921.285691241897016314.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/09/israel-middle-east-max-hastings 

The Guardian May 9, 2009 


The paradox of Israel's pursuit of might 


Forty years ago, I was enraptured by Israel's courageous sense of mission. For me today, as for many, that idealism has palled 



        ? Max Hastings 


I first visited Israel in 1969. It was a time when much of the western world was still passionately enthused about the country's triumph in the 1967 six-day war. President Nasser had for years promised to sweep the Israelis into the sea. Instead, the tiny Jewish state, less than 20 years old, had engaged the armies of three Arab nations, and crushingly defeated them all. The Israelis successively smashed through Nasser's divisions on the western front, scaled and seized the Golan Heights, and snatched east Jerusalem and the West Bank in the face of Hussein's highly capable Jordanian army. Sinai was left strewn with the boots of fleeing Egyptians. The Israeli victory was an awesome display of command boldness, operational competence and human endeavour. 




There was a euphoria in Israel in those days, which many visitors shared. We watched Jews from all over the world gathering to pray at the Wailing Wall for the first time in almost 2,000 years; Israelis of all ages revelling in the sensation of being able to work the kibbutzim of the north free from Syrian shells. From inhabiting one of the most claustrophobic places in the world, suddenly they found themselves free to roam miles across Sinai on a weekend. The soldiers of the Israeli army, careerists, conscripts and reservists alike, walked 10ft tall ? the image of an exulting soldier made it on to the cover of Life magazine. They had shown themselves one of the greatest fighting forces of history, expunging almost at a stroke the memory of Jewish impotence in the face of centuries of persecution, of six million being herded helpless into cattle trucks for the death camps. 




In the years that followed, I gazed across the Suez Canal during the artillery bombardments of the 1970 war of attrition with Egypt. I was a correspondent there in October 1973, during the Yom Kippur war. It was an extraordinarily moving spectacle, to behold the people of Israel rallying to meet what they perceived as a threat to their national survival. One morning I stood on the Golan Heights and watched Israeli tanks duelling with the Syrians, amid pillars of smoke and flame. A few nights later I bivouacked in the Sinai passes, talking for hours under the stars to Israeli reservists about their hopes and fears. With a colleague from the Financial Times, having thinly disguised ourselves as Israeli soldiers, we made an illicit night crossing of the Suez canal, to report Ariel Sharon's stunning encirclement operation which trapped the Egyptian army on the east bank. In those days I loved those people, and boundlessly admired their achievement. I wrote in one of my less temperate dispatches, expressing faith in Israel as a bastion of western civilization in the Middle East: "These last three weeks, I am proud to have shared the Israelis' camp fires in Sinai. They are a very great people who three weeks ago came closer to destruction than blind Europe seems willing to recognise." 




After I came home from the Yom Kippur war, I received a note from the renowned journalist, James Cameron . Jimmy, a longstanding Zionist, wrote warmly about my reporting. He said: "It is impossible to work in combat with the Israeli army without this response, if you have any sense of history and drama." But then he added: "I have sometimes wondered over the past few years whether this irresistible military mesmerism hasn't clouded for us some of the political falsities. I just don't know. I think I was marginally led up the garden in 1967." 




Jimmy's tentative note roused the first stirrings in my mind of ideas which evolved only slowly in the years which followed. Remember, I was still in my 20s. I had always loved soldiers. I was enthused by the romance of the battlefield. I possessed an excessive respect for military prowess. 

Ironically, it was the experience of spending much more time with the Israeli army in the mid-1970s, in the course of researching a book, which caused me to begin to perceive the importance of what Cameron said. I glimpsed a darker side of Israel. I learned a lot about the ruthlessness of Israeli anti-terrorist operations. I spent many hours talking to thoughtful Israelis, who voiced their fears about the perils, the threatened corruption of their own society, which they perceived in the 1967 conquests. I also became dismayed by the naked imperialism displayed by Israel's rightwing zealots. One night at a dinner party in Jerusalem in 1977, I heard a young Israeli talking about the Arabs in terms which chilled my blood. "In the next war," he said, "we've got to get the Palestinians out of the West Bank for good." 




To me, in my naivete, Israel's struggle had hitherto seemed that of a brilliant little people, who had suffered the most ghastly experience of the 20th century, struggling for survival amid a hostile Middle East still bent upon their destruction. Now, suddenly, I found myself meeting Israelis committed to the creation of a greater Israel embracing the West Bank, who were utterly heedless of the fate of its inhabitants. The Palestinians were perceived as losers, a mere incidental impediment to the fulfilment of Israel's historic territorial destiny. By a curious quirk, that young Israeli whom I heard enthuse about emptying the West Bank of Arabs was Binyamin Netanyahu, today his country's prime minister. 




Listening to Israelis such as himself speaking of the Palestinians 30 years ago, I began to understand what a more thoughtful young man than myself might have seen from the outset: the huge danger implicit in rooting a society's polity in its military prowess and powers of conquest. 

When I said something of the kind to a politician of the Israeli right, he responded contemptuously: "You are a typical European. You loved Israel when it was a victim. Now you turn your face from us, because we have become too strong for your taste. We are no longer Jews on our knees, begging for pity." I had lunch one day in Jerusalem in 1979 with that brilliant Israeli novelist and peacenik Amoz Oz, who said something of the same kind, but from a different perspective: "People like you," he said to me, "are going to become very disappointed in Israel in the years ahead. You want it to behave like a European society. Instead, it is becoming a Middle Eastern society. I hope that it will not behave worse than other Middle Eastern societies. But you should not delude yourself that it is likely to behave much better." This seemed a profound observation. The generation of Israelis whom I met, and embraced, in the late 1960s and early 1970s were overwhelmingly formed by the diaspora from which they came. In the decades since, as they have died, their society has become dominated by those forged by different experiences ? either of whole lifetimes in the fevered hothouse of Israel, or by immigration from Russia, whence so many newcomers have arrived in recent times. 




Three years ago in Jerusalem, I met a very bright couple in their late 40s, who had emigrated from Russia a decade earlier. When we began to speak of the Palestinians, the husband said: "In my Russian village in 1920, there was trouble with guerrillas. Budenny's Cossacks came. They burnt the village from which the guerrillas came. The guerrillas returned twice more. The Cossacks burned two more villages. Then there was no more trouble with guerrillas." This was the culture from which these two highly-educated Israelis came. They asserted that the Budenny method was the only proper one by which to address Hamas, Hizbollah and Fatah. The policies of recent Israeli governments suggest that their view is widely shared. 




Between the late 1970s and 1990s, I was one of those foreigners who progressively fell out of love with Israel. I became persuaded that the arrogance of its faith in its own military power had induced its people to go far beyond a belief in defending their own society, to support a polity committed to perpetuating a great historic injustice against the Palestinians. Whatever government is in power in Jerusalem, there is a belief that peace with the Muslim world is unattainable; and thus that Israel must resign itself to a future dependent on its military capability rather than on negotiation. Associated with this is a belief that Jewish colonisation of the West Bank is a price the Palestinians must expect to pay for their refusal to make peace. 




The most extraordinary, indeed nihilistic aspect of Israeli military policy towards the Palestinians is that it has sought to punish terrorism by deliberately wrecking the economic base of Palestinian society. On its own terms, this has succeeded. Today the only thriving industries in Palestinian territory are human reproduction, terrorism, and the propagation of grievances. The conditions in Gaza are, to us, almost unimaginable. Few have work. Most live in breezeblock barracks. From one year to the next they see nothing that is beautiful except the sea and sky. Hatred for their oppressors has become the only functioning engine of their society. People who have nothing have nothing to lose. 

The policies of modern Israel have created the certainty of new generations of neighbours committed to its undoing. The Palestinians' only influence rests upon the power of such weapons as they can obtain, and upon their destructive capacity to broadcast terrorism. Who can be surprised that the people of Gaza elected a Hamas government? No sane society engages an overwhelmingly militarily superior nation on the battlefield on terms which suit the possessor of power. There is no purpose in wasting rhetoric upon moral denunciations of terrorism or even suicide-bombing, especially so when Jewish terrorism played a substantial part in Israel's birth. The Palestinians, together with the Muslim world and many in the west, no longer believe that Israel will grant justice to their people by negotiation; they believe that only force might eventually drive the Israelis to make concessions. 




Israel suffers the same frustration on a regional scale as that which afflicts the US globally: the difficulty ? some of us would argue impossibility ? of leveraging overwhelming military power to make its will prevail upon the Palestinians. The Palestinians are incapable of imposing their own will on the Israelis. But poverty, misery and impotence represent weapons of their own. These things cause Israel to be regarded by a large part of the world as an oppressor. 




I often think that Israelis focus too much upon their past, not enough upon their future. In the days when I visited Israel regularly, dinner-table arguments about the nation's strategy became familiar. There would often come a moment when somebody would blurt out ? justifying this or that aspect of Israeli policy: "But you've got to understand why we must do this ? because of the Holocaust." For more than 60 years, the Holocaust card has been played again and again. Today in Europe, there is not the slightest danger that the unspeakable fate of the Jews in the 1940s will be forgotten. But many people, especially the young, no longer perceive the crimes of Hitler, however monstrous, as providing remotely adequate justification for ? for instance ? Israeli military excesses in Gaza and the appropriation of scarce water resources at Palestinian expense. 




The Holocaust argument is sometimes displaced by a more facile jibe: that those who criticise Israel are guilty of anti-semitism. I have been accused of this myself. Yet I take comfort from the number of Jews who express repugnance about Israel's excesses. Avi Shlaim has dissected the failures and deceits of modern Israeli policy far more convincingly than I could. Rabbi David Goldberg has described Israel's failure to create a plausible successor vision to that of the old Zionists. "Zionism's most important achievement," he says, "was to provide a haven for the escapees and survivors of Hitler's Holocaust." Today, by contrast, few western Jews want to live there. The Zionist claim, that the country is the natural home of Jews, is rejected by a majority of the world's 14 million Jews. Goldberg argues that "Zionists claim that only in their own land can Jews lead a full, 'normal' life without fear of anti-semitism. But the irony of Israel's geopolitical situation is that the average Jew walking the streets of Los Angeles, Golders Green or even Moscow is physically safer than the average Israeli walking in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv." 




Many Jews no longer believe that the Zionist concept of entitlement, based first upon Biblical history, and latterly upon the Holocaust, suffices to justify perpetuating historic injustice upon the Arabs of Palestine. Benny Morris's excellent recent history of the events of 1948 shows that even a respected Israeli historian is today ready to acknowledge the scale of Israeli ethnic cleansing at the time, and of the deceits employed since to conceal what took place. The Israeli myth, that the Palestinians displaced in 1948 voluntarily abandoned their homes and property, is unsustainable in the face of such evidence. 




An Israeli listening to all this might interrupt angrily: "But why do you say so little about Hamas and Hizbollah, rocketing and suicide-bombing innocent Israeli civilians?" Yes, indeed ? such acts must always be condemned. But what of proportionality? In recent years, for every Israeli killed by terrorism, the Israeli security forces have killed 30, 40, 50 Palestinians ? most of them civilians. Israel exacts a blood price from the innocent of a severity which only tyrannies have historically thought appropriate. 




The entire thrust of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians in recent times has been to convey a crude message of overwhelming power, of Israel's ability to command, kill or destroy at will, without fear of sanctions. The Israeli army, which once exemplified much that was best about Israel, has today been corrupted by the long experience of suppressing insurgency. Morally, if not militarily, it is a shadow of the force which fought in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973. 




Israel has tested to destruction the utility of force in achieving its security. It is not enough to assert proudly that the Jewish state remains a democracy and haven of free speech in a region in which neither of these precious things is much in evidence, if that same democracy behaves in a fashion which denies mercy to the weak. For someone like me, who enjoyed a love affair with Israel 40 years ago, it is heart-breaking to see the story come to such a pass. It is because so many of us so much want to see Israel prosper in security and peace that we share a sense of tragedy that 61 years after the state was born amid such lofty ideals, it should be led by such a man as Bibi Netanyahu, committed to policies which can yield nothing honourable or lasting. Amoz Oz's 1979 prophesy to me has alas been fulfilled. It will be as great a misfortune for Israel as for the Palestinians, if its governments persist in their past delusions through the years ahead. 




Extracted from one of the Leonard Stein lectures delivered by Max Hastings. The full text of the speech can be downloaded here 




From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  9 13:32:52 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 12:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] WWII Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West | PBS
In-Reply-To: <853995521.1689181241736625721.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1925826661.286351241897572475.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



Fascinating documentary/dramatization of the events of WWII, based on 
newly-discovered documentary evidence: 

http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/ 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  9 13:37:54 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 12:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] "Historic suspicions"
In-Reply-To: <2106043791.855211241558628443.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1307478838.286851241897874856.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>


http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002943.html 

"Historic Suspicions" 

By John Caruso 

Here's Barack Obama speaking at the recent Summit of the Americas: 

I think it's important to recognize, given historic suspicions, 
that the United States' policy should not be interference in other 
countries, but that also means that we can't blame the United States for 
every problem that arises in the hemisphere. 

"Historic suspicions"? Yes, I imagine the International Court of 
Justice decision condemning the United States for its covert war against 
Nicaragua might have raised Nicaraguan suspicions of U.S. interference. 
And I guess the report of the UN's Historical Clarification Commission 
for Guatemala, documenting U.S. backing of the genocidal forces the U.S. 
had installed in the 1954 coup, might have made the Guatemalans 
suspicious as well. And I suppose watching U.S. planes, helicopter 
gunships, and warships destroying the El Chorrillo neighborhood of 
Panama during the 1989 invasion might also have given the Panamians some 
suspicions about U.S. interference. 

(For just one second, imagine the U.S. reaction if Germany's Angela 
Merkel gave a speech in Israel calling out the "historic suspicions" of 
Jews regarding past German "interference" in their affairs. In fairness 
to Obama, he did subsequently refer to "past errors, where those errors 
have been made," though he also said that discussion of those purported 
errors only rises to the level of "stale debates"; I'll leave the 
analogy to you.) 

By contrast, here's how Obama characterized Venezuela: 

You take a country like Venezuela -- I have great differences with 
Hugo Chavez on matters of economic policy and matters of foreign policy. 
His rhetoric directed at the United States has been inflammatory. There 
have been instances in which we've seen Venezuela interfere with some of 
the -- some of the countries that surround Venezuela in ways that I 
think are a source of concern. 

So centuries of extensively-documented U.S. intervention in Latin 
America can be dismissed as "historic suspicions"?but when we're talking 
about allegations pulled out of the collective ass of the U.S. 
government and leveled at an official enemy, there's no longer any need 
to qualify this "interference" (which any reasonable person should agree 
is rightly a "source of concern" to us, though Obama tried to keep this 
menacing threat in perspective by noting that "Venezuela is a country 
whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States"). 

And this was Obama's laugh line in response to Nicaraguan president 
Daniel Ortega's account of just a fraction of the vicious U.S. 
interference that produced these historic suspicions: 

"I am very grateful that President Ortega didn?t blame me for 
things that happened when I was three months old," Obama said in his 
only direct reference to the Nicaraguan leader. 

("I am very glad that Prime Minister Netanyahu didn't blame me for 
things that happened before I was born," Merkel said in her only direct 
reference to the Israeli leader.) The article also notes that Ortega 
"prompted a smirk from Obama when he referred to 'Yankee troops.'" Yes, 
what a hilarious anachronism! How amusing our victims can sometimes be! 
Like when the U.S.-backed Contras in Nicaragua would cut off men's 
testicles and leave them in their mouths? Hey, what's the matter, cat 
got your tongue? Oh, no, my mistake, you've got a mouthful of balls! 
Ha ha ha! Maybe Obama should have quipped, "I am very grateful that 
President Ortega didn't blame me for the U.S.-sponsored castrations and 
nun-raping that happened when I was still snorting cocaine in my youth." 
The laughs just never stop, do they? 

The smirk in question?which, as this small survey of his comments 
indicates, was only the most visible sign of Obama's paternalistic 
contempt for the banana republicans all around him and their petty 
obsession with the hundreds of thousands of their citizens killed by 
direct and indirect U.S. intervention over the years?looked something 
like this: 

[How these lesser beings disgust me!] 

All of which illustrates why Obama truly is a perfect representative for 
the U.S.A., since he is, without a doubt, one of the most unbelievably 
sanctimonious assholes I've ever heard. 

? John Caruso 


From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  9 13:37:01 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 12:37:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Dilip Hiro: The World Melts Down, China Grows
In-Reply-To: <658927362.1364901241652208077.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <2041112976.286791241897821388.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175067/dilip_hiro_the_newest_superpower 

Defying the Economic Odds 


The World Melts Down, China Grows 

By Dilip Hiro 
Tomgram: May 3, 2009 

In the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, a new 
world order is emerging -- with its center gravitating towards China. The 
statistics speak for themselves. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) 
predicts the world's gross domestic product (GDP) will shrink by an alarming 
1.3% this year. Yet, defying this global trend, China expects an annual 
economic growth rate of 6.5% to 8.5%. During the first quarter of 2009, the 
world's leading stock markets combined fell by 4.5%. In contrast, the 
Shanghai stock exchange index leapt by a whopping 38%. In March, car sales 
in China hit a record 1.1 million, surpassing the U.S. for the third month 
in a row. 

"Despite its severe impact on China's economy," said Chinese President Hu 
Jintao, "the current financial crisis also creates opportunity for the 
country." It can be argued that the present fiscal tsunami has, in fact, 
provided China with a chance to discard its pioneering reformer's leading 
guideline. "Hide your capability and bide your time" was the way former head 
of the Communist Party Deng Xiaoping once put it. No longer. 

Recognizing that its time has indeed come, Beijing has decided to play an 
active, interventionist role in the international financial arena. Backed by 
China's $2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, its industrialists have 
gone on a global buying spree in Africa and Latin America, as well as in 
neighboring Russia and Kazakhstan, to lock up future energy supplies for its 
ravenous economy. At home, the government is investing heavily not only in 
major infrastructure, but also in its much neglected social safety net, its 
health care system, and long overlooked rural development projects -- partly 
to bridge the increasingly wide gap between rural and urban living 
standards. 

Among those impressed by the strides Beijing has made since launching its 
$585 billion stimulus package in September is the Obama administration. It 
views the continuing rise in China's GDP as an effective corrective to the 
contracting GDP of almost every other major economy on the planet, except 
India's. So it has stopped arguing that, by undervaluing its currency -- the 
yuan -- with respect to the U.S. dollar, China is making its products too 
cheap, thus putting competing American goods at a disadvantage in foreign 
markets. 

The Secret of China's Success 

What is the secret of China's continuing success in the worst of times? As a 
start, its banking system -- state-controlled and flush with cash -- has 
opened its lending spigots to the full, while bank credit in the U.S. and 
the European Union (EU) still remains clogged up, if not choked off. 
Therefore, consumer spending and capital investment have risen sharply. 

Ever since China embarked on economic liberalization under the leadership of 
Deng Xiaoping in 1978, it has experienced economic ups and downs, including 
high inflation, deflation, recessions, uneven development of its regions, 
and a widening gap between the rich and the poor, as well as between the 
urban and the rural -- all characteristics associated with capitalism. 

While China's Communist leaders have responded with a familiar range of 
fiscal and monetary tools like adjusting interest rates and money supply, 
they have achieved the desired results faster than their capitalist 
counterparts. This is primarily because of the state-controlled banking 
system where, for instance, government-owned banks act as depositories for 
the compulsory savings of all employees. 

In addition, the "one couple, one child" law, enacted in 1980 to control 
China's exploding population, and a sharp decline in the state's 
social-support network for employees in state-owned enterprises, compelled 
parents to save. Add to this the earlier collapse of a rural cooperative 
health insurance program run by agricultural cooperatives and communes -- 
and many Chinese parents were left without a guarantee of being cared for in 
their declining years. This proved an additional incentive to set aside 
cash. The resulting rise in savings filled the coffers of the 
state-controlled banks. 

On top of that came China's admission to the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
in 2001, which led to a dramatic jump in its exports. An average economic 
expansion of 12% a year became the norm. 

When the credit crash in North America and the EU caused a powerful drop in 
China's exports, throwing millions of migrant workers in the industrialized 
coastal cities out of work, the authorities in Beijing focused on 
controlling the unemployment rate and maintaining the wages of the employed. 
They can now claim an urban unemployment rate of a mere 4.2% because many of 
the laid-off factory workers returned to their home villages. Those who did 
not were encouraged to enroll in government-sponsored retraining programs to 
acquire higher skills for better jobs in the future. 

Whereas most Western leaders could do nothing more than castigate bankers 
filling their pockets with bonuses as the balance sheets of their companies 
went crimson red, the Chinese government compelled top managers at major 
state-owned companies to cut their salaries by 15% to 40% before tinkering 
with the remuneration of their workforce. 

To ensure the continued rapid expansion of China's economy, which is 
directly related to the country's level of energy consumption, its leaders 
are inking many contracts for future supplies of oil and natural gas with 
foreign corporations. 

Energy Security 

Once China became an oil importer in 1993, it proved voracious. Its imports 
doubled every three years. This made it vulnerable to the vagaries of the 
international oil market and led the government to embed energy security in 
its foreign policy. It decided to actively participate in hydrocarbon 
prospecting and energy production projects abroad as well as in 
transnational pipeline construction. By now, the diversification of China's 
foreign sources of oil and gas (and their transportation) has become a 
cardinal principle of its foreign ministry. 

Conscious of the volatility of the Middle East, the leading source of oil 
exports, China has scoured Africa, Australia, and Latin America for 
petroleum and natural gas deposits, along with other minerals needed for 
industry and construction. In Africa, it focused on Angola, Congo, Nigeria, 
and Sudan. By 2004, China's oil imports from these nations were three-fifths 
the size of those from the Persian Gulf region. 

Nearer home, China began locking up energy deals with Russia and the Central 
Asian republic of Kazakhstan long before the current collapse in oil prices 
and the global credit crunch hit. Now, reeling from the double whammy of low 
energy prices and the credit squeeze, Russia's leading oil company and 
pipeline operator recently agreed to provide 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) 
in additional oil to China over 25 years for a $25 billion loan from the 
state-controlled China Development Bank. Likewise, a subsidiary of the China 
National Petroleum Corp agreed to lend Kazakhstan $10 billion as part of a 
joint venture to develop its hydrocarbon reserves. 

Similarly, Beijing continued to make inroads into the oil and gas regions of 
South America. As relations between Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and the Bush 
administration worsened, ties with China strengthened. In 2006, during his 
fourth visit to Beijing since becoming president in 1999, Chavez revealed 
that Venezuela's oil exports to China would treble in three years to 500,000 
bpd. Along with a joint refinery project to handle Venezuelan oil in China, 
the Chinese companies contracted to build a dozen oil-drilling platforms, 
supply 18 oil tankers, and collaborate with PdVSA, the state-owned 
Venezuelan oil company, to explore new oilfields in Venezuela. 

During Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping's tour of South America in January 
2009, the China Development Bank agreed to loan PdVSA $6 billion for oil to 
be supplied to China over the next 20 years. Since then China has agreed to 
double its development fund to $12 billion, in return for which Venezuela is 
to increase its oil shipments from the current 380,000 bpd to one million 
bpd. 

The China Development Bank recently decided to lend Brazil's petroleum 
company $10 billion to be repaid in oil supplies in the coming years. This 
figure is almost as large as the $11.2 billion that the Inter-American 
Development Bank lent to various South American countries last year. China 
had established its commercial presence in Brazil earlier by offering 
lucrative prices for iron ore and soybeans, the export commodities that have 
fuelled Brazil's recent economic growth. 

Similarly, Beijing broke new ground in the region by giving Buenos Aires 
access to more than $10 billion in yuans. Argentina was one of three major 
trading partners of China given this option, the others being Indonesia and 
South Korea. 

Will the Yuan Become an International Currency? 

Without much fanfare, China has started internationalizing the role of its 
currency. It is in the process of increasing the yuan's role in Hong Kong. 
Though part of China, Hong Kong has its own currency, the Hong Kong Dollar. 
Since Hong Kong is one of the world's freest financial markets, the 
projected arrangement will aid internationalization of the yuan. 

In retrospect, an important aspect of the G-20 Summit in London in early 
April centered around what China did. It aired its in-depth analysis of the 
current fiscal crisis publicly and offered a bold solution. 

In a striking on-line article, Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China's central 
bank, referred to the "increasingly frequent global financial crises" that 
have embroiled the world. The problem could be traced to August 1971, when 
President Richard Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard. Until then, 
$35 bought one ounce of gold stored in bars in Fort Knox, Kentucky -- the 
rate having been fixed in 1944 during World War II by the Allies at a 
conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. At that time, the greenback was 
also named as the globe's reserve currency. Since 1971, however, it has been 
backed by nothing more tangible than the credit of the United States. 

A glance at the past decade and a half shows that, between 1994 and 2000 
alone, there were economic crises in nine major countries which impacted the 
global economy: Mexico (1994), Thailand-Indonesia-Malaysia-South Korea-the 
Philippines (1997-98), Russia and Brazil (1998), and Argentina (2000). 

According to Zhou, financial crises resulted when the domestic needs of the 
country issuing a reserve currency clashed with international fiscal 
requirements. For instance, responding to the demoralization caused by the 
9/11 attacks, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board drastically reduced interest 
rates to an almost-record low of 1% to boost domestic consumption at a time 
when rapidly expanding economies outside the United States needed higher 
interest rates to cool their growth rates. 

"The [present] crisis called again for creative reform of the existing 
international reserve currency," Zhou wrote. "A super-sovereign reserve 
currency managed by a global institution could be used to both create and 
control global liquidity. This will significantly reduce the risks of a 
future crisis and enhance crisis management capability." 

He then alluded to the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) of the International 
Monetary Fund. The SDR is a virtual currency whose value is set by a 
currency "basket" made up of the U.S. dollar, the European euro, the British 
pound, and the Japanese yen, all of which qualify as reserve currencies, 
with the greenback being the leader. Ever since the SDR was devised in 1969, 
the IMF has maintained its accounts in that currency. 

Zhou noted that the SDR has not yet been allowed to play its full role. If 
its role was enhanced, he argued, it might someday become the global reserve 
currency. 

Zhou's idea received a positive response from the Kremlin, which suggested 
adding gold to the IMF's currency basket as a stabilizing element. Its own 
currency, the ruble, is already pegged to a basket that is 55% the euro and 
45% the dollar. Within a decade of its launch, the euro has become the 
second most held reserve currency in the world, garnering nearly 30% of the 
total compared to the dollar's 67%. 

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's immediate reaction to Zhou's article 
was: "China's suggestion deserves some consideration." Nervous financial 
markets in the U.S. took this as a sign from the Treasury Secretary that the 
dollar was losing its primacy. Geithner retreated post-haste. And President 
Obama quickly joined the fray, saying: "I don't think there is need for a 
global currency. The dollar is extraordinarily strong right now." 

Actually, maintaining the customary Chinese discretion, Zhou never mentioned 
the state of the U.S. dollar in his article, nor did he even imply that the 
yuan should be included in the super-sovereign currency he proposed. Yet it 
was clear to all that at a crucial moment -- with world leaders about to 
meet in London to devise a way to defuse the most severe fiscal crisis since 
the Great Depression -- that a China which had bided its time, even though 
it had the third largest economy on the planet, was now showing its strong 
hand. 

All signs are that Washington will be unable to restore the status quo ante 
after the present "great recession" has finally given way to recovery. In 
the coming years, its leaders will have to face reality and concede, however 
reluctantly, that the economic tectonic plates are shifting -- and that it 
is losing financial power to the thriving regions of the Earth, the foremost 
of which is China. 

Dilip Hiro is the author, most recently, of Blood of the Earth: The Battle 
for the World's Vanishing Oil Resources (Nation Books). His upcoming book 
After Empire: The Rise of a Multipolar World will be published by Nation 
Books this year. 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Sat May  9 13:39:40 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 12:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] AIPAC's members have formed a religious identification with
 an ideology
In-Reply-To: <164830909.221301241827902512.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1683288485.287001241897980684.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




Mondoweiss May 7, 2009 



AIPAC is all about Jewish history and power ? and so is this web site 



These Jews have formed a religious identification with an ideology. They are making a tragic error. They have identified themselves with a human rights abuser that has imposed Jim Crow conditions and apartheid and worse on 3 million Palestinians: 




http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/05/at-the-end-of-the-aipac-policy-conference-maybe-during-joe-bidens-pandering-speech-i-sat-biting-into-a-napkin-trying-to.html 


From critical.montages at gmail.com  Sat May  9 14:56:18 2009
From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi)
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 16:56:18 -0400
Subject: [R-G] Changes in Composition of Global Reserves
Message-ID: <cd351fdc0905091356x5ee10118i37ed0f0804758015@mail.gmail.com>

<http://www.ft.com/cms/072eff00-3a65-11de-8a2d-00144feabdc0.gif>

<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/39f51cbe-3a59-11de-8a2d-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=413b4c2e-b9f8-11dc-abcb-0000779fd2ac.html>
Central banks succumb again to bullion?s lure
By Javier Blas in London and Patti Waldmeir in Shanghai.
Published: May 6 2009 23:31 | Last updated: May 6 2009 23:31

Ten years ago on Wednesday the UK Treasury sent gold prices tumbling
when it announced it would sell a chunk of its gold reserves.

In a matter of weeks prices plunged to a 22-year low of $250 a troy
ounce and, over the course of that year, central banks from Australia
and Switzerland to the Netherlands announced plans to sell a large
slice of their bullion.

?There was a feeling that countries were racing each other to sell
their bullion,? says Jonathan Spall, director of commodities at
Barclays Capital in London and an expert on central banks? gold
activity.

A decade later the picture looks different: sales in Europe have
slowed to a crawl and fresh demand is emerging elsewhere.

The clearest sign of the new trend is Beijing?s announcement that it
has secretively almost doubled its gold reserves to become the world?s
fifth-biggest holder of the metal. Central banks in countries
including Russia, Venezuela, Mexico and the Philippines are also
buying gold, albeit in small amounts.

GoldMeanwhile, bullion prices have bounced back, to trade close to an
all-time high of $900-$1,000 as concerns about the weakness of the US
dollar and the financial crisis have sent investors rushing to the
safety of the metal.

The change is partly the result of a natural end to Europe?s large
sales after years of strong disposals, says John Reade, a precious
metal strategist at UBS in London.

But it also reflects fresh interest from official sectors elsewhere.
?There is clear evidence among some emerging countries, notably Russia
and China, that they want to build up their gold reserves,? he says.

The shift is important for the gold market on two fronts: the interest
provides psychological support and, more importantly, has reduced a
source of supply. Last year central banks sold 246 tonnes, which,
although the lowest amount in 10 years, was equal to 10 per cent of
global mined gold.

China is expected to keep buying the metal quietly to diversify its
foreign reserves, gold industry sources in China believe. Beijing?s
exact gold purchasing intentions are not known, but industry analysts
are betting on more purchases, as it has made no secret of a wish to
diversify foreign reserves away from the dollar. Although gold is
quoted in dollars, its price usually rises when the US currency
weakens.

?I?m absolutely sure that they will continue buying because China?s
gold holdings are very small in terms of the size of its economy and
the growing significance of its currency,? says Paul Atherley,
managing director of Leyshon Resources in China.

China?s current gold reserves represent only about 1.6 per cent of
total foreign reserves, a vastly smaller percentage than the global
average of 10.5 per cent.

The financial crisis has also cast gold in a new light, even among the
European central banks who sold bullion. The Austrian central bank
says ?the surge in gold prices and the concomitant depreciation of the
US dollar over the past few years have shown clearly how important
gold is as an instrument for portfolio diversification for a central
bank?.

Fortis Bank forecast this year the gold market is ?on course for the
smallest net annual central bank sale for over a decade?. Last year
the eurozone central banks sold the lowest amount of gold since 1999
and bullion watchers forecast another low this year.

The proposed sale of 400 tonnes from the International Monetary Fund
could make up the shortfall, but central banks outside Europe were net
buyers in 2008 and could add upward pressure on official demand.

The last time the official sector was a net buyer of gold ? albeit a
very small one ? was in 1988. Large official purchases of gold ? in
the hundreds of tonnes ? have not been seen since 1965.

Philip Klapwijk, chairman of GFMS, the precious metal consultancy,
believes it is ?extremely unlikely? that central banks will return to
the market on a large scale. He predicts that in coming years central
banks may shift between small net sales and net purchases. A new era
in the gold market has begun.

<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/433a92b4-3a67-11de-8a2d-00144feabdc0.html>
Gold sales cost Europe?s central banks $40bn
By Javier Blas in London
Published: May 6 2009 23:31 | Last updated: May 7 2009 08:55

The proportion of European reserves held as gold remains extremely
large even after years of sales, at an average of about 60 per cent,
compared with the world average of 10.5 per cent.


From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Sat May  9 18:24:39 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 09:24:39 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Money for the People and by the People
Message-ID: <4A061EC7.6070103@ashisuto.co.jp>


by Alistair McConnachie

Prosperity (May 2002)


Just as we need government for the people, and by the people, so we need
money for the people, and by the people.

Money Reformers advocate essentially two things - firstly, that we
change from a debt-based to a debt-free economy. That is, to a society
where money, or a great deal of it, is supplied into the economy
debt-free, meaning it does not require to be paid back.

And secondly, Money Reformers advocate that the creation of money should
be a public service, under public control for the public good.


The Money Trick

The essence of a viable money system is confidence. Once confidence is
established, a trick can be played.

Historically, money lenders kept stocks of gold which they had acquired,
or were keeping safe for others.

However, they soon discovered that instead of actually lending out the
physical gold and precious metals in their safes, they could give out
promissory notes which "promised to pay" the equivalent amount in gold.

They soon found that if, say, only one tenth of their clients would at
any particular time insist on payment in actual coin or bullion, then
the money lenders could safely make "promises to pay" totaling ten times
the value of their actual reserves of coin and bullion.

All that was necessary was that people believed in the convertibility of
the promises to pay. Soon, people were trading the "promissory notes"
instead of the actual coin and bullion.

Thus was born the basic principles of the modern banking system.


So, What is Money?

Money is simply the medium we use to exchange goods and services.
Without it, buying and selling would be impossible except, of course, by
direct barter exchange.

Notes and coins are virtually worthless in their own right. They take on
value only because people accept them, in exchange for goods and
services. All the money in the world is useless in the middle of a
barren desert.

To keep trade and economic activity functioning, there has to be enough
of this medium of exchange called money in existence to allow economic
activity to take place.

Hence the importance of ensuring that there is sufficient money in the
economy to facilitate the exchange of goods and services, and hence the
crucial importance that the creators of this money are under the direct
control of the very people who need it to survive. That's you and me.


Where Does The Money Come From?

Someone has to be responsible for making sure that there is enough money
in existence. It's not you. It's not me. So who is it?

Each nation has a Central Bank to do this - in Britain, it's the Bank of
England.

Central Banks act as banker for the commercial High Street banks, and
the government - just as individuals and businesses keep accounts at
commercial banks, so commercial banks and government keep accounts at
the Central Bank - in our case, the Bank of England.

If the government wants to spend money on some public project such as a
school or hospital then it will collect the money from taxes, but every
year the government fails to collect enough money in taxes to pay for
all its spending requirements. There is always a shortfall. So what does
it do? Where does it go for money?

The government "borrows" the money this way: It prints and sells "gilt
edged securities". These are simply pieces of paper which promise an
additional return to the buyer, in the future. The securities are
auctioned several times a year to meet the shortage of government
revenue as it arises. They are bought by individuals, insurance
companies, pension funds, trust funds, and banks.

The government takes the money it has raised by these sales, and spends
it on its public projects. The sum owed by the government is called "the
National Debt". These securities are becoming due regularly. That is,
the government has to pay back the amount, with interest.

When the non-banking sector (individuals, insurance, pension and trust
funds) buy securities, then saved money is being recycled back into the
economy through government spending.

However, when banks buy government securities, then entirely new money -
which has been created out of nothing by the banks specifically for
these purchases - is spent into the economy by the government. The
government has to find the money to repay them in full, with interest,
which it does by selling even more securities and raising taxes even
further!

Now that's just government debt that we're saddled with, and have to pay
back in our taxes.


Almost All Money Enters Society as a Debt

Money enters in other ways. There is also the money which enters society
via our private debts as individuals, which we owe to commercial private
High Street banks.

It is a myth that these banks lend money they already have. When was the
last time you went to your bank and found there was money missing from
your account because it had been lent to someone else! Like the ancient
money lenders of old, banks can lend out more than they actually hold!

The fact is that banks create money out of nothing and lend it to you at
interest.

There is also commercial company debts owed to High Street banks, and
there is international, or what is called "Third World" debt.

The crucial point to realise is that all of these debts - government,
private, commercial and international - are debts owed to the banking
system in one way or another.

Almost the entire stock of money circulating in every country in the
world today represents a debt owed to the banking system. Only the note
and coin issue is debt-free.

The entire financial system of all nations today is what we call
debt-based; meaning that the process of going into debt is relied upon,
almost exclusively, by governments, to create and supply money to their
economies.

The world runs on debt. We live in a debt-based society. We cannot get
money into society without almost all of it entering, at source, as a debt.


The Positive Versus The Negative Economy

Money Reformers make two distinctions when we look at the economic world
around us. On one hand we recognise and support the positive economy,
which is characterised by mutual trade for mutual benefit, and
productive, just, sustainable enterprise.

On the other hand, we have the negative economy, characterised by
poverty, cut-throat competition, oppression, exploitation, war, waste,
inflation, and starvation.

When we look around ourselves we are often forced to acknowledge that
the economy we live in is often not a positive economy of mutual trade
for mutual benefit, but rather a dog-eat-dog economy, a cannibal
capitalism which has a tendency to eat itself and all those caught in it.

Money Reformers are alone today in recognising that many of the ills of
the world are due directly to the twin facts that the economy of the
world is based on debt - rather than on debt-free principles - and the
power to create the money in the first place, is vested in the hands of
a tiny minority.

We recognise that the debt-engine drives the world economy in many
negative directions. Richard Greaves has laid out the negative
consequences of the debt-based economy in his article which appeared in
the November 2001 issue of Prosperity.

Moreover, while some people highlight "the redistribution of wealth" as
a possible solution, Money Reformers, highlight the fundamental monopoly
power of money creation enjoyed by the few to the detriment of the many.

We are highlighting the fundamental question of who has the power to
create the money in the first place.

We point to the fact that many of the economic and social ills which
beset society and the world today are due to the power to create money
being concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority, rather than
democratically distributed in the hands of the People.

This democratic imperative can be summed up in the slogans: It's the
People's Money and Money for the People, and by the People.


What Does This Mean For Democracy?

What does this mean for government of the people, by the people?

Banks are businesses out to make profits. Since they alone decide to
whom they will lend, they effectively decide what is produced, where it
is produced and who produces it, and all on the basis of profitability
to the bank, rather than what is beneficial to the community.

Our money, instead of being supplied debt-free as a means of exchange,
now comes as a debt owed to bankers providing them with vast profits,
power and control, as the rest of us struggle with an increasing burden
of debt.

By supplying money to those of whom they approve and denying it to those
of whom they disapprove, financiers can create boom or bust, and support
or undermine individuals, organisations, economies and governments.

We, the people, don't have the power to create the money. The money we
require just to survive is only available from the banks. To a large
extent, we are at the mercy of the banking system and we are effectively
enslaved by them. We cry Freedom from Debt Slavery!

As Richard Greaves said in the November 2001 issue of Prosperity, until
the power to create money is taken out of the hands of the banks, and
the hands of the private interests who do it for profit and control,
then we can never say that we live in a democracy.

He continued: "The nation's economy is our economy. We create the real
wealth through our ingenuity, enterprise and hard work. The current
banking system operates as a massive drain on that public wealth as well
as concentrating power and control in the hands of a tiny, private
minority."

So what do we need to do? Essentially, we need to move towards an
economy based upon debt-free principles where much more money than at
present comes into society debt-free, and we need to move towards
democratic control over the money creation process.


Principles of Debt-Free Finance

And in this effort we can be guided by the principles on money creation
laid out in the Bromsgrove Statement.

We believe that money must be based on the real wealth of society - that
is, on people, skills and materials. If you have the people, skills and
materials, then that which is physically possible and socially desirable
can be made financially possible.

If the people have something they want to do in their community, and if
they have the skills and the materials, then they should not be
prevented for "lack of money".

The overall purpose of an economic system is simply to provide goods and
services - as, when and where required - in order to satisfy human needs.

Money is simply the means of exchange for the goods and services
produced by the people and their skills and resources. It is not a
commodity in itself.

In this regard, money should be our servant - not our master. And since
money, at source, is created out of nothing, there is no need for it to
be scarce.


So Here's The Least We Should Be Demanding

For a start, we can see that we're paying our taxes to enrich a banking
system which never had the money in the first place!

We can see that the government is raising money it doesn't have, by
borrowing from banks which don't have the money either, but only the
legal authority to create out of nothing.

The government then expects us, through our taxes, to pay back the banks
with the real money that we've worked for! The obvious question arises:
Why doesn't the government just create the money itself?

Instead of borrowing the money from the banking system, and forcing us
to pay it back in our taxes, the government could simply create the
money itself, spend it into society and not need to ask for it back.

And, yes, the government - or a state appointed authority - could do
exactly that. Instead it enslaves us all to the banking system ? and
that's a scandal!

_____

Please print out, photocopy and distribute these articles. Also copy and
paste them to emails, and circulate widely, and please include all the
essential contact information below. Thank you.


Essential Further Reading:

Prosperity: Freedom from Debt Slavery - is a four-page quarterly journal
which campaigns for publicly-created debt-free money, edited and
published by Alistair McConnachie. A four-issue subscription is
available for GBP 10 payable to Prosperity at 268 Bath Street, Glasgow,
Scotland, UK, G2 4JR
Tel: 0141 332 2214; Fax: 0141 353 6900
admcc at admcc.freeserve.co.uk  http://www.ProsperityUK.com
Or you can follow this link to our subscribe page:
http://www.prosperityuk.com/get_involved/subscribe/index.php

The Grip of Death: A study of modern money, debt slavery and destructive
economics by Michael Rowbotham [Jon Carpenter Publishing, 1998] and
Goodbye America! Globalisation, debt and the dollar empire by Michael
Rowbotham [Jon Carpenter Publishing, 2000] both available from the
address above.

http://www.prosperityuk.com/articles_and_reviews/articles/monftp.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 ashisuto.co.jp  Sun May 10 02:58:45 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:58:45 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Rethinking the Rust Belt
Message-ID: <4A069745.7050301@ashisuto.co.jp>


by John Michael Greer

The Archdruid Report (May 06 2009)

Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society



One of the least useful habits of thought fostered by the modern
mythology of progress, it seems to me, is the notion that historical
change can only move in one direction - the direction in which it seems
to be going at the present. Those of us who suggest that today's
industrial societies are headed for a process of decline and fall, not
that different from the ones that ended civilizations of the past, run
up against this insistence constantly. The truism that time only goes
one way gets distorted into the claim that since the last three hundred
years have seen a great deal of expansion and technical development, the
future must follow the same trajectory.

A hundred years ago, exactly that same logic was applied by people who
insisted that war between civilized nations was a thing of the past.
Wars between the nations of Europe had, in fact, become steadily less
frequent over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, and a great
many Europeans managed to convince themselves that this process could
only continue in the 20th, leading to universal peace. As you may have
noticed, they were quite mistaken - a detail that has not prevented the
same logic from being deployed with equal enthusiasm more recently.

Consider the chorus of derision that rose up a couple of years ago when
James Kunstler, in his book The Long Emergency (2005), warned that
piracy would likely revive around the Pacific rim as the industrial age
comes to its end. I don't recall a single reviewer of the book who took
that prediction seriously, and a great many of Kunstler's critics leapt
on it with gleeful cries - though one should note that these cries
became curiously muted once the recent spate of pirate raids off the
coast of Somalia hit the news. Of course Kunstler is quite correct;
piracy was already a serious problem in several parts of the world when
he wrote, it has become worse since then, and once fuel shortages begin
to limit the reach of modern navies and economic crises add to the
roster of failed states, it may become a serious factor affecting the
future of maritime trade. Only the delusion that piracy belongs to the
past, and therefore can't be part of the future, keeps this ugly reality
from being recognized.

It's impossible to make sense of the present, much less the future, from
within the tunnel vision of a view of history that sees the world moving
through some fixed sequence of development. When pundits say that
contemporary hunter-gatherers are ?still in the Stone Age", or that
members of some nonindustrial societies are "living in the Middle Ages",
while only the world's industrial cultures have "entered the 21st
century", they are talking nonsense. It's a very popular kind of
nonsense; people in the industrial world love to think of themselves as
the top rung of history's ladder, with every other culture as a
now-outmoded stage in the ascent to ranch houses and SUVs; but it's
still nonsense.

Biologists studying the evolution of life forms have gradually been
forced to discard the notion that evolution has a fixed agenda, and have
realized instead that the interplay of genetic diversity and natural
selection can move in any direction - simplifying here, adding
complexity there, leading one species into a highly specialized niche
while another becomes a generalist capable of moving between many
ecological roles. Notions that the biosphere as a whole has moved toward
greater complexity over Earth's long history - very nearly the last
holdout of the old fantasy of linear evolution - have had to be
discarded, because the evidence simply won't support them; the last
fifteen million years, for example, have seen a steady loss of
complexity across the Earth's biosphere as the planetary climate cooled
in the run-up to the most recent round of ice ages, and the rich
ecosystems of the Mesozoic, the age of dinosaurs, were far more complex
than most of those that have succeeded them.

It's long past time to apply the same thinking to history, and recognize
that forcing human societies onto a linear model of progress serves the
purposes of ideology rather than clear thinking. Human societies, like
biological species, adapt to make the most of their environments with
the inherited resources they have to hand. Sometimes those adaptations
move in the direction of greater complexity and some form of
technological development, while in other cases they move toward greater
simplicity and shed technologies that are no longer useful. Those
societies with a long cultural memory can even cycle back and forth
between simpler and more complex levels of organization and technology -
the long history of imperial China offers an excellent example of just
this process at work.

The rise and approaching fall of the industrial age, it may be worth
suggesting, may turn into the same process on steroids. In ecological
terms, the torrent of fossil fuel energy that created the modern world
can be seen as a massive disruption to established patterns of human
social ecology. Those patterns stretched like silly putty, or broke
apart entirely and were replaced, as a new economy of abundance evolved
and expanded. That economy, however, was ultimately a product of
ever-expanding supplies of fossil fuels, and once production bumped
against the hard ceiling of geological limits, it began to break apart.
The economic convulsions of the last few decades mark the crest of the
wave, and the beginning of its long retreat.

As that retreat proceeds, the more complex and resource-intensive
technologies and social habits of recent years will likely be among the
early casualties, and some of the less complex and resource-intensive
technologies and social habits of the recent past may well get fished
out of the trash heap and pressed back into service, because they are
better suited to the new environment of resource constraints than their
more extravagant replacements. This will have sweeping impacts on the
new economies that take shape in the wake of the current Great
Recession, paralleling the impacts the original shifts had in their time
- but in the other direction. Any number of examples could be named, but
the ones I want to discuss now are geographical.

The economic and human geography of North America during the 20th
century went through sweeping changes with results that are still
echoing around us today. Technology played some role in driving those
changes, but another factor was at least as powerful: the transformation
of the United States from a manufacturing economy, producing goods and
services at home, to a tribute economy propped up by the labor and
resources of client states overseas. (This is what actually underlies
the recent rhetoric about "globalization"; there was similar talk during
the heyday of the British Empire, too.) Since most of the real wealth
circulating in the American economy of the late 20th century came from
overseas, the seaports of the east and west coasts came to dominate the
economy, while the old economic heartland of the Midwest turned into a
"Rust Belt" of half-empty cities and crumbling smokestacks.

The idea that these same cities might be on the brink of economic
revival may seem about as likely as, say, a revival of piracy did to
Kunstler's critics a few years ago. Those who believe in the
continuation of business as usual are unlikely to be able to imagine
Pittsburgh or Peoria at the crest of the future's wave; those who
believe in the equally improbable scenario of overnight collapse into a
dark age or worse can't imagine an economic revival at all. Still, all
history is ultimately local; it's easy to say, for example, that "Rome's
economy declined in the last two centuries of the Empire", and as a
generalization this is true, but it masks a huge amount of temporal and
regional variation, including periods and regions in which the economic
climate improved noticeably.

Thus the possibility of a Rust Belt renaissance in the coming decades
should not be dismissed out of hand. America's overseas empire is
already coming apart at the seams, as the costs of maintaining it
overtake its economic benefits - the common fate of empires throughout
history - and rival powers turn our imperial overreach to their
advantage. In the foreseeable future, the United States will again have
to produce most of the goods and services it uses at home - and as that
happens, the regions most likely to profit by it are those inland areas
whose central position gives them easier access to markets nationwide,
and whose access to the old arteries of waterborne transport will make
them much more viable as centers of production and distribution in
future where energy will be in short supply.

More generally, the best resource for thinking about the economic map of
2050, say, may just be an economic map of 1880. When railroads and
waterways once again become the primary means of transport, the places
that were major economic hubs will likely become major hubs again,
because they will make the same economic sense in the future that they
did when railroads and waterways were last in vogue. The economic map of
2100, in turn, may have more in common with that of 1830 or thereabouts,
since continuing depletion of remaining fossil fuel supplies will likely
have made railroads uneconomical for most uses, leaving waterborne
transport the only cost-effective alternative to local production. Add
in the impact of population contraction driven by economic decline and
failing public health - essentially the same mix that's driving a
similar contraction in the former Soviet Union - and the parallels may
be even more exact.

This way of looking at the future has any number of potential
implications, not least for those who hope to weather the current round
of economic contraction and social turmoil with some level of grace. My
guess is that both these factors will be concentrated in the coastal
regions, as the wealth flows generated by the declining import economy
give way to economic stagnation and contraction, and in regions such as
the Southwest where political borders are increasingly out of step with
demographic reality. Isolated regions throughout the West, already
marginal at best, are likely to slip into permanent poverty as the
tourist economy breaks down and climate shifts already under way make
crippling droughts more common. On the other hand, agricultural regions
outside the drought belt will likely thrive as the price of food rises,
and the old Rust Belt cities - many of which shed half or more of their
population over the last fifty years, relieving the population pressure
and many of the social problems that made headlines not too many decades
ago - may weather the current wave of crises tolerably well.

There will be other waves of crisis further down the road; history
reminds us that the downside of a civilization's history is a very
uneven process, and it's anyone's guess which areas will be favored by
the patterns of change that take shape later in the course of the
decline. Suggesting a renaissance in the Rust Belt and the agricultural
Midwest also flies in the face of a great many contemporary assumptions,
driven as they are by the intellectual fashions of a mostly coastal
intelligentsia used to dismissing the inland reaches of this continent
as "flyover states". Still, history seems to take a perverse delight in
overturning such assumptions, and those who can get outside the delusion
that historical change is a one-way street may find unexpected
possibilities opening up before them.

_____

?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 (2006) and The Long Descent (2008). He
lives in Ashland, Oregon.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/05/rethinking-rust-belt.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 May 10 10:16:31 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 09:16:31 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Chavez slams Obama for Afghan attack
Message-ID: <70447597-5265-46D2-9832-F95B1BDF3DA4@shaw.ca>

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN08512628

Venezuela's Chavez slams Obama for Afghan attack
Fri May 8, 2009 8:48pm EDT

CARACAS, May 8 (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday  
slammed U.S. President Barack Obama for air strikes in Afghanistan  
that killed scores of civilians, criticism that came weeks after the  
leaders shook hands in a sign of warming ties.

Afghan officials said 147 civilians died as a result of attacks by  
U.S. warships on Taliban militants this week.

Chavez, a socialist, has welcomed Obama's efforts to improve ties  
after a decade-long war of words between Caracas and Washington, but  
he accuses the new U.S. leader of maintaining an "imperialist" foreign  
policy.

"President Obama, let's see if it's true, take apart the forces of  
imperialism and end the abuse of innocent peoples of the world,"  
Chavez said during a televised speech.

Chavez and Obama met at a summit of Western Hemisphere leaders in  
Trinidad last month, shaking hands in a highly publicized encounter.  
The move drew praise for Obama from Latin American leaders but harsh  
condemnation from U.S. conservatives.

Venezuela and the United States have had a tense relationship for  
years, even though Venezuela accounts for more than 10 percent of U.S.  
oil imports. (Reporting by Brian Ellsworth; Editing by Paul Simao)


From shniad at sfu.ca  Sun May 10 11:32:06 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 10:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?Analysis_of_Ahmadinejad=E2=80=99s_Speech_at_the_D?=
 =?utf-8?q?urban_Review_and_the_Reaction_to_It?=
Message-ID: <448562256.339411241976726714.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

Ahmadinejad?s Speech at the Durban Review: 

What?s a Jew to do? 

By Diana Ralph 

?Your job just got a whole lot harder,? quipped Naomi Klein after Iran?s Prime Minister, Ahmed Ahmadinejad?s address on April 20, at the opening day of the Durban Review of the World Conference Against Racism. In the lead-up to the Conference, I had written and lobbied tirelessly to defend it against allegations that it was an anti-Semitic hate fest. 

Naomi was right. The world?s powers instantly condemned the speech to banner headlines. President Obama called it ?harmful? and White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs called the speech ?hateful rhetoric.? Peter Gooderham, British ambassador to the UN said it was ?outrageous? and ?anti-Semitic.? British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, labeled it ?offensive, inflammatory and utterly unacceptable.? And French President Nicolas Sarkozy condemned it as "an intolerable call to racist hate." 

The fact that the UN had allowed Ahmadinejad to speak became yet another ?proof? that the Durban Review was indeed anti-Semitic. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper gloated about his government?s decision over a year ago to boycott the Review: "Our government is leading the world, not following it. We observed clear, unmistakable signs this conference will again scapegoat the Jewish people.? Israel?s Minister of Foreign Affairs summed it all up: ?The offensive and inflammatory incitement and humiliating and intolerable appeal to racist hate by the Iranian President?constitute clear proof, for those who still require it, that the conference?s agenda has been taken hostage and diverted from real and necessary racism-related deliberations - to an unabashed tirade against Israel.? 

All of these right-wing attacks were to be expected. They had opposed the process from the beginning. But when Rabbi Michael Lerner, Editor of Tikkun Magazine, jumped onto the bandwagon of demonizing Ahmadinejad's speech, in an e-letter endorsed by many of my Jewish friends, I realized I had to set the record straight. As a delegate from Independent Jewish Voices, I had watched the drama unfold on April 20, as I sat in the UN gallery. I knew that both Ahmadinejad and the Durban Review were getting a bum rap which was now drawing progressive Jews into a fatal alliance with right-wing supporters of racism and injustice. 

In the polarized context of opposing narratives, it is risky to appear to defend the ?bad guy.? Everyone ?knows? Ahmadinejad equals bad, anti-Semitic, Holocaust denier. So why defend his speech? I don't endorse his values and I regret that, in his speech, he did not acknowledge injustice, anti-Semitism, and racism in Iran. However, it is NOT true that this particular speech was an anti-Semitic diatribe that denied the Holocaust. 

I heard what Ahmadinejad actually said (which dropped language describing the Holocaust as "ambiguous and dubious" from an earlier draft? the one quoted by most mainstream and Jewish press). You can hear his actual speech by going to http://www.un.org/webcast/durbanreview/archive.asp?go=090420 and scrolling down to 15:00. In that taped episode, you can also see his speech being disrupted by a pro-Israel delegate dressed in a clown wig running at him just as he started speaking, by rude catcalls from pro-Israelis in the gallery, and by a pre-arranged walk-out by 23 European delegates. 

In his speech, I heard much with which I agreed. For example, he objected to the UN Security Council?s veto rights over the democratic wishes of the world, particularly in supporting Israeli war crimes and violations of international law. He labelled the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq as exercises in imperial conquest, causing massive suffering, expanding the narcotics trade, and benefiting arms dealers. He blamed the US and its allies for the worsening economic crisis because ?they imposed a financial and a monetary system without a proper international oversight? which discriminated against most of the world?s countries. And he called for a new world order based on equality, justice, democratic participation, and on acknowledging past wrongdoings. Finally he urged our collective effort to ?make the world a better place full of love, fraternity, and blessings; a world devoid of poverty and hatred.? 

In spite of requests by the UN General Secretary not to, Ahmadinejad did include one major swipe at Zionism and Israel in his 34 minute speech (which became the excuse for the diplomats to walk out.) ?Following World War II, [world powers and Zionists] resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish sufferings. And they sent migrants from Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine?And in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped to bring to power the most cruel and repressive, racist regime in Palestine.? 

Although it certainly was impolitic of him to say so, especially in this setting, this is actually an accurate statement. Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, Michael Newmann and many others have demonstrated that Zionist forces destroyed hundreds of Palestinian villages in 1948, that Zionists showed more concern about creating a Jewish state than about saving lives of Holocaust victims, that Holocaust victims have been treated as second class citizens in Israel without adequate compensation, and that Israel created a Holocaust-exploiting campaign post-1967 to divert attention from its illegal seizure and occupation of Palestinian territories. Israel brutally discriminates against both Palestinians and Arab Israelis economically, politically, judicially, and militarily in ways which many, including Desmond Tutu and John Dugard, believe is actually worse than South African Apartheid. 

Ahmadinejad certainly attacked Zionism as a political movement which has had disastrous consequences for Palestinians. However, he did not attack Jews in any way throughout the speech. In other words, it was not anti-Semitic. Compared to Israel's and pro-Israel organizations' calls for war against Iran and daily attacks on Iran and on Ahmadinejad personally, his criticisms of Israel could be seen as relatively mild. Although he criticized Israeli racism, he certainly did not call for war against Israel. Instead, he called for love, justice, and equality. 

It is also nonsense to claim that Ahmadinejad?s views represent those of the Durban Review. The UN rules require that heads of state be allowed to speak. So the Secretariat had to give him the podium, which regrettably, he used for his own political ends. The UN Secretary General did have some success in toning down Ahmadinejad?s speech. But if Obama or Harper, for example, had chosen to attend the Durban Review, they too would have had an opportunity to present their viewpoints. However, largely because of the smear campaign by the Israel Lobby (along with the US, Canada, and some EU countries), no other heads of state attended. 

Rabbi Michael Lerner?s e-letter reiterates the standard allegation that the Durban Review only targets Israel and is silent about other forms of racism worldwide. This also is nonsense. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) and the documents developed for the Durban Review roundly condemned a wide variety of racist practices in many countries (including discrimination against African-descendents, indigenous people, the Dalit, migrants, refugees, victims of human trafficking, the Roma, people of Asian descent, national, ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities, victims of sexual violence, and homosexuals). In the 8 years since the World Conference Against Racism, many African, Asian, and Latin American (but not Western) countries have made concerted efforts to redress these practices. But under heavy pressure from the US and EU countries as well as from a coalition of pro-Israel lobby groups, the final document under consideration was cleansed of almost all its specific content. 

Rabbi Lerner also accuses Ahmadinejad of claiming that ?the Zionists were running the world, the imperialist countries were merely extensions of the Zionist project, and thus ascribes to the Jewish people a power that exceeds that of all other forces on the planet.? Ahmadinejad said no such thing. Instead, he correctly noted that imperial powers work in concert with Zionists to promote their broader aims. For example, the US views Israel as a major ?strategic asset? in promoting US interests in the Middle East. And the US, Canada and EU countries hid behind false allegations of anti-Semitism to foil Durban Review calls for reparations for the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and decimation of indigenous people, for which they would have been liable. 

The power of this Zionist cabal was shockingly evident at the Durban Review. I witnessed over 1,000 pro-Israel agents proudly united under the International Jewish Caucus waging a massive, disrespectful assault inside and outside of the UN to disrupt and discredit this crucial world effort to end racism. The International Jewish Caucus is composed of the Anti-Defamation League, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, B?nai Brith International, CEJI: A Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, European Jewish Congress, European Union of Jewish Students, Jewish Human Rights Coalition (UK), NGO Monitor, Simon Wiesenthal Center, South African Jewish Board of Deputies, Women?s International Zionist Organization, and the World Union of Jewish Students. Many other Zionist lobby organizations also attended or demonstrated outside the UN, for example, the World Zionist Congress, UN Watch, the Magenta Foundation, Human Rights First, and the Hudson Institute. These Zionist groups worked in close cooperation with key Western countries, which also were reluctant to implement the DDPA?s powerful recommendations. 

Planned with military precision reminiscent of that with which Israel attacked Gaza, the assault included: 

? Extensive propaganda starting before the 2001 Durban World Conference Against Racism exploiting isolated incidents in which a few groups distributed anti-Semitic materials during the NGO pre-conference to write off the entire WCAR as anti-Semitic. (There is actually not a single anti-Semitic word in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action 1 .) This served to discredit criticism of Israeli treatment of Palestinians and also to pre-empt calls for reparations for the slave trade. 

? Threats and intimidation of the UN and charitable foundations to prevent them from funding NGO participation in the Durban Review conference. As a result, there was hardly any assistance for low-income NGO delegates to get to Geneva, and no provision for a civil society meeting at all. At the last minute, a tiny team of volunteers managed to pull together a ragtag civil society meeting in donated space outside the UN. 

? Heavy pressure from the US and the Israel Lobby on the UN, the EU countries, and on the pre-Durban Review conferences to prevent any mention of Israel or Palestine or slavery reparations in the Durban Review document. As a result, the Secretariat slashed the 60+ page document to 17 pages of mostly platitudes. 

? Heavy pressure on Western countries to boycott the Durban Review or to work inside it to prevent anything controversial from being addressed. (Canada and Israel were the only countries to boycott until a week before the conference. In the end 10 countries, including the US boycotted.) 

? Large anti-UN demonstrations outside the UN organized and paid for by Israel Lobby organizations on 3 of the 5 days of the Durban Review Conference, complete with a huge stage, screens, high profile speakers, T-shirts, and paramilitary security guards. 

? Flying in and training over 1,000 Israel Lobby delegates to attend and disrupt the Durban Review Conference, constituting at least 1/3 of the total number of NGO delegates. Delegates were assigned UN staff and national delegates to target for lobbying and intimidation. As well, they disrupted both the formal proceedings and the side events, wearing clown wigs and noses, putting up insulting posters, and jeering loudly and frequently. 

? Holding many Zionist front side-events (large, open meetings alongside the formal UN meeting) with high-profile people like Irwin Cotler, Alan Dershowitz, and representatives of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who attacked Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and defended Israeli war crimes in the name of "human rights." In deference to Israel Lobby pressure, Palestinian rights groups were not allowed to hold any side events in the UN. 

Nelson Mandela was unable to attend the Durban Review. But shortly before Ahmadinajad's speech, his spokesperson read his powerful, ethical message of support for the Durban Review, appealing for respect for diversity of opinions and our mutual commitment to end racism. His words stand in stark contrast to the belligerent, divisive, and abusive behaviour of the Zionist juggernaut. He started by emphasizing the importance of the World Conference Against Racism: ?The Sept. 2001 conference against racism held in Durban and the resultant Durban Declaration and Programme of Action has been hailed as the most comprehensive framework of its kind to combat racism, xenophobia and all other forms of discrimination.? He acknowledged that ?in conferences of this nature there are bound to be disagreements and divergences of opinion. Given the diversity of the people and the interests of states participating in the conference, such divergences are normal and indeed healthy. We must however not allow differences of opinion to ever paralyze our efforts towards attaining a world free of racial bigotry, hatred, discrimination, and intolerance.? And understanding the brutal attacks on the Durban Review, he ended with this poignant appeal: ? Let us always remember that the victims of this phenomenon are children, men, women, in their millions. Do not allow their dignity, their human rights to live in peace and prosperity be compromised because of the often obscure differences among policymakers. It is in your hands to make a difference." 

As Jews, we have a proud history of working to end slavery, oppression, and injustice. I urge you not to collude with inflammatory and false allegations against Ahmadinejad or with this disgraceful attack on those who want to end racism! 


From fentona at shaw.ca  Sun May 10 11:57:37 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 10:57:37 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Brit MP saw undercover cops egging crowd to riot at G20
Message-ID: <F0637499-06BB-4EEA-9AC1-E5DA02482FF4@shaw.ca>

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/05/09/brit-mp-saw-undercov.html

Brit MP saw undercover cops egging crowd to riot at G20
Posted by Cory Doctorow, May 9, 2009 6:37 PM | permalink
A British Member of Parliament claims he saw two undercover cops  
acting as agents provocateurs at the G20 demonstrations, attempting to  
get the crowd to riot. It was during one of the "kettling" sessions  
(this is a tactic used by UK cops wherein all protesters and  
bystanders are crammed into a physical space that is cordoned off  
indefinitely, and though the protesters are not charged with any  
offense, they are not allowed to leave, seek medical care, use  
toilets, etc). The men apparently threw missiles at the cops and tried  
to get others to do the same, then, after being accused of being  
provocateurs, flashed credentials at the police and passed through  
their lines.

     "When I was in the middle of the crowd, two people came over to  
me and said, 'There are people over there who we believe are policemen  
and who have been encouraging the crowd to throw things at the  
police,'" Brake said. But when the crowd became suspicious of the men  
and accused them of being police officers, the pair approached the  
police line and passed through after showing some form of  
identification.

     Brake has produced a draft report of his experiences for the  
human rights committee, having received written statements from people  
in the crowd. These include Tony Amos, a photographer who was standing  
with protesters in the Royal Exchange between 5pm and 6pm. "He [one of  
the alleged officers] was egging protesters on. It was very  
noticeable," Amos said. "Then suddenly a protester seemed to identify  
him as a policeman and turned on him. He legged it towards the police  
line, flashed some ID and they just let him through, no questions  
asked."

G20 police 'used undercover men to incite crowds'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/10/g20-policing-agent-provacateurs


From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Sun May 10 17:38:35 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 08:38:35 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Bromsgrove Group
Message-ID: <4A07657B.2010604@ashisuto.co.jp>


Statement of Beliefs
	
We recognise :

1. The supply of money into the economy is the big issue which governs
all the issues. The present economic system is debt-based. This means
that virtually all money is supplied to the economy as a debt to be
repaid, with interest, to the banking system. Governments rely upon the
majority of people going into debt to the banking system simply to
create enough money to supply the economy. Governments, too, must borrow
from the banking system to fund public expenditure. Taxpayers must then
pay back the debt and interest repayments.

2. As a consequence of this debt-based economic system, we see the
indebtedness of people, families, and countries growing daily. The
present debt-based economic system perpetuates debt slavery, and this is
ultimately destructive of society, the environment, and the planet.

3. The banking system creates money out of nothing. We are concerned at
the claim that there is no money to fund vital public services,
industries, and social and environmental projects, when this money at
source is created out of nothing. Governments should be able to supply
money, debt-free, without having to borrow from the banking system.
"Debt-free" means that it does not have to be repaid.

4. The debt-based economic system must be challenged and alternatives
constructed. The economy needs a supply of money debt-free.


Therefore, we affirm :

1. Money must be based on the real wealth of society people, skills and
materials not on debt. The supply of money must relate to these physical
facts not to the requirements of the banking system.

2. Money is the means of exchange for the goods and services produced by
this real wealth. It is not a commodity itself.

3. The purpose of an economic system is to provide goods and services
as, when and where required in order to satisfy human needs.

4. Money must be our servant not our master.

5. Money, at source, is created out of nothing, so there is no need for
it to be scarce.

6. Whatever is physically possible and socially desirable can be made
financially possible.

7. The present economic system can, and will, be changed for the better.


Consequently, we propose :

1. That the government via a democratically accountable authority
undertakes the creation of a supply of money, debt-free, into the economy.

2. This authority should spend, not lend, a supply of money into
circulation on the basis of proven need. This will reduce the overall
burden of debt in society, break reliance upon the banking system for
the supply of money, and open potential for limitless change.


Association in the Bromsgrove Group is open to individuals and
organisations which support this statement of belief.

Respect is paid to the different options for change represented by
different members within this statement of belief.

The group meets once a year and regularly exchanges information,
inspiration and support.

Prosperity
268 Bath Street
Glasgow, Scotland
UK, G2 4JR
Telephone : 0141 332 2214
Fax : 0141 353 6900
email: admcc at admcc.freeserve.co.uk

http://www.prosperityuk.com/get_involved/bromsgrove/principles.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 realiteee1 at yahoo.com  Sun May 10 18:50:19 2009
From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Congress needs to hear your story   :)
Message-ID: <311932.39855.qm@web111501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

These Actions, on Change.org, the url?? :)
your story??? :)
http://globalwarming.change.org/actions/view/your_story
?
Congress is debating the strongest legislation on global warming to date, who's story will they hear? Lobbyists from the coal, oil and gas industries? Or yours? Take a minute to share your story right now.?? :)
http://usactions.greenpeace.org/action/start/248/
?
I want to tell you how inspired I've been by you and your stories this week. Like Elizabeth, who worked in Antarctica, and James, who has spent time cleaning up polluted streams and parks. Your stories are seriously amazing. So if you haven't had a chance to check out our story center yet, you should take a minute to do so now. I'm sure you'll be as inspired as I've been.
Check out the Greenpeace story center?? :)
http://usactions.greenpeace.org/action/launch/248/
We've sent every story to Congress as a powerful reminder of what this movement is about and what's truly at stake with global warming. These are stories that members of Congress HAVE to hear as they begin debating the strongest legislation on global warming to date.
This bill, called America's Clean Energy Security Act, invests in clean energy sources like renewables and efficiency - which will create millions of jobs for Americans. And it calls for the pollution limits that scientists tell us will protect the planet for future generations.
But while it's a strong first step, there are some big problems with the bill that need to be fixed. That's where we come in. Lobbyists and PR people from the coal, gas, and oil industries are doing everything in their power to make this bill as weak as possible. We can't let them have their way.
Congress has already been convinced to include in the bill allowances for billions of tons of carbon offsets (essentially providing a loophole whereby polluters buy up cheap forests instead of actually cutting pollution), as well as billions of dollars in giveaways to the coal industry. And you can bet that the fossil fuels industries will be taking aim at the good provisions and doing everything they can to continue polluting for free.
It's going to take every single one of us to beat back the fossil fuel industry. This is what we've been building toward. We can win this fight, but only if YOU stand up and speak out. You can start today by adding your voice to those who have already shared their story.
Make your voice heard and submit your story today.
You can be sure that Greenpeace is going to be right in the middle of this fight over the coming months. We'll be working to make sure this bill does what the science says is necessary. But to make that happen, we'll need your help. You can kick-off this important fight by making your voice heard. You never know who your story might inspire.
Thanks for all that you do, and check out their ction center to advocate o other environmental issues?? :)
http://members.greenpeace.org/action/index.php
Ben Kroetz
Greenpeace Online Organizer
?
702 H Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20001 
(800) 326-0959 
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/
?
What's your story??? :)
?
http://usactions.greenpeace.org/action/start/248/


      

From realiteee1 at yahoo.com  Sun May 10 20:12:15 2009
From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 19:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Friends Digest Vol. 3, No. 3
Message-ID: <932846.34879.qm@web111511.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

????????????????? *'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*
"The true movement isn't a thing, or some collective entity of
people, or even any person. It has no form or structure and so
can't be distributed, or possessed, or detained. No one else can
exclude you, as you must invite yourself." - Rush (When We Were Iron)
????????????????? *'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*

* Announcements *
On May 8, American Indian Movement co-founder Dennis Banks suffered
a heart attack and underwent emergency bypass surgery. Well-wishers
may send cards and flowers to:
Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center
1111 E. Mcdowell Rod
Phoenix, AZ 85006-2612
We hope everyone is watching the landmark series, We Shall Remain,
on American Experience (PBS), but especially encourage everyone
to watch the final episode, Wounded Knee, on Monday, May 11. You
don't want to miss it. Great interviews and historic footage
that has never been aired before now. Mark your calendar, check
your local listings, and tune in.? If you miss the broadcast,
you can watch online (after the episode has already aired) at
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/weshallremain/>.
After a hacker caused mischief recently, we quickly restored our
Web site at <http://www.FreePeltierNow.org>.? We've been given the
"all clear".? Thanks for everyone's patience.
* Call to Action *
A shout out to supporters in the vicinity of Tempe,
Arizona! President Obama will be speaking at the ASU commencement
ceremony at Sun Devil Stadium at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 13.
Peltier supporters should gather only at the SE end of the
stadium around 5:00 p.m.? Supporters won't be allowed access to
the ceremony itself. Instead, they will line Packard Boulevard,
the route Obama is expected to take to the stadium.? Break out
those Peltier t-shirts and don't come empty handed.? Bring signs,
banners, etc., expressing support for freedom for Leonard Peltier.
Write to Attorney General Eric Holder about a transfer to Oxford,
WI, for Leonard.? See
<http://FreePeltierNow.blogspot.com/2009/04/write-to-attorney-general-today.html>
for details.
* More *
Get information on this year's event and place your bid for the
Oglala Commemoration Auction: <http://www.oglalacommemoration.com>.
Peltier receives 6th Nobel nomination:
<http://FreePeltierNow.blogspot.com/2009/04/leonard-peltier-is-six-time-nobel.html>.
Court rules against Peltier in documents case:
<http://FreePeltierNow.blogspot.com/2009/04/court-rules-against-peltier-in.html>.
* Op-Ed *
What Would Warren Harding Do? Freeing Leonard Peltier
<http://FreePeltierNow.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-would-warren-harding-do.html>

????????????????? *'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*
"Never cease in the fight for peace, justice, and equality for all
people. Be persistent in all that you do and don't allow anyone to
sway you from your conscience." -- Leonard Peltier
????????????????? *'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*

Also frequently visit <http://www.FreePeltierNow.org> and our
main Blog at <http://FreePeltierNow.blogspot.com>.? The Blog is
updated daily.
Register to receive e-mail announcements. It's easy. Go to our
homepage at <http://www.FreePeltierNow.org/welcome.htm>. Scroll
down the page until you see "Join Us" on the left sidebar. Enter
your e-mail address in the text box. Then point to and
click on "Subscribe". Or send a blank e-mail message to
<FreePeltierNow-on at mail-list.com>.
We encourage other sites to link to our Web site and blogs. No
prior permission is required.
Visit us on your preferred social network, too (MySpace, Facebook,
etc.): <http://www.FreePeltierNow.org/networks.htm>.
-----


      

From fentona at shaw.ca  Sun May 10 22:55:02 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 21:55:02 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Tamil protesters close Toronto highway
Message-ID: <6EF8452A-2668-4DD5-A706-E3660BA15FCF@shaw.ca>

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/05/10/canada.tamilprotest/

  Tamil protesters close Toronto highway

  (CNN) -- Tamil demonstrators protesting the ongoing civil war in Sri  
Lanka flooded onto a major highway in Toronto, Canada, on Sunday and  
remained there for several hours, closing the roadway and prompting  
police to send reinforcements while trying to negotiate an end to the  
incident.

"Quite frankly, to this point we are not getting a lot of  
cooperation," Police Chief William Blair told reporters late Sunday.  
"It is clearly a dangerous situation that they have created. We are  
amassing sufficient personnel. We are bringing additional people in --  
we also know that this could go for some time."

It was not clear what the protesters intended by blocking the Gardiner  
Expressway, but Blair estimated that thousands of demonstrators from  
Toronto's Tamil community were taking part in what started as a  
peaceful demonstration in a nearby park.

"They gave us no indication they were going to do what they have  
done," Blair said.

Many of the protesters were on an overpass, and he said many children  
were in the crowd.

"It's an unsafe situation both for the protesters and the police,"  
Blair said.
Don't Miss

     * Aid worker: Sri Lanka shelling kills hundreds

With Monday morning and the beginning of the business week only a few  
hours away, motorized traffic on what Blair described as "a very  
significant arterial road for the city of Toronto" appeared to be  
completely blocked by the demonstrators.

Police were working to persuade demonstration leaders to end the  
protest and clear the roadway, Blair said.

"Our response has to be proportionate to the activities of the crowd,"  
he said. "You can't just wade into a crowd like that. They are still  
citizens of this city and there are children in that crowd, and I'm  
not going to do anything to worsen the situation."

In Sri Lanka, the government military has been on an offensive to try  
to finish off the ethnic Tamil insurgency that has been fighting for  
an independent state in the northeast of the country since 1983.

As many as 70,000 people have been killed since the civil war began,  
and the Tamil Tigers rebel group has been declared a terrorist  
organization by the European Union and more than 30 countries,  
including the United States.
advertisement

On Sunday, a humanitarian worker in Sri Lanka told CNN that nearly 400  
people were killed overnight Saturday by government shelling in what  
is supposed to be a "no-fire" zone. Most of the roughly 378 dead are  
civilians, and an additional 1,200 were wounded, the aid worker said.

The government denies the claim, saying it is the Tamil Tiger rebels  
who have been killing civilians.
E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend
Share this on:
Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg del.icio.us reddit MySpace StumbleUpon
| Mixx it | Share



From critical.montages at gmail.com  Mon May 11 05:42:49 2009
From: critical.montages at gmail.com (Yoshie Furuhashi)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 07:42:49 -0400
Subject: [R-G] U.S. Journalist to Be Freed Soon in Iran, Her Lawyer Says
Message-ID: <cd351fdc0905110442x52994e44ha249f8dfd08309be@mail.gmail.com>

<http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/05/11/world/international-iran-usa-journalist.html>
May 11, 2009
U.S. Journalist to Be Freed Soon in Iran, Her Lawyer Says
By REUTERS

Filed at 7:05 a.m. ET

TEHRAN, May 11 (Reuters) - An Iranian appeals court has reduced the
eight-year jail sentence for Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi
to a suspended two-year term and she will soon be freed, her defence
lawyer told Reuters on Monday.

Lawyer Abdolsamad Khorramshahi was speaking a day after the court
heard the case of Saberi, who was jailed by a lower court on April 18
on charges of spying for the United States.

"The appeals court ... has reduced her jail sentence from eight years
to two years of suspended sentence ... and she will soon be free,"
Khorramshahi told Reuters.

He said Saberi will be banned from doing any reporting work in Iran
for five years.

Saberi's father Reza said he and his wife Akiko were on their way to
Tehran's Evin jail, where their daughter has been held since late
January, "to bring our daughter back home".

Reza Saberi told Reuters his daughter would be allowed to leave Iran.


From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp  Mon May 11 06:37:17 2009
From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 21:37:17 +0900
Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Hopebroken and Hopesick
Message-ID: <4A081BFD.5060107@ashisuto.co.jp>


Obama fans need a new start

The penny has dropped: hope alone won't save the world. Time for a fresh
lexicon. And to hope less, demand more

by Naomi Klein

The Guardian (April 17 2009)


All is not well in Obamafanland. It's not clear exactly what accounts
for the change of mood. Maybe it was the rancid smell emanating from the
US treasury's latest bank bailout. Or the news that the president's
chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, earned millions from the very
Wall Street banks and hedge funds he is protecting from re-regulation
now. Or perhaps it began earlier, with Obama's silence during Israel's
Gaza attack.

Whatever the last straw, a growing number of Obama enthusiasts are
starting to entertain the possibility that their man is not, in fact,
going to save the world if we all just hope really hard. This is a good
thing. If the superfan culture that brought Obama to power is going to
transform itself into an independent political movement, one fierce
enough to produce programmes capable of meeting the current crises, we
are all going to have to stop hoping and start demanding.

The first stage, however, is to understand fully the awkward in-between
space in which many US progressive movements find themselves. To do
that, we need a new language, one specific to the Obama moment. Here is
a start.

Hopeover. Like a hangover, a hopeover comes from having overindulged in
something that felt good at the time but wasn't really all that healthy,
leading to feelings of remorse, even shame. It's the political
equivalent of the crash after a sugar high. Sample sentence: "When I
listened to Obama's economic speech my heart soared. But then, when I
tried to tell a friend about his plans for the millions of lay-offs and
foreclosures, I found myself saying nothing at all. I've got a serious
hopeover."

Hoper coaster. Like a roller coaster, the hoper coaster describes the
intense emotional peaks and valleys of the Obama era, the veering
between joy at having a president who supports safe-sex education and
despondency that single-payer healthcare is off the table at the very
moment when it could become a reality. Sample sentence: "I was so
psyched when Obama said he was closing Guantanamo. But now they are
fighting like mad to make sure the prisoners in Bagram have no legal
rights at all. Stop this hoper coaster - I want to get off!"

Hopesick. Like the homesick, hopesick individuals are intensely
nostalgic. They miss the rush of optimism from the campaign trail and
are forever trying to recapture that warm, hopey feeling - usually by
exaggerating the significance of relatively minor acts of Obama decency.
Sample sentence: "I was feeling really hopesick about the escalation in
Afghanistan, but then I watched a YouTube video of Michelle in her
organic garden and it felt like inauguration day all over again".

Hope fiend. With hope receding, the hope fiend, like the dope fiend,
goes into serious withdrawal, willing to do anything to chase the buzz.
Sample sentence: "Joe told me he actually believes Obama deliberately
brought in Summers so that he would blow the bailout, and then Obama
would have the excuse he needs to do what he really wants: nationalise
the banks and turn them into credit unions. What a hope fiend!"

Hopebreak. Like the heartbroken lover, the hopebroken Obama-ite is not
mad but terribly sad. She projected messianic powers on to Obama and is
inconsolable in her disappointment. Sample sentence: "I really believed
Obama would finally force us to confront the legacy of slavery in this
country and start a serious national conversation about race. But now he
never seems to mention race, and he's using twisted legal arguments to
keep us from even confronting the crimes of the Bush years. Every time I
hear him say 'move forward', I'm hopebroken all over again."

Hopelash. Like a backlash, hopelash is a 180-degree reversal of
everything Obama-related. Sufferers were once Obama's most passionate
evangelists. Now they are his angriest critics. Sample sentence: "At
least with Bush everyone knew he was an asshole. Now we've got the same
wars, the same lawless prisons, the same Washington corruption, but
everyone is cheering like Stepford wives. It's time for a full-on hopelash."

In trying to name these various hope-related ailments, I found myself
wondering what the late Studs Terkel would have said about our
collective hopeover. He surely would have urged us not to give in to
despair. I reached for one of his last books, Hope Dies Last (2003). I
didn't have to read long. The book opens with the words: "Hope has never
trickled down. It has always sprung up."

That pretty much says it all. Hope was a fine slogan when rooting for a
long-shot presidential candidate. But as a posture towards the president
of the most powerful nation on earth, it is dangerously deferential. The
task as we move forward (as Obama likes to say) is not to abandon hope
but to find more appropriate homes for it - in the factories,
neighbourhoods and schools where tactics like sit-ins, squats and
occupations are seeing a resurgence.

Political scientist Sam Gindin wrote recently that the labour movement
can do more than protect the status quo. It can demand, for instance,
that shuttered auto plants be converted into green-future factories,
capable of producing mass-transit vehicles and technology for a
renewable energy system. "Being realistic means taking hope out of
speeches", he wrote, "and putting it in the hands of workers".

Which brings me to the final entry in the lexicon.

Hoperoots. Sample sentence: "It's time to stop waiting for hope to be
handed down, and start pushing it up, from the hoperoots".

_____

A version of this column was published in the Nation (www.thenation.com)

www.naomiklein.org

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/17/barack-obama-supporters-naomi-klein/


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  Mon May 11 08:16:30 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 07:16:30 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Who Killed 120 Civilians? The US Says It's Not a Story
Message-ID: <1E63AA31-6BB0-4172-AC8C-C2766CCD9A54@shaw.ca>

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21434

Who Killed 120 Civilians? The US Says It's Not a Story

May 11, 2009 By Patrick Cockburn
Source: Independent/UK

Patrick Cockburn's ZSpace Page

Join ZSpace

Herat is cut off from the rest of the planet. This was once one of the  
great cities of the world, an imperial capital drawing its wealth from  
trade along the Silk Road with Iran, the rest of Afghanistan and  
central Asia. Above the 800-year-old mosque in the city centre are  
minarets covered in blue and green mosaics which soar above one of the  
most magnificent monuments of the Islamic world.



But today Herat is cut off even from the rest of Afghanistan. I flew  
there because it was too dangerous to come by road. We turned right  
out of the battered-looking airport because, had we turned left down  
the main road towards Kandahar, we would soon have been in Taliban- 
controlled territory. The road going east to Bamyan and Kabul is risky  
for the same reasons.



Herat itself is peaceful compared to the rest of Afghanistan. There  
are police in their dark grey uniforms and forage hats checking cars,  
but they are relaxed and don't look as if they are expecting trouble.  
There are more new buildings than in Kabul, but on many construction  
sites work seems to have stopped.



I met Obaidullah Sidiqi, a local businessman, at a picnic lunch in a  
well-watered orchard, full of mulberry and apple trees and  
honeysuckle, which he owns not far from the airport road. An  
attractive aspect of Afghanistan never mentioned in war reporting is  
the Afghan love of flowers. Even in front-line positions soldiers dig  
small trenches, fill them with water and plant geraniums.



Mr Sidiqi, after 16 years in construction, part of it for the Save the  
Children Fund and partly on his own account, explained that business  
in Herat faces unique difficulties. For instance, last year he had  
contracts under way which he could only visit in disguise. One was for  
the construction of a school in Shindand district in the south of  
Herat province, a Pashtun area where the Taliban are strong. Mr  
Sidiqi, like most people in Herat, is a Tajik. Overall, the Taliban  
rebellion is confined to the Pashtun, the community to which 42 per  
cent of Afghans belong, while in the past the Tajiks, who make up 27  
per cent of the population, have been the core of the anti-Taliban  
opposition.



"I wanted to see how work was going at the school, but I did not dare  
go as myself," Mr Sidiqi told me. "So I grew my beard longer and  
pretended to be one of my drivers." He also had to go disguised to  
visit a road his company is building in Badghis province to the north- 
east of Herat, again in an area where the Taliban are strong. In fact,  
not all the danger comes from the Taliban - though it is always blamed  
on them - as there are plenty of bandit gangs in the mountains.



Overall, Mr Sidiqi said this year was better than last, though he did  
not sound completely confident that it was going to stay that way. He  
said that 200 local factories had shut, and Iran, where so many  
Afghans used to go to work, was issuing very few visas. Within  
Afghanistan there was pervasive corruption with the award of a  
contract usually determined by the size of the bribe offered to the  
officials in charge.



I was sympathetic to Mr Sidiqi's difficulties in moving around the  
country except by plane, because I faced the same problem. I had gone  
to Herat because last Monday US aircraft had attacked several villages  
in the Bala Baluk district of Farah province, which is immediately to  
the south of Herat. The local governor and surviving villagers said  
that more than 120 civilians had been killed. The US military denied  
that anything like that number had died and, if they had, it was the  
Taliban who had done it by hurling grenades into houses.



The problem was that Bala Baluk is in a Pashtun area where the Taliban  
are reputed to be strong. Back in Kabul Pashtuns told me that it was  
unfair to equate them with the Taliban, but in reality there are few  
Taliban who are not Pashtun. It was too dangerous to go directly to  
Bala Baluk, so the next best thing was to find a survivor or an  
eyewitness. I thought that some of the worst injured might be in Herat  
hospital, as the best in the area. But there turned out to be only 14  
wounded and these were in Farah hospital. This could have meant that  
there were fewer dead than the Afghans were saying, or that the  
bombardment was so intense that all had been killed.



I did not meet survivors but I did talk to a reliable witness, a radio  
reporter called Farooq Faizy, who had gone to Bala Baluk soon after  
the attack happened. He said that police and soldiers nearby were  
frightened of the Taliban and told him it was too dangerous to go on,  
but he spoke to some village elders, telling them: "Talk to us and we  
will tell the world." He says he was none too sure who was in control  
of the three villages - Gerani, Gangabad and Khoujaha - that had been  
hit and he was careful about what he said. But he did take some 70 or  
80 photographs and they bore out the villagers' story: there were  
craters everywhere; the villages had been plastered with bombs; bodies  
had been torn to shreds by the blasts; there were mass graves; there  
were no signs of damage from bullets, rockets or grenades.



I suspected that the US military's claim that the Taliban had run  
through the village hurling grenades, supposedly because they had not  
been paid their cut of profits from the opium poppy crop, was just a  
delaying tactic. Usually the US military delays admission of guilt  
until a story has gone cold and the media is no longer interested.  
"First say 'no story'," runs an old PR adage, "and then say 'old  
story'." By the end of the week the US was admitting that the grenade- 
throwing Taliban story was "thinly sourced".



Another thesis was that fighting had taken place 500 metres from the  
villages, and the Taliban had retreated through them, leading to the  
airstrikes. Farooq Faizy said he had seen signs of fighting in the  
shape of two burned-out Afghan army or police vehicles and a destroyed  
US Humvee, but they were seven or eight kilometres away from the site  
of the bombing. He had taken photographs of them showing the destroyed  
Afghan vehicles - Ford pick-ups with a machine gun mount over the  
bonnet. It seemed likely that this was the fight that had led to the  
Afghan army and their US advisers asking for air support. What the  
Americans never explain in Afghanistan or Iraq is why they are using  
weapons designed for world war three against villages that have not  
left the Middle Ages - which makes heavy civilian casualties inevitable.



Back in Herat, Mr Sidiqi was none too sympathetic about what had  
happened to the people of Bala Baluk. Like many Afghans, he felt that  
it was the weakness of the government, not the strength of the  
Taliban, which was the problem. Furthermore he felt, and this is  
surely true, that "neither Pakistan nor Iran wants a strong  
Afghanistan".



Middle East correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent,  
Patrick Cockburn was awarded the 2005 Martha Gellhorn prize for war  
reporting. His book on his years covering the war in Iraq, The  
Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq (Verso) was a finalist for the  
National Book Critics Circle Award for non-fiction. 
  


From fentona at shaw.ca  Mon May 11 08:33:57 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 07:33:57 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Kenney's Quiet Revolution
Message-ID: <A312FE25-5699-41A4-ABDD-A3951EE5F794@shaw.ca>

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/2606#comment_jump

May 10, 2009

Kenney's Quiet Revolution
Media focus on guns, drugs and hard-nosed ministers precludes dialogue  
on government shifts in immigration policy

by Tim McSorley

The Dominion - http://www.dominionpaper.ca

Nearly 80 undocumented workers were arrested in various communities in  
Ontario on April 2. Canadian media did not report on the story, but on  
May 2 in Toronto over 2000 people protested Canadian immigration  
policy. Photo: Tania Liu cc2.0

MONTREAL?A massive police operation in the Toronto area on April 1  
caught the attention of major Canadian news outlets.

One hundred and twenty-five people were rounded up in a pre-dawn raid  
and charged with arms, drugs and organized crime-related violations.  
The arrests made top headlines across national media and were featured  
in most large metropolitan dailies.

A day later, another police operation in Ontario resulted in the  
arrest of nearly as many people, but hardly a word was written about it.

On April 2, Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers and  
southern Ontario police officers arrested approximately 80 people on  
immigration violations.

While not as sensational as the first news item?which nabbed some  
30,000 tablets of ecstasy and 40 firearms?the story contained much of  
the same interest, drama and newsworthiness: one hundred officers  
arrested undocumented workers at their places of employment and homes  
in at least three communities in Southern Ontario. And, according to  
the CBSA, it was the largest action of its kind in the Greater Toronto  
Area.

[*Continues....*]

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/2606#comment_jump

From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May 11 11:43:44 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Can Pakistan be governed?
In-Reply-To: <FED487554E1948DFB009C1FC8ABCA468@twubby.com>
Message-ID: <655417416.498091242063824562.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




The Canadian Charger ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? May 8, 2009 



Can Pakistan be governed? 



By Dr. Sheila McDonough 



Can Pakistan be governed? Freelance journalist James Traub poses this question in an April 5 'New York Times' article. He begins by focusing on the immediate dilemmas of today: Can Pakistan?s president Asif Ali Zardari cope as Americans would like him to do? Can he be trusted to make America safe? 



The perceived threat to America is the 'raison d??tre' of this sudden interest in this troubled South Asian nation?s history. But if one has a serious medical problem, one naturally wants to know whether one?s doctor is up to the task. To find out, one would search the record--has this doctor killed, or cured most of his patients? This is the angle of approach to the history of Pakistan -- who are these people, and can we rely on them? The author comments that Pakistan is a mess. Does this mess mean danger for Americans? Where can the nervous West look for clues to the source of the danger and a possible cure? 



That the danger is real, and the worry justified, is undoubtedly true. 



On TV news channels, one sees comments, in the repetitive manner that Jon Stewart often satirizes, urging us all to worry about Pakistan. It seems that every commentator on every news channel frets in the same tone -- what can we do about the mess of Pakistan. 



Traub?s article is part of an emerging narrative, but who is formulating the narrative and why? Unfortunately, there is very little general information in the wider public about South Asia that might serve as a counterweight to some of the anxiety being cultivated. In fact, most North Americans don?t know how or why Pakistan was created. For those whose sons and daughters may have to go off and fight in South Asia, one would think this kind of information might be helpful. 



Many of us can remember back in the days of the Vietnam War when similar concerns were emerging about the ability of the American-backed South Vietnamese government to cope. Then, too, American pressures led to juggling the leadership of an Asian country in hopes of finding a magic superman who could take over and run things properly. As we know, those pious hopes did not work out. 



Yet, the lesson of those vain efforts seems to be lost on Traub. He?s still trying to figure out who could save Pakistan in the way that ?Americans? want. But what if the answer is nobody? 



I won?t speculate on the reasons why the narrative being created by Traub and the other commentators ignores obvious questions, but here are some that deserve answers: 



*Why have the best and the brightest in Pakistan ended up in the army? 



*Why has the army come to dominate the state? 



*Why has a strong middle class not been created? 



*Why has the economy not flourished? 



*Why did Bangladesh separate from Pakistan? 



*Was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto a martyred hero of democracy or an autocratic feudal lord? 



*Why did the supposedly democratic Bhutto personally order his army to try to smash the people of East Bengal after they refused to vote for him? 



Traub and the other narrative-creating theorists want to convey an image of Bhutto as a democratic hero, foully done in by a religiously conservative general. Is this part of the emerging myth of democratic heroes versus Muslim extremists? 



In Khalid B. Sayeed?s 'Politics in Pakistan: The Nature and Direction of Change', an excellent analysis by a Canadian political scientist, the author is straightforward about Bhutto?s years in power. He says that the urban classes piled up resentment against Bhutto because his regime terrorized opponents by kidnapping family members and seizing property. 



Bhutto was widely hated, and data on this is easily available. Benazir Bhutto always refused to see her father like this, but why does the Western press still buy into her personal myth? 



Another excellent source for what politics was like in Pakistan is Salman Rushdie?s 'Shame'. This novel is actually about the conflict between Bhutto and Zia ul-Haq, the religiously conservative army general who had Bhutto killed. Zia subsequently governed Pakistan under military rule for 11 years. In the novel, written before the Taliban became an effective power, he falls to the ground thanking God because the Russians invaded Afghanistan. He tells his followers that the Americans will now arm the Taliban, and conservative Muslims will have vast power under their control. If Traub and others like him would only pay attention to the political insights of Rushdie, they would learn a great deal. 



Michel Foucault said that one of the most important things to notice about any situation is what is 'not' said, and the most striking gaps in Traub?s narrative is the absence of any reference to India. When Traub does a quick overview of the last 63 years of Pakistan?s history, he writes as though major events -- a complex story in which the military seized power three times, and a civil war broke up the nation -- all took place mysteriously as a result of forces within the nation. The wider context is ignored. 



Since I have lived and worked in both Pakistan and India, and even made a tourist visit to the beautiful valley of Kashmir back when that was feasible, I find this notion of ignoring the wider context strangely simple-minded. And misleading. 



In Canada, we know that our border with our neighbor explains most things about us. In a similar way, it makes no sense to think about Pakistan separately from India. It is the relationship with her much stronger neighbour that explains almost everything about the creation, militarization, economic backwardness, and social turmoil in Pakistan. 



Why can?t we talk about this? All four of Rushdie?s novels about South Asia focus on this issue. When Rushdie writes about Pakistan?s political leaders, he begins by telling us what happened to their families at the time the subcontinent was partitioned in 1947. That history is crucial to each family and to the wider society. 



What is called "identity politics" is an essential key to understanding these issues. One of the best explanations of identity politics and contemporary social conflict is the book by Nobel Prize winning Indian economist Amartya Sen entitled 'Identity and Violence'. There is much confusion in our culture at present about this word "identity." As used with reference to politics, the term does not mean the inner conscience of an individual, his or her most private sense of vocation and direction of growth, the source of personal strength and creativity. 



Identity politics means the opposite of individual vocation and vision. 



It means a group, tribal, national or ethnic identity that subsumes the individual into the mass. A lonely individual can think, but a member of a mob just riots. 



Another lucid writer about identity politics is the Lebanese author Amin Maalouf. He says that any real individual has a variety of social networks, friends, interests, hobbies, languages, skills and so forth. 



These are all different, often unrelated, sources of pleasure, contentment and stimulation. But when this individual allows a system of abstract identity -- religion, nationality, ethnicity, or whatever -- to dominate his or her consciousness the real person is diminished and the puppet takes over. 



Everything in life is now perceived through this abstract lens. Anything that happens is good or bad according to the abstract identity. The enemy, the "other," is identified as the enemy of the abstract cause, and has to be opposed by any force that works. A person totally caught up in this abstract identity tends to use any new information only to buttress commitment to the accepted identity. 



The expulsion of the imperialists, and the creation of new nations, after World War II created in the minds of many people precisely this tendency to grab hold of an abstract identity. Strong emotional commitment to the perceived cause of the new nation developed. In the case we are discussing, the creation of India and Pakistan in 1947 resulted in extreme forms of identity politics on both sides. The birth of the new nations involved massive transfers of something like 10 million people and much hysterical violence, the scars of which run deep. Not to see this as a significant factor in the grief that Pakistan has suffered is to be notably blind. 



The question "Can Pakistan be governed?" needs to be addressed in the context of relationship with India. Because of the trauma of partition, Pakistan continued to feel threatened by India. The demilitarization of Pakistan is dependent on establishing better relations between these two countries. This will not happen until the situation in Kashmir is settled in a way satisfactory for all concerned. If this happens, and trade relations are normalized, there is reason to suppose that the democratization of Pakistan will occur more readily. 



The two nations have fought three times over Kashmir. The violence has gotten worse, with the outbreaks in the 1990s more terrible than the preceding ones. This is what Rushdie?s novel 'Shalimar the Clown' is telling us about Kashmir. He is talking about the reality of living under military occupation for over 50 years. 



So, when Traub and others worry about the militarization of politics in Pakistan, the fact that the army has come to dominate Pakistani life in many ways, they strangely do not ask the obvious question: If the perceived threat from India has caused Pakistan to become a state dominated by the army, can something not be done about this? One of the most surreal aspects of Traub?s analysis is that he seems to think that the army will somehow become less influential in Pakistan. Given India looming on the border, is that likely? The answer lies there in the 63 years since partition. Maybe Traub should have asked Rushdie what he thinks. 



In brief, identity politics dominates political life in both Pakistan and India. As long as that is the case, each will focus on the other as the enemy. Pakistanis cannot imagine feeling secure as long as the threat from India is present in their minds. The other side feels like that, too, not least because of Pakistan?s nuclear weapons. When there is identity politics resulting from trauma as in this case of the violence that went along with the birth of the two South Asia nations, each side develops its own narrative. 



For the past 60 years, almost every public debate between Indians and Pakistanis has taken the form of unyielding assertions from each side of its own narrative. Just as in a troubled divorce between two people, each can do nothing but reiterate the crimes of the other. When identity politics flourishes, each side develops in own narrative about what has happened, what is happening now, and what is likely to happen. 



The dilemmas posed by mutually exclusive narrative theories are discussed in the book, ?Shared Histories,? by Paul Scham, Walid Salem and Benjamin Pogrund. This book was written jointly by a group of Israelis and Palestinians. They focus on ?trauma-induced-dominant narrative? as a key element in conflict situations. Unless each side can free its mind from the narrative embedded in its consciousness, movement towards a better situation is stuck. In order to get unstuck, the control exercised by the narrative over the brain must be challenged. 



Scham and his colleagues argue that paying systematic attention to the narrative of the other is the best hope. If people can transcend their narratives, they can begin constructive problem solving. 



One lucid exponent of constructive approaches to the problems of India and Pakistan is Mahatma Gandhi?s grandson, Rajmohan Gandhi. His father, Devdas Gandhi, had been sent by his father, the Mahatma, to study at the Jamia Millia Islamia, a Muslim University in India. Devdas was thus educated by some of the best minds among the Muslims who had opted to stay in India. Devdas and Rajmohan have both been journalists in India, spending most of their lives writing about many of the issues of conflict resolution in South Asia. Rajmohan Gandhi earlier wrote an excellent study of the lives of the leading Muslims who had been involved in the birth of the two nations. 



Rajmohan Gandhi has indicated that the South Asians should go next in a book entitled ?Revenge and Reconciliation: Understanding South Asian History?. His book is dedicated to his Muslim friend, the historian Iqbal Ahmed. 



I would agree that the best hope for all of us lies in the reconciliation of India and Pakistan, and a transformed future in which neither side needs its nuclear weapons, or fierce armies threatening each other across the border. Rather trade, commerce, tourists, happy people should be flowing across the border, increasing the joy, prosperity and well-being of everyone concerned. 



All this is possible. 



One of the most basic needs is not only to transform the rigid narratives, but to get historians from each side to work together to produce a curriculum to teach a common history to peoples on both sides. Once that is achieved, someone like Traub could just read what 'they' say. I think he might be less worried about the mess if that happened. 



***Dr. Sheila McDonough is an adjunct professor of religion at Concordia University. 



The Canadian Charger is Canada's national independent not-for-profit multimedia interactive online magazine -- with 60 of Canada's top experts, writers and cartoonists: www.thecanadiancharger.com 



Come and listen to British journalist Yvonne Ridley speaks on: WHY FAIR 

ALTERNATIVE MEDIA IS URGENTLY NEEDED In Toronto on Saturday May 30, 6 pm and in Waterloo on Sunday May 31, 6 pm 



For dinner tickets please contact Debbie at adm1 at thecanadiancharger.com

From fentona at shaw.ca  Mon May 11 12:09:25 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:09:25 -0700
Subject: [R-G] Uncle Sam Wants Them (Mercenaries and 21st Century War)
Message-ID: <30108D23-0457-47AD-92C1-C1744EA9E904@shaw.ca>

http://contexts.org/articles/winter-2009/uncle-sam-wants-them/

issues >  Winter 2009  > pp. 14-19
Uncle Sam Wants Them
by Katherine McCoy

Throughout most of the 20th century, warring nation-states generally  
had two options to increase their military strength.

They could create a coalition?as the United States did in World War II? 
or institute a draft?as it did in Vietnam.

Today, though, countries have a third option. Rent.

Hiring private military corporations, sometimes called private  
security corporations or private security firms, has fast become a  
popular way for nations to fight wars.

As a result, much of today?s military workforce isn?t part of the  
military at all. These military contractors come from across the globe  
and challenge how we think about nations, states, citizens, and how to  
exercise accountability in war.

For example, when a Panamanian subsidiary of an American firm hires  
Colombians to fight Iraqis, which country is responsible for their  
welfare and answers for their crimes? Which public is likely to mount  
an anti-war campaign or launch a yellow ribbon drive? And whom do they  
target? These questions, and the answers to them, have significant  
consequences for how war gets waged, when it stops, and who?s  
accountable for it.

These private companies have become major players in all types of  
modern warfare. Many scholars have focused on the increasing role  
these corporations play in weak states, especially in Africa, where  
they are significant domestic players in civil conflict and resource  
wars. Some, like Stephen Brayton, worry that in failed states,  
corporations are gaining the ?civic and political loyalty? that should  
belong to the military or police, yet are accountable only to the  
elites who hire them.

Military companies, though, are as much a tool of the strong as the  
weak.

the move to private military corporations

Scholars have long thought of fighting wars as something nation-states  
did through their citizens. Max Weber famously defined the modern  
state as holding a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence,  
meaning that only state agents?usually soldiers or police?were allowed  
to wield force. In contrast to pre-modern Europe, in which local  
rulers often hired mercenaries to protect their kingdoms, modern  
states largely put aside the mercenary option in favor of standing  
armies composed primarily of citizens dedicated (officially, at least)  
to protecting the entire nation. Throughout the 19th and 20th  
centuries, international law was developed based on this idea of the  
nation-state.

There were, of course, exceptions to this rule. In the American  
Revolutionary War the British hired Hessians to fight the colonists,  
while some mercenaries on the American side became famous war heroes.  
Even as late as the 1970s European colonial powers hired mercenaries  
to defeat African ?liberation? movements, prompting the United Nations  
to propose an international treaty against mercenarism. Despite such  
exceptions, the shift from premodern to modern warfare was marked by  
the idea that, from here on out, states did?and should?fight wars with  
their own militaries. Mercenaries appeared as an occasional threat to  
governments and international order, but only a marginal threat, and  
one that was waning.

But just as the sun seemed to set on the individual mercenary, it rose  
on the era of the military corporation. Private military corporations  
(PMCs) are legal entities that supply governments, non-governmental  
organizations (NGOs), and industry with private soldiers, often  
referred to as guards or simply ?contractors.?

The first modern PMCs can be traced back to the Vietnam War. What made  
the rise of these organizations possible, explains the Brookings  
Institution?s P.W. Singer in Corporate Warriors, is the combination of  
the end of the Cold War, the subsequent downsizing of armies, the  
availability of smaller high-tech weaponry, and the ideological trend  
toward outsourcing and privatizing government functions.

Some argue that PMCs are a stronger, more organized form of  
mercenarism, while others claim they?re a natural extension of the  
defense industry?s shift from providing goods to providing services.  
Contractors today provide nearly all the services previously performed  
by soldiers in war zones, from guarding bases to interrogating  
prisoners to developing military strategy.

Since the 1990s, PMCs have taken on increasingly larger roles in war  
and military campaigns. In fact, the ratio of military contractors to  
soldiers has climbed with each U.S. military intervention since the  
1991 Gulf War, such that more private contractors work in the Iraq War  
than soldiers. And there?s no reason to expect this trend to slow  
down. Already estimated at more than $100 billion, the PMC market is  
projected to be worth between $150 billion and $200 billion by 2010.

logistics of pmcs

Governments that contract PMCs have practical reasons for doing so.  
One is cost. Using contractors instead of public employees saves the  
government from paying employees? pensions or peacetime salaries,  
potentially producing long-term savings. In the short term, however,  
open-ended contracts and hefty pricetags make contractors more  
expensive than soldiers. Thus, the true cost of contracting remains an  
open debate.

Perhaps more important than cost is strategy. PMCs can be rapidly  
deployed in unanticipated, short-term conflicts.

As such, they can free up soldiers for more sustained military work on  
other fronts. Moreover, outsourcing ?tail-end? jobs, such as laundry  
and construction, to civilians reduces the demands on a stretched  
national army.

Many analysts argue a reliance on contractors has allowed the United  
States to pursue two simultaneous wars despite the 1990s military  
downsizing. But in countries with weak armies, PMCs can provide a  
decisive military boost. Sierra Leone is the classic example?it  
successfully used Executive Outcomes, a South African PMC, to drive  
back rebels from the capital city in the mid-1990s.

While most PMCs are headquartered in militarily powerful countries  
such as the United States, Britain, and Israel, a disproportionate  
number of the PMC workforce itself comes from the global South.  
According to a survey conducted by the PMC industry?s think tank, the  
Peace Operations Institute, in U.S. operations only about 10 percent  
of contracted workers are Americans, while 60 percent belong to the  
country in which military operations are taking place (Iraqis in Iraq,  
for example) and 30 percent come from other countries. A Congressional  
Research Services report reveals those numbers are fairly  
representative of U.S. efforts in Iraq, with a slightly higher  
percentage of contractors (65 percent) being Iraqi and about one- 
quarter being other foreigners.

That last group, called ?third-country nationals,? (TCNs) is made up  
of workers from around the world. They are routinely paid about one- 
tenth of what their American counterparts earn. Host-country nationals  
(HCNs) tend to be paid wages commensurate with local jobs.

The international composition of the PMC workforce is notable. Former  
Haliburton subsidiary KBR alone has employees from 38 different  
countries working in Iraq. Some third-country nationals?Filipinos and  
Indians, for example?perform the bulk of support work on American  
military bases, such as laundry and food service, while others? 
especially Nepalese, South Africans, and Latin Americans?are hired for  
security work. The latter usually come from countries with a recent  
history of counterinsurgency or other claims to military expertise.

Despite the division between those performing more ?tooth-end? and  
?tail-end? jobs, in war all are vulnerable to attack. The chart above  
shows the breakdown of contractor casualties in Iraq by job type.

consequences of contractors

The move to PMCs changes the entire spectrum of military labor. It  
marks a dual shift in the way we think of a military labor force: from  
public to private, and from domestic to international. This shift  
affects more than the clothes people wear in war or the languages they  
speak on base. It undermines old lines of accountability. Military  
historian Martin van Crevald argues the monopoly over force meant that  
in war, ?it is the government that directs, the army that fights, and  
the people who suffer.? This may be a dysfunctional relationship, but  
one with the potential to curb violence nonetheless.

To the extent that the state, the army, and the people all represent  
the same nation, their fates are interconnected. In democratic  
countries, ?the people? must approve the government?s decision to send  
the military, and they might retract that approval as military  
casualties start mounting. Having public, national forces fight wars  
helps the whole nation experience and internalize their costs.  
Citizens see ?our men and women in uniform? being shipped off to war  
and the flag-draped coffins when those same soldiers don?t make it  
home alive. This helps bring the costs of war home to the voting public.

In contrast, using PMCs externalizes the costs of war and outsources  
accountability. As private employees, contractors don?t leave the same  
impression on public consciousness that soldiers do, and they?re less  
amenable to public oversight.

This is truer for some contractors than others. Recent history shows  
deaths or disappearances of American contractors do make political  
waves in the United States. Military analysts James Manker and Kent  
Williams point out that, ?Regardless of where the responsibility is  
placed contractually, [when American contractors are involved] the  
media reports it as a U.S. casualty, a U.S. captive, or a U.S. wounded  
without respect to who is at fault.? Indeed, author Jeremy Scahill  
points out that the 2004 deaths of four Americans working for  
Blackwater in Fallujah made headlines in the United States for days,  
and the 2003 capture of three American contractors by FARC guerrillas  
in Colombia led to ongoing Congressional inquiries throughout their  
five years of captivity.

Captured or killed foreign contractors don?t receive such treatment.  
For instance, there was limited political response in the United  
States when insurgents captured and beheaded 12 Nepalese contractors  
working in conjunction with the U.S. mission in Iraq. For this very  
reason, companies sometimes enlist foreign contractors for high-risk  
or high-visibility roles, such as gunners or pilots. This first became  
evident to me during my fieldwork on PMCs in Colombia, when I asked a  
State Department employee why Central Americans were flying U.S.- 
sponsored counter-drug and counter-insurgency missions there.

?Since these are combat missions, [the U.S. government] didn?t want  
American pilots flying because of risk and liability,? he responded.

The pattern seems to hold in some other contexts. A Swisspeace report  
notes that in Afghanistan, security-heavy PMCs such as Blackwater,  
Dyncorp, and ArmorGroup have some of the highest ratios of third- 
country nationals. Indeed, some military analysts consider the  
relative invisibility of foreign contractors to be one of  
privatization?s key benefits. As a 2005 Rand report notes, the  
advantages of PMCs are greatest ?when policymakers worry less about  
the safety of non-American contract personnel than about American  
lives.?

In Iraq, non-American contractors are the hidden casualties of war.  
Among state-supported coalition troops, Americans make up 93 percent  
of the casualties. Among contractors, they represent only 43 percent  
of casualties. The rest are third-country nationals from Europe, Asia,  
and the Middle East. This percentage would be even smaller if Iraqi  
contractor deaths were included, but such data are not currently  
available. Because they aren?t Americans, Iraqi and third-country  
contractor deaths generally aren?t reported in U.S. newspapers, even  
though contractors work side-by-side with coalition troops.

Using contractors?especially foreigners?also makes it difficult to  
determine who?s legally responsible when something goes wrong. This is  
a problem both for protecting contractors? welfare and for holding  
them accountable for crimes. For example, in Iraq there have been  
widespread reports of PMCs confiscating foreign contractors? passports  
and keeping contractors against their will. This led the Defense  
Department to issue a memorandum in 2006 calling on the companies to  
clean up their act, but little seems to have changed.

One likely explanation for this inertia is that the foreign  
contractors are hired through an international web of subcontractors  
and subsidiaries, effectively deflecting responsibility from any one  
company.

A Washington Post article from 2004 outlined the contract chain for a  
group of Indian support contractors: ?[The Indian company] Subhash  
Vijay had hired them to work for Gulf Catering Co. of Riyadh, Saudi  
Arabia, which was subcontracted to Alargan Group of Kuwait City, which  
was subcontracted to the Event Source of Salt Lake City, which in turn  
was subcontracted to KBR of Houston.?

Having such a multinational, highly subcontracted workforce further  
complicates the already difficult task of holding security contractors  
legally accountable when they commit crimes. Moreover, without knowing  
who contractors are or how many are out there, it?s hard even for the  
state to exercise accountability over them?numerous government reports  
acknowledge the lack of an accurate count of the number of contractors  
and subcontractors involved in U.S. military operations.

In some cases, PMCs offer governments strategic flexibility at the  
expense of full political accountability. For instance, the Defense  
Department and State Department have effectively used foreign  
contractors to exceed Congress?s limits on the number of troops  
involved in a military campaign. (In an effort to contain certain  
military operations, Congress may place a ceiling, or cap, on the  
number of soldiers that can be deployed on a mission. But caps  
generally don?t apply to contractors.)

Congress has tried at times to close this loophole by capping the  
number of contractors as well, but these caps apply only to Americans,  
not foreigners. This is the case in Colombia, where the use of foreign  
military contractors allows U.S. companies to deploy more than the 600- 
person cap imposed by Congress. This official invisibility of foreign,  
private participants in such military campaigns makes the conflicts  
seem smaller and more controllable.

A few groups have tried to increase accountability by reinforcing the  
political relationships between states and their contractor citizens.  
In the United States, human rights organizations are advocating for  
Defense Department contractors to be brought under the military chain  
of command; this will probably come before the U.S. Supreme Court  
later this year. The UN?s Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries has  
pushed PMC recruitment countries to enact stricter domestic  
legislation to control the flow of their citizens to the PMC market  
abroad. Some countries see legislation as a way to help their  
governments control potentially violent citizens. For example, South  
Africa has enacted strict, but arguably ineffective, laws intended to  
stop Apartheid-era shock troops from selling their services on the  
international market.

On the other hand, some developing nations see this market as a  
solution to the problems of insecurity. For countries like Colombia,  
the international war market provides a way to employ demobilized  
paramilitaries and retired soldiers. Whether this is an effective way  
to reintegrate ex-combatants remains to be seen.

What is clear, however, is that governments currently have neither the  
authority nor the responsibility over private employees that they have  
for their own citizen-soldiers operating abroad. The triple challenges  
of a lucrative international market, weak government controls, and  
lack of political will to control contractors all lead contractors to  
operate as free agents. The Blackwater armed guard in Iraq has no more  
ties to his home state than his compatriot who works at a hotel in  
Jordan. From the perspective of their governments and their fellow  
citizens, both are simply international labor migrants.

the rub of controlling pmcs

The Heritage Foundation?s James Carafano argues that nations do have  
the tools to hold today?s private soldiers, and those who hire them,  
accountable. In Private Sector, Public Wars, he argues that ?Unlike  
medieval kings [who used mercenaries], modern nations can use the  
instruments of good governance to control the role of the private  
sector in military competition.? Among those instruments he lists  
?[a]n enabled citizenry with ready access to a vast amount of public  
information.?

But there?s the rub. Which citizenry is he talking about? Under  
Weber?s ideal, this was never a question?those who fought, those who  
ordered them into battle, and those who elected the decision-makers  
were all citizens of the same country. But with privatization and  
internationalization, there?s no national constituency that  
automatically identifies with contractors, or with the wars they  
fight. This poses its own security risk. Privatization removes war one  
step away from the country that orders it, and internationalization  
removes it yet another. When the workers of war become more remote and  
more invisible, the entry barriers to war are lowered. It?s easier to  
wage war with anonymous soldiers.

Any serious attempts to regulate PMCs will have to deal with this  
issue. There are many proposals for making the industry cleaner, such  
as increasing contractor professionalism and creating greater  
transparency in bids for government contracts. These steps are  
important for increasing what political scientist Deborah Avant calls  
?functional control? of the PMC industry, but they do nothing to  
increase what she calls ?political control.? That will only come  
through laws that help people feel some sense of ownership over the  
PMC world. Our ability to re-create that sense of public empowerment  
in this new world will help determine what military privatization  
means in the long run. It may make the difference between the state  
hiring out some of the functions of war, and having a private shadow  
army.

...

[further reading on the web]

Shadow Company

Check out the 2007 award-winning documentary, Shadow Company (http://www.shadowcompanythemovie.com/ 
) for an inside look at the world of PMCs through personal experiences  
from Iraq and interviews with PMC staff, owners, and lobbyists, former  
mercenaries, academics, journalists, and authors. Check out clips from  
the film on their website, including segments on Sierra Leone,  
Equatorial Guinea, and the structure of the industry.

Meet the PMCs

Curious who these companies actually are? The Center for Public  
Integrity compiled a database of more than 150 PMCs with contracts in  
Iraq and Afghanistan. Their Windfalls of War project (http://projects.publicintegrity.org/wow/ 
) includes information about each company (through 2004), the work  
they?ve been contracted to do, and the value of their contracts (the  
database documents up to $48.7 billion in Iraq/Afghanistan contracts).  
You might also look at info from the industry itself: browse  
privatemilitary.org or the PMC trade association, International Peace  
Operations Association.

Human Rights and PMCs

The International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations  
High Commissioner of Human Rights further explore the accountability  
issues raised in the article. These sources discuss the humanitarian  
and human rights obligations of PMCs and the states that hire them.

Finally, keep an eye on ongoing public commentary on PMCs from The  
Brookings Institute?s Peter Singer and The Nation?s Jeremy Scahill.
further reading in print

Deborah Avant. The Market for Force (Cambridge University Press,  
2005). A political scientist takes on the question of what political  
and security tradeoffs we can expect with military privatization.

James Jay Carafano. Private Sector, Public Wars: Contractors in Combat? 
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Future Conflicts (Praeger Security  
International, 2008). This security analyst believes PMCs are an  
important military tool that can be adequately controlled by improving  
the existing system of government contracting.

Jennifer K. Elsea and Nina M. Serafino. ?Private Security Contractors  
in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues.? Congressional  
Resource Service Report for Congress, July 11, 2007. This report  
discusses the role and status of third-country nationals, as well as  
Americans and Iraqis, in the current Iraq campaign.

P.W. Singer. Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military  
Industry (Cornell University Press, 2003). The author introduces the  
wide variety of contexts in which PMCs operate and develops a  
framework for dividing the industry between security and support  
functions.

United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries as a Means of  
Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the Rights of  
People to Self-Determination. Annual Reports. The UN group charged  
with studying PMCs releases annual reports detailing the labor  
violations against third-country national contractors and the human  
rights violations committed by contractors.

...


About the Author

Katherine McCoy is a Ph.D. student in the sociology department at the  
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her forthcoming dissertation focuses  
on the use of private military corporations in war and conflict.



From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May 11 12:08:49 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Uri Avnery on the Israeli-Zionist demonization of Iran and
 Ahmadinejad
In-Reply-To: <26A5DD8628F6404CB912854D236457C0@twubby.com>
Message-ID: <413653203.511801242065329165.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




Uri Avnery 

9.5.09 



Sir Winston Peres 



Iran is not a fascist state. Nor is Iran an anti-Semitic state. And, most important: Iran is not an aggressive country. 



First of all, I want to apologize to all the good women who are engaged in the world?s oldest profession. 



I recently described Shimon Peres as a political prostitute. One of my female readers has protested vigorously. Prostitutes, she pointed out, earn their money honestly. They deliver what they promise. 



Our president, on the other hand, only tells the truth by accident. He is a political impostor and a political sham. To him, too, apply Winston Churchill?s words about a former Prime Minister: ?The Right Honorable gentleman sometimes stumbles upon the truth, but he always hurries on as if nothing has happened.? Or the words of former minister Amnon Rubinstein about Ariel Sharon: ?He blushes when he tells the truth.? 



Like a traveling salesman offering a counterfeit product, Peres is now peddling the merchandise called Binyamin Netanyahu. He presents to the world a Netanyahu we have never known: a peacemaker, the epitome of truthfulness, a man with no other ambition than to go down in history as the founder of the State of Palestine. A Righteous Jew to outshine all Righteous Gentiles. 





HOWEVER, ALL these lies are nothing compared to trivializing the ? Holocaust. 



In some countries, that is a criminal offense, punishable by prison. The trivializing has many guises. For example: the assertion that the gas chambers never existed. Or: that not six million Jews were killed, but only six hundred thousand. But the most dangerous form of minimizing is the comparison of the Holocaust ? to passing events, thus turning it into ?a detail of history?, as Jean-Marie Le-Pen infamously put it. 



This week, Shimon Peres committed exactly this crime. 



Like a lackey walking in front of the king, strewing flowers on the road, Peres flew to the US to prepare the ground for Netanyahu?s coming visit. He imposed himself on a reluctant Barack Obama, who had no choice but to receive him. 



Posing as a new Winston Churchill, the man who warned the world against the rise of Nazi Germany, he informed Obama with solemn bombast: ?As Jews we cannot but compare Iran to Nazi Germany.? 



About this sentence at least three things must be said: (a) it is untrue, (b) it trivializes the Holocaust, and (c) it reflects a catastrophic policy. 





DOES IRAN really resemble Nazi Germany? 



I don?t like the regime there. As a committed atheist who insists on total separation between state and religion, I oppose any regime based on religion ? in Iran, in Israel or in any other country. 



Also, I don?t like politicians like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I am allergic to leaders who stand on balconies and declaim to the masses below. I detest demagogues who appeal to the base instincts of hatred and fear. 



Alas, Ahmadinejad is not the only leader of this type. Indeed, the world is full of them, some are among the staunchest supporters of the Israeli government. In Israel, too, we do not lack this sort. 



But Iran is not a fascist state. According to the evidence, there is quite a lot of freedom there, including freedom of expression. Ahmadinejad is not the only candidate for president in the present election campaign. There are a number of others, some more radical, some less. 



Nor is Iran an anti-Semitic state. A Jewish community, whose members are refusing to emigrate, is living there comfortably enough. It enjoys religious freedom and has a representative in parliament. Even if we take such reports with a grain of salt, it is clear that the Jews in Iran are not being persecuted like the Jews in Nazi Germany. 



And, most important: Iran is not an aggressive country. It has not attacked its neighbors for centuries. The long and bloody Iraq-Iran war was started by Saddam Hussein. It may be remembered that at the time Israel (contrary to the US) supported the Iranian side and supplied it with arms. (One such transaction was accidentally disclosed in the Irangate affair.) Before the Khomeini revolution, Iran was our most important ally in the region. ?? 



Ahmadinejad hates Israel. But it has been denied that he has threatened to annihilate Israel. It appears that the crucial sentence in his famous speech was mistranslated: he did not declare his determination to wipe Israel off the map, but expressed the opinion that Israel will disappear from the map. 



Frankly, I don?t think that there is such a great difference between the two versions. When the leader of a big country predicts that my state will disappear, that makes me worry. When that country appears to do everything possible to produce a nuclear bomb, that worries me even more. I draw conclusions, but about that later. 



Moreover, Ahmadinejad ? unlike Hitler ? is not the supreme leader of his country. He is subject to the real leadership, composed of clerics. All the signs indicate that this is not a group of adventurers. On the contrary, they are very balanced, sophisticated and prudent. Now they are cautiously feeling their way towards dialogue with the US, trying to reach an accord without sacrificing their regional ambitions, which are quite normal. 



In brief, the speeches of one demagogic leader do not turn a country into Nazi Germany. Iran is not a mad country. It has no real interests in Israel/Palestine. Its interests are focused on the Persian Gulf area, and it wants to increase its influence throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Its relations with Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas mostly serve this purpose, and so does the anti-Israeli incitement of Ahmadinejad. 



In brief, the comparison of Iran to Nazi Germany lacks a factual basis. 





FOM THE Jewish point of view, the comparison is even more objectionable. 



The Holocaust was a unique crime. True, the 20 th century has seen other terrible acts of genocide, but they did not resemble the Shoa. In the Ottoman empire, a horrifying massacre of the Armenian citizens took place, which amounted to genocide. Hitler himself mentioned it, saying that the annihilation of the Jews would similarly be forgotten. Stalin killed millions of Soviet citizens in the name of a monstrous ideology, which had started as a humanist creed. So did Pot Pol, who killed millions in order to change society for the better. In Rwanda, members of one tribe slaughtered the members of another. And, alas, the list goes on. 



But Nazi Germany was unique in employing the instruments of a modern industrial society in order to eliminate helpless minorities (let?s not forget the Roma, those with disabilities and the homosexuals) in a prolonged, planned and highly organized process, with the participation of all the organs of the state. If the Nazi regime had not been overthrown by war, Hitler would have continued with the annihilation of many more millions of Poles, Ukrainians and Russians. 



Nothing like that can reasonably be expected to happen in Iran. Neither the ideology, nor the composition of the regime nor any other indication leads in that direction. As far as its growing nuclear capabilities are concerned ? the Israeli deterrent power will prevent any such thought from arising. (Let?s not forget that the only country ever to use nuclear bombs in war was our friend, the USA.) 



Nothing that is happening in the world today resembles the Shoa, in which six million Jews were wiped out. The Palestinians did not kill six million Israelis, and we did not kill six million Palestinians. Comparing the Arabs to the Nazis is no less odious than comparing the Israelis to the Nazis. Many terrible things have been and are being committed in our name ? but they are as far from the deeds of the Nazis as the earth is from distant galaxies. 



Any such comparison for the sake of some fleeting propaganda advantage is trivializing the Holocaust and its perpetrators. If the Nazis were not worse than the Ayatollahs, then the Shoa was not so terrible, after all. 



In all my contacts with Palestinian leaders, including Yasser Arafat, I have always advised them to avoid this upsetting comparison. This would also be good advice for our own leaders. 





DOES THE comparison of Iran to Nazi Germany serve Israeli interests? 



Iran is there. It was our ally in the past, and may be our ally again in the future. Leaders come and go, but geopolitical interests are more or less constant. Ahmadinejad may be replaced by a leader who will see Iranian interests in a different light. 



The nuclear threat to Israel will not disappear ? not after a (bad) speech by Peres nor after a (good) speech by Netanyahu. All over the region, nuclear installations will pop up. This process cannot be stopped. We all need nuclear energy to desalinate water and to produce electricity without destroying the environment. As an Israeli professor, a former employee in the nuclear center at Dimona, said this week: we must reconsider our nuclear policy. It may well be to our advantage to accept the demand of the American spokeswoman that Israel (as well as India and Pakistan) join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and a regime of strict supervision. 



President Barack Obama is now saying to Israel: Put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is a precondition for the elimination of the threat to Israel. When the Palestinians, and the entire Arab world, make peace with Israel ? Iran will not be able to exploit the conflict for the furthering of its interests. We were saying this, by the way, many years ago. 



The refusal of Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak to accept this demand shows the insincerity of their arguments about Iran. If they really believed that Iran posed an existential menace, they would hurry to dismantle the settlements, demolish the outposts and make peace. That would, after all, be a small price to pay for the elimination of an existential danger. Their refusal proves that the entire existential story is a bluff. 



And concerning the comparison of Iran to Nazi Germany ? it is as convincing as the comparison of Shimon Peres to Sir Winston.

From fentona at shaw.ca  Mon May 11 13:12:12 2009
From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:12:12 -0700
Subject: [R-G] The Bad PR of Dead Civilians: Afghan airstrikes and the
	corporate media
References: <1007813883.-362634925@org.orgDB.mail.democracyinaction.org>
Message-ID: <822853D7-C6FE-4652-862D-F68B74E50E1E@shaw.ca>


The Bad PR of Dead Civilians
Afghan airstrikes and the corporate media

5/11/09

Early reports of a massive U.S. attack on civilians in western  
Afghanistan last week (5/5/09) hewed to a familiar corporate media  
formula, stressing official U.S. denials and framing the scores of  
dead civilians as a PR setback for the White House's war effort.


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3781


From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May 11 13:08:26 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] The Middle East from Bush/Sharon to Obama/Netanyahu - with
 Gilbert Achcar
In-Reply-To: <9618C290F0854712A30A442D0C675177@twubby.com>
Message-ID: <1748541459.548241242068906000.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>


Left Streamed - (recorded?May 3, 2009): 

The Middle East from Bush/Sharon to Obama/Netanyahu: 
Results and Prospects 
with Gilbert Achcar 


Professor Gilbert Achcar teaches Development Studies at the School of African and Oriental Studies at the University of London. His latest book is Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy. Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War, and Justice (2009) (with Noam Chomsky). 



? Click here to view video 



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(((( Left Streamed Production ))))~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Produced by the Left Streamed Collective. Viewers are encouraged to 
distribute widely. Comments on the video and suggestions are 
welcome - write to info at socialistproject.ca 

For more analysis of contemporary politics check out 
'Relay: A Socialist Project Review' at www.socialistproject.ca/relay 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May 11 13:45:28 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Juan Cole: The Problem is Statelessness
In-Reply-To: <81740264.567201242071087673.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1885748349.567581242071128534.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>


Monday, May 11, 2009 

The Problem is Statelessness 





King Abdullah II of Jordan revealed to the Times of London that the Obama administration may attempt a comprehensive peace treaty between Israel and the entire Muslim world. The latter would recognize Israel and grant El Al overflight rights. Israel in return would have to freeze settlement activity and move smartly toward a two-state solution and the establishment of a Palestinian state, with Israeli settlers removed from the West Bank. The status of Jerusalem would be left for later negotiations. 

Abdullah warned that if rapid progress is not made, another war will probably break out in the region within 18 months to two years. 

In my view, the central problems in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are the statelessness of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and in their diaspora, the continued military occupation or blockade by the Israelis, and the rapid expansion of Israeli colonies, which are usurping Palestinian land and rights. 

Until the statelessness of the Palestinians is understood and seen as the central problem that it is, there can be no real progress on the issues. Statelessness was an attribute of slaves in premodern times. The Jews of Europe in the 1930s and 1940s were the primary victims of the crime of stripping people of their citizenship in a state. It is monstrous that Palestinians should be stateless all these decades after 1948. Make no mistake; it is Israel that deprived them of statehood, which the 1939 British White Paper pledged to them, and which other League of Nations Mandates, such as French Syria and Lebanon and British Iraq, achieved. 

A stateless person ultimately has no rights, since it is states that guarantee rights. A stateless person may be robbed, raped, and sometimes even killed with impunity. Stateless children are often deprived of schooling. Since the property of the stateless is ambiguous with regard to its legal status, the stateless are at risk for extreme poverty. The contemporary world is a world of states, and falling between the cracks because you lack citizenship in any state is a guarantee of marginality and oppression. 

Apologists try to shift the blame for Palestinian statelessness from Israel to someone else. But it won't work. The original tort of derailing Palestinian independence was Israel's, and Israel has been the main force preventing the declaration of a Palestinian state, so it is Israel that must step up here. Other countries cannot be expected to solve a problem created by the Israelis, nor do most of the countries in the region havethe economic efflorescence or governmental stability to do so. 

It seems obvious what needs to be done to end Palestinian statelessness. If a Palestinian state isn't created in short order, the world is in for decades of Apartheid and political decay and consequent trouble, including terrorism and further wars. At the end of this process likely Israel will be forced to absorb the Palestinians as its own citizens, i.e. you end up with a one-state solution. The reason that there is more talk about the latter now is that it does at least resolve the central problem, of Palestinian statelessness, a problem that cannot be solved in any other way once a Palestinian state is forestalled by the massive Israeli colonization of the West Bank. (Actually I should say "Israeli and American," since a third of the Israeli squatters in the West Bank are Americans). 

If Obama really is making this push for a comprehensive settlement, it is an enormous undertaking and its success is by no means assured (to say the least). He will have to be tough with Netanyahu and Lieberman, who will try to sabotage any such move. At least, the Obama administration is demonstrating some independence, and is no longer doing extensive advance briefings for Israeli officials on US diplomacy in the region . 



posted by Juan Cole @ 5/11/2009 01:05:00 AM 11 comments | 

From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May 11 14:41:44 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] UNHCR E-alert: The People of Pakistan Need Your Help
In-Reply-To: <Kilauea341514-18166-153973856-3-1102@flonetwork.com>
Message-ID: <420337526.597741242074504918.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



UNHCR E-Alert



Photo

Some of the newly displaced outside UNHCR-provided tents in Swabi District. ??UNHCR/A.Rummery The People of Pakistan Need Your Help 


The UN refugee agency is deeply concerned about the current humanitarian crisis in north-west Pakistan. As fighting between government forces and militants becomes more widespread, there is now a massive displacement of people. The provincial government estimates between 150,000 to 200,000 people have arrived in safer areas of North West Frontier Province (NWFP) over the last few days, with another 300,000 now on the move or about to move. Those fleeing the latest hostilities join another 555,000 Pakistanis who have fled their homes in the tribal areas and NWFP since August 2008. 



UNHCR has responded promptly to the crisis, setting up 12 registration centres and three new camps for the internally displaced. We have also started distributing emergency aid and are procuring additional relief items for an additional 200,000 people. 



"People have left behind animals and poultry and, in some cases, even family members. They have had to flee their homes suddenly. Many of the children don't even have shoes,? said a doctor working in one of the three camps. 



UN High Commissioner for Refugees Ant?nio Guterres has called on all parties to respect humanitarian principles and to ensure the protection and freedom of movement of civilians caught up in the conflict, as well as the safe passage of relief goods and humanitarian workers. 



We need your support ? please help us ensure the safety of those displaced in Pakistan 

    ? $50 can register 150 displaced Pakistanis in order to assess their needs and trace their families. 
    ? $100 can give a survival kit including blankets and cooking stove. 
    ? $200 can provide an all-weather tent to shelter a displaced family. 



Please support UNHCR?s work in Pakistan 



Read more on the situation in Pakistan 



E-Alert is a free subscription-based news service provided by the UN Refugee Agency. It delivers up-to-date information on refugees around the world, advises subscribers of emergencies, and suggests ways to get involved. 



Did you receive this message from a friend or colleague? 
Stay informed, subscribe to Refuge-E net . 
	www.unhcr.ca 	Have a question? 
Click here to contact us 

To unsubscribe, click here .

From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May 11 14:53:00 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Israel knows that peace just doesn't pay
In-Reply-To: <1068897814.600211242074770250.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>
Message-ID: <1722484916.604151242075179989.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=1084656 





? 

Ha'aretz ? ? ? ? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ?? ???????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 11/05/2009 





? 

Israel knows that peace just doesn't pay 





? 

By Amira Hass 





? 

Successive Israeli governments since 1993 certainly must have known what they were doing, being in no hurry to make peace with the Palestinians. As representatives of Israeli society, these governments understood that peace would involve serious damage to national interests. 





? 

Economic damage: 





? 

The security industry is an important export branch - weapons, ammunition and refinements that are tested daily in Gaza and the West Bank. The Oslo process - negotiations that were never meant to end - allowed Israel to shake off its status as occupying power (obligated to the welfare of the occupied people) and treat the Palestinian territories as independent entities. That is, to use weapons and ammunition at a magnitude Israel could not have otherwise used on the Palestinians after 1967. Protecting the settlements requires constant development of security, surveillance and deterrence equipment such as fences, roadblocks, electronic surveillance, cameras and robots. These are security's cutting edge in the developed world, and serve banks, companies and luxury neighborhoods next to shantytowns and ethnic enclaves where rebellions must be suppressed. 





? 

The collective Israeli creativity in security is fertilized by a state of constant friction between most Israelis and a population defined as hostile. A state of combat over a low flame, and sometimes over a high one, brings together a variety of Israeli temperaments: rambos, computer wizards, people with gifted hands, inventors. Under peace, their chances of meeting would be greatly reduced. 





? 

Damage to careers: 





? 

Maintaining the occupation and a state of non-peace employs hundreds of thousands of Israelis. Some 70,000 people work in the security industry. Each year, tens of thousands finish their army service with special skills or a desirable sideline. For thousands it becomes their main career: professional soldiers, Shin Bet operatives, foreign consultants, mercenaries, weapons dealers. Therefore peace endangers the careers and professional futures of an important and prestigious stratum of Israelis, a stratum that has a major influence on the government. 





? 

Damage to quality of life: 





? 

A peace agreement would require equal distribution of water resources throughout the country (from the river to the sea) between Jews and Palestinians, regardless of the desalination of seawater and water-saving techniques. Even now it's hard for Israelis to get used to saving water because of the drought. It's not difficult to guess how traumatic a slash in water consumption to equalize distribution would be. 





? 

Damage to welfare: 





? 

As the past 30 years have shown, settlements flourish as the welfare state contracts. They offer ordinary people what their salaries would not allow them in sovereign Israel, within the borders of June 4, 1967: cheap land, large homes, benefits, subsidies, wide-open spaces, a view, a superior road network and quality education. Even for those Israeli Jews who have not moved there, the settlements illuminate their horizon as an option for a social and economic upgrade. That option is more real than the vague promises of peacetime improvements, an unknown situation. 





? 

Peace will also reduce, if not erase entirely, the security pretext for discriminating against Palestinian Israelis - in land distribution, development resources, education, health employment and civil rights (such as marriage and citizenship). People who have gotten used to privilege under a system based on ethnic discrimination see its abrogation as a threat to their welfare. 


From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May 11 15:19:43 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Toronto union stewards organize collective fight back
In-Reply-To: <91FD8596AEDE4100AA0B5C8EE6720F28@twubby.com>
Message-ID: <834922682.617811242076783031.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>




http://rabble.ca/news/2009/05/toronto-union-stewards-organize-collective-fight-back 



Rabble.ca ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????? ??????????????????????????? May 10, 2009 



Toronto union stewards organize collective fight back 



By Michelle Langlois 



Sixteen hundred stewards and staff from every union in the Toronto area 

packed a 1400-seat downtown hotel ballroom to standing room only 

capacity on Thursday evening. They came together to build solidarity and 

to resist the pressure to accept concessions on wages, benefits and 

pensions as the economic crisis deepens. The event was organized by the 

Toronto and York Region Labour Council. 



A 'Who's Who' of well-known politicians and labour leaders were present. 

NDP leader Jack Layton and MP Olivia Chow were there, as were the 

presidents of many unions and labour groups, including CAW President Ken 

Lewenza, CLC President Ken Georgetti and Toronto and York Region Labour 

Council President John Cartwright. Toronto Mayor David Miller showed up 

as a surprise guest later in the evening, addressing the people about 

the importance of creating made in Canada jobs, and publicly signing a 

petition demanding that the Employment Insurance system be fixed now. 



The crowd was cheerfully defiant from the moment they arrived. Hundreds 

of unionists spilled down the escalator of the Sheraton Centre into the 

foyer outside the ballroom, many chanting, "Who's got the power? ?We've 

got the power! ?What kind of power? ?Union power!" There were also 

several parades into the ballroom of drumming, trumpeting, chanting and 

dancing stewards. 



It was a festive beginning to an evening of serious discussion about an 

increasingly worrisome situation for workers in the region. 



The opening address was given by economist Jim Stanford of the CAW. 

Stanford fired up the crowd by making the case that it was the financial 

sector that caused this crisis, not the workers who produce goods and 

provide services. 



"The red-suspendered traders in the paper markets created this problem," 

Stanford told the room. ?"These are people who buy and sell paper 

assets. For every dollar that's actually raised in useful finance for 

the real economy, they spend a hundred dollars just churning financial 

assets, buying and selling paper that's already out there." ? ? 



"We are the ones who produce. They are not the ones who produce. They 

buy and sell pieces of paper; we produce actual stuff. We didn't cause 

this crisis. Hands up in this room: who issued a mortgage to someone who 

had no income and no job?" Stanford asked, to laughter from the crowd. 



"Who [here] securitized that mortgage into a mortgage bond that they 

sold to speculators in Iceland? ?Who [here] leveraged their bets on 

mortgage bonds with a 50 to 1 borrowing ratio? ?Nobody! ?That's right! 

I think it's settled -- we didn't create this problem." 



The spotlight was then turned over to the floor, and people told their 

stories from the front lines of union activism. ?A couple of workers 

shared their personal stories of financial and employment loss due to 

the economic crisis. ?Several others encouraged the crowd by sharing 

stories of successful labour actions in response to demands for 

concessions by their employers. 



The room full of shop stewards, staff and front-line union activists 

were riveted by their stories, which mirrored their own observations and 

concerns from their workplaces. ?Uncertainty and concern about 

concessions were common denominators among participants. 



Yvonne Abrahams, from CEP Local 6007 and a self-described "newbie" 

steward, came to the meeting to learn more. ?"I am here to get more 

information about the crisis that we're all facing at this time. I'm 

concerned about my pension, about other people's pensions." 



Her co-workers are also worried. ?"They just want to know what's going 

to happen. ?Everyone comes to work and they want to know what's going to 

be the next thing. ?Because every time they turn around, there's 

something else happening. ?They're concerned. ?In my work group, there's 

nothing happening as yet, but we don't know. ?We really don't know." 



John Hull, Director of Organizing for Teamsters Local 938, says he has 

seen 10 per cent of the 12,000 people in his local laid off. ?"Because 

we're in the auto sector, we haul the cars, we do the parts, quite a few 

of our members were affected." 



Hull describes the pressure his local is facing to give up ground in 

bargaining. ?"The companies are trying to get concessions from some of 

the people here because of the recession -- they're using the recession 

as an excuse, we're finding. ?We have no problem in our local with 

giving concessions if they open their books and show us that they need 

help. ?But we find that a lot of them don't need help and they're coming 

for concessions anyway." 



After speeches by Ken Georgetti and John Cartwright, all 1600 unionists 

engaged in roundtable discussions with people at their tables of ten 

about the solidarity checklist drafted by the Toronto and York Region 

Labour Council. ?"The solidarity checklist is a starting point for 

people to start designing a plan of action," explained Cartwright, one 

of the key organizers of the event. ?"It was that discussion that will 

provide us with some of the answers of how people see the next steps, 

how they can make it their reality." ?Each table had someone recording 

the discussion on paper, and those forms were collected by the 

organizers for review. 



The program ended with a call for solidarity among all the union 

activists present. ?Leaders from every single union from every sector of 

the workforce stood up and pledged to stand together in this time of 

economic crisis. ?Then the entire room rose and sang "Solidarity 

Forever" together in closing. 



Cartwright considers the evening a resounding success. ?"What we were 

trying to do was to reach deeply down into the labour movement and 

engage the true front-line activists that are our stewards, first in a 

common understanding of the economic crisis, and secondly, hoping to 

secure a commitment to building a common response and collective defence 

of our achievements." 



"I'm hearing from people who are very, very enthusiastic about it. ?We 

brought a lot of folks into that room that haven't gotten together 

before." 







Michelle Langlois, a babble moderator, writes from Toronto and is a 

proud member of OPSEU Local 596.

From shniad at sfu.ca  Mon May 11 15:25:13 2009
From: shniad at sfu.ca (Sid Shniad)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [R-G] Afghans riot over air-strike atrocity
Message-ID: <56672372.620381242077113298.JavaMail.root@jaguar8.sfu.ca>

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghans-riot-over-airstrike-atrocity-1681070.html 

Afghans riot over air-strike atrocity 

Witnesses say deaths of 147 people in three villages came after a sustained 
bombardment by American aircraft. 

By Patrick Cockburn, in Herat 
The Independent UK: May 8, 2009 

Shouting "Death to America" and "Death to the Government", thousands of 
Afghan villagers hurled stones at police yesterday as they vented their fury 
at American air strikes that local officials claim killed 147 civilians. 

The riot started when people from three villages struck by US bombers in the 
early hours of Tuesday, brought 15 newly-discovered bodies in a truck to the 
house of the provincial governor. As the crowd pressed forward in Farah, 
police opened fire, wounding four protesters. Traders in the rest of Farah 
city, the capital of the province of the same name where the bombing took 
place, closed their shops, vowing they would not reopen them until there is 
an investigation. 

A local official Abdul Basir Khan said yesterday that he had collected the 
names of 147 people who had died, making it the worst such incident since 
the US intervened in Afghanistan started in 2001. A phone call from the 
governor of Farah province, Rohul Amin, in which he said that 130 people had 
died, was played over the loudspeaker in the Afghan parliament in Kabul, 
sparking demands for more control over US operations 

The protest in Farah City is the latest sign of a strong Afghan reaction 
against US air attacks in which explosions inflict massive damage on 
mud-brick houses that provide little protection against bomb blasts. A claim 
by American officials, which was repeated by the US Defence Secretary Robert 
Gates yesterday in Kabul, that the Taliban might have killed people with 
grenades because they did not pay an opium tax is not supported by any 
eyewitnesses and is disproved by pictures of deep bomb craters, one of which 
is filled with water. Mr Gates expressed regret for the incident but did not 
go so far as to accept blame. 

The US admits that it did conduct an air strike at the time and place, but 
it is becoming clear, going by the account of survivors, that the air raid 
was not a brief attack by several aircraft acting on mistaken intelligence, 
but a sustained bombardment in which three villages were pounded to pieces. 
Farouq Faizy, an Afghan radio reporter who was one of the first to reach the 
district of Bala Baluk, says villagers told him that bombs suddenly, "began 
to fall at 8pm on Monday and went on until 10pm though some believe there 
were still bombs falling later". A prolonged bombing attack would explain 
why there are so many dead, but only 14 wounded received at Farah City 
hospital. 

The attack was on three villages - Gerani, Gangabad and Koujaha - just off 
the main road. It is a poppy growing area of poor farmers and there were 
several fields of poppies near the villages. The Taliban are traditionally 
strong here and the police and soldiers waiting around the villages were 
said by eyewitnesses to be frightened. This would explain why Afghan army 
commanders might have been eager to call for US airstrikes, though they 
would have needed the agreement of American special operations officers. 

Provincial officials, including the governor Rohul Amin, say that in the 
lead-up to the bombing there was heavy fighting between hundreds of Taliban 
and the Afghan Army and police. Going by Mr Faizy's account there had been, 
"a fight some seven or eight kilometres from the three villages in which two 
Afghan Army and a US Humvee were destroyed. A third Afghan Army vehicle was 
captured." Three police were killed and four wounded, as was one American 
and one Afghan army soldier. This was hardly a major military engagement, 
but the pro-government forces seem to have got the worst of it and their 
burned out vehicles still stand in the road. 

The loss of life in Afghanistan from air strikes is often worse than in Iraq 
where houses are more modern and usually have basements. In the villages in 
Farah, people were living in compounds with mud brick walls which crumbled 
easily. Pictures of the aftermath of the attack show people standing beside 
the remains of a relative which often only looks like a muddy pile of torn 
meat. One elderly white bearded man, said by neighbours to have lost 30 
members of his family, squats despairingly beside a body that has been torn 
into shreds. Among the few wounded to stay alive is a child with a badly 
burned face. 

One reason why US bombing inflicts such heavy civilian casualties in 
Afghanistan and Iraq is that both are very poor countries in which houses 
are very crowded. When the US used air strikes and heavy artillery with 
little restraint in the siege of Fallujah