From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Nov 1 01:39:17 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:39:17 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Why Markets Fail Message-ID: <20091101173917.4a8ee654.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (October 28 2009) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society It's a safe bet that any public comment on the politics of peak oil, unless it sticks closely to one of a very few widely accepted opinions, will provide a good demonstration of the laws of thermodynamics by turning plenty of energy into waste heat. Last week's Archdruid Report post was no exception. Between those who thought I was too hard on Cuba, those who thought I was too soft on Cuba, those who insisted America is already a fascist dictatorship, those who thought America would be better off as a fascist dictatorship, and a variety of less classifiable rants, I was well and truly denounced. My favorite for the week was a bit of online splutter that, having exhausted its author's apparently limited vocabulary of profanity, wound up with the nastiest term he knew: "... you American!" Those of my readers with a taste for wry humor may well have found all this as entertaining as I did. Still, this week's essay will leave such amusements behind, and return to the theme I've been developing in recent posts, the reinvention of economics that will be necessary in an age of hard ecological limits and deindustrial decline. Vegetarians and animal rights activists take note: a certain number of sacred cows will have to be slaughtered and dissected in the course of that inquiry, and the process is unlikely to be either painless or clean. Of the sanctified cattle facing a gruesome fate in the years ahead of us, perhaps the most important is that blue-ribbon heifer of modern economics, the belief in the infallibility of free markets. Back in 1776, Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations popularized the idea that free market exchanges offered a more efficient way of managing economic activity than custom or government regulation. The popularity of his arguments has waxed and waned over the years; it may come as no surprise that periods of general prosperity have seen the market's alleged wisdom proclaimed to the skies, while periods of contraction have had the reverse effect. The economic orthodoxy that has been welded in place in the western world since the 1950s, neoclassical economics, made a nuanced version of Smith's theory central to its theories, arguing that aside from certain exceptions much discussed in the technical literature, people making rational decisions to maximize benefits to themselves will simultaneously maximize the benefits to everyone. The neoclassical synthesis has its virtues; you won't find neoclassical economists claiming, as the free market fundamentalists of the Austrian school so often do, that the market is always right, even when its vagaries cause catastrophic human suffering. The concept of market failure is part of the neoclassical vocabulary, and some useful work has been done under the neoclassical umbrella to explain how it is that markets can fail to respond to crucial human needs, as they routinely do. Still, the great problem with neoclassical economics is the one has already been discussed in these posts: its models have consistently failed to foresee devastating economic disasters that many people outside the economics profession could readily and accurately predict years in advance. The implosion of the world economy in 2008 is only the most recent case in point. One writer who surveyed the economics field in the aftermath of the crash noted with some asperity that fewer than two dozen economists anywhere in the world warned in advance of the gargantuan bubble of securitized debt that exploded that year. On the contrary, economists by the score lined up during the bubble years to insist that the giddy financial innovations of the previous decade had banished risk from the market and prosperity was assured into the foreseeable future. They were of course quite wrong, and their failure to see disaster as it loomed up in front of them compares very poorly with the large number of people who used historical parallels to recognize what was happening and make uncomfortably precise forecasts of the results. (Keith Brand, who ran the lively HousingPanic blog straight through the bubble, memorably summarized those predictions: "Dear God, this is going to end so badly".) I have discussed in several earlier posts some of the reasons why the entire economics profession has been so prone to miss the obvious in such cases. Here, though, I want to focus on a reason for failure that's specific to neoclassical economics. Since most of the economists who provide advice to governments come out of the neoclassical mainstream, this is hardly irrelevant to our prospects for the future, especially - as I intend to show - because the same blind spot that left so many pundits dining on a banquet of crow in recent months applies with even greater force to the crucial fact of our time, the arrival of peak oil. The point I want to make here is a little different from the most common critique of neoclassical economics, though there is a connection. Many social critics have commented on the ease with which the neoclassical synthesis consistently ignores the interface between economic wealth and power. Even when people rationally seek to maximize benefits to themselves, after all, their options for doing so are very often tightly constrained by economic systems that have been manipulated to maximize the benefits going to someone else. This is a pervasive problem in most human societies, and it's worth noting that those societies that survive over the long term tend to be the ones that work out ways to keep too much wealth from piling up uselessly in the hands of those with more power than others. This is why hunter-gatherers have customary rules for sharing out the meat from a large kill, why chieftains in so many tribal societies maintain their positions of influence by lavish generosity, and why those nations that got through the last Great Depression intact did so by imposing sensible checks and balances on concentrated wealth - though most of those checks and balances in the United States were scrapped several decades ago, with utterly predictable results. By neglecting and even arguing against these necessary redistributive processes, neoclassical economics has helped feed economic disparities, and these in turn have played a major role in driving cycles of boom and bust. It's no accident that the most devastating speculative bubbles happen in places and times when the distribution of wealth is unusually lopsided, as it was in America, for example, in the 1920s and the period from 1990 to 2008. The connection here is simple: when wealth is widely distributed, more of it circulates in the productive economy of wages and consumer purchases; when wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, more of it moves into the investment economy where the well-to-do keep their wealth, and a buildup of capital in the investment economy is one of the necessary preconditions for a speculative binge. More broadly, concentrations of wealth can be cashed in for political influence, and political influence can be used to limit the economic choices available to others. Individuals can and do rationally choose to maximize the benefits available to them by exercising influence in this way, but the results can impose destructive inefficiencies on the whole economy. In effect, political manipulation of the economy by the rich for private gain does an end run around normal economic processes by way of the world of politics; what starts in the economic sphere, as a concentration of wealth, and ends there, as a distortion of the economic opportunities available to others, ducks through the political sphere in between. A similar end run drives speculative bubbles, although here the noneconomic sphere involved is that of crowd psychology rather than politics. Very often, the choices made by participants in a bubble are not rational decisions that weigh costs against benefits; it's not accidental that the first, and still one of the best, analyses of speculative binges and panics is titled Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841). Here again, a speculative bubble starts in the economic sphere, as a buildup of excessive wealth in the hands of investors, which drives the price of some favored class of assets out of its normal relationship with the rest of the economy, and it ends in the economic sphere, with the crater left by the assets in question as their price plunges roughly as far below the mean as it rose above it, dragging the rest of the economy with it. It's the middle of the trajectory that passes through a particular form of crowd psychology, and since this is outside the economic sphere, neoclassical economics can't deal with it. This would be no problem if neoclassical economists by and large recognized these limitations. Unfortunately a great many of them do not, and the result is the classic type of myopia in which theory trumps reality. Since neoclassical theory claims that economic decisions are made by individuals acting freely and rationally to maximize the benefits accruing to them, it's seemingly all too easy for economists to believe that any economic decision, no matter how harshly constrained by political power or wildly distorted by the delusional psychology of a bubble in full roar, must be a free and rational decision that will allow individuals to maximize their own benefits and benefit society as a whole. Now of course, as mentioned in an earlier post, those who practice this sort of purblind thinking often find it very lucrative to do so. Economists who urged more free trade on the Third World at a time when "free trade" distorted by inequalities of power between nations was beggaring the Third World, like economists who urged people to buy houses at a time when houses were preposterously overpriced and facing an imminent price collapse, not uncommonly prospered by giving such appallingly bad advice. Still, it seems unreasonable to claim that all economists are motivated by greed, when the potent force of a fundamentally flawed economic paradigm also pushes them in the same direction. That same pressure, with the same financial incentives to back it up, also drives the equally bad advice so many neoclassical economists are offering governments and businesses about the future of fossil fuels. The geological and thermodynamic limits to energy growth, like political power and the mob psychology of bubbles, lie outside the economic sphere. The interaction of economic processes with energy resources creates another end run: extraction of fossil fuels to run the world's economies, an economic process, drives the depletion of oil and other fossil fuel reserves, a noneconomic process, and this promises to flow back into the economic sphere in the extended downward spiral of contraction and impoverishment I've called the Long Descent. Here again, neoclassical economics is poorly equipped to deal with the reality of noneconomic constraints on economic processes. It thus comes as no surprise that when an economist enters the peak oil debate, it is almost always to claim that there is nothing to worry about, because the market will solve any shortfall that happens to emerge. As shortfalls emerge, expect to hear the claim - already floated by a few economists - that declining production is simply a sign that the demand for fossil fuel energy has decreased. No doubt when people are starving in the streets, we will hear claims that this is simply because the demand for food has dropped. There are promising signs that the grip of neoclassical theory on modern economics is beginning to weaken. A recent conference on biophysical economics - a field which embraces the heretical concept that the laws of nature trump the laws of money - attracted many attendees and, in a shift of nearly seismic proportions, managed to get coverage in the New York Times. Other alternative viewpoints in economics are beginning to be heard, as they usually are in times of financial woe. Still, what's needed now is something even more sweeping: an economics of whole systems, perhaps modeled on ecology, in which the entire world of noneconomic factors that influence economic processes is explicitly included in theories and practical analyses. Until that emerges, the advice governments and businesses receive from their paid economists may well continue to make matters worse rather than better. _____ John Michael Greer, The Grand Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids in America (AODA), has been active in the alternative spirituality movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of more than twenty books, including The Druidry Handbook (Weiser, 2006) and The Long Descent: A User's Guide to the End of the Industrial Age (New Society, 2008). He lives in Cumberland, Maryland. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-markets-fail.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 gmail.com Sun Nov 1 11:31:21 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:31:21 -0800 Subject: [R-G] YouTube: anti-Olympics torch rally in Victoria, BC Message-ID: <83904d240911011031p64c56abaw8465eb9138ae686f@mail.gmail.com> Alt-media coverage of anti-Olympics torch rally in Victoria, BC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf2r6_v3HUk&feature=player_embedded From shniad at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 11:35:07 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:35:07 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Turkey PM to Israel: If you don't want Iran to have nukes, give yours up Message-ID: <83904d240911011035p74b859edg72c68ffd1d78afc2@mail.gmail.com> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1124839.html Haaretz 31/10/2009 *Turkey PM: If you don't want Iran to have nukes, give yours up* By Reuters Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said on Saturday that countries opposed to Iran's atomic program should give up their own nuclear weapons, and attacked as "arrogant" the sanctions imposed on Ankara's neighbor. He also said he wanted the Middle East, and then the whole world, to rid itself of nuclear weapons. During a trip to Iran this week, Erdogan said he backed Tehran's "right to peaceful nuclear energy" and called its approach in nuclear talks with Western powers "positive." The trip added to Western concern that NATO's only Muslim member may be shifting its foreign-policy focus towards the Islamic world and turning its back on Western allies. Iran says the sole aim of its nuclear program is to generate electricity, but Western powers suspect it of secretly planning to produce nuclear weapons and are trying to persuade it to stop enriching uranium. "... those who criticize Iran's nuclear program continue to possess the same weapons," said Erdogan, according to an advance copy, carried by state-run Anatolian news agency, of a televised address he was scheduled to make at 8 p.m. "I think that those who take this stance, who want these arrogant sanctions, need to first give these [weapons] up. We shared this opinion with our Iranian friends, our brothers." United Nations and U.S. sanctions have already been imposed on Iran over its nuclear program, and if current talks fail to produce agreement, Western powers may push for a further round of sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Israel is assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal. Turkey, a European Union candidate, has been Israel's closest Muslim ally, but relations have soured since Israel's December-January offensive in the Gaza Strip. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad this week praised Erdogan for his "clear stance against" Israel. Erdogan also said Turkey wants the Middle East, and in time the world, to be free of nuclear weapons. "We want to live in a region completely purged of nuclear weapons. We want to live in a world in which nuclear weapons no longer exist," he said. Erdogan has tried to expand Turkey's influence in the Middle East and make it a regional power since his party, which traces it roots to an Islamist movement, took office in 2002. Erdogan also reiterated previous remarks that Turkey and Iran have set themselves a target of more than tripling annual bilateral trade by 2011 to $30 billion. From shniad at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 11:41:11 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:41:11 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Afghanistan: "A Woman Among Warlords" Malalai Joya Message-ID: <83904d240911011041o7ffc471ble5b64cf298cc62da@mail.gmail.com> http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/28/a_woman_among_warlords_afghan_democracy *Afghanistan: "A Woman Among Warlords" Malalai Joya* Democracy Now Interview: October 28, 2009 AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about Afghanistan, we're joined here in our firehouse studio by Malalai Joya, one of Afghanistan's leading democracy activists. In 2005, she became the youngest person ever elected to the Afghan parliament. She was suspended in 2007 for her denunciation of warlords and their cronies in government. She has just written her memoir, A Woman Among Warlords: The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Woman Who Dared to Speak Out. It was written with Derrick O'Keefe. I welcome you to Democracy Now!, Malalai. When you hear in all the US media "bloodiest month of the eight-year war," of course they're talking about US soldiers killed in Afghanistan. How does that make you feel? How do we know how many Afghans have died over these last eight years? MALALAI JOYA: Yeah, first of all, thanks for this interview. And let me say in the beginning, on behalf of my people, condolences to those American mothers who lost their sons recently in Afghanistan, and other moms that belong to these NATO countries, as their governments these eight years, waste the blood of their soldiers in Afghanistan and their taxpayers' monies by supporting warlords, these drug lords and terrorists who are a photocopy of Taliban, since they come in power. So, this eight years, about less than 2,000 Talib has been killed, more than 8,000 innocent civilians has been killed. That's why, day by day, we believe that this is not war on terror, this is war on innocent civilians, as they even do massacre in Afghanistan, what they did on May, that-in Farah province, more than 150 civilians has been killed, most of them women and children. Even they used white phosphorus and cluster bomb. And also, 200 civilians on 9th of September in Kunduz province has been killed, again most of them women and children. You can see the website of Professor Marc Herold, this Democrat American man that-to know better about war crime in Afghanistan they impose on our people. And at least today's reporters in have to know that even by presence of thousands troops in Afghanistan, there is no security in Kabul. How-but around Afghanistan, while the government has no control, now my people are sandwiched between two powerful enemies: from the sky, occupation forces bombing and killing innocent civilians-as I said, these troops themselves are the victim of this wrong policy of their government; on the ground, Taliban and these warlords together continue to deliver fascism against our people. AMY GOODMAN: Tell us about the latest news, Malalai Joya, about the brother of Hamid Karzai, Ahmed Wali Karzai, the New York Times revealing today that Ahmed has been on the CIA payroll for much of the past eight years. Who is he? MALALAI JOYA: You know, my people call him "Small Bush" in Kandahar province, this brother of Hamid Karzai. But he's-this is not the first time that New York Times wrote. Recently also, I wrote that he's a famous drug trafficker. And many others who have high posts in Karzai's government, sometimes his ministers, expose each other that they-for persons who had high posts in Karzai government, they are drug traffickers. And the government says stop planting of opium, but the governor commanders of the same province is drug traffickers. This eight years, $36 billion the government of Afghanistan received, while they themselves give report. Most of this money went into pocket of warlords, drug lords, [inaudible] lords, these donors and officials themselves. And at least this example should be in of that right now. Even some important media is writing and sometimes exposing these drug lords and these warlords in Afghanistan, that right now I say that, for example, brother of Hamid Karzai is receiving millions of dollars through dirty business of opium. And this was the main project of the CIA in Afghanistan, that under the banner of women rights, human rights, democracy, they occupied my country. They imposed these terrorists, blood and creed of the Taliban, on my people. And also they changed my country to the center of drug. Only [inaudible] have to know about the deep tragedy of Afghanistan and wrong policy of the US, that even UN gave report, that recent report of the UN. Right now-oh, my god, I think you also got this report. Anyway, that right now, as I said, that they changed Afghanistan to the center of drug. They received millions of dollars that has been looted. Situation of women is getting worse. And security, how much important-day by day, it's worse for my people, especially for the women. And that's why, because of all of these main reasons, we-day by day, we say this is the mockery of democracy and mockery of war on terror. AMY GOODMAN: Does Ahmed Karzai have a relationship with Mullah Omar? MALALAI JOYA: Sorry? AMY GOODMAN: With Mullah Omar? MALALAI JOYA: You know, these warlords, they have, of course-that, as I said, they are blood and creed of each other, they have links with each other, as now they are negotiating - are ready to negotiating with each other. Karzai himself called Taliban these dinosaurs' brothers, as-during the election. And also, Abdullah Abdullah, this main candidate of the warlords during this so-called free election- AMY GOODMAN: Who's running for president against Karzai. MALALAI JOYA: Yeah, they-yeah, both of them. They betrayed a lot my people. And now they are running for the election, as my people, even they use this power, that the result of this election will be like the same donkey but with new saddle. Anyway, both of them call Taliban brothers, these terrorists. And both of them ready to do negotiate and invite Mullah Omar, this fascist man, to join the government. Both of them are puppets. And both of them, that they are busy with this dirty business of opium. And at least you know better about them. I think only this eight years is enough to know better about them. AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about the upcoming runoff election scheduled for November 7th. Earlier this week, the presidential contender, as you were talking about, Abdullah Abdullah, called for the dismissal of Azizullah Ludin, the chair of the Independent Electoral Commission. Ludin is a former Karzai adviser. ABDULLAH ABDULLAH: Dismissal, immediate dismissal, of Mr. Ludin from the Election Commission. He has left no credibility for the institution and, unfortunately, for he, himself, in order to be trusted by the people of Afghanistan as the head of an independent body. AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Malalai Joya, to what Abdullah Abdullah is calling for, to his being removed from the Electoral Commission? MALALAI JOYA: You know, this election is just a tragic drama, I think the most fraudulent and also ridiculous election in the world, as election under the shadow of gun, warlordism, drug lordism, awful corruption, and occupation forces has no legitimacy at all. As a famous saying, it's not important who is voting, it's important who's counting. Even my people, before of the result of the election, they discussed among each other, people on the streets, that the winner will be picked out by White House, as now you see that one puppet can be replaced with another puppet. Now, between two puppet fighting because of the power, $250 million they spent for this election. They waste the money. And they want to more waste-to waste more money in Afghanistan. And also, millions of people did not attend in the election, because they know that their word will be betrayed, same like in the past, and also their wishes has no role in this election. As I say, that both of them invite Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and also Mullah Omar to join the government as a moderate. And both of them want more occupation forces in Afghanistan, which will bring more war and more conflict. So both of them betrayed a lot my people, especially women of my country. To know better about Abdullah Abdullah, it's in of that-he did civil war from '92 to '96. He and other brothers of him, like these other warlords who are right now in power, like Dostum, like Sayyaf, Rabbani, Qanooni, Ismail Khan, Mohaqiq, these dirty-minded elements, who accused as war criminal. And Karzai, he choose two cruel men, like Qasim Fahim and Karim Khalili, as vice president. Even Human Rights Watch said Karzai insulting the people of Afghanistan. But in spite national and international condemnation, he didn't change the mind. But I am saying he's betraying my people still more. AMY GOODMAN: You're a very brave woman, Malalai Joya. I wanted to go to a clip of you saying essentially this years ago. You called-we're going to go to the Enemies of Happiness. The film begins in December 2003 in a meeting of Afghanistan's newly elected constitutional assembly, the Loya Jirga. A then-unknown twenty-four-year-old woman steps to the microphone to deliver a speech that will make international headlines and draw threats on her life. CHAIRMAN: [translated] What are you saying? MALALAI JOYA: [translated] We kids can't get a word in. I would like to say a few words, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN: [translated] Wait a minute. Stay in your seats. One sister says that she has traveled far. She insists that we haven't given the kids enough speaking time. You have three minutes, please. MALALAI JOYA: [translated] My name is Malalai Joya from the Farah province. With the permission of all those present and in respect of the martyrs who were killed, I would like to speak. I wish to criticize my compatriots in this room. Why would you allow criminals to be present at this Loya Jirga, warlords responsible for our country's situation? Afghanistan is the center for national and international conflicts. They oppress women and have ruined our country. They should be prosecuted. They might be forgiven by the Afghan people, but not by history. CHAIRMAN: [translated] Sit down! Sit down! The sister has crossed the line of what is considered common courtesy. She is banished from this assembly and cannot return. Send her out! Guards, throw her out! She doesn't deserve to be here. AMY GOODMAN: That was Malalai Joya, who was standing up, what many have called "Afghanistan's bravest woman." Malalai Joya, in our firehouse studio, who has written her memoir called A Woman Among Warlords. Describe what you were thinking at that moment and how dangerous it was for you. MALALAI JOYA: Yeah, as my people was not sure that I will be alive until now, same my supporters around the world. But the reason that today I am alive, because of the strong support of these voiceless, suffer, poor people of my country. As two years before these warlords, drug lords, these criminals, they expelled me from the parliament, which was quite illegal act and anti-freedom of speech. AMY GOODMAN: You were elected? MALALAI JOYA: I were elected. AMY GOODMAN: In.? MALALAI JOYA: Yeah, in 2005, for the second time. People voted, and as I was very famous in Afghanistan and around the world, and if they do not allow me, as all the boxes was in the hands of this mafia, they're cheating was clear for the world, not only for my people. But few Democrats in the parliament, me and others, that in the beginning, as they made amnesty law that criminals forgive themselves, we raised our voice against this disgusting law, which gives impunity to criminals. As much as they can, they continue to their fascism. But despite we raised our voice, nobody listened the voice. And Karzai also signed this disgusting law. And one reason that they expelled me from parliament was that, because I never did compromise with them, even they beated inside of parliament, they threatened me to rape inside of parliament, and many threats like this. AMY GOODMAN: They threatened to rape you in parliament? MALALAI JOYA: Inside of the parliament. And also, all of these threats you can see on my websites. But now, after when they expelled me from parliament, now, as in Kabul, I'm changing safe house to safe houses. Even with burqa and bodyguard, it's not safe. When you compare my life with the dark period of Taliban, these terrorists, as an activist, that I was underground activist, on that time, it was risky, but now, under the name of democracy and by presence of these thousands troops, it is, even with burqa and bodyguard, not safe. Many assassination attempts. And I am a person, on behalf of those Democrat and voiceless, innocent people of my country, in front of you. But many others like me, there is no security for them. They are underground activists now. AMY GOODMAN: The big debate in the United States is this surge. Now the discussion is not how many troops will President Obama-how many more troops will he send to Afghanistan, or will he send more troops, but how many more. That's what the debate has become. What is your thought? What should happen to the US soldiers now? MALALAI JOYA: You know, that as I said, these troops are the victim of the wrong policy of their government. They send them for a bad cause: for war. They say war of Afghanistan is good war, war of Iraq is bad war, while war is war and impossible to bring democracy, women rights, human rights by war. And unfortunately, Obama's policy and Obama's message for my people is quite similar, like his foreign policy like Bush administration. He wants to surge more troops in Afghanistan, which will bring more conflict, more war. Obama is going to decorate barbaric Taliban as a moderate, to give them a chance to bring them also in power, put soft name on these terrorists, while we have no moderate Talib. And also, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, they invite this fascist man to joint he government. This terrorist also come in power, situation will be more bloody. If really Obama honest for my people, at least they apologize to my people and first of all try to put to the court the criminal Bush to the ICC, and also many Bushes in my country that, this eight years, they changed Afghanistan to the safe haven for terrorism and center of drug. AMY GOODMAN: But so often in this country, the argument is actually used that it's the women of Afghanistan who benefit most from the US occupation and the war. MALALAI JOYA: They're betrayed more. Opposite. Quite opposite. The first casualty in my country is the truth. Still they betray the truth, especially mainstream medias, put dust on the eyes of the people around the world. As after 9/11 that they occupied Afghanistan, they say women for the first time do not wear burqa and they are free, while it's a big lie. And today, most of women are wearing burqa because of security. I wear a burqa just to be alive, this disgusting burqa, which is symbol of oppression, I think. And it's like a shroud for life body most of women are wearing to be alive. Rape cases, domestic violences and also [inaudible] on the face of the girls and killing of women increasing rapidly. AMY GOODMAN: Do you fear for your life when you go home? And why do you return to Afghanistan, finally, Malalai? MALALAI JOYA: Of course, I go, because we have lots of responsibility. Responsibility of Democrat men and women is a lot, as we believe no nation can donate liberation to another nation. And we are ready to build our country, if US and its allies let us a little bit breathe in peace. Now we're between two powerful enemies, with the withdrawal of one enemy occupation forces as their government supporting warlords, and also now Taliban. They stop supporting them, then it's much easier to fight one enemy instead of two. If really Obama honest for my people, support the democratic-minded people of my country, we have a lot. But he not only support democratic-minded people of my country, he's going to start war in Pakistan by drawing attack in the border area of Pakistan. And I think the survey that they did of civilian casualty, those people, innocent people, who has been killed, more has been killed in the Obama period than even criminal Bush. AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us, Malalai Joya, one of Afghanistan's leading democracy activists. In 2005 she became the youngest person ever elected in the Afghan parliament. Her memoir is now out; it's called A Woman Among Warlords: The Extraordinary Story of an Afghan Woman Who Dared to Speak Out. It was written with Derrick O'Keefe. Speaking of drones, when we come back from our break, we will talk about the situation of drones in Pakistan. Stay with us. MALALAI JOYA: Thank you. From shniad at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 11:45:00 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:45:00 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Some victims we are Message-ID: <83904d240911011045q232aa5h6dcc24a3867f622f@mail.gmail.com> http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256740787801&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull JERUSALEM POST Oct. 28, 2009 *Rattling the Cage: Some victims we are* Larry Derfner The kill ratio was 100-to-1 in our favor. The destruction ratio was much, much greater than that. To this day, thousands of Gazans are living in tents because we won't let them import cement to rebuild the homes we destroyed. We turned the Gaza Strip into a disaster area, a humanitarian case, and we're keeping it that way with our blockade. Meanwhile, here on the Israeli side of the border, it's hard to remember when life was so safe and secure. So let's decide: Who was the victim of Operation Cast Lead, them or us? No question - us. We Israelis were the victims and we still are. In fact, our victimhood is getting worse by the day. The Goldstone report was the real war crime. The Goldstone report, the UN debates, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, B'Tselem, the traitorous soldiers of Breaking the Silence and the Rabin Academy - those were the true crimes against humanity. This is what's meant by "war is hell." It is we who've been going through hell from the war in Gaza. It is we who've been suffering. Gazans? Suffering? What's everybody talking about? We let them eat, don't we? This imaginary monologue is how we actually see ourselves today. We initiated the war in Gaza, we waged one of the most one-sided military campaigns anyone's ever seen - and we're the victims. We're fighting off the world with the Holocaust; witness Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the UN with his Auschwitz props. "We won't go like lambs to the slaughter again," vowed his prot?g?, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, in a cabinet discussion of the Goldstone report. Auschwitz, lambs to the slaughter, Operation Cast Lead. To Israelis today, it's all of a piece, it's one story, one unbroken legacy of righteous victimhood. The truth is that the State of Israel has never been a victim, and our likening of ourselves to the 6 million has been embarrassing from the beginning - but now? After what we did in Gaza? With the stranglehold we have on that society, while we over here live free and easy? Victims? Lambs to the slaughter? Us? No, this has gone beyond embarrassing; this is out-and-out shameful. And, despite our excuses, it's not that we're "traumatized" by the past into believing that we're still weak, still the frightened, powerless Jews about to be led to the gas chambers. Many Holocaust survivors still believe this, and to some very limited extent, this vestigial fear still takes up space in the Israeli mind. But by now, 64 years after the Holocaust, 42 years after seeing in the Six Day War how strong we'd become, we know, whether we admit it to ourselves or not, that we aren't the victims anymore. We know we aren't a continuation of the 6 million but rather a deliberate and stark departure from them. THE REASON we tell ourselves and the world that we are victims is because we know, whether we admit it to ourselves or not, that victimhood is power. Victimhood is freedom. A victim can't be told to restrain himself. A victim fighting for survival can't be accused of abusing his power because, after all, his back is to the wall, he's desperate. On the facts, it's very hard to convince ourselves, let alone the world, that Gaza and its Kassams have pushed Fortress Israel's back to the wall, that we're desperate, that we're struggling to survive. So, to convince ourselves and the world that this really is so, we do two things. One, we refuse to acknowledge any facts that mar this image of ourselves as victims, and instead go over and over and over *only* the facts that fit the picture. We talk only about the thousands of Kassams fired at Sderot; we never mention the thousands of Gazans we killed at the same time. We talk only about Gilad Schalit; we never mention the 8,000 Palestinian prisoners we're holding. And we never mention our ongoing blockade of Gaza or the devastation it does to those people. The second thing we do to convince ourselves and the world that we're still victims is to never, ever, ever let go of the Holocaust - because that's when we really were victims. Victims like nobody's ever known, victims a million times worse than the Gazans. Auschwitz, lambs to the slaughter. Remember us, the people of the Holocaust? That wasn't the Middle East's superpower you saw fighting in Gaza. That was the 6 million. So you can't blame us. We're immune from your criticism. We're the biggest victims the world has ever known. We're desperate, so don't tell us about kill ratios and disproportionate use of force and collective punishment. We're fighting for our survival. This is what we tell ourselves and the world, and, in the face of what we did and are still doing in Gaza, it has become intolerable. We are not the 6 million. The 6 million were powerless Jews three generations ago; we cannot wrap our abuses of power in their tragedy. Instead, let's take a good, hard look at what we did and what we're doing in Gaza. Then let's take a good, hard look in the mirror. And then let's admit who's the true victim here and now, and, more importantly, who isn't. From shniad at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 11:50:34 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 10:50:34 -0800 Subject: [R-G] America, stop sucking up to Israel Message-ID: <83904d240911011050t3fa8a8ecq6b140a056bd27016@mail.gmail.com> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1124928.html Haaretz 01/11/2009 *America, stop sucking up to Israel* By Gideon Levy Barack Obama has been busy - offering the Jewish People blessings for Rosh Hashanah, and recording a flattering video for the President's Conference in Jerusalem and another for Yitzhak Rabin's memorial rally. Only Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah surpasses him in terms of sheer output of recorded remarks. In all the videos, Obama heaps sticky-sweet praise on Israel, even though he has spent nearly a year fruitlessly lobbying for Israel to be so kind as to do something, anything - even just a temporary freeze on settlement building - to advance the peace process. The president's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, has also been busy, shuttling between a funeral (for IDF soldier Asaf Ramon, the son of Israel's first astronaut Ilan Ramon) and a memorial (for Rabin, though it was postponed until next week due to rain), in order to find favor with Israelis. Polls have shown that Obama is increasingly unpopular here, with an approval rating of only 6 to 10 percent. He decided to address Israelis by video, but a persuasive speech won't persuade anyone to end the occupation. He simply should have told the Israeli people the truth. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who arrived here last night, will certainly express similar sentiments: "commitment to Israel's security," "strategic alliance," "the need for peace," and so on . Before no other country on the planet does the United States kneel and plead like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs in Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw from occupied territory in Kuwait? But Israel the occupier, the stubborn contrarian that continues to mock America and the world by building settlements and abusing the Palestinians, receives different treatment. Another massage to the national ego in one video, more embarrassing praise in another. Now is the time to say to the United States: Enough flattery. If you don't change the tone, nothing will change. As long as Israel feels the United States is in its pocket, and that America's automatic veto will save it from condemnations and sanctions, that it will receive massive aid unconditionally, and that it can continue waging punitive, lethal campaigns without a word from Washington, killing, destroying and imprisoning without the world's policeman making a sound, it will continue in its ways. Illegal acts like the occupation and settlement expansion, and offensives that may have involved war crimes, as in Gaza, deserve a different approach. If America and the world had issued condemnations after Operation Summer Rains in 2006 - which left 400 Palestinians dead and severe infrastructure damage in the first major operation in Gaza since the disengagement - then Operation Cast Lead never would have been launched. It is true that unlike all the world's other troublemakers, Israel is viewed as a Western democracy, but Israel of 2009 is a country whose language is force. Anwar Sadat may have been the last leader to win our hearts with optimistic, hope-igniting speeches. If he were to visit Israel today, he would be jeered off the stage. The Syrian president pleads for peace and Israel callously dismisses him, the United States begs for a settlement free ze and Israel turns up its nose. This is what happens when there are no consequences for Israel's inaction. When Clinton returns to Washington, she should advocate a sharp policy change toward Israel. Israeli hearts can no longer be won with hope, promises of a better future or sweet talk, for this is no longer Israel's language. For something to change, Israel must understand that perpetuating the status quo will exact a painful price. Israel of 2009 is a spoiled country, arrogant and condescending, convinced that it deserves everything and that it has the power to make a fool of America and the world. The United States has engendered this situation, which endangers the entire Mideast and Israel itself. That is why there needs to be a turning point in the coming year - Washington needs to finally say no to Israel and the occupation. An unambiguous, presidential no. From suzannedk at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 13:10:01 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:10:01 +0100 Subject: [R-G] Some victims we are In-Reply-To: <83904d240911011045q232aa5h6dcc24a3867f622f@mail.gmail.com> References: <83904d240911011045q232aa5h6dcc24a3867f622f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Ah! If it were only that simple! The actual reality is so much worse than has already been done, is beng done, to Gaza. If you take all those statistics you mention and add all the others you have not yet mentioned, in exquisite detail, including all the armaments, all the funds given and sent to Israel since 1942 put on a graph or graphs. Then the numbers of Palestinian and Lebanese dead and maimed since 1942, the amount of homes, the amount of towns, villages, with the former names, bulldozed and/or bombed. The amount of shekels it has cost to build the walls that destroy Palestinan civilsation even more, the amount of infants shoot in the skull. the amount of pregant women shot in the uterus, the amount of presently damaged small children that have no clean water, no sewage, no healthy food, and not enough of what is available to give them, and no hope or future. Numbers named, catagorised, published. Including the corporate names of the catapillers that bulldoze the hopes, rights and homes. Catapillar of U.S. fame, is one. Add to those numbers the amount of U.S.A. produced and given bomblets dropped all over Lebanon the day the Israelis were leaving their weekend war to destroy yet again what used to be the Paris of the Middle East. I heard it was one milliion and after many years and many requests from Lebanon for the maps used to place those bombs where they were dropped are still refused by both Israel and the U.S. who would have access to them. Then rewrite your article. A picture of deliberate genocide as structured policy will emerge, because you will have included in the above the amount, named and dated, of the U.N. resolutions condenming Israel that the United States vetoed, from again, 1942. Grateful one is attempting to do the do the unspeakable. We really have no choice but to expand it to include the entire reality hidden in plain sight for too long. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > > http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256740787801&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull > > JERUSALEM > POST Oct. > 28, > 2009 > > *Rattling the Cage: Some victims we are* > Larry Derfner > > The kill ratio was 100-to-1 in our favor. The destruction ratio was much, > much greater than that. To this day, thousands of Gazans are living in > tents > because we won't let them import cement to rebuild the homes we destroyed. > We turned the Gaza Strip into a disaster area, a humanitarian case, and > we're keeping it that way with our blockade. > > Meanwhile, here on the Israeli side of the border, it's hard to remember > when life was so safe and secure. > > So let's decide: Who was the victim of Operation Cast Lead, them or us? > > No question - us. We Israelis were the victims and we still are. In fact, > our victimhood is getting worse by the day. The Goldstone report was the > real war crime. The Goldstone report, the UN debates, Amnesty > International, > Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, B'Tselem, the traitorous soldiers of > Breaking the Silence and the Rabin Academy - those were the true crimes > against humanity. This is what's meant by "war is hell." > > It is we who've been going through hell from the war in Gaza. It is we > who've been suffering. > > Gazans? Suffering? What's everybody talking about? > > We let them eat, don't we? > > This imaginary monologue is how we actually see ourselves today. We > initiated the war in Gaza, we waged one of the most one-sided military > campaigns anyone's ever seen - and we're the victims. > > We're fighting off the world with the Holocaust; witness Prime Minister > Binyamin Netanyahu at the UN with his Auschwitz props. "We won't go like > lambs to the slaughter again," vowed his prot?g?, Finance Minister Yuval > Steinitz, in a cabinet discussion of the Goldstone report. > > Auschwitz, lambs to the slaughter, Operation Cast Lead. To Israelis today, > it's all of a piece, it's one story, one unbroken legacy of righteous > victimhood. > > The truth is that the State of Israel has never been a victim, and our > likening of ourselves to the 6 million has been embarrassing from the > beginning - but now? After what we did in Gaza? With the stranglehold we > have on that society, while we over here live free and easy? > > Victims? Lambs to the slaughter? Us? > > No, this has gone beyond embarrassing; this is out-and-out shameful. > > And, despite our excuses, it's not that we're "traumatized" by the past > into > believing that we're still weak, still the frightened, powerless Jews about > to be led to the gas chambers. Many Holocaust survivors still believe this, > and to some very limited extent, this vestigial fear still takes up space > in > the Israeli mind. > > But by now, 64 years after the Holocaust, 42 years after seeing in the Six > Day War how strong we'd become, we know, whether we admit it to ourselves > or > not, that we aren't the victims anymore. We know we aren't a continuation > of > the 6 million but rather a deliberate and stark departure from them. > > THE REASON we tell ourselves and the world that we are victims is because > we > know, whether we admit it to ourselves or not, that victimhood is power. > Victimhood is freedom. A victim can't be told to restrain himself. A victim > fighting for survival can't be accused of abusing his power because, after > all, his back is to the wall, he's desperate. > > On the facts, it's very hard to convince ourselves, let alone the world, > that Gaza and its Kassams have pushed Fortress Israel's back to the wall, > that we're desperate, that we're struggling to survive. So, to convince > ourselves and the world that this really is so, we do two things. > > One, we refuse to acknowledge any facts that mar this image of ourselves as > victims, and instead go over and over and over *only* the facts that fit > the > picture. > > We talk only about the thousands of Kassams fired at Sderot; we never > mention the thousands of Gazans we killed at the same time. > > We talk only about Gilad Schalit; we never mention the 8,000 Palestinian > prisoners we're holding. > > And we never mention our ongoing blockade of Gaza or the devastation it > does > to those people. > > The second thing we do to convince ourselves and the world that we're still > victims is to never, ever, ever let go of the Holocaust - because that's > when we really were victims. Victims like nobody's ever known, victims a > million times worse than the Gazans. > > Auschwitz, lambs to the slaughter. Remember us, the people of the > Holocaust? > That wasn't the Middle East's superpower you saw fighting in Gaza. > > That was the 6 million. > > So you can't blame us. We're immune from your criticism. We're the biggest > victims the world has ever known. We're desperate, so don't tell us about > kill ratios and disproportionate use of force and collective punishment. > We're fighting for our survival. > > This is what we tell ourselves and the world, and, in the face of what we > did and are still doing in Gaza, it has become intolerable. We are not the > 6 > million. The 6 million were powerless Jews three generations ago; we cannot > wrap our abuses of power in their tragedy. > > Instead, let's take a good, hard look at what we did and what we're doing > in > Gaza. Then let's take a good, hard look in the mirror. And then let's admit > who's the true victim here and now, and, more importantly, who isn't. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Nov 1 15:07:05 2009 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 22:07:05 +0000 Subject: [R-G] END:CIV Premise 1 Message-ID: <2141363709-1257113220-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1990855856-@bda699.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Local Vancouver documentary film producer, Franklin Lopez is currently working on a new production. It is based on several of the premises in Derrick Jensen's book, _Endgame_. It will be a film to keep an eye out for in 2010. The link below will take you to an excerpt from what is underway. It looks like it's going to be a real doozy! Certainly the film will become an important meme as the corporate paradigm sets up the December UN climate talks in Copenhagen to fail. http://youtube.com/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DazyUkV133A0&v=azyUkV133A0 Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry From garyrumor2 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 1 15:56:49 2009 From: garyrumor2 at yahoo.com (Gary Crethers) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 14:56:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Kashmir, Pakistan, India, British and US Imperialism and a way out. Message-ID: <938474.3610.qm@web43508.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> US Out Of World Domination, India Give Kashmir?s People A ChoiceNovember 1st, 2009 The major problem in South Asia currently is the unfair division of Kashmir. It has led to a resistance movement that has let to terrorist movements. Initially the subdivision of India into Muslim and Hindu nations was the problem. India should have been one secular nation with a variety of religions. The insistance upon a religion based division of territory led to a situation where people were caught on the wrong side of the line and there was religious violence. Some of this goes back to the humiliation of the Moslems in World War One by the Allies when they defeated the Ottoman Empire and the Ataturk forces deposed the Caliph. Since then there has been no titular secular head of the Muslim world. The movement of Muslim nationalism in British occupied India was initially a movement to retain and then return the caliphate to a position to authority. That morphed into a separatist nationalist movement when Jinnah decided he could not work with the Congress Party and made a separate deal with the British in exchange for a state of his own. Gandhi was so opposed to this that he offered to let Jinnah be the first Minister of an independent India but he refused. This is the viewpoint that I have gathered from reading biographies of Gandhi. But I am concerned with the origins of the Two State solution. It seems that it was first publicly articulated in 1930 in a speech by Allama Iqbal at the Presidential Address to the Muslim League. It was later picked up and propounded by Mohammed Ail Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League where he promoted the idea that Hindus and Muslims were different civilizations despite 1000 years of cohabitation including periods of Muslim rule in north India. This is patently absurd and has been disproved by the fact that 1/3 of the Muslims in South Asia remained in Hindu India after the separation. Upon the break up of Pakistan in 1971 between Pakistan and Bangladesh, now only 1/3 of the Muslims in South Asia are in Pakistan and the remainders are in the nations of India and Bangladesh. Pakistan is the creation of Muslim intellectuals and the British Colonial Rulers. It was a deal that led to ongoing tension and violence. It was certainly not the sort of arrangement a Babur or other Muslim conqueror from the 15th century would abide by. He would have wanted as much of India as he could get regardless of what the religion of the people were. The emergence of Pakistan as an independent state is a hold over from 19th century racialist nationalist thought. It is the same process that led to German nationalism and all the other fascist and neo fascist ideologies that base their concept of the nation on some misguided notion of racial identity that coalesce in some parts of the world such as Europe in language. I other parts of the world it coalesces around religion as it did in the division of Pakistan but ultimately it is some intellectuals fantasy of creating the perfect nation state that is then projected on the world. These racial states had to have a justification when the aristocratic rule of kings aligned with the church was overturned. They wanted some sort of mystical root cause and in the 19th century the myth of the volk or the people as a tribal entity that had emerged out of the mists of time forged by the blood of the ancestors, often breeding with wolves or some such animal surrogate for the divine in the mythologies of nationalism. Every group-let had to have its myth. So these scholars in the 19th century scoured the history books and their records of folk tales to come up with these national fairy tales. We can see how it went to absurd lengths with the break of of Yugoslavia into as series of mini-state-lets. Montenegro and Macedonia with their own national identities are taking this tribalization to absurd lengths. This is from a wikepedia article on Historiography and Nationalism. ?According to the medievalist historian Patrick J. Geary: [The] modern [study of] history was born in the nineteenth century, conceived and developed as an instrument of European nationalism. As a tool of nationalist ideology, the history of Europe?s nations was a great success, but it has turned our understanding of the past into a toxic waste dump, filled with the poison of ethnic nationalism, and the poison has seeped deep into popular consciousness.? The simplest solution would be for India allow the vote of the people to be ratified and then give up on the parts of the province that want to be in Pakistan and keep the rest. What would happen to the Buddhist northeastern portion of the region is anybodies guess. I would assume they would form an independent mini state of their own a sort of Tibet in exile nation state. China would gobble that up in a minute. But that does not solve the problem of hyper nationalism that has inundated the world with a false set of solutions for every problem, form a Republic, get a constitution and a flag and have your seat at the United Nations. Perhaps that is the answer, a total balkanization of the world but that simply leaves these small states prey to to the larger ones and ultimately unless there is some world police force with clout to maintain the independence of all these states they will be swallowed up by the larger ones. If we create a legal construct that gives priority to the independence of nations treating them as if they were private citizens in some large extended version of the Adam Smith notion of the capitalist market system of free agents, then the need for an international police force and legal entity become paramount and you work your way to a world government ass backwards. These multiple sovereign states all dependent on the world state body to protect them from the predator states such as the United States that insist on acting outside of the world body because it is to big, an exception to the rule. Or to put it more bluntly the United States set up the game to protect its interests. It can come and go as it pleases because the international body was created by the United States as a surrogate for its own power. The fact that almost immediately after it was set up the other interest groups ie the Soviet Union and China had different ideas made the body set up as a tool for US policy into a debating society in which its founder was critiqued from all sides. It is as if God had created mankind and then mankind decided that they didn?t like the job god did. Modern nationalism is reaching a conceptual dead end. The rhetoric of revolutionary nationalism is just as bankrupt as fundamentalist Hinduism, fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity. We can even see fundamentalist Buddhism in Ceylon and Burma in action and a Chinese fundamentalism in Tibet and Turkestan. The rhetoric of nationalism, self determination and the right to access to the marketplace are all simply excuses for greed. The Chinese tried to lay their trip on the Vietnamese and the Vietnamese trounced them in 1979. After kicking out the American Imperialists they certainly didn?t want a return of the Chinese Imperialists although at least the Chinese had a history of ruling in Vietnam. Capitalism, nationalism, fundamentalism and totalitarianism, all have reached a dead end and what we now need is a new world system of thought. Perhaps it is the modernist project itself that has run its course. Constant technological innovation as the driver of society has become something of a run away train. It is headed for a wreck. We have a world market, a world government, a world health infrastructure, a world scientific establishment and a world history. Culturally we have not caught up with the reality. We have not devised a political model that is capable of controlling this word economy and social structure. We have the technology but not the emotional and mental development to decide to meet the challenge. This does not mean we need a monolithic structure, but we do need a flexible one that can respond to immediate needs and proactively plan for what we want. This is global. The climate crisis is global, the population crisis is global. the wealth distribution mechanism is global, the resource development and transformation is global. Diseases are global and so are the solutions. There is no more small independent nook on the planet where you can go and live a life of simple primitive leasure. There is no place to go. We are all linked. Soon the technology will exist to implant communications devices in each of us creating a bio-computer out of each and every one of us. How do we want to live in such a world? Do we want masters and slaves? That is what we have now. Each and every wage earner is a modified version of a slave. The masters are those who are able to live off of the labor of the slaves. The independent parties, free nomads, tribal people, are becoming extinct. Even the small private farmer, the small business owner, they are closely regulated and integrated. No man or woman is an island in this world. As a youth I wrestled with this. I truly did not want to become part of the machine. I stayed out of it as a member of the underground economy and as a starving artist/revolutionary until about age 30 when I had a child with my partner. I was also busted at about the same time and had to go to work to stay out of prison. So I got down to it and in a couple of years even got good at it becoming a successful salesman and broker. I was on my way to becoming a success story in the capitalist game. But it took a toll. My partner didn?t like my being a workaholic and she left. I had a break down and decided it wasn?t worth it. Since then I have simply been a worker like the vast majority of people in western society. The Neoconservative attempt to make all of us capitalists vested in the system could only work if we were each of us willing to go up and down with the cycles of capitalism. It is a significantly male concept. Women with the need to feed a family and nurture children would have to face a pretty stark reality, of feast or famine if pure capitalism was the rule. A world of winners and losers on the play of the market. It is a world system a gambling addict would love but if you are a scholar or trying to feed a family, it is a return to the caves. Who wants to have to rely on the success of each days hunt to plan for the future? So we need a new model. We live in an interconnected world where billions of lives are at stake. One out of every 6 is starving and a small 1 out of 10,000 is living the life any king of old would envy. We need to get a better system of redistribution going. We need a system that takes into account global warming, pollution. peoples need for shelter, food and clothing as well as the health care required to ameliorate the deleterious effects of living in a technological sedentary civilization. Diet, agriculture, energy, water, air, industrial production, services, communications and allocation all need to be reexamined. We need effective feedback loops to communicate the needs in one region to another, we need effective governmental structures to address the needs and to implement planning. We need adequate institutions of learning to study how to provide for all these needs. When we look at it there are certain things that are redundant and should be eliminated. Advertising. Legal services. Militaries, and speculative economic manipulation, ie the stock market, all are totaly unnecessary and aberrations that take up way too much human energy. We need to disarm, create a minimal international police force, a simplified understandable legal system and economy that anyone could understand. People with brains should be focused on creating better healthcare, solving pollution and production problems and streamlining the distribution process. If they are imaginative in that way then let them work in entertainment not advertising. Or education. Politics should be stripped of all the hoopla and democracy should be implemented with a safe guard system that takes into account the irrational side of humans. We have the science and technology. Rather than simply say ok folks anything goes, what we need is rational entertaining presentation of facts to people to make informed intelligent decisions with watchdogs to insure if there is a demagogue or deceiver out there trying to stir up one of those primitive tribal instincts that they can come in a diffuse the situation. A veto power is what I would give to Plato?s philosopher kings. Let the Demos rule but the philosophers be there to act as a fuse breaker to stop any vote or decision from taking people into a self destructive direction. Perhaps the computers could be programed not to take over the world but simply to stop working when people decide to do something sucicidal like start launching Nukes against one another or poisoning the environment for a short term profit. Eventually one would hope we would evolve out of greed and stupidity, but until we do, we need to protect ourselves from ourselves. In the mean time should India give up Kashmir? If that defuses the fundamentalists then sure let the people have what they want. The initial decision to divide India into religious groups was foolish to start with, but right now what we have there is a mess and the best thing to do is to defuse the tension by removing the reasons for it. Ultimately education, jobs and a real access to power over ones own life is what the people there need. Lives of dignity so they can tell the fundamentalists to go take a hike. Until then people will listen to whomever promises the pot of gold at the end of the local rainbow or at least a way out of the current shit. We need to evolve out of nationalism, not into new empires but a community of people. We need to evolve out of petty legalism and constitutional wrangling over interests that often represent not people but politicians and the money people the represent. We need something like Alexander?s solution to the Gordian Knot. He sliced right through it. Look at poor Obama up there trying to disentangle himself from the mess Bush created. He made a good speech in Cairo but now he is entangled in the mess in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We created that monster by funding it with the Saudis in the eighties in our drive to defeat the Soviet Union. Now we are entangled in our own equivalent mess. If we say we are getting out then the local people will have to come up with a solution. If we tell the Indian?s we will not support their imposition in Kashmir and if the Russians and Chinese stay out, it will be over in a short period. We need to replace the USA hegemony with a real international body but to do that we have to create a mutual disarmament of all the major players. That is a tough cookie but if we lead the others will follow. If we simply stop funding these terrorists, on a state level and on a local level and help people develop economically, we will be way ahead of the game. But that means a radical reorientation of the priorities of the US budgets. We spend more on the military that the whole world combined. We have to stop and change direction now. Tags: India Let The Kashmir's People Decide, USA And Saudi Arabia Stop Funding Terrorists From srobin21 at comcast.net Sun Nov 1 17:43:41 2009 From: srobin21 at comcast.net (Steven Robinson) Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:43:41 -0800 Subject: [R-G] FORD/UAW - Rank and file reject giveback deal Message-ID: <33944A3DF25B467BBC1C074F029E2023@StevenPC> UAW accepts defeat of plan to alter Ford deal Workers say fatigue, skepticism led vote By Brent Snavely, Writer Detroit Fress November 1, 2009 Even with a few UAW locals left to vote today, UAW officials have concluded that there is no way that a proposal to modify its labor contract with Ford Motor Co. can pass. On Friday, two of the UAW's largest units, which represent an assembly plant in Dearborn and two in Louisville, Ky., followed the lead set by other locals by soundly defeating the proposal that Ford said it needed to be competitive long term with its domestic rivals, General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC. "It looks like the numbers are heavily against" the deal, said Rocky Comito, president of UAW Local 862 in Louisville. "I see no way of overcoming it." UAW President Ron Gettelfinger told the Free Press on Friday that the union would not go back to the bargaining table if the measure was defeated. The current Ford-UAW labor contract expires in 2011. "We will continue to work with the company to secure the jobs of our membership, regardless of the outcome," Gettelfinger said. Workers cited several reasons for rejecting the deal over the past week. Among them: Growing belief in Ford's increasing success. Fatigue over Ford's repeated requests for contract changes. Skepticism that Ford would deliver on promises already made in recent years. A binding arbitration clause that many saw as the elimination of their right to strike. Final ratification is based on a simple majority of the total votes cast by two separate classes: production workers and skilled-trades workers. On Friday, two of the largest UAW locals joined with opponents of the deal. Eighty-four percent of the 5,238 workers that voted at Ford's Louisville Assembly Plant and its Kentucky Truck Plant were opposed to the contract. Meanwhile, 93% of those that voted at Ford's Dearborn Truck Plant, which is represented by UAW Local 600, also voted to reject the contract. As of Saturday, a majority of members at UAW units representing more than 26,000 members had voted to reject the contract while a majority of members at UAW units representing 5,312 members had voted in favor of the contract. About 41,000 hourly Ford workers are represented by the UAW. The tentative agreement on which workers were voting called for a wage freeze for entry-level workers, a commitment to binding arbitration in 2011 for disagreements over pay and benefit increases and a consolidation of skilled-trades classifications. In return, Ford agreed to provide $1,000 bonuses to workers and additional work to a number of plants. The deal would have allowed Ford, generally, to match labor cost savings that General Motors and Chrysler got through bankruptcy reorganizations. The UAW's leadership recommended its members ratify the deal earlier this month. David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, said Friday that a rejected contract could create problems for the UAW's leadership, as well as for Ford. "That's a repudiation of the UAW leadership," Cole said. "Once you negotiate something, and you can't pull it off, you have a real problem." Comito said the UAW's leadership will survive unscathed because the opposition to the proposed modifications had more to do with the fatigue of being asked repeatedly to agree to changes and opposition to specific measures -- not to the leadership. But Cole said the rejection could cause issues for Ford. Ford, which lost $14.6 billion in 2008, has gained market share this year and is expected to show financial gains when it reports third-quarter results on Monday that are due, in part, to an agreement reached with the UAW in March. But Ford remains burdened with more debt than its domestic rivals, and it has yet to generate cash in its critical North American operations. "If they don't have a competitive contract, that really adds to their competitive issues," Cole said. The overwhelming rejection of the contract stands in contrast to the relationship the UAW has had with Ford in recent years. In fact, UAW Local 600 President Jerry Sullivan said 1976 was the last time he remembers a national contract or contract modification being rejected by the UAW. "That was the last time we went on strike, and I have not recalled anything since then," Sullivan said. Sullivan tried to convince members to vote in favor of the deal, especially because it would have created or preserved more than 7,000 jobs nationwide, but to no avail. "The bottom line is still that job security, you have to have that," he said. Nick Kottalis, president and chairman of the Dearborn Truck unit of UAW Local 600, said his members remain proud to work for Ford, but just weren't willing to agree to any additional cuts. Kottalis riled higher ranking leaders by distributing a letter to workers urging them to reject the deal. "We wanted Ford to honor this contract that they told us they were gong to honor till 2011," Kottalis said. Henry Teachey, 52, of Detroit said bringing this latest deal to members for a vote was difficult for elected union officials, who are put in office by their members. Teachey said he tried to convince workers to vote in favor of the contract, but few wanted to listen. "It's taken a toll on a lot of us," Teachey said. "I've had many sleepless nights." http://www.freep.com/article/20091101/BUSINESS01/911010549/1320/UAW-accepts-defeat-of-plan-to-alter-Ford-deal This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm From mstainsby at resist.ca Sun Nov 1 19:44:56 2009 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:44:56 -0700 Subject: [R-G] The Pew funds Canada: Canadian Boreal Initiative Message-ID: <4AEE47A8.8070308@resist.ca> The Pew funds Canada Canadian Boreal Initiative from "Offsetting Resistance: The effects of foundation funding from the Great Bear Rainforest to the Athabasca River", a special report by Dru Oja Jay and Macdonald Stainsby. Released September, 2009. The Canadian Boreal Initiative (CBI) is funded by grants from The Pew Charitable Trusts. The CBI is a project of Ducks Unlimited Canada, which receives money directly from oil companies and other industrial operators. Land-use planner Petr Cizek notes that the CBI has evolved quickly in a few years. ?At one point they were calling themselves the Canadian Boreal Trust. They hired a person named Cathy Wilkinson?who is a former federal climate negotiator involved in the Kyoto negotiations?to set up this Canadian Boreal Initiative.? ?The first whack of cash? about $1.7 million? were provided to Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the World Wildlife Fund in 1999.? This began, Cizek explains, the new client-funder role they have been playing ever since. ?All the money goes through Ducks Unlimited. All the money goes to Tennessee first [The DU-USA head office], and then it goes to Winnipeg,? to the Ducks Unlimited Canada head office. ?CBI doesn?t exist as an organization? it?s not registered as anything, it?s not a non-profit, it?s not a charitable organization? it?s not a legal entity.? While CBI is officially funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the actual organization that it is a part of is Ducks Unlimited Canada. Ducks Unlimited has accepted millions of dollars in contributions from extraction companies like Syncrude, Suncor, Al-Pac, and related industrial operators like Enbridge, CN and Inland Cement. It is impossible to know whether this money makes its way to CBI (and thus to countless ENGOs, First Nations and others who are fighting these same corporations), because all the money goes to the same organization. Cizek challenges the fact that CBI lists their own employees as deceptive. ?All these people who are allegedly staffers are all on contract, they are basically consultants and their paycheques come from Ducks Unlimited. If you get a grant from the CBI, the cheque will come from Ducks Unlimited.? Cizek calls attention to CBI?s connections to US oil company Sunoco via its funders, the Pew Charitable Trusts. ?So we know that Sunoco currently refines tar sands oil. And they are about to do more refining. So, on one hand these people are running the Pew Charitable Trusts and their front groups the International Boreal Conservation Campaign out of Seattle and the Canadian Boreal Initiative out of Ottawa that claims to be concerned about the tar sands but won?t go out and actually use the word moratorium.? ?The outcome is this: The Modus operandi of the Pew or for that matter these other large or gigantic multi-billion dollar foundations in the United States is to fund mainstream large environmental organizations which generally have no members, but are private non-profit charities?that are basically non-democratic. Well, not accountable to any members in any case. They are accountable to their board which is a private, self-creating board. So based on past experience, the idea is to bring about very moderate reforms through the ?low-hanging fruit? strategy, through closed door negotiations.? In a 2007 interview with the Dominion, Larry Innes explained, with some candor: ?We?re accountable to those people who write us a cheque every year. If we don?t achieve the kind of goals that they?re interested in spending their money on, the funding stops.? ?The Modus operandi of the Pew or for that matter these other large or gigantic multi-billion dollar foundations in the United States is to fund mainstream large environmental organizations which generally have no members, but are private non-profit charities?you know, that are basically non-democratic.? http://www.mediacoop.ca/blog/macdonald/2026 From suzannedk at gmail.com Sun Nov 1 21:59:52 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 05:59:52 +0100 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: Some victims we are In-Reply-To: References: <83904d240911011045q232aa5h6dcc24a3867f622f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Re: Some Victims We Are from Sid ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Suzanne de Kuyper Date: Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 9:10 PM Subject: Re: [R-G] Some victims we are To: sid-l at googlegroups.com, "Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion." Ah! If it were only that simple! The actual reality is so much worse than has already been done, is beng done, to Gaza. If you take all those statistics you mention and add all the others you have not yet mentioned, in exquisite detail, including all the armaments, all the funds given and sent to Israel since 1942 put on a graph or graphs. Then the numbers of Palestinian and Lebanese dead and maimed since 1942, the amount of homes, the amount of towns, villages, with the former names, bulldozed and/or bombed. The amount of shekels it has cost to build the walls that destroy Palestinan civilsation even more, the amount of infants shoot in the skull. the amount of pregant women shot in the uterus, the amount of presently damaged small children that have no clean water, no sewage, no healthy food, and not enough of what is available to give them, and no hope or future. Numbers named, catagorised, published. Including the corporate names of the catapillers that bulldoze the hopes, rights and homes. Catapillar of U.S. fame, is one. Add to those numbers the amount of U.S.A. produced and given bomblets dropped all over Lebanon the day the Israelis were leaving their weekend war to destroy yet again what used to be the Paris of the Middle East. I heard it was one milliion and after many years and many requests from Lebanon for the maps used to place those bombs where they were dropped are still refused by both Israel and the U.S. who would have access to them. Then rewrite your article. A picture of deliberate genocide as structured policy will emerge, because you will have included in the above the amount, named and dated, of the U.N. resolutions condenming Israel that the United States vetoed, from again, 1942. Grateful one is attempting to do the do the unspeakable. We really have no choice but to expand it to include the entire reality hidden in plain sight for too long. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > > http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256740787801&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull > > JERUSALEM > POST Oct. > 28, > 2009 > > *Rattling the Cage: Some victims we are* > Larry Derfner > > The kill ratio was 100-to-1 in our favor. The destruction ratio was much, > much greater than that. To this day, thousands of Gazans are living in > tents > because we won't let them import cement to rebuild the homes we destroyed. > We turned the Gaza Strip into a disaster area, a humanitarian case, and > we're keeping it that way with our blockade. > > Meanwhile, here on the Israeli side of the border, it's hard to remember > when life was so safe and secure. > > So let's decide: Who was the victim of Operation Cast Lead, them or us? > > No question - us. We Israelis were the victims and we still are. In fact, > our victimhood is getting worse by the day. The Goldstone report was the > real war crime. The Goldstone report, the UN debates, Amnesty > International, > Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, B'Tselem, the traitorous soldiers of > Breaking the Silence and the Rabin Academy - those were the true crimes > against humanity. This is what's meant by "war is hell." > > It is we who've been going through hell from the war in Gaza. It is we > who've been suffering. > > Gazans? Suffering? What's everybody talking about? > > We let them eat, don't we? > > This imaginary monologue is how we actually see ourselves today. We > initiated the war in Gaza, we waged one of the most one-sided military > campaigns anyone's ever seen - and we're the victims. > > We're fighting off the world with the Holocaust; witness Prime Minister > Binyamin Netanyahu at the UN with his Auschwitz props. "We won't go like > lambs to the slaughter again," vowed his prot?g?, Finance Minister Yuval > Steinitz, in a cabinet discussion of the Goldstone report. > > Auschwitz, lambs to the slaughter, Operation Cast Lead. To Israelis today, > it's all of a piece, it's one story, one unbroken legacy of righteous > victimhood. > > The truth is that the State of Israel has never been a victim, and our > likening of ourselves to the 6 million has been embarrassing from the > beginning - but now? After what we did in Gaza? With the stranglehold we > have on that society, while we over here live free and easy? > > Victims? Lambs to the slaughter? Us? > > No, this has gone beyond embarrassing; this is out-and-out shameful. > > And, despite our excuses, it's not that we're "traumatized" by the past > into > believing that we're still weak, still the frightened, powerless Jews about > to be led to the gas chambers. Many Holocaust survivors still believe this, > and to some very limited extent, this vestigial fear still takes up space > in > the Israeli mind. > > But by now, 64 years after the Holocaust, 42 years after seeing in the Six > Day War how strong we'd become, we know, whether we admit it to ourselves > or > not, that we aren't the victims anymore. We know we aren't a continuation > of > the 6 million but rather a deliberate and stark departure from them. > > THE REASON we tell ourselves and the world that we are victims is because > we > know, whether we admit it to ourselves or not, that victimhood is power. > Victimhood is freedom. A victim can't be told to restrain himself. A victim > fighting for survival can't be accused of abusing his power because, after > all, his back is to the wall, he's desperate. > > On the facts, it's very hard to convince ourselves, let alone the world, > that Gaza and its Kassams have pushed Fortress Israel's back to the wall, > that we're desperate, that we're struggling to survive. So, to convince > ourselves and the world that this really is so, we do two things. > > One, we refuse to acknowledge any facts that mar this image of ourselves as > victims, and instead go over and over and over *only* the facts that fit > the > picture. > > We talk only about the thousands of Kassams fired at Sderot; we never > mention the thousands of Gazans we killed at the same time. > > We talk only about Gilad Schalit; we never mention the 8,000 Palestinian > prisoners we're holding. > > And we never mention our ongoing blockade of Gaza or the devastation it > does > to those people. > > The second thing we do to convince ourselves and the world that we're still > victims is to never, ever, ever let go of the Holocaust - because that's > when we really were victims. Victims like nobody's ever known, victims a > million times worse than the Gazans. > > Auschwitz, lambs to the slaughter. Remember us, the people of the > Holocaust? > That wasn't the Middle East's superpower you saw fighting in Gaza. > > That was the 6 million. > > So you can't blame us. We're immune from your criticism. We're the biggest > victims the world has ever known. We're desperate, so don't tell us about > kill ratios and disproportionate use of force and collective punishment. > We're fighting for our survival. > > This is what we tell ourselves and the world, and, in the face of what we > did and are still doing in Gaza, it has become intolerable. We are not the > 6 > million. The 6 million were powerless Jews three generations ago; we cannot > wrap our abuses of power in their tragedy. > > Instead, let's take a good, hard look at what we did and what we're doing > in > Gaza. Then let's take a good, hard look in the mirror. And then let's admit > who's the true victim here and now, and, more importantly, who isn't. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Nov 2 01:28:47 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:28:47 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Monetary Reform ... Message-ID: <20091102172847.c434845c.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> How a National Monetary System Should Work by Richard C Cook Global Research (May 11 2007) The author has received an overwhelming response to his recent Global Research report entitled, "An Emergency Program of Monetary Reform for the United States". The introduction to that report stated that, "the US financial system headed by the Federal Reserve System has failed, and ? only an emergency program of monetary reform can address conditions which may be leading to a catastrophe like the Great Depression or worse". This new report on "Monetary Reform and How a National Monetary System Should Work" continues the dialogue by outlining the principles and mechanisms available to help guide the creation of a monetary system for any nation that wishes to enjoy economic democracy with prosperity. This would be in contrast to the collapsing debt-based monetary system overseen by the Federal Reserve and the other central banks of the world, coordinated at the top by such institutions as the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of International Settlements. Note that all the banks of the Western world are ultimately private institutions owned by the world's super-rich. The international banking structure is operated by and on behalf of the world's monetary elite primarily for their own profit. Just below the banking system are the giant corporations of the global economy which derive capital from and funnel profits into the financiers' empire. Bringing up the rear are the populations and debt-serfs of the no-longer-sovereign nation states, including those of the United States, whose participation in the system as consumers is essential, but whose jobs continue to disappear as manufacturing is increasingly automated. The author had realized as early as 1970 that the central problem with the world's economy lay on the side of distribution, not production. He came to Washington, DC, that year and spent most of the next thirty-six years working within sight of the Washington Monument, learning how things really work, and pondering the methods that might be more in concord with such founding documents of American democracy as the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Twenty-one of these years were with the US Treasury Department. Now, for the first time, this report builds on the findings of many of the world's monetary reformers past and present by offering a complete prescription for a new and better world. This prescription is radically different from most progressive reform agendas that address only symptoms of the underlying systemic failures. Where Money Comes From When setting out to study monetary principles, we must realize how little we know of the real facts of monetary history. Economics is an extremely limited discipline rife with untested assumptions and unchallengeable dogmas. Its most pernicious doctrine is the assertion that there is something called "the market", where there is an "invisible hand" that makes everything work out the way it is supposed to. Actually, an economy functions according to the principles according to which it is designed and regulated. If it is designed to funnel wealth into the hands of the monetary controllers, then that is what the "market" and the "invisible hand" will do. If it is designed to foster "the general welfare", as it should according to the preamble to the US Constitution, then the "market" and the "invisible hand" will tend in that direction. Unfortunately, we march today to the tune of the monetary elite, so they are the ones who reap the profits and the benefits. They are the ones on whom the "invisible hand" lavishes the wealth of the world. It is done through the process of bank-created credit. While during the nineteenth century other forms of money circulated, such as large quantities of coinage, silver certificates, and government-issued greenbacks, almost all the money that exists today originates through a loan by a financial institution to an individual or a business. When a loan is made it is issued as a liability on the bank's ledger. When it is repaid, the liability is canceled. With today's computer systems, all transactions are digitized, of course. The bank keeps the interest on the loan as its combined administrative fee and profit. The money that is lent had no prior existence. Once money is created as credit, it takes many forms according to how the loan recipient spends it. Some credit is used by businesses or individuals as investment in order to generate profits over and above the amount they must repay to the bank with interest. If the money is used simply for consumer purchases, the individual consumer must pay back the loan through future earnings. In those cases where the borrower defaults on the loan or goes bankrupt, the money simply remains in circulation however it was spent. Unfortunately, large amounts of credit are used mainly for speculation, not for any benefit to the producing economy. This includes securities bought on margin and borrowing by hedge funds where the fund may make a profit even if the value of its investments goes down. Bank-created credit in this case is little more than chips in a casino. Other borrowing takes place by equity funds and other types of investors for leveraged mergers or buyouts of entire companies, where the predators wreck a company's infrastructure by reducing costs and selling its assets, then pay back their bank loans before unloading the business on someone else. The most important thing to realize about the banking system is that the money which enters into circulation as purchasing power must eventually be returned in the repayment of loans. This is why the Federal Reserve's monetary measures - M1, M2, and M3 - are meaningless, because so much of it has liens against it. We are taught that paying it back is the way things should be - obviously, if we borrow something, we should pay back what we owe. But the peculiar thing is that because the borrowed money pays for labor, commodities, rent, et cetera, it becomes part of the prices that are eventually charged for goods and services. However, when the money goes back to the bank to cancel a loan, that purchasing power disappears. Neither the banks nor economists ever make note of the fact that this process creates a chronic shortage of purchasing power which must be filled by more loans and more bank profits. The economy is thus a treadmill that borrowers must constantly trudge along in order to have enough money for survival. So a system which is seemingly grounded in the simple adage that if you borrow you should repay is all wrong. The reason it is all wrong is that in most cases, individual consumers should never have to borrow in the first place. And we never ask ourselves why, with the abundance that is possible from modern science and technology, should people have to borrow money at interest for the necessities of life - a house, a car, household expenses, an education, et cetera. Thus we realize that the financial system works against what should be the real purpose of money, which is to serve as a ticket for the purchase by people of articles they need to survive or otherwise desire to utilize once the demand for survival has been met. People have needs and desires. The economy is fully capable of producing all the goods and services needed to fulfill those needs and desires. But the system is broken, because, despite the abundance of credit available for financial speculation, there is not sufficient money available at the consumer level to mediate between prices and consumption, even when most people have a job. We still must borrow, and that is wrong. There should be a better way for society to generate the money for what people need. So what is really going on here? One of the things that is going on is that money is being mis-defined as a commodity. People who believe money is a commodity think it has value in and of itself. But one of the hardest things to grasp about money is that not even gold or silver money, or paper money supposedly backed by gold or silver, has or could have intrinsic value. Actually, money is anything that a willing buyer and a willing seller agree to exchange for something else. Money could be and has been such things as gold, silver, paper, wampum, cows, stones, shells, sticks with notches, or, today, electronic blips. What may appear to give gold or silver value is its scarcity and durability. But unless there are goods and services available and for sale, gold and silver are totally useless. You can't eat gold or silver, live in them, or wear them. In and of themselves they have no value. What gives any money value is the producing economy and nothing else. So by this definition, bank-created credit, while it may generate money which a willing buyer and seller agree to exchange, is money with strings attached, in that at some point, it must travel back to the bank in cancellation of a debt. Thus a buyer who offers it to a seller is, in reality, deceiving himself about his actual ability to pay. He is not a free man. Always lurking in the back of his mind is that with every article he has purchased he has shackled himself ever more firmly to future indentured servitude. The seller, on the other hand, may breathe a little more freely having just acquired some of the monetary medium necessary to repay his own debts. And so it goes, ad infinitum. Even if the money were backed by gold and silver, the system would work in exactly the same way. So by what right do the bankers bind the economy in such a straightjacket of debt? Again, the underlying logic is that money is a commodity. A group of men have money. It is their money, we believe, rightfully earned. Therefore, because these individuals have money, they have a further right to lend it to others. But under existing laws, the banking system then makes the leap of assuming that because they have money which can be lent, they have a right to lend much more than they actually possess. Somehow they have become fit practitioners of the fractional reserve banking system whereby, as described above, they can lend simply by creating debits in their computers, based on some ratio between their capital stock and their lending ceiling. But if bankers can do this, why can't you or I? If I have $1,000, why can't I then lend $10,000 and collect the corresponding interest? The answer is that a bank has a government charter and supposedly can guarantee through various safeguards that the people to whom it lends can repay. But even this isn't required of a bank any more if it can package its loans and sell them to some other business entity, such as an investment company. But the fact is that banks can only be created by people who are already rich, can put up some initial capital, build a functioning business, and obtain the government charter mentioned above. Once they do this, they are the masters of the world. Also note that under today's highly unstable financial conditions, it is not only banks which create credit through lending. Since the deregulation of the 1980s, Wall Street brokerage firms greatly expanded the system whereby speculative loans are floated for purchase of securities. This has resulted in a current ratio of debt to equity of 22:1 in the US securities markets, where debt far outweighs value. What is Credit? The word "credit" is one of the most widely-used and important in the English language. Dictionary.com lists twenty-one definitions. All these definitions have some connotation of the concept of "value" and the exchange of that value across the dimensions of time and space between one person and another. Obviously, the ideas of "credit" and "money" are closely related. The idea of credit when viewed from a macroeconomic perspective refers to the ability of an economy to produce goods and services of value to the members of that community. It refers to the potential value of that economy to support life. What it does not and cannot refer to is money in and of itself, because money, as we have seen, has no intrinsic value. Without the credit-potential of a producing economy, money has no meaning. On the other hand, money can be a convenient yardstick to measure credit, as when we state that the 2006 GDP of the United States was $12.98 trillion. But actually, the "real" credit of the US economy was much higher, because our economy is not running at anywhere near its full capacity. The automobile industry, for instance, is running at about fifty percent of its physical potential. So the real credit of the US is actually higher than the GDP. "Credit" in an economic sense confers a legal right to draw on the goods and services that make up the potential GDP of the nation. It is the way the society agrees to hand out the monetary tickets by which the GDP may be acquired. Obviously, the issuance of either too many or too few tickets will cause problems. The issuance of too few tickets will result in underproduction, poverty, even death. The issuance of too many tickets will result in inflation. When the Federal Reserve creates, then deflates, asset bubbles, like the currently collapsing housing bubble, these effects alternate, resulting in the kind of ongoing economic chaos we have seen for decades. It can readily be seen that credit is a cultural phenomenon. It is the sum total of the entire productive capacity of the nation. It has grown from the past, exists in the present, and can be projected into the future. It is the result of the work of untold millions of people, dead and gone, alive today, and yet unborn. Many of its results may be proprietary, in terms of businesses, property, and patents owned, et cetera, but every person who has ever lived, lives today, or who will live in the future is a participant in that culture. Therefore, credit can and should be viewed as a communal endowment, a public phenomenon, a part of what is called "the commons", even with the normal and natural fact of the existence of private property. So the use of credit and its distribution should be treated as a public utility, like water or electricity. Everyone should have a right to its use, according to some rational, lawful, and humane criteria of need or contribution to creating it. As with the use of other utilities, it is the responsibility of the community to see that credit is used wisely and for positive and constructive purposes. But no one should be denied it altogether, because it is a necessity of life. Money, as a measure of credit, should therefore be available to the entire community. The government, as the representative of the community, has the responsibility of overseeing, coordinating, and regulating its availability, keeping in mind the fairest and most socially beneficial ways for it to be utilized. Monetary reformers would argue that extensive availability of credit to the working population should be part of the "general welfare" guaranteed by the preamble to the US Constitution. This should not be confused with the virtually unlimited availability of credit to speculators and stock predators as is presently the case with our Wall Street-based economy. But these principles are poorly recognized. Money, and therefore credit, is viewed as private property, even though most of it, as stated previously, is made by banks "out of thin air". It is no exaggeration to say that the existing system is one whereby the financial elite has confiscated and privatized the most important public resource of all, more important than water, land, electric power, et cetera. This has resulted in much of the world's wars, poverty, and crime. Let us again examine the ways money enters into the economic system, this time looking at the total credit picture of the US economy. We said that the 2006 GDP was $12.98 trillion. This takes into account a trade deficit of $726 billion. The question is, where did the credit come from to purchase the GDP, because, by definition, it all had to be paid for in prices. According to official data, the available national income in 2006 was $10.23 trillion, including wages, salaries, interest, dividends, personal business earnings, and capital gains. Of this amount, approximately one-third was taken through taxes by government at the federal, state, and local levels. Churning through the economy was borrowing of all kinds - for consumption, commerce, investment, speculation, new government debt, and to finance business transactions. In fact it was the net increase in debt - $3.77 trillion - that paid for the difference between GDP and national income. Debt also financed much of the trade deficit by our borrowing to purchase what was imported from abroad. The need to borrow has been greatly increased by the decline of the US manufacturing sector, where well-paying jobs that contributed to the national income have disappeared or been outsourced overseas. The ratio of debt to national income has reached historic proportions - 460 percent of the national income today versus 186 percent in 1957. Orthodox economics, including the manipulation of interest rates by the Federal Reserve, has no tools for resolving this crisis. The main reason is that neither economists nor politicians understand it, though bankers certainly do. Orthodox economics is helpless because people do not understand how the gap between production and purchasing power relates to the way the microeconomics of the corporation translates into the macroeconomics of nations. We observed earlier in this report that prices of articles within the economy include the loans that are taken out during the production process. But these loans are canceled as bank liabilities when they are repaid. Therefore the purchasing power of the economy always lags behind prices. But this is not the only area where prices include factors that are not paid out in wages, salaries, dividends, or other sources of individual or business income. Other factors include retained earnings, insurance, certain maintenance and overhead costs, plus the cumulative effect of corporations buying from each other with payments which never exit the production system. As a result, only somewhere between a third and a half of all costs are ever distributed to consumers. This analysis has been documented at length by the Social Credit movement and has been well-known to monetary reformers for decades. This gap is what drives nations to seek overseas markets for their products as the US did so strenuously during the post-World War Two period. When the US balance of payments later fell into negative territory, we tried to compensate by the policy of "dollar hegemony", whereby we foisted our currency on the rest of the world as the principal means of oil trading, maintenance of currency reserves, and paying for our trade deficit. But as the US internal and external debt grows and our fiscal and trade deficits deepen, a total systemic breakdown is starting to take place. The main recent prop of the US economy, the housing bubble, is deflating. And frantically, we are trying to escape by a radical devaluation of the dollar combined with an aggressive military policy based essentially on confiscating the resources of other nations such as Iraq. This, combined with action to prop up our fiscal deficit by importing dollars spent abroad on manufactured products we no longer make ourselves, has created a house of cards that must soon come down. All that is lacking is a major shock, such as a widening war in the Middle East or inability by foreign creditors to continue to accept devalued dollars. Neither devaluation nor aggression will solve the problem which derives from the failure of debt financing to create real purchasing power and thereby resolve the chaos through which a system built for the profits of the financiers can never produce enough unencumbered credit to maintain our desired level of production and the standard of living that goes with it. The Prescription As with anyone facing bankruptcy, it is time for those who wish to understand the current US economic crisis to take a deep breath, step back, and gather themselves in order to correctly assess the situation. Obviously the solution is not to risk blowing up the world by continuing to resolve our domestic economic problems through overseas conquests. This is what the Western nations have been trying to do for centuries, and it appears that the rest of the world may finally have had enough. This is especially the case today when the main factor that is floating the US economy is the huge US trade imbalance where foreign nations must use the dollars they take in to their ultimate disadvantage by financing a federal budget deficit that is measured in dollars whose value is dropping. Nor does the solution lie on the production side of the equation. The US and other developed economies are capable of producing everything their populations need, even accompanied by a reasonable amount of foreign trade, especially if we can return our industry to the level of productivity we enjoyed prior to the Federal Reserve-induced recession of 1979 to 1983 which gave us today's anemic "service economy". Rather the solution lies with the federal government taking back its constitutionally-authorized control of the credit of the nation from the financiers and managing it as previously stated - as a public utility. There is no need to eliminate capitalism, change the basis of property ownership, abolish corporations, et cetera, because the organization and administration of the production process is essentially irrelevant to the real problem. Once again, the producing economy is not the problem. It has performed with tremendous effectiveness in creating the goods and services people need and want. It would be the basis for real economic democracy if its bounty could be made available and distributed in accordance with democratic principles. It is essential to realize that the central government of a sovereign nation has the right, the ability, and the responsibility to introduce ALL new credit into existence. This is totally different from having the central bank "print money" by relaxing lending policies, resulting in an infusion of cheap loans which must still be repaid. Sovereign creation of credit is not based on debt. It is and should be based on direct spending of money into circulation by the government itself. Obviously the government should do this in a way that promotes the best interests of the members of society while respecting the varying degrees of contribution by those of different levels of skill and achievement. It is quite possible to enact such a program with due regard to all established conventions of private property and the private ownership and control of existing wealth. To those who are concerned that the concept of publicly-controlled credit postulates a monetary supply that can be turned on and off like tap water, this is a misconception. There is indeed a cornucopia of supply on the earth, but it is not of money. If is of what human beings are capable of producing with the skill of their hands and their heads and the knowledge of science and technology. Money is only a ticket to transfer this abundance from producer to consumer, but it must be plentiful enough to allow the transfer of all that is reasonably desired, it should not be misused for financial speculation, and it is the job of government to bring that money to the place of the economic activity where it is needed. The key point is that such money should not be encumbered by debt to a financial institution, including the banks of the Federal Reserve System. This should be done according the following principles: The decisions of what goods and services should be produced should represent a reasonable mix of what is needed and desired by consumers with what is required for the public good by way of regulation and infrastructure. Decisions should be made by a combination of market forces, business governance, and oversight by representative government. In other words, production should be conducted as we imagine it is done at present, though in reality neither the market, business, nor representative government can function properly and responsibly today because they are under so much pressure from a disastrously dysfunctional monetary system. Purchasing power should be provided to all individuals whether they work or not. This is increasingly important as fewer workers are needed due to automation to produce an increasing amount of goods. There is no way to avoid dislocation of workers due to change in an advanced economy, but it is essentially that people be protected from such change even if they decide to opt out of working for a living at all. There are many productive things people can do without having to draw an income from a paying job. The money provided to people regardless of whether they work would constitute the National Dividend envisioned by a Social Credit system. One way to manage such a system would be to require everyone to work until the age of forty, when optional retirement would be offered. The idea of one nation being the world's policeman with military bases everywhere and a right to conquer other nations at will and take their resources must be abandoned once and for all. A system where the nations of the world are financially independent and self-sustaining as described in this report would lead to the possibility of international stability and trade among nations and regions of the world acting as equals. The history of the last century proves that the drive to war is largely fueled by the need for financial dominance as an offset to the failure to generate sufficient internal purchasing power through democratic management of credit. This syndrome would be eliminated by the monetary reforms described herein. These are the principles - a functioning economy that combines responsible free enterprise with government regulation and infrastructure; democratic distribution of a National Dividend which supplements earned income; and an international system of economic relationships among sovereign nations acting as equals. None of these principles is currently being met, and no one in a leadership position has a plan to take us there, either now or when the crisis strikes. The first measure in bringing about change, taking the US as an example, would be for the federal government to create a Monetary Control Board as envisioned by model legislation proposed by the American Monetary Institute. This board would oversee the entire process of assuring that the money supply is sufficient to express the real credit demands of the nation in paying for the GDP. This would be followed by a combination of the following steps: We should spend sufficient credit into existence to supply the basic operating expenses of government at all levels without recourse to either taxes or borrowing. In the past, this has been done by the colonial American legislatures, the Continental Congress at the time of the Revolutionary War, and the federal government during the Civil War. Probably two-thirds of existing federal government expenditures could be eliminated, because much of it is to compensate for a failed monetary system, including much of the military machine. Further, at least ninety percent of all taxes could be eliminated under such a program. The only taxes that would be retained would be those in the form of user fees for infrastructure operations and maintenance or those levied as a control mechanism to prevent inflation. Capital expenses for infrastructure construction at the federal, state, and local levels could be financed through a self-capitalized national infrastructure bank. Government expenditures would continue to require legislative approval under our republican form of government which would be enhanced, not threatened, by monetary reform. The remainder of the total societal gap between production and purchasing power would be filled by a non-taxable National Dividend of two types. One would be a cash stipend paid to all citizens which would also serve the purpose of eliminating poverty by providing everyone with a basic income guarantee. The remainder of the National Dividend would consist of an overall pricing subsidy, whereby a designated proportion of all purchases, including home building expenses, would be rebated to consumers. The total National Dividend per person would probably exceed $12,000 per year under today's economic conditions. It would be a calculated value charged against a government ledger but would be off-budget, with no need to finance it with taxation or borrowing. A portion of the National Dividend would be made available to all citizens reaching the age of eighteen, who would receive a non-taxable lump-sum of $60,000 for higher education, trade school, or business investment. Bank financing would be much more limited than at present. Private sector corporate investment would be funded entirely out of retained earnings and capital markets without recourse to bank lending. Bank lending for stock speculation would be abolished as would leveraged buyouts. Bank lending would be accomplished without fractional reserve methods by requiring banks to supplement their capital and deposits with credit borrowed at very low rates from the federal government as publicly-created credit. While the banks would be allowed to add administrative costs and a reasonable business profit for lending used to finance commerce, mortgages, and small business start-up, government guarantees and subsidies should result in net interest rates to borrowers no greater than one percent. International trade would be accommodated through a regulated system of exchange rates based on real purchasing values of respective national currencies. Results This program would not create a Utopia or install a Big Brother to watch over us. It would not relieve mankind of the need to work, study, save, take care of our environment, make wise decisions, use opportunities intelligently, participate in representative government, care for those less fortunate, provide for our posterity, practice self-restraint, obey moral strictures, worship our creator, or love our neighbor as ourselves. What this program would do would be to allow the nation's monetary system to reach the same level of maturity, functionality, and access presently found, at least potentially, in the physical economy which utilizes science and technology so effectively in producing abundant goods and services. This means that the program would free mankind from the control of the monetary elite which has unjustly usurped the fruits of the labor of everyone else. The amount of money involved in this control over time is immense. In his report on "An Emergency Program of Monetary Reform of the United States", the author calculated that the National Dividend for 2006 should have resulted in an average stipend paid to each US citizen of $12,600. For a person aged sixty, this would work out to $756,000 over a lifetime in current dollars. This figure of $756,000 represents the amount of money an individual has had to borrow from financial institutions to make up what he should have received as his share of a National Dividend if Congress had not ceded the public prerogatives of credit-creation that exist in the Constitution to private financiers. Extrapolated for the entire US population, the amount of unnecessary borrowing probably has exceeded $100 trillion since World War Two. We can gain confidence that this figure is in the ball-park by realizing that total societal debt in the US today has been reliably estimated at over $48 trillion. Thus it is easy to see that in time, the program of monetary reform described in this report could eliminate poverty and the main causes of war, reduce the size of government, and give individuals a chance to prosper. It would replace the current system of debt-serfdom caused by monetary strangulation at the consumer level with true economic democracy. Economic democracy may be defined as free access to the bounty of God's earth, according to one's need, character, ability, and work. The purpose of this access is for individuals to have the liberty to work out responsibly their own occupation, lifestyle, identity, and destiny without these being dictated by external authorities or the threat of economic ruin. These are the freedoms that are inherent in the ideals that created America and, though compromised so much, have been America's gift to the rest of the world. The reader might ask why, if these reforms could so readily be made, weren't they thought of and implemented before? The answer is that these reforms have been known and promoted by many people in the past, both known and unknown, including such leaders in America as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Herbert Hoover, Franklin D Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, and many others. But working against such enlightened leaders has been an international financier conspiracy with immense political power. The modern era of financier control in the US started with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. But during the 1920s, the US was still outstripping the rest of the world with rapid economic growth. This was due to a favorable financial position with respect to Europe after World War One, the wide availability of credit in the domestic economy, rapid industrial progress, and the predilection of American industrialists to pay their workers generous wages. Note that President Herbert Hoover is on this list of enlightened leaders. It is not generally known that Hoover, elected in 1928, had become familiar with the Social Credit system which originated in Great Britain with Major C H Douglas, who published the seminal work, Economic Democracy, in 1918. Douglas, with intimate knowledge of the events of the time, later related in his book Warning Democracy (1931) that in order to counter Hoover's enlightened economic ideas, the financiers decided to wreck the US economy, starting with the stock market crash of 1929. There is an official version of history, then there is the way things really happened. Thus Hoover is popularly, but mistakenly, portrayed as a failed president. But Hoover, an engineer and one of the most capable presidents in US history, identified the Federal Reserve, acting on its own, as having brought on the Great Depression. He responded by creating the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to revitalize the economy with a fresh infusion of credit, but, having been blamed for the crash, was voted out of office in favor of FDR in 1932. The RFC remained and was instrumental in rebuilding the economy over the next two decades. Roosevelt himself understood that the federal government had to maintain a decisive degree of control over credit, though he was undermined by people in his own administration favorable to the financiers. So he never completed a program of real monetary reform. During the 1930s, Douglas was forecasting another world war due to monetary causes, but he was told during his visits to the US that the financiers would never allow Social Credit to be implemented. According to monetary reform folklore, the financial elite looked around for an economist to combat Douglas's ideas and settled on John Maynard Keynes. The Keynesian system tried to deal with the monetary problem through massive government deficits, high taxes, and rapid economic growth. This system worked through the World War Two years and beyond but ran out of steam after the 1963 assassination of JFK and the loss by the US of its trade advantages and fiscal solvency during and after the Vietnam War. The financiers reasserted control throughout the 1970s, leading to the devastating Federal Reserve-induced recession of 1979 to 1983 and the deregulation of the financial industry during the Reagan years of 1981 to 1989. That left matters where they stand today. Since the 1980s, every US economic expansion has been nothing more than a Federal Reserve-created asset inflation. The latest has been the now collapsing housing bubble, the largest bubble in history. The financiers are trying to bring about an orderly decline - the so-called "soft landing" - though at the likely cost of the wealth, health, jobs, homes, and perhaps even some of the lives of tens of millions of demoralized people. Will we let them get away with it? Obviously, the government has bail-outs on its mind, though now, with housing gone, there may be nothing left for the financiers to inflate for the next round of chaos. Still, they are trying. Analysts are now calling attention to a new merger and acquisition bubble and a huge securities lending boom that has driven the stock market to historic levels even as consumer purchasing power in the US crumbles. If this bubbles bursts, much of the middle class wealth that remained after the 1987 stock market crash, the 2000 to 2002 bursting of the dot.com bubble, and the ongoing decline of the housing market will be gone for good. Maybe the party is finally over. Maybe at the end of their 300-year reign, starting roughly with the creation of the Bank of England in 1694, the financiers have finally succeeded in doing enough damage to the world economy that the rest of us are willing to take action. Or maybe there will be a sufficient distraction by more war in the Middle East and elsewhere. Maybe peak oil or global warming will intervene with destruction on too large a scale to ignore. Or maybe we'll just limp along into the sunset. Only time will tell. But however the change may happen, it remains the author's conviction that, one way or the other, a fair and intelligent monetary system will someday exist on the planet earth. _____ Richard C Cook is the author of We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform (2009) and Challenger Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age (2007). He is a Washington, DC-based writer and consultant who, in addition to NASA, taught history and worked in the US Civil Service Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Carter White House and spent 21 years with the US Treasury Department. His website is at www.richardccook.com. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section§ionName=membership The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com http://www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com (c) Copyright Richard C Cook, Global Research, 2007 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5615 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 Mon Nov 2 11:10:26 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:10:26 +0100 Subject: [R-G] America, stop sucking up to Israel In-Reply-To: <83904d240911011050t3fa8a8ecq6b140a056bd27016@mail.gmail.com> References: <83904d240911011050t3fa8a8ecq6b140a056bd27016@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Israel is a spoiled, arrogant country? Sounds like a child. The article does not even consider that Israel is doing exactly what the U.S. wants it too. The mumblings about peace only because world opinion is embarressing the U.S. Spoiled? Try genocidal. Arrogant? Try criminally insane. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1124928.html > > Haaretz > 01/11/2009 > > *America, stop sucking up to Israel* > > By Gideon Levy > > Barack Obama has been busy - offering the Jewish People blessings for Rosh > Hashanah, and recording a flattering video for the President's Conference > in > Jerusalem and another for Yitzhak Rabin's memorial rally. Only Sheikh > Hassan > Nasrallah surpasses him in terms of sheer output of recorded remarks. > > In all the videos, Obama heaps sticky-sweet praise on Israel, even though > he > has spent nearly a year fruitlessly lobbying for Israel to be so kind as to > do something, anything - even just a temporary freeze on settlement > building > - to advance the peace process. > > The president's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, has also been busy, > shuttling between a funeral (for IDF soldier Asaf Ramon, the son of > Israel's > first astronaut Ilan Ramon) and a memorial (for Rabin, though it was > postponed until next week due to rain), in order to find favor with > Israelis. Polls have shown that Obama is increasingly unpopular here, with > an approval rating of only 6 to 10 percent. > > He decided to address Israelis by video, but a persuasive speech won't > persuade anyone to end the occupation. He simply should have told the > Israeli people the truth. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who arrived > here last night, will certainly express similar sentiments: "commitment to > Israel's security," "strategic alliance," "the need for peace," and so on . > > Before no other country on the planet does the United States kneel and > plead > like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs > in Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North > Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw > from occupied territory in Kuwait? > > But Israel the occupier, the stubborn contrarian that continues to mock > America and the world by building settlements and abusing the Palestinians, > receives different treatment. Another massage to the national ego in one > video, more embarrassing praise in another. > > Now is the time to say to the United States: Enough flattery. If you don't > change the tone, nothing will change. As long as Israel feels the United > States is in its pocket, and that America's automatic veto will save it > from > condemnations and sanctions, that it will receive massive aid > unconditionally, and that it can continue waging punitive, lethal campaigns > without a word from Washington, killing, destroying and imprisoning without > the world's policeman making a sound, it will continue in its ways. > > Illegal acts like the occupation and settlement expansion, and offensives > that may have involved war crimes, as in Gaza, deserve a different > approach. > If America and the world had issued condemnations after Operation Summer > Rains in 2006 - which left 400 Palestinians dead and severe infrastructure > damage in the first major operation in Gaza since the disengagement - then > Operation Cast Lead never would have been launched. > > It is true that unlike all the world's other troublemakers, Israel is > viewed > as a Western democracy, but Israel of 2009 is a country whose language is > force. Anwar Sadat may have been the last leader to win our hearts with > optimistic, hope-igniting speeches. If he were to visit Israel today, he > would be jeered off the stage. The Syrian president pleads for peace and > Israel callously dismisses him, the United States begs for a settlement > free > ze and Israel turns up its nose. This is what happens when there are no > consequences for Israel's inaction. > > When Clinton returns to Washington, she should advocate a sharp policy > change toward Israel. Israeli hearts can no longer be won with hope, > promises of a better future or sweet talk, for this is no longer Israel's > language. For something to change, Israel must understand that perpetuating > the status quo will exact a painful price. > > Israel of 2009 is a spoiled country, arrogant and condescending, convinced > that it deserves everything and that it has the power to make a fool of > America and the world. The United States has engendered this situation, > which endangers the entire Mideast and Israel itself. That is why there > needs to be a turning point in the coming year - Washington needs to > finally > say no to Israel and the occupation. An unambiguous, presidential no. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Nov 2 11:11:18 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:11:18 +0100 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: America, stop sucking up to Israel In-Reply-To: References: <83904d240911011050t3fa8a8ecq6b140a056bd27016@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Suzanne de Kuyper Date: Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [R-G] America, stop sucking up to Israel To: sid-l at googlegroups.com, "Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion." Israel is a spoiled, arrogant country? Sounds like a child. The article does not even consider that Israel is doing exactly what the U.S. wants it too. The mumblings about peace only because world opinion is embarressing the U.S. Spoiled? Try genocidal. Arrogant? Try criminally insane. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1124928.html > > Haaretz > 01/11/2009 > > *America, stop sucking up to Israel* > > By Gideon Levy > > Barack Obama has been busy - offering the Jewish People blessings for Rosh > Hashanah, and recording a flattering video for the President's Conference > in > Jerusalem and another for Yitzhak Rabin's memorial rally. Only Sheikh > Hassan > Nasrallah surpasses him in terms of sheer output of recorded remarks. > > In all the videos, Obama heaps sticky-sweet praise on Israel, even though > he > has spent nearly a year fruitlessly lobbying for Israel to be so kind as to > do something, anything - even just a temporary freeze on settlement > building > - to advance the peace process. > > The president's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, has also been busy, > shuttling between a funeral (for IDF soldier Asaf Ramon, the son of > Israel's > first astronaut Ilan Ramon) and a memorial (for Rabin, though it was > postponed until next week due to rain), in order to find favor with > Israelis. Polls have shown that Obama is increasingly unpopular here, with > an approval rating of only 6 to 10 percent. > > He decided to address Israelis by video, but a persuasive speech won't > persuade anyone to end the occupation. He simply should have told the > Israeli people the truth. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who arrived > here last night, will certainly express similar sentiments: "commitment to > Israel's security," "strategic alliance," "the need for peace," and so on . > > Before no other country on the planet does the United States kneel and > plead > like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs > in Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North > Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw > from occupied territory in Kuwait? > > But Israel the occupier, the stubborn contrarian that continues to mock > America and the world by building settlements and abusing the Palestinians, > receives different treatment. Another massage to the national ego in one > video, more embarrassing praise in another. > > Now is the time to say to the United States: Enough flattery. If you don't > change the tone, nothing will change. As long as Israel feels the United > States is in its pocket, and that America's automatic veto will save it > from > condemnations and sanctions, that it will receive massive aid > unconditionally, and that it can continue waging punitive, lethal campaigns > without a word from Washington, killing, destroying and imprisoning without > the world's policeman making a sound, it will continue in its ways. > > Illegal acts like the occupation and settlement expansion, and offensives > that may have involved war crimes, as in Gaza, deserve a different > approach. > If America and the world had issued condemnations after Operation Summer > Rains in 2006 - which left 400 Palestinians dead and severe infrastructure > damage in the first major operation in Gaza since the disengagement - then > Operation Cast Lead never would have been launched. > > It is true that unlike all the world's other troublemakers, Israel is > viewed > as a Western democracy, but Israel of 2009 is a country whose language is > force. Anwar Sadat may have been the last leader to win our hearts with > optimistic, hope-igniting speeches. If he were to visit Israel today, he > would be jeered off the stage. The Syrian president pleads for peace and > Israel callously dismisses him, the United States begs for a settlement > free > ze and Israel turns up its nose. This is what happens when there are no > consequences for Israel's inaction. > > When Clinton returns to Washington, she should advocate a sharp policy > change toward Israel. Israeli hearts can no longer be won with hope, > promises of a better future or sweet talk, for this is no longer Israel's > language. For something to change, Israel must understand that perpetuating > the status quo will exact a painful price. > > Israel of 2009 is a spoiled country, arrogant and condescending, convinced > that it deserves everything and that it has the power to make a fool of > America and the world. The United States has engendered this situation, > which endangers the entire Mideast and Israel itself. That is why there > needs to be a turning point in the coming year - Washington needs to > finally > say no to Israel and the occupation. An unambiguous, presidential no. > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Nov 2 16:04:49 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:04:49 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Our Economy Was a Scam and Now We're Dead Broke Message-ID: <20091103080449.fb40f944.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Joe Bageant, JoeBageant.com Alternet (October 27 2009) When Barack Obama took office it seemed to some of us that his first job was to get the national silverware out of the pawn shop. Or at least maintain the world's confidence that it was possible for us to get out of debt. America is dead broke, the easy credit, phantom "growth" economy has been exposed for what it was. A credit scam. Even Hillary Clinton and Obama's best efforts have not coaxed much more dough out of foreign friends. But at least we again have a few friends abroad. So now we must jackleg ourselves back into something resembling a productive activity. No matter how you cut it, things will not be as much fun as shopping and speculative "investing" were. The fiesta is over, the economy as we knew it is dead. The national money shamans have danced around the carcass of our dead horse economy, chanted the recovery chant and burned fiat currency like Indian sage, enshrouding the carcass in the sacred smoke of burning cash. And indeed, they have managed to prop up the carcass to appear life-like from a distance, if you squint through the smoke just right. But it still stinks here from the inside. Clearly at some point we must find a new horse to ride, and sure as god made little green apples one is broaching the horizon. And it looks exactly like the old horse. Then too, what else did we expect? His economic team of free market billionaires and financial hotwires includes most of those who helped Bill Clinton sell the theory that Americans didn't need jobs. Actual labor, if you will remember, was for Asian sweatshops and Latin maquiladoras. We, as a nation one third of whose population is functionally illiterate, were going to transmute ourselves into an information and transactional economy. Ain't gonna sweat no mo' no mo' - just drink wine and sing about Jesus all day. Along with these economic hotwires came literally hundreds of K Street and Democratic lobbyists. Supposedly, every president is forced to hire these guys because no one else seems to have the connections or knows how to get a bill through Congress. Consequently, the current regime's definition of a recovery is more of the same as ever. A return of the mortgage market and credit to its former level - the level that blew us out of the water in the first place. Ah, but we're gonna manage it better this time. There is no one-trick pony on earth equal to capitalism. Somewhere in the smoking wreckage lie the solutions. The solutions we aren't allowed to discuss: adoption of a Wall Street securities speculation tax; repeal of the Taft-Hartley anti-union laws; ending corporate personhood; cutting the bloated vampire bleeding the economy, the military budget; full single payer health care insurance, not some "public option" that is neither fish nor fowl; taxation instead of credits for carbon pollution; reversal of inflammatory U.S. policy in the Middle East (as in, get the hell out, begin kicking the oil addiction and quit backing the spoiled murderous brat that is Israel). Meanwhile we may all feel free to row ourselves to hell in the same hand basket. Except of course the elites, the top five percent or so among us. But 95 percent is close enough to be called democratic, so what the hell. The trivialized media, having internalized the system's values, will continue to act as rowing captain calling out the strokes. News gathering in America is its own special hell, and reduces its practitioners to banality and elite sycophancy. But Big Money calls the shots. With luck we will see at least some reverse of the Bush regime's assault on habeas corpus, due process, privacy. Changing such laws doesn't much affect that one percent whose income is equal to the combined bottom fifty percent of Americans. Beyond that, the big money is constitutionally protected. Our Constitution is first and foremost a property document protecting their money. In actual practice, our constitutional civil liberties, inspiring as they are in concept to people around the world, are mainly side action to make the institutionalization of the owning class more palatable. You can argue that may not have been the intent of the slave owning, rent collecting, upper class founding fathers. But you would be full of shit. We can keep on pretending to be independent, free to keep on living in those houses on which we still owe $300,000. But they own and control the money that comes through our hands. And they plan to keep on owning it and charging us to use it. On the positive side, there has probably been no more fertile opportunity to improve US international relations since post World War Two. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bolton were about as endearing as pederasts at a baby shower. And now that we have shot up half the planet, certainly there is no more globally attractive person to patch up the bullet holes than Barack Obama (yes, I know Bill Clinton's feelings are hurt by that). Awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize (again Bill Clinton's feeling are sorely wounded) was an invitation to rejoin the human race. Of course, there are a significant number of Americans still who could not give a rat's ass about world opinion of the good ole USA. Nearly every damned one of my neighbors back in Virginia, in fact. The sharks are still running the only game in town and they have never had it better. To be sure, with the economic collapse some of the financial lords won't pile quite up as many millions this year. Others will however have a record year. All are still squatting in the tall cotton. Their grandfathers who so hated FDR's reforms must be chugging cognac in hell celebrating today's America. America's unions have been neutered and taught to beg. At long last we have established a permanent underclass and deindustrialized the country in favor of low wage service industries here and dirt cheap labor from abroad. We've managed to harden the education and income gap into something an American oligarch can take pride in. Hell, my bank card is issued by Prescott Bush's Union Bank and my most recent mortgage was held by J P Morgan's creation. My electricity is generated by Rockefeller's coal and energy holdings and my Exxon gasoline credit card is issued by a successor to Standard oil. The breakfast I eat comes from Archer Daniels Midland. So did my dog's breakfast. We are the very products and property of these people and their institutions. With peak oil, population pressure, vanishing world resources and global warming, we can never again be what we once were - a civilization occupying a relative material paradise through a danse macabre of planetarily unsustainable growth. But no presidential candidate is going to run on the promise that "If we do everything just right, pull in our belts and sacrifice, we can at best be a second world nation in fifty years, providing we don't mind the lack of oxygen and a few cancers here and there". Better to hawk the myth of profitable pollution through carbon credits. Which Obama is doing. We burn the grain supplies of starving nations in our vehicles. Skilled American construction workers now unemployed drive their big trucks into town and knock at my door asking to rake my leaves for ten bucks. There is nothing ironic in this to their minds. "Middle class" people making $150,000 a year will get a new tax break (as if we were all earning 150K). Energy prices are predicted to stabilize because we intend to burn the state of West Virginia in our power plants. The corpses of our young people are still being unloaded from cargo planes at Dover Delaware, but from two fronts now. Mortgage foreclosures are expected to double before they slacken. I cannot imagine debtors not getting at least temporary relief, if not decent jobs or affordable health care. Surely we will see more "change". But never under any conditions will we be allowed to touch the real money, or get anywhere near it, much less redistribute it. Because, as a bookie friend once told me, "You got your common man living on hope, lottery tickets, or the dogs or the ponies, and you got operators. People who can see the whole game in play. They set the rules. Because they hold the money. That ain't never gonna change." On the other hand national opinion changes almost hourly. But if the starting gate bell rang right now for the next presidential race, I'd have to put ten bucks on Obama to place. We cannot assume the Republican party will remain stupid. Assumptions don't work at all. Remember what happened when we assumed the Democrats were capable of courage and leadership? _____ Joe Bageant is author of the book, Deer Hunting With Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War (2007), about working class America. A complete archive of his on-line work, along with the thoughts of many working Americans on the subject of class may be found on his website: http://www.joebageant.com/ (c) 2009 JoeBageant.com All rights reserved. http://www.alternet.org/story/143521/ 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 garyrumor2 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 2 21:46:03 2009 From: garyrumor2 at yahoo.com (Gary Crethers) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:46:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Showdown in New York, . Congresswoman Lee Says No More Troops For Afghanistan Message-ID: <152358.28942.qm@web43504.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> ? US Out Of World Domination, India Give Kashmir?s People A Choice The Showdown In New York State, Barbara Lee Says No More Troops For Afghanistan This morning Congresswoman Barbara Lee of Oakland, CA was on KPFK talking about her new bill to end support for a troop increase in Afghanistan. She has asked that citizens call their Congressperson and ask them to support her bill if they want to tell Congress that we oppose an increase in the troops. I only wish she would submit a bill to end the occupation of Afghanistan all together but she seems to believe that Al Qaeda is still a threat that needs some troop commitment. I could not tell exactly what she thought was the appropriate level but she is against an increase. Tomorrow we have the big showdown upstate New York. The Republican candidate has withdrawn saying that the right wing of the party has undercut her viability and made it impossible for her to fund her campaign. She was so upset that she told her supporters to vote for the Democrat. I could say more but the Op-Ed Columnist in the October 31st New York Times. ?Op-Ed Columnist The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York Sign in to Recommend By FRANK RICH Published: October 31, 2009 BARACK OBAMA?S most devilish political move since the 2008 campaign was to appoint a Republican congressman from upstate New York as secretary of the Army. This week?s election to fill that vacant seat has set off nothing less than a riotous and bloody national G.O.P. civil war. No matter what the results in that race on Tuesday, the Republicans are the sure losers. This could be a gift that keeps on giving to the Democrats through 2010, and perhaps beyond. The governors? races in New Jersey and Virginia were once billed as the marquee events of Election Day 2009 ? a referendum on the Obama presidency and a possible Republican ?comeback.? But preposterous as it sounds, the real action migrated to New York?s 23rd, a rural Congressional district abutting Canada. That this pastoral setting could become a G.O.P. killing field, attracting an all-star cast of combatants led by Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, William Kristol and Newt Gingrich, is a premise out of a Depression-era screwball comedy. But such farces have become the norm for the conservative movement ? whether the participants are dressing up in full ?tea party? drag or not. The battle for upstate New York confirms just how swiftly the right has devolved into a wacky, paranoid cult that is as eager to eat its own as it is to destroy Obama. The movement?s undisputed leaders, Palin and Beck, neither of whom has what Palin once called the ?actual responsibilities? of public office, would gladly see the Republican Party die on the cross of right-wing ideological purity. Over the short term, at least, their wish could come true. The New York fracas was ignited by the routine decision of 11 local Republican county chairmen to anoint an assemblywoman, Dede Scozzafava, as their party?s nominee for the vacant seat. The 23rd is in safe Republican territory that hasn?t sent a Democrat to Congress in decades. And Scozzafava is a mainstream conservative by New York standards; one statistical measure found her voting record slightly to the right of her fellow Republicans in the Assembly. But she has occasionally strayed from orthodoxy on social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) and endorsed the Obama stimulus package. To the right?s Jacobins, that?s cause to send her to the guillotine. Sure enough, bloggers trashed her as a radical leftist and ditched her for a third-party candidate they deem a ?true? conservative, an accountant and businessman named Doug Hoffman. When Gingrich dared endorse Scozzafava anyway ? as did other party potentates like John Boehner and Michael Steele ? he too was slimed. Mocking Newt?s presumed 2012 presidential ambitions, Michelle Malkin imagined him appointing Al Sharpton as secretary of education and Al Gore as ?global warming czar.? She?s quite the wit. The wrecking crew of Kristol, Fred Thompson, Dick Armey, Michele Bachmann, The Wall Street Journal editorial page and the government-bashing Club for Growth all joined the Hoffman putsch. Then came the big enchilada: a Hoffman endorsement from Palin on her Facebook page. Such is Palin?s clout that Steve Forbes, Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor (and presidential aspirant), promptly fell over one another in their Pavlovian rush to second her motion. They were joined by far-flung Republican congressmen from Kansas, Georgia, Oklahoma and California, not to mention a gaggle of state legislators from Colorado. On Fox News, Beck took up the charge, insinuating that Hoffman?s Republican opponent might be a fan of Karl Marx. Some $3 million has now been dumped into this race by outside groups. Who exactly is the third-party maverick arousing such ardor? Hoffman doesn?t even live in the district. When he appeared before the editorial board of The Watertown Daily Times 10 days ago, he ?showed no grasp? of local issues, as the subsequent editorial put it. Hoffman complained that he should have received the questions in advance ? blissfully unaware that they had been asked by the paper in an editorial on the morning of his visit. Last week it turned out that Hoffman?s prime attribute to the radical right ? as a take-no-prisoners fiscal conservative ? was bogus. In fact he?s on the finance committee of a hospital that happily helped itself to a $479,000 federal earmark. Then again, without the federal government largess that the tea party crowd so deplores, New York?s 23rd would be a Siberia of joblessness. The biggest local employer is the pork-dependent military base, Fort Drum. The right?s embrace of Hoffman is a double-barreled suicide for the G.O.P. On Saturday, the battered Scozzafava suspended her campaign, further scrambling the race. It?s still conceivable that the Democratic candidate could capture a seat the Republicans should own. But it?s even better for Democrats if Hoffman wins. Punch-drunk with this triumph, the right will redouble its support of primary challengers to 2010 G.O.P. candidates they regard as impure. That?s bad news for even a Republican as conservative as Kay Bailey Hutchison, whose primary opponent in the Texas governor?s race, the incumbent Rick Perry, floated the possibility of secession at a teabagger rally in April and hastily endorsed Hoffman on Thursday. The more rightists who win G.O.P. primaries, the greater the Democrats? prospects next year. But the electoral math is less interesting than the pathology of this movement. Its antecedent can be found in the early 1960s, when radical-right hysteria carried some of the same traits we?re seeing now: seething rage, fear of minorities, maniacal contempt for government, and a Freudian tendency to mimic the excesses of political foes. Writing in 1964 of that era?s equivalent to today?s tea party cells, the historian Richard Hofstadter observed that the John Birch Society?s ?ruthless prosecution? of its own ideological war often mimicked the tactics of its Communist enemies. The same could be said of Beck, Palin and their acolytes. Though they constantly liken the president to various totalitarian dictators, it is they who are re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode. They drove out Arlen Specter, and now want to ?melt Snowe? (as the blog Red State put it). The same Republicans who once deplored Democrats for refusing to let an anti-abortion dissident, Gov. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, speak at the 1992 Clinton convention now routinely banish any dissenters in their own camp. These conservatives? whiny cries of victimization also parrot a tic they once condemned in liberals. After Rush Limbaugh was booted from an ownership group bidding on the St. Louis Rams, he moaned about being done in by the ?race card.? What actually did him in, of course, was the free-market American capitalism he claims to champion. Limbaugh didn?t understand that in an increasingly diverse nation, profit-seeking N.F.L. franchises actually want to court black ticket buyers, not drive them away. This same note of self-martyrdom was sounded in a much-noticed recent column by the former Nixon hand Pat Buchanan. Ol? Pat sounded like the dispossessed antebellum grandees in ?Gone With the Wind? when lamenting the plight of white working-class voters. ?America was once their country,? he wrote. ?They sense they are losing it. And they are right.? They are right. That America was lost years ago, and no national political party can thrive if it lives in denial of that truth. The right still may want to believe, as Palin said during the campaign, that Alaska, with its small black and Hispanic populations, is a ?microcosm of America.? (New York?s 23rd also has few blacks or Hispanics.) But most Americans like their country?s 21st-century profile. That changing complexion is part of why the McCain-Palin ticket lost every demographic group by large margins in 2008 except white senior citizens and the dwindling fifth of America that?s still rural. It?s also why the G.O.P. has been in a nosedive since the inauguration, whatever Obama?s ups and downs. In the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll, only 17 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republicans (as opposed to 30 percent for the Democrats, and 44 for independents). No wonder even the very conservative Republican contenders in the two big gubernatorial contests this week have frantically tried to disguise their own convictions. The candidate in Virginia, Bob McDonnell, is a graduate of Pat Robertson?s university whose career has been devoted to curbing abortion rights, gay civil rights and even birth control. But in this campaign he ditched those issues, disinvited Palin for a campaign appearance, praised Obama?s Nobel Prize, and ran a closing campaign ad trumpeting ?Hope.? Chris Christie, McDonnell?s counterpart in New Jersey, posted a campaign video celebrating ?Change? in which Obama?s face and most stirring campaign sound bites so dominate you?d think the president had endorsed the Republican over his Democratic opponent, Jon Corzine. Only in the alternative universe of the far right is Obama a pariah and Palin the great white hope. It?s become a Beltway truism that the White House?s (mild) spat with Fox News is counterproductive because it drives up the network?s numbers. But if curious moderate and independent voters are now tempted to surf there and encounter Beck?s histrionics for the first time, the president?s numbers will benefit as well. To the uninitiated, the tea party crowd comes across like the barflies in ?Star Wars.? There is only one political opponent whom Obama really has to worry about at this moment: Hamid Karzai. It?s Afghanistan and joblessness, not the Stalinists of the right, that have the power to bring this president down. This column has been updated from the version that appears in print to reflect the fact that Ms. Scozzafava suspended her campaign on Saturday morning.? What more can I say except where is the left wing candidate? I can hardly wait to see if the right wing wins in Upstate New York or if they are crushed. If they win that will encourage the Republican Party to continue to shift to the radical right and that will in my mind insure a loss in 2012. If on the other hand they loose, it is a slap in the face of the Tea Party types. In either case Obama and the Democrats win. In Virginia it seems that the Democrats have accepted a Republican victory and New Jersey is a toss up in the Gubernatorial elections. I have almost nothing to say about them except if the Democrats lose New Jersey they had better start thinking hard about mobilizing the base and that means coming through on something better than a half hearted public option and more war in Afghanistan. We did not vote for Obama just to trade one war for another. Tags: Barbara Lee says no more troops in Afthanistan. Showdow From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Nov 3 06:04:54 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:04:54 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Thinking the Unthinkable Message-ID: <20091103220454.2125f6b6.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Clusterfuck Nation by James Howard Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (2005) www.kunstler.com (November 02 2009) A side-trip to the local mall - where else to buy ammo around here? - evinced an epic struggle for supremacy of the chain stores between the Great Pumpkin and Santa Claus, with both fat-assed icons trying to shove the other out of the primary display sites as if the store aisle were a WWF ring in some grubby forsaken Palookaville far far from the salons of Washington decision-making, which, I guess, this is. This is the kind of place that a Jimmy Stewart character would have called home in 1946; only today it looks like a place taken over by a certain species of space aliens, slovenly in mind as well as body. Our gods are not happy. Anyway, that third fat-assed icon, the Thanksgiving Turkey, was nowhere in sight, perhaps due to the recognition that there is far more grievance than gratitude 'out here' in the fly-over zone. America still does everything possible except prepare to become a different America, perhaps even a better America than the current release, and this is unfortunate because history is merciless. History doesn't care if the dog peed on your homework ... or you had car trouble this morning ... or the tattoo on your neck got infected ... or (to take this in another direction), you justified robbing scores of billions of dollars out of the mortgage sector because your too-big-to-fail company came down with the financial equivalent of swine flu and the top executives were hallucinating that they lived in a world with no boundaries of law or common decency. We're at another one of those weird inflection points of "current events" - a momentous eddy in the larger stream of history. A good deal of the already-proclaimed return to normality ("normalcy" in WGHarding-speak) depends on something close to a normal holiday shopping season, when so much of the nation's merchandise inventory moves from WalMart to under the Christmas tree. Of course, even if it were to turn out like a year-2005-type credit card binge, the result would surely be a sort of hemorrhagic fever of buyer's remorse afterward. An aerial view of the Heartland long about February 1st would show households blowing up like individual kernels of popcorn at an accelerating rate until the terrain itself was obscured by an evil fluff of financial woe suffocating the poor folks trapped under it. Over the weekend, the The Huffington Post ran a McClatchy news service story {1} about Godman Sachs's misdeeds around the issuance of mortgage backed securities. The basic idea in it was that GS was aggressively gathering trash mortgages from fly-by-night "originators" all over America to bundle into tradable security paper, which they then pawned off on feckless, inattentive investors (pension funds, foreign banks, et cetera) seeking miracle returns - at the same time that GS was buying credit default swap "insurance" by the bale, knowing full well that the collateral backing their own issuance of mortgage backed securities was of a quality somewhere between dead carp and dog poop. In other words, they were shoveling shit investments out of one window, and betting against the value of them from another window. Thus a picture resolves of GS's "true opinion" of the securities it paddled, and the question arises whether failure to inform the peddled of this opinion constitutes fraud. I certainly think it does. I've been making substantially the same case in this column for two years now, so it is interesting to see the mainstream media awaken to a story-line that an ambitious nine-year-old could have pulled off the Web over recent months. I also continue to assert that a flurry of bonuses paid out this holiday season by Goldman Sachs and its other amigos at the top of the banking food chain will be greeted by violence - which will be the natural outcome of a society whose government fails to even give the appearance of protecting its citizens from organized crime. How did a sock puppet get appointed head of the US Department of Justice, folks will wonder. How bad is the situation 'out there' really? In my view, things are veering toward such extreme desperation that the US government might fall under the sway, by extra-electoral means, of an ambitious military officer, or a group of such, sometime in the near future. I'm not promoting a coup d'etat, you understand, but I am raising it as a realistic possibility as elected officials prove utterly unwilling to cope with a mounting crisis of capital and resources. The 'corn-pone Hitler' scenario is still another possibility - Glen Beck and Sarah Palin vying for the hearts and minds of the morons who want 'to keep gubmint out of Medicare!' - but I suspect that there is a growing cadre of concerned officers around the Pentagon who will not brook that fucking nonsense for a Crystal City minute and, what's more, would be very impatient to begin correcting the many fiascos currently blowing the nation apart from within. Remember, today's US military elite is battle-hardened after eight years of war in Asia. No doubt they love their country, as Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte loved theirs. It may pain them to stand by and watch it dissolve like a castle made of sugar in a winter gale. I raise this possibility because no one else has, and I think we ought to be aware that all kinds of strange outcomes are possible in a society under severe stress. History is a harsh mistress. For all his 'star quality' and likable personality, President Obama is increasingly perceived as impotent where the real ongoing disasters of public life are concerned, and he has made the tragic choice to appear to be hostage to the bankers who are systematically draining the life-blood from the middle class. Whatever we are seeing on the S & P ticker these days does not register the agony of ordinary people losing everything they worked for and even believed in. In a leadership vacuum, centers don't hold, things come apart, and rough beasts slouch toward Wall Street. Link {1} http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/77791.html http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/11/thinking-the-unthinkable.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 gmail.com Tue Nov 3 09:31:14 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:31:14 -0800 Subject: [R-G] =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9alit=E9-EU=3A_Front_group_for_the_Washin?= =?iso-8859-1?q?gton-based_Israel_Project=3F?= Message-ID: <83904d240911030831g746224bcyfc29537745e33823@mail.gmail.com> http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/74-terror-spin/5325-realite-eu-front-group-for-the-washington-based-israel-project R?alit?-EU: Front group for the Washington-based Israel Project? * Tom Mills and David Miller, 30 October 2009* Spinwatch has uncovered evidence that an apparently London based organisation offering expertise on Iran to journalists and politicians is a covert propaganda operation run by a pro-Israel organisation in the United States. The organisation, which is called R?alit?-EU, has direct connections to The Israel Project, a hard-line pro-Israel organisation based in Washington DC. Both R?alit?-EU and The Israel Project also appear to be connected to a Jewish organisation ? B?nai B?rith International, which is also active in pro-Israel campaigning. R?alit?-EU was at one time linked to the former Shadow Security Minister Patrick Mercer, raising further concerns about the Conservative MP?s links to individuals and groups involved in exaggerating and even fabricating domestic and international threats for personal and political ends. These activities have previously been reported by *Spinwatch*as well as other *sources* . R?alit?-EU has claimed to be based at offices in London, but e-mails received from the organisation were sent from a mail server registered to the Washington offices of B'nai B'rith International.[1]An expert from R?alit?-EU who spoke to Spinwatch denied ?any connection whatsoever? with B'nai B'rith. Asked whether R?alit?-EU receives any funding or direct support from the pro-Israel pressure group, the expert replied, ?Definitely not,? but added, ?I?m not at all involved in any development [i.e. funding] questions so I really don?t know exactly who the individuals are and where they come from.? [2] Spinwatch?s questions about the backers of R?alit?-EU were then referred to the group?s Communication Associate Gerlinde Gerber. She subsequently sent an e-mail stating that R?alit?-EU receives funds from ?different individuals from all over the world,? who ?are especially concerned about the growing threat of extremism in Europe and the Middle East.?[3] When Ms Gerber was confronted with evidence directly linking R?alit?-EU with B'nai B'rith she said that her organisation rents ?services and space on their server for cost saving reasons,? but that it had no ?ideological or other connection to B'nai B'rith?. She also stated that the expert Spinwatch had spoken had no knowledge of this arrangement.[4] Spinwatch then discovered that the London phone number for R?alit?-EU redirected to a voicemail at the offices of The Israel Project in Washington, an organisation that also uses the B'nai B'rith mail server. Ms Gerber did not reply to further questions about R?alit?-EU?s relationship with The Israel Project or to a query as to where R?alit?-EU is registered given that there is no trace of the organisation in the UK at Companies House or the Charity Commission. B?nai B?rith International and The Israel Project were also asked to comment on whether they have any relationship with R?alit?-EU but failed to respond. *History * B'nai B'rith International is one of a number of well-funded organisations which lobby in support of Israel.[5]It was not originally a Zionist organisation and in its early years was officially neutral on the issue. It was set up in New York over a hundred years before the establishment of the State of Israel and was originally focused on providing welfare to newly arriving Jewish immigrants. In 1913 it founded the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith[6]to record incidents of anti-Semitism and campaign for greater protection for Jewish people. The League subsequently became independent of its parent organisation and, now known simply as the Anti-Defamation League or ADL, it has become notorious for its campaigns of harassment against critics of Israel. Amongst its targets was Noam Chomsky, who has noted ?They try to label any criticism as anti-Semitic? in the last 40 years it?s become a Stalinist-style organization dedicated to supporting anything Israel does and to destroying all opposition to Israeli policies.?[7] In addition ADL has been repeatedly accused of broadening its activities from defending against what it claims is ?anti-Semitism? to actually spying on the left, including allegedly working with the South African apartheid regime, spying on anti-apartheid groups, a wide range of left and human rights organisations and even on HIV/AIDS activsts.[8] ADL and The Israel Project are ideologically aligned but are also linked by personnel. For example Laura Kam, a ?senior adviser? for The Israel Project worked for seventeen years as co-director of ADL?s Israel office.[9] * *Hamodie Abu Nadda, an ?Arabic associate? at The Israel Project, also worked for ADL. The Israel Project also works with ADL, for example, as members of the Israel on Campus Coalition.[10] Like the ADL, B'nai B'rith has also become a passionate advocate for Israel. Its website boasts of an ?unrivalled record of service and commitment to the Jewish state.? [11]This record has included using its presence at the UN and other international bodies to lobby against criticism of Israel, as well as the provision of material assistance to the Israel Defence Forces.[12] During Israel?s latest attack on Gaza ? described by one Israeli commentator as ?a massive and unfettered assault, with no proportion to the amount of casualties?[13]? B'nai B'rith?s President visited Israel as part of a ?solidarity mission?. [14]When Israel subsequently came under intense criticism for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law during its assault, B'nai B'rith, despite its history as a humanitarian organisation, jumped to Israel?s defence. A UN Fact Finding Mission recently released a report criticising Israel for human rights violations and war crimes (as well as criticising Hamas for indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel). B'nai B'rith dismissed the report as ?one-sided? complaining that it paid ?scant attention to Hamas? cynical use of human shields and placement of munitions among the civilian population?.[15] In fact an entire chapter of the report addressed allegations such as these, but the mission had found no evidence to support the claims. They did however uncover evidence that the IDF had used Palestinian civilians as human shields during its assault.[16] B'nai B'rith has branches all over the world including in Britain, but its head offices are based at 2020 K Street in Washington D.C.[17]K Street is famous for housing some of the world?s most powerful lobby groups and think-tanks. Other organisations based at number 2020 K Street include the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, the NCSJ (formerly the National Conference on Soviet Jewry) and The Israel Project, which is located on the seventh floor along with B?nai B?rith. The Israel Project was founded in 2002, the same year B'nai B'rith International moved into its K Street office and also shares a mail server with B'nai B'rith. [18] *The Israel Project* As its name suggests, The Israel Project also shares B'nai B'rith?s unwavering ?commitment to the Jewish state?. Whilst B'nai B'rith still supports religious and social programmes, The Israel Project is exclusively committed to political advocacy. In its 2004/05 tax returns it reported spending $787,038 on polling research and over $1.3 million on public relations; the stated goal of which was to ?improve US understanding of the vital nature of a strong relationship between Israel and other counties around the world, primarily the US?.[19]A year later its accounts start to report the use of ?Strategic Communications?.[20] Originally a term used by the military, Strategic Communications refers to carefully researched and selectively targeted propaganda. The Israel Project states in its accounts that its Strategic Communications involves using ?sophisticated public opinion research to identify messages, themes and visuals that will bring support to key [Israeli] policies,? and that it, ?has trained thousands of influential policy leaders, opinion elites and spokespeople to help strengthen Israel?s image in international media.?[21] Over the course of the following three years, The Israel Project spent over $2.7 million on ?Strategic Communications? and a further $9.8 million on ?public relations?.[22]It has retained a number of political communications and media companies that conduct telephone polling, run focus groups, and design and place television adverts. Its three main communications consultants are Greeberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Public Opinion Strategies and Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research. Greeberg Quinlan Rosner calls itself ?the world's premium research and strategic consulting firm?. Its political clients are mostly Democrats and other centrist parties around the world, and the firm worked for the Labour Party on its three general elections under Tony Blair.[23]Its clients also include some of the world?s most powerful corporations such as Boeing, BP, Coca-Cola and General Motors.[24] Public Opinion Strategies on the other hand is a Republican polling firm. [25]It also represents corporate lobby groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce and The National Association of Manufacturers.[26] Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research, perhaps the most significant of the three in terms of devising propaganda, offers clients ?game-changing messaging solutions? which it claims are able to ?generate powerful results in the corporate world?.[27]Its clients also include Boeing, Coca-Cola and General Motors, along with a host of others including American Express, Bear Sterns, Disney, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, McDonalds and Merrill Lynch. Assisted by these communications companies, The Israel Project produces documents advising lobbyists and campaigners on their use of language and their framing of arguments. One such document, leaked to the pro-Palestinian group *Electronic Intifada* in 2003, described in detail how advocates could ?integrate and leverage history and communication for the benefit of Israel?.[28] The group?s political advocacy is unabashedly partisan and militaristic. Despite its claim to be working for ?security and peace,? Rightweb notes that it, ?Advocates a number of positions similar to other hard-line and neoconservative groups. It supports the controversial wall along the West Bank, advocates a hard line against Iran, and actively promotes the work of hawkish think tanks and writers.?[29] In recent years The Israel Project?s carefully crafted multi-million dollar propaganda operation has focused heavily on Iran. In November 2007, it commissioned a focus group to assess public perceptions of the country. According to one participant: ?The whole basis of the whole thing was, ?we're going to go into Iran and what do we have to do to get you guys to along with it???[30] As the focus group apparently showed, the public were sceptical of the need for more war. This finding has been confirmed more recently in The Israel Project?s 2009 Global Language Dictionary which noted that to the ?American Left and Center-left? and to Europeans in general, ?Warnings about Iran sound uncomfortably too much like President Bush and his call for pre-emption in Iraq.?[31] The numerous references in that document to European opinion suggest how R?alit?-EU might fit into a broader propaganda strategy. Winning over important sections of European opinion is not only useful in itself; it also helps to win over America opinion. Liberals in the US will be more likely to support aggression if it receives some degree of international support, particularly from America?s close allies. As The Israel Project notes in its 2009 Global Language Dictionary: ?with the advent of the new administration, Americans and the world are weary of unilateral, America-will-go-it-alone approaches. They are eager to be on the same team as other democratic nations again.? This pressing need for international legitimacy explains what groups like B'nai B'rith and The Israel Project have to gain from backing an organisation like R?alit?-EU. *Similar media strategies * R?alit?-EU is directly linked to The Israel Project in that its London phone number redirects to a voicemail number in Washington previously publicly listed as belonging to the Israel Project and both organisations have used the B?nai B?rith mail server. Both their websites offer what they call ?Backgrounders? and ?Expert Sources? and they seem to be the only two websites that use both terms. The Israel Project?s European Affairs Web Specialist states that part of her job is identifying European experts on Iran.[32]However, none of The Israel Project?s experts appear to be Europeans or to be based in Europe. R?alit?-EU on the other hand directs journalists to eight ?Expert Sources?, all of whom are European; and apparently independent. Another notable feature is that The Israel Project?s European Affairs Associate states that he organises press events in Berlin, Vienna, Paris, London and Brussels,[33]all cities where R?alit?-EU experts have been based. [34] Whether the eight R?alit?-EU experts are themselves aware of R?alit?-EU?s connection with The Israel Project and/or B'nai B'rith is not clear, but even if ignorant of it they could probably be relied upon to deliver the right message. One of the ?experts?, a French academic and risk consultant called Fr?d?ric Encel,[35]gave what was described as an ?intensely emotional? speech at a fundraising event in March this year in which he made reference to the recent bombing of Gaza. Rather than condemning the massacres, Encel argued that, ?The Hamas party?s way of making things worse to further their own ends has obliged Israel to use its force.? He added that the IDF conducting its attacks whilst ?maintaining a control that is rarely seen in other armies.?[36] Encel?s political views are typical of neoconservatives and the pro-war liberals. He sees himself as defending a Western liberal tradition against a sinister alliance of Islamists and leftists. He says on his official website that he is in favour of a ?fierce defence of republican values,? which he considers to be under attack by what he labels as totalitarianism, fascism, radical Islam and Stalinism.[37] Another of R?alit?-EU?s experts, Matthias K?ntzel,[38]is a German author and a political scientist best known for his belief that movements like Hamas, Hezbollah, and of course the Islamic Republic of Iran, are essentially anti-Semitic, fascistic movements comparable with the Third Reich. Like many neoconservatives, K?ntzel claims to have a background on the liberal left - which he now criticises for being unable to provide ?an even halfway adequate response to the continuing impact of the crimes against the Jews?.[39]K?ntzel?s book *Jihad and Jew-Hatred* was published in English in 2007 and received positive reviews in the neoconservative *Weekly Standard* and the right-wing *Washington Times*.[40] R?alit?-EU?s most prominent figure is probably the terrorism expert Claude Moniquet, who is also one of six speakers listed on the ?Speakers Bureau? of B'nai B'rith Europe.[41]Moniquet heads a right-wing Brussels based think-tank called the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center, an organisation which says it ?supports the strengthening of the trans-Atlantic ties and the democracies in their struggle against terrorism and other threats.?[42] Moniquet worked for 20 years as a journalist, but sees no shame in admitting that throughout that time he also served as a ?field operative? for the French foreign intelligence service.[43] *A shadowy network* Although R?alit?-EU is run by Europeans and backed by Americans, its origins at least appear to be British. At the time of its launch, R?alit?-EU was closely affiliated with another organisation called International Media Intelligence Analysis (IMIA).[44]IMIA was set up by a British neoconservative called Simon Barrett, [45]who authored the inaugural R?alit?-EU press release and was for a time one of its ?experts?[46]but who has since left the group. [47] At the time of R?alit?-EU?s launch an introductory press release written by Barrett stated that R?alit? EU would ?include some of the previous works of IMIA but be greatly expanded.'[48] Barrett, who is now 34, claims to have worked as an advisor to Patrick Mercer MP when he was the Conservative Party Shadow Homeland Security Minister.[49]Mercer, who now chairs the House of Commons Sub-Committee on Counter-Terrorism, was asked by Spinwatch to confirm Barrett?s advisory role. His office replied that he may have ?spoken to Simon Barrett? but he ?could not be described as an advisor.?[50] Whatever his exact relationship with Barrett, Mercer has long been associated with the wilder fringes of the anti-terrorism world. It would appear however that his office is now attempting to distance him from his former associates. Another individual who has claimed to have acted as an advisor to Mercer is Dominic Wightman, who, like Barrett, now works with think-tanks on the far right of British politics such as the *Centre for Social Cohesion* . *Spinwatch ** recently revealed*that either Wightman ? or as he alleges, a former colleague who hacked into his email ? attempted to fabricate a bogus terrorism plot. An American working in Iraq received an email from Wightman requested that his colleague translate some English text into Arabic and post it on a ?jihadi noticeboard?. The text was written as if by someone planning to plant a bomb in an elderly woman?s wheeled-basket and explode it in a supermarket.[51]Wightman is now suspected of involvement in a hate campaign against the blogger Tim Ireland which has including repeated threats of violence and the publishing of his home address on the internet.[52] Wightman denies any involvement with the campaign, which is led by a group of online vigilantes calling themselves the Cheerleaders, but as the blogger Richard Bartholomew has noted the timing and content of online attack pieces posted by Wightman and the Cheerleaders strongly suggests coordination.[53] Tim Ireland, the main target of these attacks, had exposed another fake terror threat fabricated by Wightman?s former colleague Glen Jenvey, and Wightman now considers Ireland to a part of an ?Islamist-Leftist compact? or ?Black Red Alliance?.[54] After weeks of scrutiny by bloggers, Glen Jenvey admitted fabricating a terror threat supposedly targeting Alan Sugar that appeared on the front page of the *Sun* in January. He too enjoyed a working relationship with Patrick Mercer, which as Tim Ireland has noted, continued for two months after Ireland first produced evidence calling into questioning the *Sun*?s story. In March this year one of Mercer?s staff sent an e-mail to a journalist at *The People* stating: ?I have been in touch with Mr Jenvey about a number of things but most of all the following, which in my view would combine well to make a very good Sunday story.?[55] Although there is no evidence that R?alit?-EU?s Simon Barrett also fabricated terror plots, early in his career as a terrorism and Middle East expert he commented on similar scare stories in the tabloid press. In one such article the *Sunday Express* claimed that there was a risk that Muslim women in Europe and North America ?could be planning to use fake pregnancies? to hide explosives. The source for the story was the US based Northeast Intelligence Network, a group of former corporate security figures who have made it their mission to ?educate? the American public as to ?the true nature of the terrorist threats?. The group claimed to have discovered an image of a ?strap on womb? on an ?extremist Islamist website?, but would not reveal where the images were found.[56] Barrett was quoted by the *Sunday Express *as saying that ?terrorists are effectively using our politically correct laws as their cover?. He made a point of linking the scare story to the Palestinians saying: ?This is unfortunately not in the realms of fantasy as terrorist recruiters within the Palestinian terrorist organisations have exploited young vulnerable women in the past to carry out suicide missions with devastating consequences.[57] In an earlier article the *Sunday Express *covered the story of a 19 year old Iraqi man with Down?s syndrome who they alluded had been used unwittingly as a suicide bomber. Patrick Mercer commented that: ?This shows us exactly the sort of murderous scum with whom we are dealing.? Barrett added: ?This is not just happening with Iraqis. Palestinian children have also been educated with hatred to become suicide bombers.?[58]The article referred to Barrett as ?a spokesman for Terror Aware, a group that monitors the Middle East media?. Terror Aware was one of a number of alarmist organisations Barrett was involved in prior to launching R?alit?-EU. Like one of his other early projects, it appears to be linked to the British record producer Trevor Horn and his wife Jill Sinclair ? the owners of SARM Studios. Terror Aware was registered to the address of the SARM Workshop in North-West London. Jill Sinclair, who went into a comma in 2007 after a tragic domestic accident, is described as having been a very vocal supporter of Israel.[59]In 2008 Trevor Horn helped to produce a record called *Israel ? Home of Hope* to coincide with Israel?s 60th anniversary.[60] Press references to Simon Barrett?s Terror Aware disappeared after a few months, with Barrett instead being referred to as the director of the International Coalition Against Terror. By early 2006 the short-livedInternational Coalition Against Terror was superseded by International Media Intelligence Analysis (IMIA), which was co owned by Barrett and Jill Sinclair. Like Terror Aware Ltd, IMIA was registered to a business address of SARM Studios, this time at its studio in Notting Hill. There is no evidence to connect Sinclair to R?alit?-EU, though in its first year of operations, it gave its contact address as a P.O. Box in the Notting Hill area of London.[61] IMIA was referred to in some press articles as a London based think-tank, but for the most part it appears to have operated as an e-newsletter service run solely by Barrett. It did however co-host an event in the House of Commons with the Euro-sceptic think-tank Open Europe.[62] Open Europe has itself received funding from American neoconservatives via the Policy Forum on International Security Affairs, a group headed by Devon Gaffney Cross, a former director of the powerful neoconservative group the Project for the New American Century. Her brother Frank Gaffney was a speaker at an Israel Project press conference in Washington in July 2007 organised to publicise the supposed ?Iranian threat?.[63] Open Europe and IMIA?s ?parliamentary briefing? that May was billed ?Iran, Britain and Europe: Post hostage crisis, what can we expect next?? It was attended by Patrick Mercer and Mark Fitzpatrick of the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies[64]among others. [65] R?alit?-EU?s Claude Moniquet also spoke.[66] Moniquet told the audience that his think-tank had evidence that ?something is under preparation in Europe,? and that, ?Iranian intelligence is working extremely hard to prepare its people and to prepare actions.? They would he claimed target ?British citizens on the streets of London, just as they kill British soldiers in the south of Iraq.?[67] Later that year the United States National Intelligence Estimate concluded that, contrary to the widespread claims, Iran was not developing a nuclear weapons programme. R?alit?-EU responded with an Insight entitled, ?Can U.S. Intelligence be Trusted on Iran??, which once again conflated the issues of civilian nuclear power and nuclear weapons.[68] Though R?alit?-EU and similar organisations promoting hostility against Iran were apparently unconvinced and undeterred, the National Intelligence Estimate seemed for some time to have abated the march to war. Recently however the frequency and tone of official statements and media reports in Britain and the United States have once again become a cause for grave concern. Those who are unwilling to forget what has happened to the people of Iraq, and the lies and distortions, on which that war was based, cannot help but note worrying parallels with the current political climate. The UK media critics David Edwards and David Cromwell write: ?to us it seems like yesterday ? the sense of madness is fresh in our minds. When Obama acts the stern father in demanding: ?Iran must comply with United Nations resolutions,? he is repeating, with the alteration of but a single letter, the same sentence in the same tone used by George Bush and Tony Blair on Iraq.?[69] Last month R?alit?-EU?s Matthias K?ntzel wrote a piece in the *Wall Street Journal* entitled, ?Iran Has No Right to Nuclear Technology?.[70]Although the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty states that signatories have ?the inalienable right? to ?develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes?, K?ntzel argued that this right cannot apply to Iran which although it has signed up to the NPT, ?can by definition not be considered a bona fide signatory?. To give Iran the same rights afforded other states under the treaty was according to K?ntzel ?not only politically absurd but also wrong from a purely legal point of view?. This remarkable claim was justified with reference to a comment on world Islamic revolution made by Ayatollah Khomeini around 30 years ago, and to a passage of the Qur'an quoted in Article 151 of Iran?s constitution. K?ntzel thus argued that Iran was politically and constitutionally committed to waging war and overturning the international order. That being the case K?ntzel conclude: ?The time for ?dialogue as usual? is over?. ------------------------------ [1] R?alit?-EU, email to Tom Mills, 14 July 2009 20:34; Gerlinde Gerber, Email to Tom Mills, 11 September 2009 16:48. Both emails were sent from the IP address 66.208.24.163, the IP number for mail.bnaibrith.org. [2]Phone interview, 10 September 2009 [3] Gerlinde Gerber, Email to Tom Mills, 11 September 2009 16:48 [4] Gerlinde Gerber, Email to Tom Mills, 29 October 2009 14:53 [5] Spinprofiles, Israel Lobby Portal [6] Spinprofiles, Anti-Defamation League [7]Committee to Defend Academic Freedom at UCSB ?Scholars condemn attack on academic freedom at UC-Santa Barbara? 28 April 2009 [8]Jeffrey Blankfort, Anne Poirier and Steve Zeltzer, ?The ADL Spying Case Is Over, But The Struggle Continues ?, * Counterpunch*, 25 February 2002; Robert I. Friedman, The Enemy Within, *The Village Voice*, 11 May 1993, Vol. XXXVIII No. 19; Abdeen Jabara, (1993) 'The Anti-Defamation League: Civil Rights and Wrongs', ''Covert Action'', No. 45, Summer. [9]The Israel Project, Laura Kam, Senior Advisor [10]Israel on Campus Coalition ?Members: ADL ? [11] B'nai B'rith International, ?B'nai B'rith and Israel? http://www.bnaibrith.org/165/BBI_and_Israel.cfm [12] Ibid. [13]Paul Wood, ?Analysis: Operation Miscast Lead??, BBC News Online, 13 March 2009 [14]?B'nai B'rith International Leaders on Solidarity Mission to Israel?, Targeted News Service, 12 January 2009 [15]?Goldstone Report Presents One-Sided and Incomplete Information?, Targeted News Service, 15 September 2009 [16]Human Rights Council, Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, A/HRC/12/48, 15 September 2009; see Chapters VIII and XIV [17] Michael Vasquez, ?A New Address for B'nai B'rith?, *Washington Post*, 15 June 2002 [18]See Robtex record for mail.bnaibrith.org [19]The Israel Project, Form 990 (2004), p.2 [20]The Israel Project, Form 990 (2005), p.3 [21]Ibid. [22]The Israel Project, Form 990 (2005), p.3; Form 990 (2006), p.3; Form 990 (2007), p.3 [23] Greeberg Quinlan Rosner Research, International Campaigns [24] Greeberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Corporations [25]Laura Rozen, ?Focus Grouping War with Iran?, *Mother Jones*, 19 November 2007 [26] Public Opinion Strategies, Public Affairs Client List [27] Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research, What We Do [28] Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communication Priorities 2003 [29] Rightweb, The Israel Project, 26 July 2007 [30]Laura Rozen, ?Focus Grouping War with Iran?, *Mother Jones*, 19 November 2007 [31] The Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary, Newsweek, 9 July 2009 [32]The Israel Project, Julie Hazan[Accessed 30 October 2009] [33]The Israel Project, Christoph Heil , [Accessed 30 October 2009] [34] Gerlinde Gerber is from Berlin, Diana Gregor lives in Vienna, Fr?d?ric Encelin Paris, Simon Barrett in London and Claude Moniquet in Brussels. [35] Neocon Europe, Fr?d?ric Encel [36] Lucie Optyker and Laurence Borot, ?Traditional Fundraising Dinner Organized by the Paris Woman's Division ?, Keren Hayesod - United Israel Appeal, 26 March 2009, accessed 1 October 2009 [37] Fr?d?ric Encel Official Website , accessed 12 September 2009. The original text in French reads: ?Ainsi, monengagement actif en faveur d?une ?pre d?fense des valeurs r?publicaines (? commencer par la la?cit? et l??galit? de la femme), accompagne sans l?entraver ni la biaiser mon expertise g?opolitique ; le combat contre les totalitarismes, du fascisme ? l?islamisme radical en passant par le stalinisme, ne souffre pas de r?pit?? [38] Neocon Europe, Matthias K?ntzel [39] Alan Johnson, ?Islamism, Antisemitism, and the political left.A Democratiya Interview with Matthias K?ntzel?, Democratiya no. 13, 25 May 2008 [40]Stephen Schwartz, ?The Third Jihad: When radical Muslims distort Islam?, *Weekly Standard*, Volume 013, Issue 31, 28 April 2008; Martin Rubin, 'When Nazis and Islamic extremists bonded', *Washington Times*, 24 February 2008 [41] B'nai B'rith Europe, Speakers Bureau [Accessed 1 October 2009] [42] European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center, ?About Us?, accessed 1 October 2009 [43]see contributor?s note in Claude Moniquet, ?American Intelligence ?, *Wall Street Journal*, 13 December 2007 and Claude Moniquet?s CVon the website of the B?nai B?rith Europe which states that he spent ?twenty years in journalism,? and that ?In the same twenty years, I was under contract for a specialized branch of the French Defense Ministry, working on security issues and counter terrorism.? [44] Neocon Europe, International Media Intelligence Analysis [45] Neocon Europe, Simon Barrett [46]Internet Archive, REALITE-EU - Expert Sources, 23 January 2007 [47] R?alit?-EU, email to Tom Mills, 14 July 2009 20:34 [48] R?alit?-EU Press Release, ?R?alit?: The real story? [49]Internet Archive, REALITE-EU -Expert Sources, 23 January 2007 [50]Parliamentary Assistant to Patrick Mercer, email to Tom Mills, 15 September 2009 15:24 [51]Tom Mills and David Miller, ?The British amateur terror trackers: A case study in dubious politics?, Spinwatch, 26 August 2009 [52]Tim Ireland, ?Dominic Wightman: follow the leader?, Bloggerheads, 1 October 2009; Richard Bartholomew, ?Tim Ireland Threatened with Violence?, Notes on Religion, 30 September 2009 [53]Richard Bartholomew, ?Tim Ireland Threatened with Violence?, Bartholomew?s Notes on Religion, 30 September 2009 [54]Dominic Whiteman, 'A Message to the Cheerleaders', Westminster Journal, 30 September 2009 [55]Tim Ireland, ?Patrick Mercer has some explaining to do?, Bloggerheads, 23 September 2009 [56] Julia Hartley-Brewer, ?ALERT FOR WOMEN BOMBERS WHO FAKE PREGNANCY?, *Sunday Express*, 28 August 2005 [57] Ibid. [58] Tim Shipman, ?Scum! Iraq bombers use Down?s Syndrome victim?, *Sunday Express*, 6 February 2005 [59]?An "anthem" for Israel from the makers of "Band Aid"', *Jerusalem Post*, 5 April 2008 [60]Candice Krieger, ?Chief joins Trevor Horn for a kosher Live Aid?, *Jewish Chronicle*, 18 April 2008 [61]see contact details in Rightweb, ?R?alit? EU ?, 31 October 2007 [62] Neocon Europe, Open Europe [63] Rightweb, ?R?alit? EU ?, 31 October 2007 [64] Spinprofiles, International Institute for Strategic Studies [65]Open Europe, Events , accessed 11 September 2009 [66]Open Europe, Events , accessed 11 September 2009 [67]?Iran Drawing Up Plans to Strike European Nuclear Sites, Analyst Says?, Associated Press, 22 May 2007 [68] R?alit?-EU, Insights: Can U.S. Intelligence be Trusted on Iran?, 24 September 2007 [69]?Iran ? The War Dance ?, Medialens, 1 October 2009 [70] Matthias K?ntzel, ?Iran Has No Right to Nuclear Technology?, *Wall Street Journal*, 29 September 2009 From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Nov 3 17:16:20 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:16:20 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Generals' Revolt Message-ID: <20091104091620.9cb20e04.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> As Obama rethinks America's failed strategy in Afghanistan, he faces two insurgencies: the Taliban and the Pentagon by Robert Dreyfuss Rollingstone.com (October 28 2009) In early October, as President Obama huddled with top administration officials in the White House situation room to rethink America's failing strategy in Afghanistan, the Pentagon and top military brass were trying to make the president an offer he couldn't refuse. They wanted the president to escalate the war - go all in by committing 40,000 more troops and another trillion dollars to a Vietnam-like quagmire - or face a full-scale mutiny by his generals. Obama knew that if he rebuffed the military's pressure, several senior officers - including General David Petraeus, the ambitious head of US Central Command, who is rumored to be eyeing a presidential bid of his own in 2012 - could break ranks and join forces with hawks in the Republican Party. GOP leaders and conservative media outlets wasted no time in warning Obama that if he refused to back the troop escalation being demanded by General Stanley McChrystal, the commander overseeing the eight-year-old war, he'd be putting US soldiers' lives at risk and inviting Al Qaeda to launch new assaults on the homeland. The president, it seems, is battling two insurgencies: one in Afghanistan and one cooked up by his own generals. "I don't understand why the military is putting so much pressure on the White House now over Afghanistan", says a former US ambassador to Pakistan. "Unless it has something to do with the presidential ambitions of a certain Centcom commander". The military's campaign to force Obama's hand started in earnest in September, when the Commander's Initial Assessment of the war - a highly classified report prepared by McChrystal - was leaked to The Washington Post. According to insiders, the leak was coordinated by someone close to Petraeus, McChrystal's boss and ally. Speculation has centered on General Jack Keane, a retired Army vice chief of staff and Petraeus confidant, who helped convince George W Bush to get behind the "surge" in Iraq. In the report, McChrystal paints a dire picture of the American effort in Afghanistan, concluding that a massive increase in troop levels is the only way to prevent a humiliating failure. On Capitol Hill, hawkish GOP congressmen seized the opening to turn up the heat on Obama by demanding that he allow McChrystal and Petraeus to come to Washington to testify at high-profile hearings to ask for more troops. "It is time to listen to our commanders on the ground, not the ever-changing political winds whispering defeat in Washington", declared Senator Kit Bond, a Republican from Missouri. Attempting to usurp Obama's authority as commander in chief, Senator John McCain introduced an amendment to compel the two generals to come before Congress, but the measure was voted down by the Democratic majority. As the pressure from the military and the right built, McChrystal went on Sixty Minutes to complain that he had only talked to Obama once since his appointment in June. Then, upping the ante, the general flew to London for a speech, where he was asked if de-escalating the war, along the lines reportedly suggested by Vice President Joe Biden, might work. "The short answer is: no", said McChrystal, dismissing the idea as "shortsighted". His comment - which bluntly defied the American tradition that a military officer's job is to carry out policy, not make it - shocked political observers in Washington and reportedly angered the White House. "Petraeus and McChrystal have put Obama in a trick bag", says Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a former top aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell. "We had this happen one time before, with Douglas MacArthur" - the right-wing general who was fired after he defied President Truman over the Korean War in 1951. It isn't clear how far McChrystal and his boss, Petraeus, are willing to go. There have been rumors around the Pentagon that McChrystal might quit if Obama doesn't give him what he wants - a move that would fuel Republican criticism of Obama. "He'll be a good soldier, but he will only go so far", a senior US military officer in Kabul told reporters. For his part, Obama moved quickly to handle the insurrection. One day after McChrystal's defiant London speech, the president unexpectedly summoned the general to a one-on-one meeting aboard an idling Air Force One in Copenhagen. No details of the discussion were released, but two days later Jim Jones, the retired Marine general who now serves as Obama's national-security adviser, publicly rebuked McChrystal, declaring that it is "better for military advice to come up through the chain of command". The struggle between the White House and the Pentagon is an important test of whether the president can take command in a political storm that could tear his administration apart. Obama himself is partly to blame for the position he finds himself in. During the presidential campaign last year, Obama praised the Afghan conflict as "the right war", in contrast to the bungled and unnecessary invasion of Iraq. Once in office, he ordered 21,000 additional troops to Kabul, painting the war as vital to America's national security. "If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows Al Qaeda to go unchallenged", the president declared, "that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can". He also fired the commanding general in Afghanistan, David McKiernan, and replaced him with McChrystal, a close Petraeus ally and an advocate of the doctrine of counterinsurgency. When it comes to COIN, as it's known in military jargon, Petraeus literally wrote the book: the Counterinsurgency Field Manual, which has become the bible for proponents of COIN. In its essence, counterinsurgency demands an extremely troop-intensive, village-by-village effort to win hearts and minds among the population of an occupied country, supported by a lethal killing machine and an expensive "clear, hold and build" program to eliminate the enemy from an area and consolidate those gains. Within the military, COIN has developed a cult following. "It has become almost a religion for some people", says Paul Pillar, a former top intelligence official with wide expertise in terrorism and the Middle East. Supporters of Petraeus and McChrystal acknowledge that applying COIN to Afghanistan means a heavy US commitment to war, in both blood and treasure. Even if Obama dispatches 40,000 additional troops, on top of the 68,000 Americans already committed, we won't even know if it's working for at least a year. "That is something that will certainly take twelve to eighteen months to assess", said Kim Kagan, the president of the Institute for the Study of War, who helped write McChrystal's request for more troops. Bruce Riedel, a COIN advocate and veteran CIA officer who led Obama's review of the war last March, is even more blunt. "Anyone who thinks that in twelve to eighteen months we're going to be anywhere close to victory", he said, "is living in a fantasyland". In addition, the doctrine of counterinsurgency virtually assures long-running military campaigns in other hot spots, even as we're engaged in combat and rebuilding operations in Afghanistan. "We're going to be involved in this type of activity in a number of countries for the next fifteen to twenty", said Lieutenant General David Barno, a COIN advocate who served as commander of US forces in Afghanistan. So far, though, COIN hasn't exactly delivered on its promises. Despite the addition of 21,000 troops in March, the Taliban have continued to make gains across Afghanistan, establishing control or significantly disrupting at least forty percent of the country. According to McChrystal's own report, Taliban leaders "appoint shadow governors for most provinces", set up courts, levy taxes, conscript fighters and boast about providing "security against a corrupt government". What's more, US casualties have skyrocketed: In the four months since McChrystal took over, 165 Americans have died in Afghanistan - nearly one-fifth of those killed during the entire war. By late summer, some in the Obama administration began to have doubts about the efficacy of McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy - doubts that greatly increased in the wake of Afghanistan's disastrous presidential election in August. Hamid Karzai, Washington's hand-picked president, was accused of widespread fraud, including ballot-box stuffing and "ghost" polling stations. Without a credible Afghan government, COIN can't succeed, since its core idea is to build support for the Afghan government. Even before the election fiasco, Obama had sent Jones, his national-security adviser, to Kabul to deliver a message to his military commander: The White House wouldn't look favorably on sending more soldiers to Afghanistan. If the Pentagon asked for more troops, Jones told McChrystal's top generals, the president would have "a Whisky Tango Foxtrot moment" - that is, What the fuck? According to The Washington Post, which reported the encounter, the generals present "seemed to blanch at the unambiguous message that this might be all the troops they were going to get". Not long after the Afghan elections, Obama began a top-to-bottom strategy review of the war. Among those who started to question the basic assumptions of McChrystal and his COIN allies were Jones, many of his colleagues on the National Security Council, and Vice President Biden. By contrast, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remained remarkably quiet during the assessment, seeming to defer to the White House when it came to challenging the Pentagon brass. The issue has presented the most difficult political decision of Obama's presidency thus far. The White House knew that if Obama were to "fully resource" the military campaign, he would be going to war without his own political base, which has turned strongly against the Afghan war. For the first time since 2001, according to polls, a majority of Americans believe that the war in Afghanistan is "not worth fighting". Fifty-seven percent of independents and nearly three-quarters of Democrats oppose the war - and overall, only 26 percent of Americans support the idea of adding more troops. Indeed, if Obama were to escalate the war, his only allies would be the Pentagon, Congressional Republicans, an ultraconservative think tank called the Foreign Policy Initiative, whose supporters include Karl Rove, Sarah Palin and a passel of neoconservatives and former aides to George W Bush. On the other hand, rejecting McChrystal's demands for more troops would make Obama vulnerable to GOP accusations that he was embracing defeat, and give congressional Republicans another angle of attack during midterm elections next year. Even worse, the administration has to take into account the possibility of a terrorist attack, which would allow the GOP to put the blame on the White House. "All it would take is one terrorist attack, vaguely linked to Afghanistan, for the military and his opponents to pounce all over him", says Pillar. Within the administration, Biden has emerged as the leading opponent of McChrystal's approach to never-ending war. "He's proposing that we stop doing large-scale counterinsurgency, that we rely on drones, US Special Forces and other tools to combat Al Qaeda", says Stephen Biddle, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who served on McChrystal's advisory team. Biden's view, which has support among a significant number of officials and analysts in and out of government, is that rather than trying to defeat the Taliban, the United States ought to focus on targeting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that want to strike at American targets. That Biden took the lead, says one former national-security official, may be a sign that he has the president's support. "Biden is playing a very inside game", says the official. "He's in every meeting". In early October, the vice president held a private session to discuss war strategy with two members of the administration who are considered among the more hawkish members of Obama's team: Hillary Clinton and Richard Holbrooke, the State Department's special adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan. In addition, Biden and Obama, both former senators, are said to be relying on the counsel of a pair of relatively dovish former colleagues, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has recently made comparisons between Afghanistan and Vietnam. Also weighing in, apparently to advise against sending more troops, has been Colin Powell, who met quietly with Obama in mid-September. Supporters of Biden's view argue that adding more troops would actually make the problem worse, not better, because the Taliban draw support from the fiercely nationalist Pashtun ethnic group in Afghanistan and Pakistan, who will mobilize to resist a long-term occupation. "The real fact is, the more people we put in, the more opposition there will be", says Selig Harrison, a longtime observer of Afghanistan at the Center for International Policy, a think tank formed in the wake of the Vietnam War by former diplomats and peace activists. The only exit strategy that might work, say Harrison and others, is dramatically reducing the US military role in Afghanistan, shifting the focus from the Taliban to Al Qaeda, and stepping up political and diplomatic efforts. Such an initiative would also require an intensive push to secure support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - which maintain links to the Taliban - as well as Iran, Russia, India and China. "There's only one mission there that we can accomplish", says Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's anti-Osama bin Laden unit for years. "To go into Afghanistan, kill Al Qaeda, do as much damage to the Taliban as possible and leave". Opponents of that approach insist that it would allow Al Qaeda to re-establish a safe haven in Afghanistan and resume plotting attacks. But many terrorism experts point out that Al Qaeda doesn't need Afghanistan as a base of operations, since it can plan actions from Pakistan or, for that matter, from a mosque in London or Hamburg. "We deal with Al Qaeda in every country in the world without invading the country", says Senator Russ Feingold, a Democrat who serves on both the Senate foreign-relations and intelligence committees. "We deal with them in Indonesia, the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia, in European countries, in our own country, with various means that range from law enforcement to military action to other kinds of actions". Feingold, who has proposed setting a flexible timetable for the withdrawal of US forces, says that the administration must listen to advisers like Biden who favor shifting course in Afghanistan. "If they do not, if they refuse to, then we in Congress have to start proposing our own timetables, just as we did when we were stonewalled by the Bush administration", Feingold says. "I'm prepared to take whatever steps I need to, in consultation with other members of Congress, to make those proposals if necessary". Other Democrats have also expressed doubts about appropriating more money for the conflict. Monthly spending on the war is rising rapidly - from $2 billion in October 2008 to $6.7 billion in June 2009 - and Obama has requested a total of $65 billion for 2010, even without another troop surge. "I don't think there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in Congress", said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has declared his preference for sending trainers to Afghanistan to build that country's armed forces, instead of US combat troops. And Representative Jim McGovern recently got 138 votes for an amendment that would have required the administration to declare its exit strategy. "The further we get sucked into this war, the harder it will be to get out of it", McGovern says. "What the hell is the objective? Tell me how this has a happy ending. Tell me how we win this. How do we measure success?" Given the political pressure from both sides, Obama appears to favor sidestepping the issue. At a meeting with congressional leaders from both parties at the White House on October 6th, the president said he won't significantly reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan, as many Democrats had hoped - but he also seemed unlikely to endorse the major troop buildup proposed by McChrystal. While that approach may quell the Pentagon's insurrection for now, it only prolongs the conflict in Afghanistan, postponing what many see as an inevitable withdrawal. Wilkerson, the former aide to Colin Powell, hopes Obama will follow the example of President Kennedy, who faced down his generals during the Cuban Missile Crisis. "It's going to take John Kennedy-type courage to turn to his Curtis LeMay and say, 'No, we're not going to bomb Cuba'", Wilkerson says. "It took a lot of courage on Kennedy's part to defy the Pentagon, defy the military - and do the right thing". http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30493567/the_generals_revolt 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 intnsred at golgotha.net Tue Nov 3 17:46:18 2009 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 19:46:18 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Secret US copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad. Message-ID: <200911031946.18729.intnsred@golgotha.net> Secret US copyright treaty leaks. It's bad. Very bad. The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says: * * That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability. * * That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel. * * That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright. * * Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM) -- Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. -- Abraham Lincoln From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Nov 4 01:47:10 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:47:10 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Yes, Virginia Message-ID: <20091104174710.1ab13d3f.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> There Are No Reserve Requirements (Part 2/2) by Jake Towne seekingalpha.com (August 12 2009) Since the 1990s, the Fed has changed accounting rules so even the loose ~ ten percent fractional reserve requirement could be thwarted. We live in an era of paper tickets. In Part 1, Fractional Reserve Banking in Pictures {1}, we saw how the banking system creates fraudulent money by creating new money on top of old. The reserve requirement limit used in the example, ten percent, is the figure usually given, which means that from a $10 deposit the banking system could generate $90 of new money. Also, the Fed uses Open Market Operations to create new money by writing a check upon itself. This article will demonstrate that reserve requirements are effectively not in existence and easily avoided by accounting tricks in the US banking system. In my view, the evidence is unrefutable as the sources are from the Fed and documentation from Citigroup. Although I have tried my best to keep the following simple and source my data, please feel free to comment or question and I will do my best to reply. The first chart is from the Fed's latest Purposes and Functions {2} from 2005 on page 51. As can be seen, "net transaction accounts" have a ten percent reserve requirement when over $45 million at a depository institution. Net transaction accounts are checking accounts, demand deposit accounts, NOW (negotiable order of withdrawal) accounts, or credit union share draft accounts (page 135). "Nonpersonal time deposits" are defined (page 129) as a "time deposit held by a depositor other than an individual" such as certificates of deposits, or CDs. These have no reserve requirement. Now what about savings accounts and certificates of deposits? These are termed "nontransaction accounts" by the Fed since they do not meet the requirements of a transaction account {3}. See our next chart, taken from page 21 in this 1993 article {4} from the Federal Reserve Board's Division of Monetary Affairs. Personal savings accounts, CDs, or money market accounts are NOT reservable liabilities since December 1990 as stated directly by the Fed in 1993 and indirectly by their non-inclusion here. So, there are NO reserve requirements for personal savings accounts and CDs. The above leave us only with checking/NOW (or "net transaction") accounts. Here's the text for the "two sub-accounts" trick done for "accounting purposes" by Citibank. "For accounting purposes, all Citibank consumer checking accounts (Regular Checking, Citigold Interest Checking, Interest Checking and Basic Banking Account) consist of two sub-accounts; a transaction sub-account to which all financial transactions are posted; and a holding sub-account into which available balances above a pre-set level are transferred daily. Funds will be transferred to your transaction sub-account to meet your transactional needs. For Regular Checking and Basic Banking Account, both sub-accounts are non-interest bearing. For Citigold Interest Checking and Interest Checking, both sub-accounts pay the same interest rate. Transfers can occur on any business day. Transfers to the holding sub-account will be made whenever available balances in the transaction sub-account exceed a preset level. Transfers from the holding subaccount to the transaction sub-account will be made whenever transaction sub-account balances fall below a predetermined level. Because banking regulations limit the number of transfers between these types of subaccounts, all balances in the holding sub-account will be transferred to the transaction sub-account in the sixth transfer in any calendar month. Both sub-accounts are treated as a single account for purposes of the client's deposits and withdrawals, access and information, tax reporting, fees, etc". (Citibank Client Manual pages 19-20/33) {5} First, note that the account holders have no idea these sub-accounts exist unless they read this fine print. I encourage you to check your checking account's fine print - all of the major banks I have checked use "two sub-accounts", and several nearby local banks in my area have it too. Second, note that the holding sub-accounts may fluctuate daily, and there are no rules whatsoever limiting how much of the currency can be diverted to this holding sub-account. Obviously, the reason for the "two sub-accounts" accounting trick, more politely termed "Deposit Reclassification" by the banking industry (see pages 9 & 10 of this agreement {6} from Camden National Bank), is to have the holding sub-account deemed a nontransaction account and no longer subject to reserve requirements. In Eric deCarbonnel's article "Deposit Reclassification Used To Eliminate All Reserve Requirements" {7}, he refers to additional sources including this easy-to-follow piece from Romney & Associates {8} where the author outlines the benefits and profits from deposit reclassification - by changing reserve requirements at their whims, banks can loan out even more - which is naive insanity of course in the event of a bank run. Speaking of bank runs, let's take a look at the Fed monetary base, reserves, and vault cash. Per the latest H3 report from the Fed {9}, we have the below data (in millions of US Dollars). Note the massive swings in nonborrowed reserves and the monetary base which took place roughly a year ago. In the next chart, I took the reported deposits of FDIC depository institutions - which is an approximation I have made of the US banking system from June 30 2008 {10, page 16} and the latest March 31 2009 {11, page 18) - and listed the July 2008 and July 2009 results from the H3 report. Provided my calculation of dividing the Total Reserves by the FDIC-reported Domestic Deposits is reasonable (I haven't been able to find suitable Fed numbers, hence my usage of FDIC data), the "Towne reserve ratio" was just a shocking 0.6% in July 2008. While the current "Towne reserve ratio" is 10.6% now, this is likely due to the monetary base change below. While I will be the first to note these percentages are just rough numbers, isn't it funny how the math is now close to ten percent? Note that in July 2008, the banking system's vault cash EXCEEDED both required and total reserves. [Vault cash is the physical banknotes that banks keep on hand to meet withdrawals; the vast majority of dollars exists in the form of electrons, and only a tiny sliver is metal coinage.] Now, in July 2009, the required reserves and vault cash have been relatively unchanged. Over the same period, the monetary base has almost doubled from $847 billion to $1,681 billion while reserves grew by about the same amount, from a scant $45 billion to $803 billion. Where did this money come from? It is likely just Fed "liquidity" or newly created currency. We would need to audit the Fed {12} to really be sure, but the timing and amount coincides with the Banker Bailout of October 2008. At any rate, the intention of this money is likely just to paper over the collapse of the banking system last year. Conclusion In plain English, the US banking system is using a sneaky accounting trick listed the fine print of checking account agreements to escape the gravity pull of reserve requirements. The system likely already crashed last year, but the Fed pumped in liquidity last year at the same time as the Banker Bailout to avoid the collapse of this Ponzi scheme. This brings me to an interesting conclusion - at this point in history, our monetary system is really no more than paper ticket printing and excited electrons. [Although technically speaking, dollars are linen with mercury, arsenic, cyanide, titanium dioxide, formaldehyde, lithium, valium, zinc imbedded as I wrote {13} in "The Federal Reserve - A Good Company to Work For?".] Although our central bank, the Fed, can technically NEVER go bankrupt since it has the power to create as many paper tickets as needed, risks over the long-term include psychological events like hyperinflation where the demand to store money goes to zero, and the purchasing power of the currency approaches zero as well. However, the true responsibility lies with US Congress, which "delegated" its control over the currency to the Fed in 1913. As F A Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom {14}, delegated autonomy from the legislative body of a socialist state is usually done to escape blame and responsibility for the inevitable mistakes of central planning. Understand that the next time you see your Congressman or -woman, unless he happens to be Dr Ron Paul, they ARE responsible for quite literally stealing purchasing power from your pocket as I related in further detail in "Unlocking the Money Matrix - The Real Interest Rate {15, Part 12 of 15}". The solution? The money power must be returned to We the People. The Fed must be abolished, by populating the US House with representatives who will end the Fed. I've outlined the steps I recommend in slides 26 to 47 of this presentation, but this certainly requires a national debate. One last bit of math. $49 Billion in vault cash divided by 307 million Americans works out to a whopping $160 per person. Maybe Bernanke over at the Fed should fire up the printing presses! Note: Thanks to Eric deCarbonnel whose article "US Banks Operating Without Reserve Requirements" {16} clued me in to the above facts. Interested readers are also recommended to read my last update on the banking system from April "Off a Cliff with No Airbags" {17} as the situation has only worsened, and the conclusion section is still quite relevant. Please ask any questions below and I will do my best to answer them clearly. Links: {1} http://towneforcongress.com/economy/fractional-reserve-banking-in-pictures-part-12 {2} http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm {3} http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=a91cbce06362edbde5a6756d2493e47f&rgn=div8&view=text&node=12:2.0.1.1.5.0.2.2&idno=12 {4} http://federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/0693lead.pdf {5} https://online.citibank.com/JRS/popups/ao/Client_Manual_20090611.pdf {6} http://www.camdennational.com/docs/CNB_disclosure.pdf {7} http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/03/deposit-reclassification-used-to.html {8} http://www.romney.com/fis/ReclassBenStrat.htm {9} http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/current/h3.htm {10} http://www2.fdic.gov/qbp/2008jun/qbp.pdf {11} http://www2.fdic.gov/qbp/2009mar/qbp.pdf {12} http://www.nolanchart.com/article6522.html {13} http://www.nolanchart.com/article6036.html {14} http://www.nolanchart.com/article5069.html {15} http://towneforcongress.com/economy/unlocking-the-money-matrix-the-real-interest-rate-part-1215 {16} http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/03/us-banks-operate-without-reserve.html {17} http://www.nolanchart.com/article6305.html _____ Jake Towne is running for US Congress in Pennsylvania's 15th District in the 2010 election as a citizen unaffiliated with any political parties. Jake also writes at www.LibertyMaven.com and www.CampaignForLiberty.com. A master campaign presentation for internet viewing is available. A novel campaign website built by Raging Debate, TowneForCongress.com has recently opened. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic. Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers. Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito. Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it. http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/274602-jake-towne/22316-yes-virginia-there-are-no-reserve-requirements-part-2-2 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 Wed Nov 4 08:00:06 2009 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:00:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Newer actions and updates: Free Jailed Falsely :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <347631.18754.qm@web111516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Help Mr. Leonard Peltier get the parole he, and humanity, truly deserves, advocate and evoke?? :) Leonard has carried a constant burden for all of humanity, for over 34 years straight, graciously, courageously, and with great generosity, and, besides thanking him, we have a responsibility to act, not just to right the wrongs of this world, to act to lessen? Leonard's, and those like Leonard's, burdens; they've humbly born for us all.? Luckily, "we, the people...", can still be the voice for those unheard; let us do what we can do to support Leonard's parole.? Thanx, again.? Ciao.??? :) reality This Action, on Change.org, the url??? :) Free Jailed Falsely??? :) http://humanitarianrelief.change.org/actions/view/free_jailed_falsely http://www.change.org/profile/189788/actions8 ? Very latest from Friends Digest?? :) Friends Digest Vol. 3, No. 14?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8902 Friends Digest Vol. 3, No. 13 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8893 Friends Digest Vol. 3, No. 12 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8871 Friends Digest Vol. 3, No. 11?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8834 LP-DOC Actions: LP: I'm Obama's Political Prisoner Now; etc..?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8825 Friends Digest Vol. 3, No. 9?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8803 Friends Digest Vol. 3, No. 8?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8793 Friends Digest Acts: Attorney Seitz on denial of parole; etc..?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8769 Friends Digest Vol. 3, No. 7?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8759 Shout Out to NH and Surrounding Area :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8756 Friends Digest Vol. 3, No. 6?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8748 News from Lewisburg :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8744 Friends Digest Vol. 3, No. 5 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8727 Eyes On Members of Congress?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8707 Peltier Medical Alert?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8677 June 26th Statement from Leonard Peltier :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8670 34th Anniversary Events?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8666 LP-DOC: Acts: Update on the Lewisburg Vigil, 7-28-09; etc..?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8660 LP-DOC: Acts: Health Alert: Peltier Needs Medical Assist; etc..?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8655 Previous?? :) Focus Parole, Friends Digest Vol. 3, No. 4?? :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DisabledGreensNews/message/8650 ? Previous Actions, on Change.org, the url?? :) free falsely jailed?? :) http://humanitarianrelief.change.org/actions/view/free_falsely_jailed Act to Protect Leonard Peltier, severely beaten, institutionally abused, etc..?? :) http://humanitarianrelief.change.org/actions/view/act_to_protect_leonard_peltier_severely_beaten_institutionally http://www.change.org/profile/189788/actions17 Other Actions for Leonard on Change.org?? :) Demand an Executive Review of the Peltier Case?? :) http://criminaljustice.change.org/actions/view/demand_an_executive_review_of_the_peltier_case Leonard Peltier Petition?? :) http://criminaljustice.change.org/actions/view/leonard_peltier_petition Leonard Peltier Petition (newer)? :) http://humanitarianrelief.change.org/actions/view/leonard_peltier_petition_2 From intnsred at golgotha.net Wed Nov 4 08:05:49 2009 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:05:49 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Scientists claim junk food is as addictive as heroin Message-ID: <200911041005.49367.intnsred@golgotha.net> Scientists claim junk food is as addictive as heroin With the rumors swirling that Michelle Obama is a big fan of former FDA Commissioner David Kessler?s new book The End of Overeating, it seems reasonable to check in on the science behind an ?addiction model? for salty, sweet, and fatty processed food (an assertion at the core of the book). As it happens, a group of researchers from the independent, not-for-profit Scripps Research Institute has just released a new peer-reviewed study on the subject. The conclusion: the brain responds to junk food the same way it does to heroin: Junk food elicits addictive behavior in rats similar to the behaviors of rats addicted to heroin, a new study finds. Pleasure centers in the brains of rats addicted to high-fat, high-calorie diets became less responsive as the binging wore on, making the rats consume more and more food. The results, presented October 20 at the Society for Neuroscience?s annual meeting, may help explain the changes in the brain that lead people to overeat. ?This is the most complete evidence to date that suggests obesity and drug addiction have common neurobiological underpinnings,? says study coauthor Paul Johnson of the Scripps Research Institute in Jupiter, Fla. Johnson offered one group of rats a broad range of processed food, from bacon and cheesecake to Ho Hos while another received a ?high-nutrient, low-calorie chow.? There was an immediate difference: Rats that ate the junk food soon developed compulsive eating habits and became obese. ?They?re taking in twice the amount of calories as the control rats,? says Johnson?s coauthor Paul Kenny, also of Scripps. The researchers also tested the responsiveness of the animals? pleasure centers: After just five days on the junk food diet, rats showed ?profound reductions? in the sensitivity of their brains? pleasure centers, suggesting that the animals quickly became habituated to the food. As a result, the rats ate more food to get the same amount of pleasure. Just as heroin addicts require more and more of the drug to feel good, rats needed more and more of the junk food. ?They lose control,? Kenny says. ?This is the hallmark of addiction.? And here?s where things get ugly. The rats wanted their junk food fix so badly, they were willing to tolerate electric shocks if that?s what it meant to keep eating the stuff. To see how strong the drive to eat junk food was, the researchers exposed the rats to a foot shock when they ate the high-fat food. Rats that had not been constantly exposed to the junk food quickly stopped eating. But the foot shock didn?t faze rats accustomed to the junk food ? they continued to eat, even though they knew the shock was coming. ?What we have are these core features of addiction, and these animals are hitting each one of these features,? Kenny says. Because a study like this isn?t complete without a sinister postscript, I give you this: Scientists are interested in determining the long-term effect of altering the reward system. ?We might not see it when we look at the animal,? says obesity expert Ralph DiLeone of Yale University School of Medicine. ?They might be a normal weight, but how they respond to food in the future may be permanently altered.? Eating junk food for a while could leave your brain?s response to food ?permanently altered?? How. Nice. Kinda puts industry calls for preserving consumer ?choice? regarding the foods we eat into perspective, doesn?t it? When it?s an addiction, choice is the last thing we have. Besides giving ammunition to those wanting to restrict access to these foods for children (well, for anyone really), this study certainly ensures that I will never look at a Ho Ho the same way again. -- "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild From shniad at gmail.com Wed Nov 4 11:00:31 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:00:31 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Half of US kids depend on food stamps during childhood: study Message-ID: <83904d240911041000w488da080kb9c0e3457a54f209@mail.gmail.com> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5huS1aDImykHCJxUuyNW-fbMSAbMA Agence France Press November 2, 2009 *Half of US kids depend on food stamps during childhood: study* *American children face the highest levels of poverty and social deprivation of any children growing up in Western developed nations, and they have the flimsiest social safety net to fall back on* WASHINGTON ? Nearly half of all US children, including an overwhelming majority of black children, will eat meals at some point during their childhood paid for by food stamps, an indicator of poverty, a study showed Monday. "If you get food stamps, you are by definition in poverty and your household doesn't have many assets," said Mark Rank, a co-author of the study with Thomas Hirschl of Cornell University. "The fact that half of American children at some time during their childhood find themselves in this position really ought to be a wake-up call to America," he told AFP. The study found that 49.2 percent of all American children will at some point live in a home that receives food stamps. Among black children and children living in single-parent households, the percentage is much higher: around 90 percent live in homes that receive food stamps at one stage or another. And nearly all black children in single parent homes where the head of household has less than a high school education live in financial and food insecurity during part of their childhood, the study says. The study, which was published Monday in the American Medical Association's Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, is based on an analysis of a 32-year study of some 4,800 US households. It concluded that American children face the highest levels of poverty and social deprivation of any children growing up in Western developed nations, and they have the flimsiest social safety net to fall back on. "It's always been weak, particularly compared with European countries or Canada or other industrialized countries," said Rank, a professor at the school of social work at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. "One of the reasons why our rates of poverty are so high is because we do so little in terms of trying to protect families from getting into poverty. We have to cast our safety net wider," he said. Poverty and food insecurity are "two of the most detrimental economic conditions affecting a child's health" and tag 22 billion dollars a year onto US health care costs, the study said. "Children in poverty are significantly more likely to experience a range of health problems, including low birth weight, lead poisoning, asthma, mental health disorders, delayed immunization, dental problems and accidental death," it said. "There's a strong connection between poverty, health and mental health," said Rank and the detrimental effects of growing up poor, even if just for a short period, often carry over into adulthood, he said. An earlier study conducted by Rank and Hirschl showed that half of American adults resort to food stamps to put a meal in their stomachs. From shniad at gmail.com Wed Nov 4 13:34:29 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:34:29 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Aghanistan: America is performing its familiar role of propping up a dictator Message-ID: <83904d240911041234m7a43ac6dh10d223c431701b46@mail.gmail.com> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-america-is-performing-its-familiar-role-of-propping-up-a-dictator-1814194.html *The Independent 4 November 2009* America is performing its familiar role of propping up a dictator *As in Vietnam, Karzai is going to rule over an equally tiny island of corruption* Robert Fisk Could there be a more accurate description of the Obama-Brown message of congratulations to the fraudulently elected Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan? First the Palestinians held fair elections in 2006, voted for Hamas and were brutally punished for it ? they still are ? and then the Iranians held fraudulent elections in June which put back the weird Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whom everyone outside Iran (and a lot inside) regard as a dictator. But now we have the venal, corrupt, sectarian Karzai in power after a poll far more ambitiously rigged than the Iranian version, and ? yup, we love him dearly and accept his totally fraudulent election. And now we are still trying to persuade his opponent to join a national unity government, an administration led by the man whose vote-stuffing was the very reason that same leader of the opposition ? the good pseudo-Pashtun Abdullah Abdullah ? refused to run in a second round of elections. And Karzai got his fawning congrats from the Obama-Brown twins. So that's OK then. Wagons Ho. For Westmoreland, read McChrystal. Send in the brave 40,000 to join the rest of the US cavalry as it fights its way west ? or rather south-west ? to the Khe Sanh of Afghanistan in Year Eight of the War on Terror. *The March of Folly* was Barbara Tuchman's title for her book on governments ? from Troy to Vietnam-era America ? that followed policies contrary to their own interests. And well may we remember the Vietnam bit. As Patrick Bury, a veteran British soldier of our current Afghan adventure, pointed out yesterday, Vietnam is all too relevant. Back in 1967, the Americans oversaw a "democratic" election in Vietnam which gave the presidency to the corrupt ex-General Nguyen Van Thieuman. In a fraudulent election which the Americans declared to be "generally fair" ? he got 38 per cent of the vote ? Thieu's opponents wouldn't run against him because the election was a farce. In 1967, Washington needed the elections to give legitimacy to this revolting dictator ? and thus provide credibility to its own military occupation of Vietnam in the war against Communism. As in Vietnam ? where Saigon was a lonely kingdom of brutal power totally isolated from the rest of the country ? Karzai is going to rule over an equally tiny island of corruption, protected by US mercenaries while the Americans perform their familiar role of propping up a dictator. As ex-Lieutenant Bury sagely points out, the Afghan war is "campaigning on a par with the 19th-century British colonial army trying to manage the unwinnable... What was or is the strategy behind these long, bloody conflicts?" Well, in 1967, it was the possible communisation of Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. Now it is Pashtunistan, Baluchistan, Waziristan. For us, the vast ignorant "plebes", it's supposed to stop the Taliban/al-Qa'ida beasts from attacking our looming towers all over again, albeit that the 2001 murderers in question largely hailed from that friendly, moderate, brutal, oligarchical monarchical dictatorship called Saudi Arabia where ? thank the good gods ? they don't hold elections. But it's part of a dreary pattern. US forces were participating in a civil war in Vietnam while claiming they were supporting democracy and the sovereignty of the country. In Lebanon in 1982, they claimed to be supporting the "democratically" elected President Amin Gemayel and took the Christian Maronite side in the civil war. And now, after Disneyworld elections, they are on the Karzai-government side against the Pashtun villagers of southern Afghanistan among whom the Taliban live. Where is the next My Lai? Journalists should avoid predictions. In this case I will not. Our Western mission in Afghanistan is going to end in utter disaster. From shniad at gmail.com Wed Nov 4 14:30:18 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:30:18 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Afghanistan Just Got Messier Message-ID: <83904d240911041330lc67381kd41d6037b277d7e6@mail.gmail.com> http://www.progressive.org/wx110209.html The Progressive November 2, 2009 *Afghanistan Just Got Messier* By Matthew Rothschild The mess that is Afghanistan just got messier for Washington. Abdullah?s withdrawal from the presidential runoff leaves Hamid Karzai in power but without legitimacy. He?s widely perceived to have rigged the last election, and Abdullah took himself out, he says, because he couldn?t be assured that Kazai wouldn?t do it again. And then they cancelled the election with only Karzai in it, citing security and cost reasons. But maybe they didn?t want to deal with the embarrassment of Karzai running unopposed, or the even deeper humiliation of a tiny turnout. As a result, though, Karzai has become further delegitimized. He was already in the soup. People in Afghanistan recognize that he?s corrupt. And Malalai Joya, the outspoken feminist who was booted from parliament, has been denouncing him for years now for surrounding himself with drug lords and warlords and war criminals. Even his own brother is involved in the drug trade. In Afghanistan, Joya says, Karzai is seen, correctly, as a Washington stooge. And we?re seen there, correctly, as an occupying power. We?ve been down this road before. In Vietnam, the United States propped up one illegitimate leader after another, but that didn?t help the war effort at all. It only further alienated the people of Vietnam. We?re seeing the same thing happening in Afghanistan right now. Karzai is our guy in Kabul, but that?s about it. Many if not most people in Afghanistan disdain him. And the more he plays ball with Washington, the less support he has at home. The United States can?t defeat an insurgency by backing an illegitimate government. And the United States can?t defeat an insurgency when the American people are already opposed to the war. Obama needs to realize all this, reverse course, and head for the exits, before he makes matters even worse. From shniad at gmail.com Wed Nov 4 14:57:18 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:57:18 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Afghanistan: The Ultimate in Rigged Elections In-Reply-To: <392779229.3066041257172175341.JavaMail.root@sz0047a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> References: <392779229.3066041257172175341.JavaMail.root@sz0047a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <83904d240911041357x6062de53h9860a1a5771ba958@mail.gmail.com> Friends: Clearly, the Americans are far more adept at rigging election outcomes than are (for example) the Iranians. When the official results in Iran's June 12 presidential election went 2 to 1 in favor of the incumbent, Western capitals, the Western media, and the Western "left" came out overwhelmingly (a 90%-plus lockstep) against Iran's official results and in favor of Iran's "democratic" opposition, with displays of "solidarity" that continue to this day. "Whose side are you on?" asked one strain of the totalitarian "left" in the States and beyond. (Reese Erlich, "Iran and Leftist Confusion ," * CommonDreams*, June 29, 2009.) But now that there won't even be an election in U.S. occupied Afghanistan, and with all of the Afghan resistance to foreign occupiers long since branded "terrorists" and "insurgents" and "Islamic militants," "Al Qaeda" and "The Taliban," will the "internationalists" and the "cosmopolitans" of the (putative and largely non-existent) global struggle for democracy come out in the same force against this ultimate in rigged outcomes (one candidate, no election, a declared victor!), the way they did in June and July, when, in coming out against Iran's official election results, they aligned with the United States and the West against a common Enemy? The Americans wrote the book on *How Best To Stage -- And Cancel, When Necessary -- Demonstration Elections* . A book to which the American "left" in 2009 added a scandalous Appendix. -- David Peterson Chicago, USA *davidepet at comcast.net* *PS*. The involvement of the United Nations in this process is perhaps the ultimate scandal. The corruption -- or *capture*, to use a popular term -- of the United Nations by American Power is one of most ominous developments the contemporary period. Agence France Presse November 2, 2009 Karzai: Afghan president for a second term Hamid Karzai, handed another five years in power Monday, is the former darling of the West whose fortunes have slumped since being catapulted to the Afghan leadership when the Taliban were toppled. Discredited by massive fraud which disqualified about a third of his votes in a first round election, Karzai now has to win back the trust of his traditional backers who helped bring him to power eight years ago. Growing impatience from the 51-year-old's international allies has mirrored a pattern of increasing Afghan malaise that contributed to his rival, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, attracting sizeable support. Corruption, a spiralling Taliban insurgency, the worst security in years, controversy over a women's law and criticism of his choice of running mate have all contributed to a distinct cooling of ties between Karzai and the West. Anticipating Karzai's return to power after Abdullah's pullout Sunday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated the US was ready to move past the scandal-plagued elections, saying Washington "will support the next president and the people of Afghanistan, who seek and deserve a better future." Congratulating Karzai on his re-election, UN chief Ban Ki-moon said Karzaimust now form a government which can win the support of all the Afghan people. "Afghanistan now faces significant challenges and the new president must move swiftly to form a government that is able to command the support of both the Afghan people and the international community," said Ban. In typically blunt fashion, Karzai had dismissed allegations of widespread fraud in the August 20 poll as fabricated and politically driven. But when election organisers announced he had fallen a fraction short of outright victory, Karzai declared that he wanted to move on. "I call upon our nation to change this into an opportunity to strengthen our resolve and determination, to move our country forward and to participate in the new round of elections," he said. His bid for re-election in August was focused on backroom deals with power-brokers in the ethnically divided nation, rather than public campaigning. His pick for vice-president, former defence minister Mohammed Qasim Fahim, has been widely accused of rights abuses including murder during Afghanistan's nearly three decades of war. Ashraf Ghani, Karzai's one-time finance minister who stood as a candidate in the election, is now withering in his criticism, accusing his old boss of a "relentless desire for power". Karzai was handed the enormous task of leading his crippled nation in December 2001 when the dust had barely settled on a US-led invasion that drove out the extremist Taliban regime for sheltering Al-Qaeda after 9/11. Often charming and a fluent English-speaker, Karzai had guaranteed influence as a tribal leader. He was appointed chairman of a transitional administration at UN-sponsored talks in Bonn, Germany that pledged to work towards democracy. Six months later, a traditional Afghan assembly of around 2,000 people, called a loya jirga, confirmed him as president of the transitional government. In 2004 he went on to win Afghanistan's first presidential election with 55.4 percent of the vote. His nearest rival managed just over 16 percent. As president, Karzai has survived at least two assassination attempts, the latest in April last year. He was born in December 1957 in southern Afghanistan to the Popalzai, an influential tribe in Afghanistan's majority Pashtun ethnic group. The son of a wealthy father, he studied politics in India for six years, obtaining a masters degree in 1983. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, while he was at university, and on graduation he moved to Pakistan to join the resistance, rising through the political ranks. With the Red Army defeated in 1989, Karzai returned to his homeland and took a position in the government of anti-Soviet factions formed in 1992. But the factions soon turned on each other, dragging the country into civil war, and Karzai left again for Pakistan. He briefly threw his weight behind the Taliban movement that emerged in the early 1990s but soon withdrew his support. Karzai has a son, born in 2007, with his physician wife, Zenat Karzai. Agence France Presse November 2, 2009 Ban welcomes scrapping of Afghan run-off UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcomed Monday a decision to cancel Afghanistan's run-off election and congratulated President Hamid Karzai on being handed a second term in office. "I welcome today?s decision by Afghanistan?s Independent Election Commission to forego a run-off vote and to declare Hamid Karzai as the winner of the 2009 presidential elections," Ban said in a statement. "I congratulate President Karzai," added Ban. Making a surprise visit to Kabul, the UN chief earlier met the president and his rival Abdullah Abdullah, who pulled out of the contest on Sunday. Associated Press November 2, 2009 Analysis: With few options, US accepts Karzai By ROBERT H. REID KABUL (AP) - President Hamid Karzai's leadership is weak, his government corrupt and nearly a third of the votes he won in the August election were thrown out as fakes. But in the end, the Obama administration is sticking by the Afghan president -- because it has few other good options. Karzai is far from the strong and capable partner that Washington had hoped would emerge from the electoral process that it and Western allies had pushed for in Afghanistan. They hoped the elections would stabilize the country and bleed support from the Taliban. But the process effectively ended in turmoil Sunday, even as the war with the Taliban intensifies. Karzai's challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, bowed out only six days before a scheduled runoff, charging that no fair election was possible. Now the United States, barring other developments, must find a way to work with Karzai, who was widely favored to win the runoff anyway, and encourage him to embrace supporters of Abdullah and other groups opposed to the Taliban. Unless such groups are brought into the government, the Taliban are likely to grow in strength, capitalizing on widespread public discontent with the ineffectual government. "The government is more of a headache for us than the Taliban," said Ahmed Shah Lumar, a businessman in Kandahar in the south, who complains that development plans in his area gather dust waiting for government approval. Karzai enjoyed close ties with President George W. Bush's administration, which maneuvered him into power when the Taliban first collapsed in 2001. But he fell out of favor when Barack Obama took the White House. U.S. officials have since been openly critical of Karzai as a weak leader, beholden to warlords whom he cultivated as allies. Nevertheless, the Obama administration clearly concluded at some point that for all his faults, Karzai was the best it could get, given the ethnic and political realities of this impoverished country. "We are going to deal with the government that is there," White House presidential adviser David Axelrod. "And obviously there are issues we need to discuss, such as reducing the high level of corruption. These are issues we'll take up with President Karzai." U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Saturday that Abdullah's decision to quit the race would not undermine the legitimacy of a new Karzaiadministration. The runoff was called after U.N.-backed auditors confirmed massive fraud on behalf of Karzai in the first vote last August. Abdullah accused Karzai of using the resources of the government, including the election commission, to rig the vote -- although the auditors never backed up that charge. Clinton said when Karzai accepted the runoff, "that bestowed legitimacy from that moment forward." She did not mention that Karzai agreed to the runoff only after strong American pressure, including marathon talks with Sen. John Kerry. Now the U.S. administration must deal for the next five years with an Afghan leader whom Obama once described as suffering from a "bunker mentality" and out of touch with his own country. "We are fed up with this government," said Kabul shopkeeper Shah Mohammad Husseini. "The situation is getting worse and worse and worse. I want a government that has the power to implement laws and doesn't deal with warlords." Nevertheless, the options among Afghanistan's pool of potential leaders are limited. Others such as Abdullah carry ethnic or historical baggage dating back to their roles in the civil war that devastated the country in the 1990s and led to the rise of the Taliban. Abdullah, a former foreign minister, is widely seen as the candidate of the northern Tajik community, which accounts for about 15 percent of Afghanistan's people. He was an ally of a late, legendary warlord beloved by fellow Tajiks but despised by the Pashtuns who are Afghanistan's majority -- because of the warlord's role in the civil war. Karzai named a different former Tajik warlord as his running mate to draw off Tajik votes. As for Pashtuns, Karzai, the son of a Pashtun tribal chief, has long held their support. That ethnic group makes up more than 40 percent of Afghanistan. Pashtuns also form the overwhelming majority of the Taliban, and the U.S. hopes to lure away moderate Taliban members. That difficult task would likely be impossible if Afghanistan was led by a Tajik. "If by chance Abdullah Abdullah won a runoff, that's the makings of a civil war in the country," said Thomas H. Johnson, the director of culture and conflict studies at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, in a recent interview with the Council on Foreign Relations. Meanwhile, Westernized Afghans such as Ashraf Ghani, who ran a distant fourth in August, have the skills to run a government but lack popular support. And none of the other Pashtuns in the race had the stature or resources of Karzai, who has effectively been in power since 2001. Some U.S. and U.N. officials have floated the idea of a broad-based coalition or unity government, bringing together supporters of Karzai, Abdullah and other public figures to stand against the Taliban. Western diplomats said the U.S. ambassador and U.N. mission chief held intensive talks with both sides on a power-sharing deal up to the last minute, when Abdullah pulled out. Karzai has expressed willingness to name former opponents to his Cabinet, but has resisted a formal coalition with shared powers. For many in Afghanistan, the idea of a coalition government brings back bitter memories of the civil war, when a governing alliance of anti-Soviet commanders fell apart, triggering four years of fighting among their factions that destroyed much of Kabul. "I don't support a coalition government because then the president would be weak," said Sadiq Khan Baryalai, a Pashtun merchant in Kandahar. "There would be more and more conspiracies and more and more trouble in the government," he said. "I want a strong government, a strong president, whoever it may be." HIS Global Insight Daily Analysis November 2, 2009 Election 2009: Karzai Declared Victor in Afghanistan After Opponent's Withdrawal, But Overwhelming Challenges Ahead Jan Zalewski With the Independent Election Commission (IEC) scrapping the run-off polls after Hamid Karzai's main challenger Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the process, it is now clear that Karzai will remain the country's president for the next five years. What is much less clear, however, is the way in which government formation will now take place and what will be Abdullah's role in this process. Whatever the way forward, it is evident that the election process in Afghanistan has bestowed Karzai with little of the kind of legitimacy that the international community would have hoped for, and this is set to complicate efforts to deal with Afghanistan's myriad problems. The Issue of Legitimacy Whatever the way forward with regard to the electoral process, lack of legitimacy will be a major issue for the Karzai government to deal with. This already became evident before the first round of presidential elections on 20 August, as popularity polls indicated that most of Afghanistan's populace have become (or remained) disenchanted by a central government that has shown little presence in most parts of the country and has gained a reputation for its inability to reign in corruption and rampant insecurity. The electoral process evidently worsened the prospects for Karzai to increase his government's legitimacy, contrary to what was hoped by the international community. The flawed process, due not only to widespread insecurity due to a Taliban that have over the past two years staged a remarkable comeback, but also due to serious flaws in the country's electoral laws and the conduct of the elections that all have led to widespread fraud and low voter turnout. With or without run-off polls, the announcement of Abdullah's withdrawal from the electoral process due to his view that a fair and transparent run-off poll would not be possible, as predicted by IHS Global Insight last Tuesday (see Afghanistan: 27 October 2009: ), further strips Karzai of legitimacy; it was Karzai who refused to adhere to Abdullah's demands of sacking senior officials from the IEC that were held accountable for much of the fraud that took place during the first-round election. Bearing this in mind, many among the international community are now pushing Karzai and Abdullah to strike a deal for a national unity government to reap the largest-possible degree of legitimacy given the situation; but given that the terms under which such a deal could materialise remain unclear, and considering the gravity of the challenges that will have to be dealt with, it is difficult to see how any such deal could grant Afghanistan's government the kind of legitimacy needed for these daunting tasks. Implications for International Community Since Karzai was seen by many as the winning candidate already, with Abdullah having been granted little chance of winning the run-off polls, some have sighed with relief at learning about his retreat. On the most positive note, his withdrawal means that the international community now knows that Karzai will be their partner in the Afghan government, and the IEC's decision is likely to make the international community's deliberations on a new Afghanistan strategy that much easier. However, the low degree of credibility of the Afghan government could still be a major stumbling block for implementing these strategies if finally adopted. Should Karzai indeed form the government with his running mates of former warlords and without the participation of Abdullah, this would suggest a status-quo situation in which corruption and illegitimacy are likely to frustrate many an effort to move forward. But even with Karzai and Abdullah striking a deal for a national unity government there is no guarantee that some of the all-important reforms will be made. Thus, with U.S. president Barack Obama's administration now expected to finalise a new Afghanistan strategy within the course of this month, it remains to be seen how workable this will be in practice. Adding to the overall uncertainty surrounding the charting of strategies for Afghanistan is a series of resignations of foreign officials in Afghanistan who have expressed their dissatisfaction about the way things have been going. Challenges Daunting Afghanistan's problems were many and varied before the first round of the election, but have arguably increased in the context of political uncertainty and disarray in the international community's efforts to deal with Afghanistan. Adding to this is that the fact that Karzai has moved into the electoral process virtually without a poll manifesto, meaning that it is highly unclear how he intends to move about to tackle the numerous problems. The Taliban have staged a remarkable come-back over the past two years and have staged hundreds of attacks against a variety of targets over the past months, inflicting the heaviest casualty numbers upon coalition troops since operations began in late 2001. Karzai has indicated his intention to invite the Taliban to participate in a loya jirga, although the Taliban have consistently refused such offers and it is furthermore unclear how this could be justified as Afghanistan's constitution puts forward a fixed set-up of such a gathering which at any rate does not include insurgent groups. Rampant corruption has become something of a trademark for the previous Karzai administration, in large part due to his inclination to trade loyalty for political office. Indeed, the fact that he has already secured the support of a number of former warlords and regional commanders suggests that he will have to continue to entertain them, risking that no progress against corruption will be made, or else lose their support and effectively jurisdiction over even more parts of Afghanistan. A deal with Abdullah could improve the outlook in this respect to some degree, although it is unlikely that this would change the situation significantly. A further major problem is flawed state institutions and constitutional problems, with a too-strong presidency and a very weak parliament. Interlinked with and exacerbating these issues are the problems of some of the worst human development indicators in the world, the fact that Afghanistan produces some 92 per cent of the world's opium, and ethnic, tribal and religious cleavages that have spurred conflict over the past centuries. A further accelerator of conflict is the deteriorating security situation in Pakistan that may flush many of the militants that sought a save haven there to make a return to Afghanistan . Outlook and Implications The IEC's decision has defused much of the uncertainty surrounding the Afghan presidential election that has thrown the country into political chaos and arguably worsened the security situation there. It essentially now provides the international community with a partner to work with and this is certainly good news. However, given the immensity of the challenges ahead and the probable weak structure of the future Karzai administration, as well as the difficult U.S.-Karzai relationship in recent months, it remains rather unlikely that much headway will be made with regard to Afghanistan's multiple problems. It essentially now remains to be seen what the next few days bring, as staffing issues and the United States' expected new Afghan strategy are likely to fill the headlines on Afghanistan in the near future. Reuters November 2, 2009 Karzai declared Afghan president, run-off cancelled * Decision to spare Afghan people risk, expense -commission * One candidate race would raise questions about legitimacy * Karzai needs to reach out to opposition - analyst By Golnar Motevalli KABUL, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Afghanistan's election commission declared Hamid Karzai elected as president on Monday after it called off a runoff following the withdrawal of his only rival. The run-off, called after the first round in August was marred by widespread fraud, was to have been held on Nov. 7. "The Independent Election Commission declares the esteemed Hamid Karzai as the president ... because he was the winner of the first round and the only candidate in the second round," the commission's chief Azizullah Ludin told a news conference. Ludin told a packed media conference the decision was made to spare the Afghan people the expense and risk of another election and because a one-candidate race would raise questions about the legitimacy of the presidency. Former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the race over the weekend, citing doubts about the credibility of the election process. "Karzai has lost his legitimacy, he is a very weak president and he cannot govern without reaching out to Dr Abdullah," said Kabul-based political analyst Haroun Mir. "So the ball is in Dr Abdullah's court right now." Karzai's camp on Sunday had ruled out a coalition with Abdullah, but he has been under intense pressure from various quarters to bring Abdullah into the government. Earlier U.N chief Ban Ki-moon made a visit to Kabul that had not been announced in advance, as diplomatic efforts gathered pace to resolve the prolonged political crisis. "We continue to stand by the people of Afghanistan in their quest for prosperity and peace," Ban said. The withdrawal of Abdullah from the run-off had cast doubts over the legitimacy of the next government, already under a cloud following the Aug. 20 election marred by allegations of fraud in favour of Karzai. A weakened Afghan government under Karzai would be a blow for U.S. President Barack Obama as he considers whether to send up to 40,000 more troops to fight a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. A spokesman for Karzai's campaign said the president will issue a statement about the election commission announcement later in the day. Abdullah had left the door open for future discussions but said no deals had been struck in return for his withdrawal, seen by diplomats as one way to spare the country more uncertainty that discredits the government and can only aid the insurgency. Ban ki-Moon met both Karzai and Abdullah, officials said. A U.N. statement said the meetings were "to assure them and the Afghan people of the continuing support of the United Nations doubts over the credibility of his government. Ban made the visit after five foreign U.N. staff were killed in a suicide attack last week on a Kabul guest-house used by the United Nations. The attack was claimed by the Taliban, who have vowed to disrupt the run-off and said the guest-house was targeted because of the United Nations' role in helping organise the Afghan election. The run-off was ordered after a UN-led investigation panel found widespread fraud in favour of Karzai in the Aug. 20 election. Xinhua News Agency November 2, 2009 UN chief welcomes Afghan election body's decision, congratulates Karzai Haleem KABUL, Nov. 2 (Xinhua) -- United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Monday welcomed the decision of Afghan election body to announce the sitting Afghan president Hamid Karzai as the winner of the election and congratulated him, a statement issued by UN office here said. "I welcome today's decision by Afghanistan Independent Election Commission (IEC) to forego a runoff vote and to declare Hamid Karzai as the winner of the 2009 presidential election," the statement added. In the statement released here an hour after the announcement of IEC decision, the world body's chief said, "I congratulate President Karzai." The announcement took place just a day after the withdrawal of Karzai's top challenger Abdullah Abdullah from the runoff set for Nov. 7. Ban Ki-moon in the statement stressed that "Afghanistan now faces significant challenges and the new president must move swiftly to form a government that is able to command the support of both Afghans and the international community." From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Nov 4 15:56:55 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 07:56:55 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] A Monetary Reformer's Interpretation Message-ID: <20091105075655.0a244784.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> of "The Lord of the Rings" by Richard C Cook May 24, 2007 The film trilogy "The Lord of the Rings", produced by Peter Jackson of New Zealand, ranked with "Star Wars" as one of the most popular cinematic events of all time. The strength of its appeal derived perhaps from its faithfulness to the letter and spirit of J R R Tolkien's literary masterpiece. Not the least of the fascination of both the books and their cinematic depiction was the irony whereby the horrendous evil of the disembodied eye of Sauron, aided by the traitorous wizard Saruman and the legions of cruel and hideous orcs, threatened to destroy Middle Earth, while the task of averting catastrophe lay with a gentle hobbit bearing to the demon's lair a ridiculously small token of power, a single golden ring. Of course men and hobbits had helpers, including the angel-like elves, plus the enlightened wizard Gandalf, ever-loyal to the forces of light and good. Tolkien never said what exactly the story was supposed to mean. But such ambiguity is expected in great symbolic art. It does not detract from the validity of the genre that collects its force from transmitting through symbols the psychic energy and racial memories from what Jung called the collective unconscious. Two generations of students and scholars have been guessing at the meaning. Filmmaker Jackson and his colleagues had too much integrity to try to explain it, except in general terms, where so many others had speculated. Besides, the meaning of art can often be understood with the heart and soul, even where the mind draws a blank. Regardless, everyone senses that "The Lord of the Rings" is a parable of our times, where the twin forces of creativity and destruction are both so powerful and where the jury is still out over whether we can harness the forces of science and technology for human good or whether we will destroy ourselves through warfare, disease, or some ecological catastrophe like global warming. There have been countless predictions of worldwide catastrophe in recent decades. Many believe that today's wars in the Middle East prefigure an Armageddon, nuclear or otherwise. Whether or not "The Lord of the Rings" has parallels in the events of years past or today, it has secured its own place in the doom-and-gloom literature of our age. One thing that is clear about "The Lord of the Rings" is that the virtues most highly prized are loyalty among companions and courage in the face of death. Time and again the cause seems lost. Time and again men, wizards, elves, dwarves, and hobbits must pluck up their courage and choose to move forward in the face of almost certain defeat. Time and again fate intervenes at the last possible moment, until Frodo succeeds in passing the final test and the evil ring is swallowed up in the cauldrons of fire deep within Mount Doom. Then, deprived of its minuscule but never-explained linchpin of power, the entire world of evil instantly self-destructs and Middle Earth is saved. We see at the end that life at its core is good and evil merely a shadow. I am a monetary reformer, so I will assert my author's prerogative, as have so many others, of putting forth a theory of "what it means", leaving the reader to decide whether my interpretation is plausible or not. My interpretation of "The Lord of the Rings" may recall that many believed L Frank Baum's masterpiece "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" published in 1900 was a monetary parable. According to this interpretation, the evil spell over Oz symbolized the bankers' control of gold (measured in ounces = oz) which they abused to constrict the currency during the depression of the 1890s when many farmers and merchants were forced into foreclosure or bankruptcy. The Cowardly Lion was viewed as representing William Jennings Bryan. He had made his renowned speech at the 1896 Democratic national convention in Chicago where he exclaimed, "You shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold!" But he was criticized for doing little of a practical nature to bring about the progressive monetary reform agenda of the time. Later, Baum's book was made into the most famous motion picture of all time, "The Wizard of Oz" starring Judy Garland. The film appeared in 1939 at the end of the Great Depression which was another American tragedy with monetary causes. Due to lack of a circulating medium of exchange, men stood in soup lines unable to find work while the factories that might have employed them had shut down. Today people are starting to realize that again we have an economy in crisis and that again the causes are monetary. We have stagnating employee incomes, rapidly increasing control of wealth by the very rich, a middle class in decline, growing poverty, collapse of our manufacturing job base, a bursting housing bubble, resurgent commodity inflation, soaring but shaky stock prices, and capital markets dominated by predatory equity and hedge funds. Increasingly, China and other foreign nations are purchasing US business assets. It's all capped by a gigantic private and public debt burden that is growing exponentially. Debt is threatening to bring the entire system down in a crash that not only could exceed the Great Depression but has been likened to the downfall of another debt-ridden behemoth - the Roman Empire. Every day it becomes more clear that the trouble stems from a rotten financial system that enriches the financier elite at the expense of everyone else. The crisis has been brewing for decades. After the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt gained enough control over money and credit for the US to recover, but he never carried out full-scale monetary reform. From the 1950s on, the banking system maneuvered to tear itself away from the controls - and low interest rates -imposed on it by FDR's New Deal. What we have today is the result of that long-term victory of the bankers over the producing economy. A key event was the 1979 to 1983 recession when the Federal Reserve crashed the economy with interest rates over twenty percent and wrecked our public and private infrastructure. By the end of the decade of the 1980s, the Reagan and Bush administrations had left us with a brief recovery ending in another recession, an unregulated financial sector, destruction of the savings and loan industry, the era of junk bonds and leveraged buyouts, and the anemic "service" economy which continues today. The economic story of the Clinton administration which came next was largely one of enormous foreign investment and the rise and collapse of the dot.com bubble. Finally, we have the George W Bush economy and the possible death-knell of economic democracy in the United States. Throughout these disasters, we should be looking hard for the footprints and fingerprints of the Federal Reserve which has largely been the creature of the private financial interests since it was created in 1913. It was then that the US Congress ceded its constitutional authority to "coin money and regulate the value thereof" to the private financiers who are the real power behind the monetary throne. In fact the whole system of institutionalized debt oppression may be deeply unconstitutional. The preamble to our Constitution stipulates a system of law that will "promote the general welfare". Banking laws that have the opposite effect of promoting the benefit of the few over the well-being of the many should be subject to court review. So should the presumed authority of the Federal Reserve to destroy property and income values through interest rate policies that enhance bank profits while disrupting commercial activities. Interest rate increases carried out by the Federal Reserve are often implemented to fight the inflation originally created by financier investment bubbles. This is what happened with the housing bubble when the last unlucky home purchaser to hold property before the Fed pulled out the carpet from under the economy was the one stuck with an overpriced asset and an unpayable mortgage. Moreover, the fifth and fourteenth amendments provide that neither the federal government nor the states may deprive a person of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law". This language should also prompt the courts to review legislation that undermines economic democracy, makes it impossible for much of our population to earn a decent living, and subjects debtors to unreasonable conditions to declare bankruptcy. The provision in the 2005 bankruptcy "reform" legislation that makes it impossible ever to write off student loan debt, for example, should be declared unconstitutional. We are now paying the price of neglect as much of our population sinks toward the status of what the Roman Empire institutionalized as debt slavery. We are still looking for a William Jennings Bryan to declare that mankind shall not be destroyed by being cast into the abyss of debt. Perhaps we are looking in the wrong places. Maybe the one we should be seeking is a hobbit. Here's how I see today's crisis reflected in "The Lord of the Rings": The evil disembodied all-seeing eye of Sauron: Whatever devils sit atop and rule the international financial system which is profiting from so much economic and financial chaos. Mordor, the realm of Sauron: The international banking and financial system in all its aspects and the world of war, oppression, and economic ruin it has created over the last century, when hundreds of millions have been slain through useless wars and upheavals over power, ideology, money, and control of resources. The ring of power: The ability of credit to grow exponentially at compound interest, aided over time by fractional reserve banking, so that debt now threatens to devour the entire world of the producing economy. Mount Doom, where the Dark Lord's ring of power was forged: Any bank, brokerage house, or other financial institution where money is lent at usury. Sauron's ally, the evil wizard Saruman: The talented and highly-educated economists, scholars, and journalists who have sold themselves over the past several generations in the service of the monetary elite. Isengard, the tower where Saruman resided: The economics departments of many universities, the business and editorial sections of most major newspapers, and the many think tanks which favor and further the dominance of the monetary overseers. The orcs: The foot soldiers who have sold themselves to perpetrate and enforce the power of the monetary controllers, including some of the current leaders of the United States government. The world of men: The world of men. King Aragorn: Unique ability of a man, through self-sacrifice, to act in human life as an impartial channel for good. The dwarves working as miners and craftsmen in the mountains: The owners, managers, and employees of legitimate businesses, the cream of whose labor is skimmed by usury finance. The elves: The artists and poets of the world who behold, dumbfounded, man's inhumanity to man through financial oppression. Gandalf: The small number of enlightened people who have helped mankind evolve toward a higher monetary vision, such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and C H Douglas (1879-1952), the Scottish founder of the Social Credit monetary reform movement. The hobbits: The ordinary, unknown people (us!) who just want to live and let live and who have guessed the secret of the ring of compound interest and fractional reserve banking. They realize that once the ring is dropped into the fire of understanding the oppressive system that is destroying mankind will collapse, allowing a new age of humanity to begin. In making these comparisons I realize that when Tolkien sat down to write he did not necessarily set out to call the world banking system on the carpet. In fact his own father was a banker. Tolkien was born in Bloemfontein, South Africa, in 1892 where his family was living because his father Arthur was engaged in starting a branch for the home bank headquartered in London. Still, Britain has been home to a monetary reform movement for a long time. One early figure was the writer G K Chesterton, whose brother A K published a magazine named "Candour" to which Tolkien subscribed. According to Stephen Goodson, a South African monetary reformer who inherited Tolkien's copies of "Candour" from a relative, Tolkien had underlined the following passage in red: "There should only be one source of money: one fountainhead from which flows the nation's blood to vitalize commerce and industry, ensure economic equity and justice and safeguard the welfare of the people ... In other words, it has always been and still is our contention that the prerogative of creating and issuing the money of the nation should be restored to the State". Tolkien was a sensitive man. As a poet and writer he was attuned to the enormous clash of forces which so often figured in twentieth century history. There has been virtually non-stop war on a worldwide scale since 1914 as nations and ideologies have fought for dominance. But embedded within this history is a deeper struggle for human freedom within all ideological systems where individuals have tried to be true to themselves in the face of the overwhelming organized might that would destroy them. In my opinion, it is the conflict between economic democracy on the one hand and the domination of worldwide usury finance enforced by political power on the other that most reflects the struggle for human freedom today and that will determine the survival of any human civilization that is worth having. Perhaps the recurring clash of the forces of individual freedom versus organized repression also had some bearing on producing the psychic atmosphere which became through Tolkien and Peter Jackson an epic of men, dwarves, elves, wizards, hobbits, and demons. _____ Richard C Cook is the author of We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform (2009) and Challenger Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age (2007). He is a Washington, DC-based writer and consultant who, in addition to NASA, taught history and worked in the US Civil Service Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Carter White House and spent 21 years with the US Treasury Department. His website is at www.richardccook.com. http://www.theheartlandusa.com/articles/authors/cook/RC2007/rcc_052407.htm (this URL may no longer be available) 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 Wed Nov 4 17:03:31 2009 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:03:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Truth Advocate - Notes for November including store closeout :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <457993.15414.qm@web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> This Action, on Change.org, the url?? :) Allowed 9-11?? :) http://socialentrepreneurship.change.org/actions/view/allowed_9-11 http://www.change.org/profile/189788/actions ? Read about some truth about 9-11-01?? :) to view this newsletter, with full images and corresponding links, at www.911truth.org 911Truth.org - November 2, 2009 Dear Truth Advocate, A few updates of interest to 911truth.org and Justicefor911.org readers follow . . . 1) 911TruthStore.com closing http://www.911truthstore.com/ ? 2) The Hard Evidence Tour Down Under 2009 3) "The Turning Point", statement from NYC Coalition for Accountability Now ? http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20091017145013531 ? ? 1) 911Truth.org is closing our online store, www.911truthstore.com due to a lack of necessary resources to continue to maintain and stock it, fill orders and meet customer service needs and handle back-end administration. We have marked prices down to at or below our original cost for nearly all remaining inventory, which offers you a great opportunity to purchase brand new books, DVDs, audio CDs, stickers, posters and deception/conception/media/election dollars at really low prices. As you may know, the store was previously a significant source of support for the organization and to those of you who have supported us with purchases there, we thank you very much. And of course, to those of you who have made and continue to make contributions to the organization, thank you! Of our list of nearly 18,000 subscribers and hundreds of thousands of readers each month (millions in September), 53 individuals made a donation in October, ranging from $3.00 to $50.00. We sincerely thank those 53 people. If it is important to you to see 911truth.org continue to exist as a valuable web presence and resource for important news and research, right NOW is a critically important time for you to make a donation. Thank you! 2) Exciting News from Australia ... November 14-21 - The Hard Evidence Tour Down Under 2009 Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Wellington - The Hard Evidence Tour Down Under 2009 is right around the corner! This international conference will feature some of the world's leading experts and activists in the 9/11 Truth Movement. The two-day Sydney event will include Dr. Steven Jones (Physicist), Richard Gage (AIA), Janice Matthews (911Truth.org), Cosmos (TruthAction.org/11th of Every Month Campaign), Luke Rudkowski (WeAreChange NYC), Paul Mason (Structural Engineer), Dr. David Leifer (Architect), James O'Neil (Barrister), John Bursill (Engineer), , Dr. Frank Legge (Chemist and Co-editor, Journalof911studies.com), Ken Jenkins (Psychologist, engineer and filmmaker), Hereward Fenton (Anthropologist, radio host and webmaster). If you are nearby and have not yet gotten your tickets, do it now! If you are in other parts of the world and would like to support this important conference, you may now purchase conference t-shirts from John Bursill, conference organizer. Send him an email at johnbursill at gmail.com to let him know what you'd like and get further order details (payment can be made via Paypal or cheque). In addition to getting a great looking t-shirt, you'll be supporting the movement down under. Available in two colours, black and stone, these shirts are of high quality (no sweatshops!). Those who pre-ordered and have already received theirs love them! Cost: $30 AUD each if picked up or bought at the events $35 AUD each posted to your address in Australia (post is $5:70) $40 AUD each international post to anywhere ($35 American dollars) Bulk purchase can be arranged on request at substantial discount! Funds raised will go directly to funding the Hard Evidence Tour. ? ? 3) NYC CAN (NYC Coalition for Accountability Now) issued a statement on October 16: "...the City of New York and the State Supreme Court denied the will of 80,000 voters to place NYC CAN's referendum on November's ballot. In doing so, the City's Corporation Counsel -- while forced to acknowledge in open court that no investigation into 9/11 of any kind, criminal or otherwise, had ever been conducted by the City of New York -- labeled the will of the people 'irrelevant'. A lone Supreme Court Justice, while demonstrating no comprehension or interest in the fundamental aspects of the events of 9/11 or the basis of our case -- not to mention justice or truth -- sided with the will of the City over the will of the people whose interests he is sworn to protect." If you missed it, you can find the full statement here: "The Turning Point". http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20091017145013531 As always, we thank you for your courage and perseverance! With best wishes, Janice Matthews Director 911Truth.org http://www.911truth.org/ From intnsred at golgotha.net Wed Nov 4 18:59:59 2009 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:59:59 -0500 Subject: [R-G] =?utf-8?q?Former_UK_ambassador=3A_CIA_sent_people_to_be_?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=98raped_with_broken_bottles=E2=80=99?= Message-ID: <200911042059.59103.intnsred@golgotha.net> Former UK ambassador: CIA sent people to be ?raped with broken bottles? Message-ID: <81853.27814.qm@web111510.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> james m and YouthAIDS help Stop Global AIDS with replyforall and funds from our sponsors. Join the mission at replyforall This Action, on Change.org, the url?? :) don't let them?? :) http://war.change.org/actions/view/dont_let_them http://www.change.org/profile/189788/actions ? CLICK HERE to tell Congress: DON'T BURY THE GOLDSTONE REPORT http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/301/t/10074/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=28033 I'm asking you to tell your representative to vote NO on H. Res 867 when it comes up for a vote tomorrow. Why? The resolution, which is riddled with errors and outright fabrications (see below), calls on President Obama to bury the Goldstone Report, which was commissioned by the United Nations to examine violations of international law during the Gaza conflict. This report offers the only pathway to accountability, and the campaign to demonize it and its authors is part of a larger effort to shred international law so that war crimes against civilians can be committed with impunity. We urge you to click HERE to contact your representative today to tell them to vote NO on H. Res 867. The resolution, which you can read in full here, calls the Goldstone findings 'irredeemably biased'. In fact, the Goldstone Report is well-researched, and fair-minded. It accuses both Israel and Hamas of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, while rightfully placing greater emphasis on Israeli violations of international law, especially regarding the killing of civilians. It also calls on Israel and Hamas to conduct credible, independent investigations or face the International Criminal Court. ? Cecilie Surasky Jewish Voice for Peace The full text of Goldstone's detailed analysis of the bill, followed by an analysis by professor Stephen Zunes of the Tikkun advisory board: The Honorable Howard Berman Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Ranking Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs October 29, 2009 Dear Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, ? It has come to my attention that a resolution has been introduced in the Unites States House of Representatives regarding the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, which I led earlier this year. I fully respect the right of the US Congress to examine and judge my mission and the resulting report, as well as to make its recommendations to the US Executive branch of government. However, I have strong reservations about the text of the resolution in question - text that includes serious factual inaccuracies and instances where information and statements are taken grossly out of context. I undertook this fact-finding mission in good faith, just as I undertook my responsibilities vis ? vis the South African Standing Commission of Inquiry Regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, the International War Crimes Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the International Panel of the Commission of Enquiry into the Activities of Nazism in Argentina, the Independent International Commission on Kosovo, and the Volker Committee investigation into the UN's Iraq oil-for-food program in 2004/5. I hope that you, in similar good faith, will take the time to consider my comments about the resolution and, as a result of that consideration, make the necessary corrections. Whereas clause #1: "Whereas, on January 12, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1, which authorized a `fact-finding mission' regarding Israel's conduct of Operation Cast Lead against violent militants in the Gaza Strip between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009;" This whereas clause ignores the fact that I and others refused this original mandate, precisely because it only called for an investigation into violations committed by Israel. The mandate given to and accepted by me and under which we worked and reported reads as follows: ". . .to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after". Whereas clause #2: "Whereas the resolution pre-judged the outcome of its investigation, by one-sidedly mandating the `fact-finding mission' to `investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by . . . Israel, against the Palestinian people . . . particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression'" This whereas clause ignores the fact that the expanded mandate that I demanded and received clearly included rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and as the report makes clear was so interpreted and implemented. It was the report carried out under this broadened mandate - not the original, rejected mandate - that was adopted by the Human Rights Council and that included the serious findings made against Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups. Whereas clause #3: "Whereas the mandate of the `fact-finding mission' makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel's defensive measures;" This whereas clause is factually incorrect. As noted above, the expanded mandate clearly included the rocket and mortar attacks. Moreover, Chapter XXIV of the Report considers in detail the relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and the terror they caused to the people living within their range. The resulting finding made in the report is that these attacks constituted serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. Whereas clause #4: "Whereas the `fact-finding mission' included a member who, before joining the mission, had already declared Israel guilty of committing atrocities in Operation Cast Lead by signing a public letter on January 11, 2009, published in the Sunday Times, that called Israel's actions `war crimes';" This whereas clause is misleading. It overlooks, or neglects to mention, that the member concerned, Professor Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, in the same letter, together with other leading international lawyers, also condemned as war crimes the Hamas rockets fired into Israel. Whereas clause #5: "Whereas the mission's flawed and biased mandate gave serious concern to many United Nations Human Rights Council Member States which refused to support it, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;" This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The mandate that was given to the Mission was certainly not opposed by all or even a majority of the States to which reference is made. I am happy to provide further details if necessary. Whereas clause #6: "Whereas the mission's flawed and biased mandate troubled many distinguished individuals who refused invitations to head the mission;" This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The initial mandate that was rejected by others who were invited to head the mission was the same one that I rejected. The mandate I accepted was expanded by the President of the Human Rights Council as a result of conditions I made. Whereas clause #8: "Whereas the report repeatedly made sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead;" This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The findings included in the report are neither "sweeping" nor "unsubstantiated" and in effect reflect 188 individual interviews, review of more than 300 reports, 30 videos and 1200 photographs. Additionally, the body of the report contains a plethora of references to the information upon which the Commission relied for our findings. Whereas clause #9: "Whereas the authors of the report, in the body of the report itself, admit that `we did not deal with the issues . . . regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers `in the fog of war.';" This whereas clause is misleading. The words quoted relate to the decision we made that it would have been unfair to investigate and make finding on situations where decisions had been made by Israeli soldiers "in the fog of battle". This was a decision made in favor of, and not against, the interests of Israel. Whereas clause #10: "Whereas in the October 16th edition of the Jewish Daily Forward, Richard Goldstone, the head of the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict', is quoted as saying, with respect to the mission's evidence-collection methods, `If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.'" The remark as quoted is both inaccurate and taken completely out of context. What I had explained to The Forward was that the Report itself would not constitute evidence admissible in court of law. It is my view, as jurist, that investigators would have to investigate which allegations they considered relevant. That, too, was why we recommended domestic investigations into the allegations. Whereas clause #11: "Whereas the report, in effect, denied the State of Israel the right to self- defense, and never noted the fact that Israel had the right to defend its citizens from the repeated violent attacks committed against civilian targets in southern Israel by Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations operating from Gaza;" It is factually incorrect to state that the Report denied Israel the right of self-defense. The report examined how that right was implemented by the standards of international law. What is commonly called ius ad bellum, the right to use military force was not considered to fall within our mandate. Israel's right to use military force was not questioned. Whereas clause #12: "Whereas the report largely ignored the culpability of the Government of Iran and the Government of Syria, both of whom sponsor Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations;" This whereas clause is misleading. Nowhere that I know of has it ever been suggested that the Mission should have investigated the provenance of the rockets. Such an investigation was never on the agenda, and in any event, we would not have had the facilities or capability of investigating these allegations. If the Government of Israel has requested us to investigate that issue I have no doubt that we have done our best to do so. Whereas clause #14: "Whereas, notwithstanding a great body of evidence that Hamas and other violent Islamist groups committed war crimes by using civilians and civilian institutions, such as mosques, schools, and hospitals, as shields, the report repeatedly downplayed or cast doubt upon that claim;" This is a sweeping and unfair characterization of the Report. I hope that the Report will be read by those tasked with considering the resolution. I note that the House resolution fails to mention that notwithstanding my repeated personal pleas to the Government of Israel, Israel refused all cooperation with the Mission. Among other things, I requested the views of Israel with regard to the implementation of the mandate and details of any issues that the Government of Israel might wish us to investigate. This refusal meant that Israel did not offer any information or evidence it may have collected regarding actions by Hamas or other Palestinian groups in Gaza. Any omission of such information and evidence in the report is regrettable, but is the result of Israel's decision not to cooperate with the Fact-Finding mission, not a decision by the mission to downplay or cast doubt on such information and evidence. Whereas clause #15: "Whereas in one notable instance, the report stated that it did not consider the admission of a Hamas official that Hamas often `created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against [the Israeli military]' specifically to `constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack.';" This whereas clause is misleading, since the quotation is taken out of context. The quotation is part of a section of the report dealing with the very narrow allegation that Hamas compelled civilians, against their will, to act as human shields. The statement by the Hamas official is repugnant and demonstrates an apparent disregard for the safety of civilians, but it is not evidence that Hamas forced civilians to remain in their homes in order to act as human shields. Indeed, while the Government of Israel has alleged publicly that Hamas used Palestinian civilians as human shields, it has not identified any cases where it claims that civilians were doing so under threat of force by Hamas or any other party. Whereas clause #16: "Whereas Hamas was able to significantly shape the findings of the investigation mission's report by selecting and prescreening some of the witnesses and intimidating others, as the report acknowledges when it notes that `those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups . . . from a fear of reprisals';" The allegation that Hamas was able to shape the findings of my report or that it pre-screened the witnesses is devoid of truth. I challenge anyone to produce evidence in support of it. Sincerely, Justice Richard J. Goldstone ? And this from Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, who wrote this analysis in his capacity as a member of the advisory board of the Tikkun community. More info on the House Resolution Condemning the Goldstone Report by Steve Zunes ? There are a number of disturbing aspects of H. Res. 867, with implications that go well beyond simply attacking the report of the United Nations Human Rights Council's fact-finding commission on the Gaza conflict, which documented war crimes by armed forces of both Hamas and Israel.? Below is an analysis of some of the more misleading and disturbing clauses in the resolution: The lead-off clause cynically places "fact-finding mission" in quotes, implying that this was not in fact the purpose of the investigation of a reputable and experienced team.?? In addition, the commission's mandate was not, as the resolution claims, to investigate "Israel's conduct?against violent militants," but the conduct of its forces in relation to the civilian population. This is followed by a series of clauses criticizing the original mandate of the UN Human Rights Council which called only for an investigation of Israeli war crimes.? This is completely moot, however, since commission head Justice Richard Goldstone - to his credit - refused to accept the position unless its mandate was changed to one which would investigate possible war crimes by both sides in the conflict. and the mandate of the commission was thereby broadened.? The House resolution does not mention this, however, implying that the original mandate was the basis of the report.? In reality, from the start of the actual investigation, there was not such a bias against Israel, since it dedicating over 70 pages to detail a whole series of violations of the laws of war by Hamas, including rocket attacks into civilian-populated areas of Israel, torture of Palestinian opponents, and continued holding of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.?? Yet H. Res. 867 makes no mention of this extensive critical reporting in the report regarding Hamas' violations of international humanitarian law, thereby giving the false impression that the report unfairly only dealt with the actions of the Israeli armed forces.? The inclusion of these clauses is apparently designed to give the false impression that the report was based upon this original one-sided mandate and ignore the fact that it had long been superseded by the revised balanced mandate upon which the report is actually based. The resolution claims that the report makes "sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead."? If one bothers to actually read the report, there were indeed detailed and well-substantiated evidence of deadly attacks against schools, mosques, private homes and businesses nowhere near legitimate military targets.? In particular, the report cites in detail eleven incidents in which Israeli armed forces engaged in direct attacks against civilians, including cases where people were shot "while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags." The report's conclusion that Israel's military assault on Gaza was "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish humiliate and terrorize a civilian population" echo detailed empirical reports released in recent months by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, among others.? Criticism of this report, therefore, is criticism of these reputable human rights groups as well. Then the resolution goes on to claim that the report denies Israel's right to self-defense.? This is patently false.? There was absolutely nothing in the report that denies Israel's right to self-defense.? It simply insists that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have the right to attack civilians. The resolution resolves that Congress go on record that the report is "irredeemably biased," ignoring - among other things - that the head of the commission was Richard Goldstone, who has had a longstanding reputation for fairness and objectivity and previously led the war crimes prosecutions for Yugoslavia.? He is also Jewish, a longtime supporter of Israel, a member of the board of directors of Friends of Hebrew University and other Zionist groups, and the father of an Israeli citizen.?? He wrote most of it, he approved the final version, and has steadfastly defended it.? This resolution, then, is a direct attack on the integrity of one of the world's most principled defenders of human rights. The resolution even claims that the report is part of an effort "to delegitimize the democratic State of Israel and deny it the right to defend its citizens and its existence can be used to delegitimize other democracies and deny them the same right."? In reality, there is absolutely nothing in the report that delegitimizes Israel or its right to defend its citizens, nor is there anything in the report that could conceivably delegitimize other democracies or deny other democracies their right to exist or defend their citizens.? This is demagoguery at its most extreme and appears to be a right-wing effort to silence defenders of international humanitarian law by putting Congress on record as saying that documenting a given country's war crimes is tantamount to denying that country's right to exist and its right to self-defense. There are other clauses in the resolution which take a number of quotes out of context and engage in other misrepresentations to make the case that, in the resolution's words, the report is "irredeemably biased."? Perhaps most seriously, there is the final clause of the resolution which endorses Israel's right to attack Syria and Iran because of their alleged support of Hamas. As a result, it is critical that there be a full-press effort to defeat this resolution.? Please call your Congressperson first thing Monday and encourage them to vote against H. Res. 867. --Stephen Zunes, www.stephenzunes.org From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 4 19:59:10 2009 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:59:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Latest Healthcare Reform Actions :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <309121.2151.qm@web111506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> These Actions, on Change.org, the url??? :) Healthcare Reform Actions?? :) http://healthcare.change.org/actions/view/healthcare_reform_actions http://www.change.org/profile/189788/actions ? Call Pelosi right now and demand single-payer?? :) It's working! The calls our members are making to their representatives are putting us closer than ever to a historic House vote on health care for all?? :) Demand a vote on single-payer! Now we need you to turn up the pressure by calling the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at (202) 225-0100. Call now and tell her that you support health care for all, and that the single-payer bill must be on the table! Tell her to allow a vote on Rep. Anthony Weiner's (D-N.Y.) single-payer amendment to the health care bill. Nothing else in the health care reform bill before the House will end the domination of the insurance industry and the profiteering in health care. And nothing else in the bill will make sure that every single one of the more than 45 million uninsured will receive quality health care. Call the Office of the Speaker now at (202) 225-0100 and demand a vote on the Weiner Amendment on single-payer! The decision is being made now, so please call this morning! By eliminating the private health insurance industry and its administrative costs, a single-payer system would save $400 billion a year - enough to provide everyone with high-quality health care. Call (202) 225-0100 and tell the Speaker that you demand a vote on Rep. Weiner's single-payer amendment. After you call, please email us at action at citizen.org. Call volume may be high, and it may be difficult to get through. Please be patient. As an alternative, you can submit your comments in the form on the House Speaker's Web page. http://speaker.house.gov/contact/ Thank you for all you do! Rick, Angela and Glenn Your advocates at Public Citizen action at citizen.org P.S. - CLICK HERE to learn more about single-payer health care. http://action.citizen.org/t/6693/content.jsp?content_KEY=5220 To learn more about real financial accountability and security, visit http://action.citizen.org/t/5489/content.jsp?content_KEY=5981. If this message was forwarded to you, sign up to receive action alerts from Public Citizen at http://action.citizen.org/signUp.jsp. Support our work: https://secure.citizen.org/p/10076/?track=w10singlepayer1103. Sign up for the Public Citizen Action Network or other online announcements. Join the Public Citizen Action Network | Support Us | Take Action | Copyright 2009 Public Citizen ? ? Urgent: an outrageous action, we must respond?? :) Catholic bishops are doing all they can to force anti-choice amendments into the health care reform bill - and they're instructing their congregations to help them. Stand up for women's health and tell your senators and representative to reject this dangerous effort from the Catholic bishops. http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/hcr09ccbr_af/xkwgn62477im677?qp_source=hcr09ccbr%5fe1%5faf A few days ago, it felt as if we were holding strong in achieving health care reform that would finally ensure comprehensive coverage for everyone. As the legislation began moving closer to a vote, I knew that our job holding on to our reproductive health victories would be hard ... and then I received a copy of a memo that the Catholic bishops sent to their congregations. As I write this, the bishops have asked all the Catholics in the country to contact their legislators, asking them to alter current health care legislation to include anti-choice amendments. The bishops have inserted letters into church bulletins and asked priests to include their call to action in their sermons - and even in their prayers - during Sunday services. It's clear that every group opposed to a woman's right to choose is pulling out all the stops this week to bring all the progress we've made on health care reform to a grinding halt. The results could be devastating to everyone who desperately needs health care, including the women, men, and teens that Planned Parenthood serves. Once again, we urgently need your help. First, please contact your senators and representative right now, http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/hcr09ccbr_af/xkwgn62477im677?qp_source=hcr09ccbr%5fe1%5faf asking them to protect women, to protect our health care, to protect our rights and not cave to the vocal minority. I know that you've likely e-mailed and called before, and I'm asking you to do it again today - and it won't be the last time. Thank you for not letting up. Second, spread the word. I truly believe that if people know what the bishops and other groups are doing, they will be outraged, and they will speak up. Drowning them out won't be easy, but your action today will help. One thing I know for sure - the bishops don't speak for all Catholics. From one Catholic Planned Parenthood supporter: What bothers me most is this: Millions of people are uninsured and hundreds of thousands die every year as a result. And, to see my church sacrifice health care reform for the sake of this one issue is just going too far. They don't represent me, and they don't represent my beliefs. I'm speaking out, and I'm asking my Catholic friends and family to do the same. If you're Catholic and you disagree with the bishops, please let your legislators know when you send your message. http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/hcr09ccbr_af/xkwgn62477im677?qp_source=hcr09ccbr%5fe1%5faf our voice as a pro-choice Catholic needs to be heard NOW. We are so close, james m. In my lifetime, we've never been closer to expanding access to affordable health care for everyone. I don't think we'll get another chance, and we've got to do everything we can not to let it slip away. Rest assured, Planned Parenthood is doing all we can. Every time a group tries to limit the care and rights of women and their families, we will be here for them. And we know that you, too, will be right here with us. Thank you. Sincerely, Cecile Richards, President http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/ Planned Parenthood Action Fund P.S. As usual, this fight doesn't come cheap. It's taxing every cent of our resources. If you can help with your financial support, we'll be so very grateful. Thank you. visit plannedparenthoodaction.org ? ? ? ? Don't Stop Calling for Single-Payer?? :) Call Nancy Pelosi Today! Ask ask her to keep her promise to allow a vote on single-payer in the House, and to keep the Kucinich Amendment. Dear Healthcare-NOW! Supporter: Speaker Nancy Pelosi is breaking her promise to allow House votes on two single-payer amendments to the House healthcare bill. One, by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, will allow states to implement single-payer systems. The other, by Rep. Anthony Weiner, would create a national single-payer system. We need your voice to get these amendments back on the table. Let's get calls into the democratic leadership that is calling the shots and make sure they know that we expect the vote on single-payer this fall. -Speaker Nancy Pelosi: DC (202) 225.4965 - SF (415) 556.4862 -Rep. George Miller: DC (202) 225.2095 - Concord (925) 602.1880 -Rep. Henry Waxman: DC (202) 225.3976 - LA (323) 651.1040 The message is simple: Keep the Kucinich Amendment to allow states to pass single-payer, and to allow Rep. Anthony Weiner introduce his single-payer amendment! Thanks for all that you do, Healthcare-NOW! National Staff P.S. We need your support. Please donate today. Healthcare-NOW! survives on the generosity of our supporters. Please consider making a donation to support our efforts to pass HR 676 using our secure server. http://www.healthcare-now.org/ - Follow us on - 339 Lafayette St. | New York, NY 10012 US ? ? ? The nightmare scenario?? :) Dear MoveOn member, Here's the nightmare scenario: It's December. After a year of non-stop work by progressives and President Obama to pass real health care reform, the House has passed a strong bill. It's time for the Senate to vote. But the vote never happens?because one Democratic senator joins Republicans to filibuster and block a vote. 2009 becomes just another year when health care reform failed. If someone decided to take on that senator in the Democratic primary afterwards, would you chip in to help the challenger? I know I would. Here's the thing: If thousands of us make it clear we'd do the same, and Democratic senators know it, we might just be able to keep this nightmare scenario from ever coming to pass. That's why, today, we're launching the Health Care Accountability Pledge. Everyone says how much they'd contribute, we publicize the amount, and anyone thinking of running a primary challenge against a Democrat who blocks a vote on health care reform knows how much support they'd have right off the bat. You don't have to enter your credit card info. Just click on an amount below to pledge: Pledge $25 Pledge $50 Pledge $100 Pledge $200 Pledge another amount Here's how it will work: You tell us how much you'd give. Then, we make sure the media, Senate leadership, and conservative Democrats know just how many of us are willing to support a challenge against anyone who blocks reform. Hopefully, none of them actually do it, and health care gets an up-or-down vote. But if the nightmare scenario happens, we'll encourage viable primary challengers to come forward, and if they do, make sure all of us who've pledged have a chance to support them. In other words, potential primary challengers will know there's a huge group of Americans who are ready to help. And conservative members of the Democratic Caucus will too. This is not something to take lightly. Primary challenges happen once in a blue moon, generally when a candidate is terribly out of step with voters in their party. But if a Democratic senator helps block the most important progressive bill in a generation, voters in their state will be looking to support someone better. Will you let us know how much you'd pledge right now, and ask all your friends who want health care reform to do the same? http://pol.moveon.org/hc_fund/survey.html?t=2&id=17770-1718406-OcWZ0Yx&t=7 Thanks for all you do. ?Justin, Daniel, Marika, Kat, and the rest of the team http://www.moveon.org/ Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members?no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here. PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/ . Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. ? ? ? UPDATE: Stop Joe Lieberman?? :) It's completely outrageous. Over the weekend, Joe Lieberman said that it would be better to do nothing than to pass a health care bill that included a public option. Lieberman enjoys a number of privileges bestowed upon him by the Democratic leadership in the Senate. They need to make it crystal clear to Joe Lieberman that his actions have consequences and that if he tries to sink health care reform by filibustering the public option, he'll lose his committee chairmanship. The same ought to go for any senator who filibusters the public option. On Wednesday, CREDO is joining with some of our progressive allies to deliver that message to the Senate. Already, over 116,690 people have joined you in signing our petition calling on the Senate Democratic leadership to strip any senator who filibusters the public option of his or her committee chairmanship. We want to deliver as many signatures as we can. Can you help us reach 125,00 signatures by Wednesday by spreading the word? You can send an e-mail to your friends and family by clicking here or by forwarding the e-mail below. Thank you for fighting for health care reform. Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager CREDO Action P.S. You can go directly to our petition to President Obama by clicking here. Actions must have consequences. Your message to the Senate Democratic leadership: Any senator who filibusters the public option does not deserve a chairmanship and should be removed from his or her post. The Senate Democratic leadership needs to stand up to Lieberman. http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/lieberman_po/?rc=chaser&r=4994&id=6556-585348-ei1tS6x We all knew this was coming. We warned the Senate Democrats not to trust Sen. Joe Lieberman. Nearly 50,000 CREDO members protested when Democrats moved to make Lieberman the Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Now, our fears have have been realized. Sen. Lieberman has indicated he plans to join with Republicans to filibuster any health care bill that contains a public option. Alone, the Republicans don't have the votes for a filibuster. So by joining with them, Lieberman would be tipping the balance of power in order to sink health care reform. Tell the Senate Democratic leadership to stop putting up with Lieberman's antics. Actions must have consequences. Any senator who filibusters the public option does not deserve a chairmanship and should be removed from his or her post. Click here to add your name to the petition. http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/lieberman_po/?rc=chaser&r=4994&id=6556-585348-ei1tS6x We need to push the leaders of the Democratic caucus to take a tough stand against Lieberman. Last year, the New York Times quoted an anonymous "member of the Senate Democratic leadership" who said about Lieberman: "We need every vote. He's with us on everything but the war." Those who had been paying attention knew better. Lieberman wasn't just wrong on Iraq, he was wrong on torture, and he was wrong to not hold the Bush Administration accountable for the excesses of FISA. And now Lieberman is wrong, very wrong on health care reform and the public option. Joe Lieberman announced this week that he will vote to filibuster any health care bill that contains the public option. As he explained: "Just take this government-created, government-run health insurance company that will cost the taxpayers, premium payers and the debt a lot of money - take it off the table." He added, "We can come back in three or four years if the reforms - the other reforms we adopt are not working. But I think they will. And so, that's - that's my position, and I'm sticking to it, because I think it's best for our country and my constituents." Cost the taxpayers? The public option SAVES money (over $100 billion) according to the Congressional Budget Office. Best for his constituents? Among likely voters in Connecticut, 68 percent favor a public option versus 21 percent who oppose it. Perhaps he only counts the insurance lobby as his "constituents"? Now is the time for the Senate Democratic leadership - Senators Reid, Schumer and Durbin - to stop making excuses for Joe Lieberman. Harry Reid has shown great leadership in writing a health care bill that includes the public option. But Joe Lieberman is not "with us" on everything but the war. Joe Lieberman's position is against Senate Democrats, against his constituents in Connecticut and against the will of the American public. Tell the Senate Democratic leadership to stop putting up with Lieberman's antics. Actions must have consequences. Any senator who filibusters the public option does not deserve a chairmanship and should be removed from his or her post. Click here to add your name to the petition. Thank you for working to secure real health care reform. Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager CREDO Action from Working Assets ? ? ? ? URGENT: Tell Rep. Pomeroy to support a robust public option?? :) Urgent: A robust public option is on the line. Call your Rep. today: 202-225-2611 Tell Rep. Pomeroy to support a robust, "Medicare plus five percent" public option: 202-225-2611. We are at a very important crossroad in the fight for a public health insurance option. According to multiple news sources, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is on the cusp of deciding what type of public health insurance option to include in the bill she will bring to the floor of the House. Our allies on Capitol Hill have told us that the decision will most likely be made in the next few days. Approximately two hundred Democrats have said they will support the version of the public option supported by the Progressive Caucus, which would reimburse doctors at Medicare rates plus five percent. If fifteen House Democrats come out in favor of that version ? called a "robust" or "Medicare plus five percent" public option ? it's likely to make it into the bill. Otherwise, we might see a considerably weaker version of the public option passed by the House. Your member of Congress, Rep. Pomeroy is, according to our sources, one of the Democratic Representatives who have said that they will NOT support a strong public option. It's vital that you call him today and tell him to support a robust, "Medicare plus five percent" public option. You are represented by Rep. Earl Pomeroy whose number is: 202-225-2611. If a robust public option makes it into the House bill, it will provide a strong counter-weight to the Senate bill, which is expected to have a much weaker version of the public option. The House and Senate bills will be combined into one bill that makes it to the president's desk, so the stronger the House bill, the better the chance that the final bill sent to President Obama will contain strong public option provisions. We can win this fight, but the clock is ticking. Speaker Pelosi will reportedly make her decision in the next few days. So we need you to call Rep. Pomeroy today. Thank you for working to secure real health care reform. Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager CREDO Action from Working Assets P.S. If you want more background about this issue, you can read this good summary at the blog OpenLeft. http://www.openleft.com/diary/15717/house-still-short-for-medicare-5-but-within-striking-distance Did you know CREDO has a Facebook page? Click here to check it out! ? 2009 CREDO. All rights reserved. Get action alerts on your mobile phone! Click here to join CREDO Mobile Action; we'll text you on important issues when your voice is urgently needed in Congress. from CREDO / Working Assets http://www.credoaction.com/ ? ? Also, no trigger, because, in fact, triggers usually don't get pulled.? As well, please, advocate for singlepayer healthcare, with Community First Choice Option and CLASS Act (Community Choice Act for the handicapped, elderly, autistic, disabled, etc.); H.R. 676 & S. 703, are the best of the lot, so far; i.m.h.o.. Related group and actions?? :) http://www.singlepayeraction.org//join.html ? From tchilds at resist.ca Wed Nov 4 22:59:26 2009 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:59:26 +0000 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Rep_Dennis_Kucinich_blasts_=91Operation_Ca?= =?windows-1252?q?st_Doubt=92_=7C_P_U_L_S_E?= Message-ID: <1561826298-1257400757-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1874583205-@bda699.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> http://pulsemedia.org/2009/11/04/rep-dennis-kucinich-blasts-operation-cast-doubt/ Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Nov 5 03:18:59 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 19:18:59 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] How to rebuild the global financial system Message-ID: <20091105191859.78cfb327.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> And save the planet by Benjamin Fulford benjaminfulford.com (undated) With a brand new financial system built from scratch, it would be possible to end world poverty and stop environmental destruction within a month. The reason is simple, we have been blinded from reality by a hypnotic pyramid scheme known as the world financial system. The financial system is nothing more than the process of deciding what humanity will do in the future. In other words, it is fundamentally nothing more than mass psychology. Thus, if humanity changed their collective psychology about how to run the planet, it could decide, within a few days, to care for the poor and stop destroying nature. It is simply a matter of making the collective decision to do so. That is all. Before offering one example of how a new system could function, let us look at what exists now. For a long time certain privately owned central banks, most notoriously the Federal Reserve Board and the Bank of England, have been turning this planet into a hellish slave pyramid. At the bottom are poor innocent creatures being burned to death by starving third world farmers moving on from depleted soil to find fresh farm land to feed their hungry children. The innocent creatures have no value because the global financial system considers them worth zero unless they are turned into "products". Thus the poor of the world pass what little income they are able to glean from the destroyed rain-forest up to the next step of the pyramid. That would be small time merchants who peddle mostly goods made in faraway lands for a teeny profit. And so the up the pyramid we go, past bribed leaders who sell their countries natural resources for a pittance and ignore environmental protection rules in exchange for huge bribes. If they try to stand up for their people and ask for a fair price, the Western peoples are fooled with a fake story into supporting a "war" against an "evil dictator". Further up the pyramid we find the brainwashed populations of the Western world who support endless wars because they have been fooled into thinking it is for "human rights" and to spread "democracy". They mostly live lives of meaningless hedonism enabled by the tribute payments they have been receiving from the poorest countries. Both their education systems and their media have been subverted so long ago that they rarely wake up to the fact they have been brainwashed all their lives. If they do, they are "taken care of". Next up we find the pigs of the system. These are the ultra-rich who know the true masters are the hyper-rich who make their money by printing paper. Although many of them actually make real things and thus contribute to humanity, they go along with this con-job because they are both bribed and scared of being killed by hired goons. Now let us look at how the fiat money system controlled by the hyper-rich works. What they do is create money out of nothing, usually as digits in a computer. They then "lend" this money to the people who have to pay it back with "interest". The end result is an upwards flow of tribute to an elite few at the top in exchange for nothing. Up the pyramid goes real stuff, down the pyramid goes paper worth "nothing". On a smaller scale this sort of thing is known as a pyramid scheme. On a global scale it is still a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes end when they run out of new people ready to join the bottom of the pyramid. The global pyramid scheme is ending because we are running out of nature to destroy and people to oppress. The situation is so dire that ninety percent of the world's savings are going to feed a hungry Anglo-American Israeli military machine that is being used to suppress the people of the planet. As they say, you can't squeeze blood from a rock so, the situation now has come to the point where the pyramid is collapsing. What we need to do now is to rebuild the global financial system from scratch. One approach would be to stop the digital printing presses and give people in bankrupt America/England and Israel et cetera enough cash for a month or so to tide them over until the new system was built. We would then need to do an inventory of the planet earth. It would assign value to everything on the planet, forests, oceans, people et cetera. Any money in the old system that could be connected to real things like land and factories, would remain in the hands of its previous owners. Any money that was made from "nothing" would be reassigned to the forests, oceans and poor peoples of the world. The next step would be to gather all the wisest people to come up with the details of a better way of navigating into the future. This would involve creating a harmonious balance between nature, markets and people. The end result should be that humanity as a whole creates more life and wealth than it destroys. In other words never again must humanity become an engine of destruction. Humanity can then go out into the universe creating new gardens of Eden everywhere. http://benjaminfulford.com/howtorebuild.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 Thu Nov 5 04:45:57 2009 From: barmy_basket at yahoo.es (peripatetic) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:45:57 +0100 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] How to rebuild the global financial system In-Reply-To: <20091105191859.78cfb327.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <20091105191859.78cfb327.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: <4AF2BAF5.1000100@yahoo.es> Look! There is a pie in the sky! How about getting real? Bill Totten wrote: > And save the planet > > by Benjamin Fulford > > benjaminfulford.com (undated) > > > From intnsred at golgotha.net Thu Nov 5 08:58:44 2009 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 10:58:44 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Why boys are turning into girls Message-ID: <200911051058.44576.intnsred@golgotha.net> Why boys are turning into girls Gender-bending chemicals are largely exempt from new EU regulations, warns Geoffrey Lean. Here's something rather rotten from the State of Denmark. Its government yesterday unveiled official research showing that two-year-old children are at risk from a bewildering array of gender-bending chemicals in such everyday items as waterproof clothes, rubber boots, bed linen, food, nappies, sunscreen lotion and moisturising cream. The 326-page report, published by the environment protection agency, is the latest piece in an increasingly alarming jigsaw. A picture is emerging of ubiquitous chemical contamination driving down sperm counts and feminising male children all over the developed world. And anti-pollution measures and regulations are falling far short of getting to grips with it. Sperm counts are falling so fast that young men are less fertile than their fathers and produce only a third as much, proportionately, as hamsters. And gender-bending chemicals are increasingly being blamed for the mystery of the "lost boys": babies who should normally be male who have been born as girls instead. The Danish government set out to find out how much contamination from gender-bending chemicals a two-year-old child was exposed to every day. It concluded that a child could be "at critical risk" from just a few exposures to high levels of the substances, such as from rubber clogs, and imperilled by the amount it absorbed from sources ranging from food to sunscreens. The results build on earlier studies showing that British children have higher levels of gender-bending chemicals in their blood than their parents or grandparents. Indeed WWF (formerly the World Wildlife Fund), which commissioned the older research, warned that the chemicals were so widespread that "there is very little, if anything, individuals can do to prevent contamination of themselves and their families." Prominent among them are dioxins, PVC, flame retardants, phthalates (extensively used to soften plastics) and the now largely banned PCBs, one and a half million tons of which were used in countless products from paints to electrical equipment. Young boys, like those in the Danish study, could end up producing less sperm and developing feminised behaviour. Research at Rotterdam's Erasmus University found that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs and dioxins were more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes. And it is in the womb that babies are most vulnerable; a study of umbilical cords from British mothers found that every one contained hazardous chemicals. Scientists at the University of Rochester in New York discovered that boys born to women exposed to phthalates had smaller penises and other feminisation of the genitals. The contamination may also offer a clue to a mysterious shift in the sex of babies. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict. But the proportion of females is rising, so much so that some 250,000 babies who statistically should have been boys have ended up as girls in Japan and the United States alone. In Britain, the discrepancy amounts to thousands of babies a year. A Canadian Indian community living on ancestral lands at the eastern tip of Lake Huron, hemmed in by one of the biggest agglomerations of chemical factories on earth, gives birth to twice as many girls as boys. It's the same around Seveso in Italy, contaminated with dioxins from a notorious accident in the 1970s, and among Russian pesticide workers. And there's more evidence from places as far apart as Israel and Taiwan, Brazil and the Arctic. Yet gender-benders are largely exempt from new EU regulations controlling hazardous chemicals. Britain, then under Tony Blair's premiership, was largely responsible for this ? restricting their inclusion in the first draft of the legislation, and then causing even what was included to be watered down.Confidential documents show that it did so after pressure from George W Bush's administration, which protested that US exports "could be impacted". Now the Danish government is planning to lobby to have the rules toughened up. It is particularly concerned by other studies which show that gender-bending chemicals acting together have far worse effects than the expected sum of their individual impacts. It wants this to be reflected in the regulations, citing its discovery of the many sources to which the two-year-olds are exposed ? modern slings and arrows, as it were, of outrageous fortune. -- "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." -- Karl Marx From suzannedk at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 14:29:48 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 22:29:48 +0100 Subject: [R-G] Afghanistan Just Got Messier In-Reply-To: <83904d240911041330lc67381kd41d6037b277d7e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <83904d240911041330lc67381kd41d6037b277d7e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, it is wonderful what Abdullah did. Karsai and the U.S. need dressing down amd Abdullah did it. suzannedk at gmail.com On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > http://www.progressive.org/wx110209.html > > The > Progressive > November 2, 2009 > > *Afghanistan Just Got Messier* > > By Matthew Rothschild > > The mess that is Afghanistan just got messier for Washington. > > Abdullah?s withdrawal from the presidential runoff leaves Hamid Karzai in > power but without legitimacy. > > He?s widely perceived to have rigged the last election, and Abdullah took > himself out, he says, because he couldn?t be assured that Kazai wouldn?t do > it again. > > And then they cancelled the election with only Karzai in it, citing > security > and cost reasons. But maybe they didn?t want to deal with the embarrassment > of Karzai running unopposed, or the even deeper humiliation of a tiny > turnout. > > As a result, though, Karzai has become further delegitimized. > > He was already in the soup. People in Afghanistan recognize that he?s > corrupt. And Malalai Joya, the outspoken feminist who was booted from > parliament, has been denouncing him for years now for surrounding himself > with drug lords and warlords and war criminals. Even his own brother is > involved in the drug trade. > > In Afghanistan, Joya says, Karzai is seen, correctly, as a Washington > stooge. And we?re seen there, correctly, as an occupying power. > > We?ve been down this road before. > > In Vietnam, the United States propped up one illegitimate leader after > another, but that didn?t help the war effort at all. It only further > alienated the people of Vietnam. > > We?re seeing the same thing happening in Afghanistan right now. > > Karzai is our guy in Kabul, but that?s about it. Many if not most people in > Afghanistan disdain him. And the more he plays ball with Washington, the > less support he has at home. > > The United States can?t defeat an insurgency by backing an illegitimate > government. > > And the United States can?t defeat an insurgency when the American people > are already opposed to the war. > > Obama needs to realize all this, reverse course, and head for the exits, > before he makes matters even worse. > _______________________________________________ > 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 gmail.com Thu Nov 5 16:34:28 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:34:28 -0800 Subject: [R-G] We only have months, not years, to save civilisation from climate change Message-ID: <83904d240911051534x4fd015e6m76f64524e920448c@mail.gmail.com> http://snipurl.com/t1nor The Guardian 3 November 2009 *We only have months, not years, to save civilisation from climate change International agreements take too long, we need a swift mobilisation not seen since the second world war * Lester Brown For those concerned about global warming, all eyes are on December's UN climate change conference in Copenhagen. The stakes could not be higher. Almost every new report shows that the climate is changing even faster than the most dire projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their 2007 report. Yet from my vantage point, internationally negotiated climate agreements are fast becoming obsolete for two reasons. First, since no government wants to concede too much compared with other governments, the negotiated goals for cutting carbon emissions will almost certainly be minimalist, not remotely approaching the bold cuts that are needed. And second, since it takes years to negotiate and ratify these agreements, we may simply run out of time. This is not to say that we should not participate in the negotiations and work hard to get the best possible result. But we should not rely on these agreements to save civilisation. Saving civilisation is going to require an enormous effort to cut carbon emissions. The good news is that we can do this with current technologies, which I detail in my book, Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization . Plan B aims to stabilise climate, stabilise population, eradicate poverty, and restore the economy's natural support systems. It prescribes a worldwide cut in net carbon emissions of 80% by 2020, thus keeping atmospheric CO2 concentrations from exceeding 400 parts per million (ppm) in an attempt to hold temperature rise to a minimum. The eventual plan would be to return concentrations to 350 ppm, as agreed by the top US climate scientist at Nasa, James Hansen, and Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC. In setting this goal we did not ask what would be politically popular, but rather what it would take to have a decent shot at saving the Greenland ice sheet and at least the larger glaciers in the mountains of Asia. By default, this is a question of food security for us all. Fortunately for us, renewable energyis expanding at a rate and on a scale that we could not have imagined even a year ago. In the United States, a powerful grassroots movement opposing new coal-fired power plantshas led to a de facto moratorium on their construction. This movement was not directly concerned with international negotiations. At no point did the leaders of this movement say that they wanted to ban new coal-fired power plants only if Europe does, if China does, or if the rest of the world does. They moved ahead unilaterally knowing that if the United States does not quickly cut carbon emissions, the world will be in trouble. For clean and abundant wind power, the US state of Texas (long the country's leading oil producer) now has 8,000MW of wind generating capacity in operation, 1,000MW under construction, and a huge amount in development that together will give it more than 50,000MWof wind generating capacity (think 50 coal-fired power plants). This will more than satisfy the residential needs of the state's 24 million people. And though many are quick to point a finger at China for building a new coal-fired power plant every week or so, it is working on six wind farm mega-complexeswith a total generating capacity of 105,000 megawatts. This is in addition to the many average-sized wind farms already in operation and under construction. Solar is now the fastest growing source of energy. A consortium of European corporations and investment banks has announced a proposal to develop a massive amount of solar thermal generating capacity in north Africa, much of it for export to Europe. In total, it could economically supply half of Europe's electricity. We could cite many more examples. The main point is that the energy transition from fossil fuels to renewables is moving much faster than most people realise, and it can be accelerated. The challenge is how to do it quickly. The answer is a wartime mobilisation, not unlike the US effort on the country's entry into the second world war, when it restructured its industrial economy not in a matter of decades or years, but in a matter of months. We don't know exactly how much time remains for such an effort, but we do know that time is running out. Nature is the timekeeper but we cannot see the clock. ? Lester R Brown is president of Earth Policy Instituteand author of Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization. In 1974, with support of a $500,000 grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Brown founded the Worldwatch Institute From shniad at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 16:39:01 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:39:01 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Today's economy: U.S. citizens are joining immigrants in store parking lots Message-ID: <83904d240911051539w55a7d874x36a467ac89faaa06@mail.gmail.com> http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/nov/02/new-faces-day-labor/ Las Vegas Sun November 2, 2009 *The new faces of day labor U.S. citizens are joining immigrants in store parking lots * "The point is, do we really want a labor market with day labor work as a career path? It's more a commentary on the economy right now," By Timothy Pratt It sounds like a George Lopez joke. "Times are so bad that I saw an Anglo day laborer standing outside Home Depot the other day." Except it's true. In the latest sign of the Las Vegas Valley's economic free fall, U.S. citizens are starting to show up in the early mornings outside home improvement stores and plant nurseries across the Las Vegas Valley, jostling with illegal immigrants for a shot at a few hours of work. Experts say the slow-starting but seemingly inexorable trend is occurring nationwide. "It's the equivalent of selling apples in the Great Depression," said Harley Shaiken, chairman of the Center for Latin American studies at the University of California, Berkeley. But it is not only a sign of the times, they add. If the numbers of citizens among the day laborers in cities across the country continue to grow, it's likely to increase the ire of followers of TV host Lou Dobbs and others who will see illegal immigrants as stealing food off the tables of the nation's native-born or naturalized poor. Or, it may flip certain canards upside down in the immigration debate, easing tensions in some communities. In the Las Vegas Valley, where the most recent unemployment rate was 13.9 percent, one face of this phenomenon is Ken Buchanan. The 50-year-old describes himself as a "food and beverage" guy, most recently working for four years at Renata's Sunset Lanes casino and, before that, 30 years in a string of restaurants, hotels and casinos here and in his birthplace, Chicago. But in 2006 Renata's closed for remodeling. When the casino reopened as Wildfire, the management did not rehire Buchanan, he said. In the months that followed, Buchanan discovered the difficulty of seeking work in his fifth decade, eventually winding up at Green Valley Car Wash, where he stayed for about two years, he said. The banks foreclosed on the house he was renting. In the attempt to grab his things two steps ahead of the constable, he wound up missing work. He lost his job. He became homeless. A Hispanic man Buchanan met in Renata's sports book told him he had picked up work standing outside the Home Depot on Pecos Road at Patrick Lane. One July day, Buchanan gave it a try. At first, he got nothing but sunburn. But then he started to get work. Now he's at the Home Depot six days most weeks. Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said he has been seeing the same thing elsewhere. "It's happening, though still not in massive numbers," Alvarado said. In the past six months or so, he has heard of "americanos" on the street corners and parking lots of Silver Spring, Md., Long Island, N.Y., and Southern California locations. "It's just beginning," he said. "But I think it's only going to increase." A recent morning's swing through the valley produced reports of the same phenomenon. At Star Nursery on Cheyenne Road west of Tenaya Way, Nicolas stood shivering under a hooded sweatshirt, hoping a car or pickup would stop. The Mexican immigrant said he had seen a couple of "white guys" showing up recently, though not on the blustery cold days last week. At Home Depot on Decatur Boulevard north of Tropicana Avenue, Jose said the same thing, adding that "it's never more than three or four, but they're coming out." Farther south, in front of Moon Valley Nursery on Eastern Avenue, Israel said a couple of "americanos" - white and black, he added - have come out for work in recent months. "But they tend to stay only a few days." As a salesman at Moon Valley, Mike Fugitt's job includes making sure the laborers don't come into the nursery's parking lot, because their presence draws complaints from some customers. In the past three months or so, he said, more of those laborers have been telling him, "But I'm an American." That includes some Hispanics, he added. "But I treat them all the same; they can't be trespassing," he said. Workers at all the sites said the presence of the americanos hasn't made work scarcer or produced any conflict. Some suggested that people hiring day laborers prefer Hispanics anyway, because of their reputation as hard workers. Shaiken said shaking up the mix at day labor sites may eventually produce conflict in the greater society. "It essentially shreds the argument that Americans don't want certain jobs," he said. In the current economy, he added, "we're almost sure to see die-hard opponents of illegal immigrants seize on the fact that we have legal workers in day labor markets," heating an already-inflamed debate. In the longer term, it may also lead to a more rigorous analysis of future labor markets, including revised estimates of how many immigrants would be needed under a guest worker program, as proposed in recent congressional bills. At the same time, Shaiken said, the issue won't become central to the debate before Congress over what is known as comprehensive reform, including a pathway for legalizing millions of workers. "The point is, do we really want a labor market with day labor work as a career path? It's more a commentary on the economy right now," he said. Although Alvarado allowed that the change in day labor sites was an undeniable sign of the withering economy, he also sees a "beautiful irony" in U.S. citizens seeking work as day laborers. That's because his organization has defended the free-speech rights of day laborers in at least 10 court cases over more than a decade. Up to now, courts have ruled in favor of the laborers. "We always knew (these cases) would be useful not only for immigrants, but also for U.S. citizens," Alvarado said. "We knew there would be a time when the economy would reach this point, and they also would be looking for work this way." Buchanan likes to wear a Cubs or White Sox cap as a sign of his Chicago heritage when he stands with one or two Hispanic laborers about 20 yards south of a larger crowd. He said he has gone through an education of sorts in the past four months. He has always worked around Hispanics in restaurants, hotels and casinos, but now he understands the issue of immigration from up close. His sojourn got off to a rocky start. On one of his first days on the street outside Home Depot, another laborer told him he should move along because too many people were at the spot. "I told him, 'I'm an American citizen and you're trying to push me off American soil?'?" The man walked away, and Buchanan says he hasn't had another problem with his competitors since. Instead, Buchanan has found himself defending the rights of his fellow laborers on more than one occasion. One day, a man tried to hire a bunch of them for $5 an hour. Again, Buchanan pulled out the "citizen card." But this time, he was telling the other person that he, a U.S. citizen, knew about minimum wage laws, and was going to make sure those laws were followed. "I said, 'You want me to write down your license plate number?'?" Buchanan recalled. The guy drove away. Now, he said, "I get along with everybody here." He stands in a smaller group because he thinks that helps to get work. He reads the daily tea leaves of the trade, like the end of the month being a good time for moving jobs, because many people are moving in or out. His best week so far: $140. His longest stint without work: the first two weeks, "until I learned to be more aggressive." Antonio Bernabe, day labor organizer for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, said the appearance of more and more U.S. citizens seeking day labor work on corners and in parking lots poses new challenges for organizations such as his. In recent months, he said, he has found himself explaining to a whole new group the legal rights of workers, as well as approaching local authorities to discuss the entry of new people into what he called "the world of day labor." That group includes blacks and Asians, he said. Another difference is that now he's giving those explanations to laborers in English. Bernabe said organizers came across one case where a local sheriff had been sending officers to answer complaints about day laborers and then found one day that the sheriff's neighbor, a citizen, was among them. Police in that area have been less likely to harass laborers since then, he said. These events will occur more, changing people's attitudes in the process, he said. "For a long time, people have looked at day laborers and said, 'The problem is the immigrants.' Now the economy is changing. Now people may see it's a problem of the labor market, of the rights of workers," Bernabe said. Buchanan, meanwhile, looks forward to a future that includes a steady job and an apartment. "I'm trying to dig my way out of this," he said. When he does, however, he sees himself as a changed man. "Before, I was part of the majority. Now I'm part of the minority ... I'm not going to forget this. I'm not going to forget any of this." From shniad at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 16:41:59 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:41:59 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Justice Goldstone and the Jews Message-ID: <83904d240911051541t4a7c4582n34b18e6c86e01fae@mail.gmail.com> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-judt/justice-goldstone-and-the_b_339077.html *Justice Goldstone and the Jews* TONY JUDT, October 30, 2009 We Jews should be very proud of Richard Goldstone. In an ancient tradition of Jewish self-questioning and uncomfortable truth-telling, the author of the recent report from the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict has braved personal vilification and institutional mendacity to describe the crimes committed by Israeli forces in the course of their invasion of Gaza in December 2008. To be sure, the Goldstone Report also itemizes the crimes of Hamas, notably in its campaign of rocket-firing into Israel. But the scale of human rights abuses by Israel vastly outdoes anything Hamas could hope to have achieved: Israeli civilian victims of Hamas rocket attacks numbered less than ten. The attack on Gaza by the IDF resulted in at least 1,100 Palestinian civilian deaths. The major perpetrator of human rights abuses in this conflict is without question the State of Israel, and Justice Goldstone records as much. That the Israel of Benjamin Netanyahu has chosen to conduct an international campaign against Justice Goldstone and his report need not surprise us. Israel refused to cooperate with the UN investigation; long before its conclusions were published, Netanyahu had set in motion a campaign to deny and denigrate them. More dispiriting, and of greater political consequence, is the pitiful and humiliating response of the Obama Administration. The "fierce urgency of now" apparently required that Washington join Tel Aviv in discrediting the Goldstone Report, and with it the UN inquiry. This response is of course in keeping with America's long-standing determination to protect Israel against the consequences of its actions at home and abroad; but the universal international condemnation of the destruction of Gaza renders the Obama Administration's response peculiarly self-defeating -- everyone knows what happened in Gaza, so Washington's collusion in covering it up merely draws further attention to the discrediting of U.S. foreign policy and moral standing brought about by our unhealthy relationship with Israel. There is a special irony to the public slandering of Justice Goldstone now under way. In the first place he is not only Jewish but has close family links to Israel and the Zionist ideal. Secondly, Richard Goldstone has an impeccable resum? as a critic of racism, prejudice and repression -- most notably as an active opponent for many years of the apartheid regime in his native South Africa. During the '90s he served as Chief Prosecutor at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals dealing with human rights abuses, crimes and genocide in the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. It would be hard to fictionalize a more convincing biography for an engaged and ethically uncompromising jurist in the great tradition of Jewish political activism. Goldstone's standing in the world will only rise as a consequence of Israel's short-sighted attempts to discredit the man, the report and the facts. That our own government has chosen to join in this unworthy exercise should be a source of deep embarrassment and shame. Please join me and Jews from all over the world in signing the Jewish Appeal Letter in Support of the Goldstone Report written by Jews Say No an organization in NY. Go to: http://www.petitiononline.com/UNreport/petition.html Tony Judt is the author or editor of thirteen books, most recently Reappraisals: Reflections on the Forgotten Twentieth Century. Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-judt/justice-goldstone-and-the_b_339077.html From shniad at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 16:54:06 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:54:06 -0800 Subject: [R-G] All of Obama's Afghan Options Are Bad Ones Message-ID: <83904d240911051554r5d60d2b2oe8bda1ba618d3063@mail.gmail.com> http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175133/afghanistan_as_a_bailout_state *Too Big to Fail? * *Every option Obama is considering has the word "more" (as in the Vietnam-era term "escalation") attached to it. There isn't a "less" (a de-escalation) option in sight. Withdrawal of any sort has, so press reports tell us, been officially taken off the table.* By Tom Engelhardt Tomgram: November 1, 2009 In the worst of times, my father always used to say, "A good gambler cuts his losses." It's a formulation imprinted on my brain forever. That no-nonsense piece of advice still seems reasonable to me, but it doesn't apply to American war policy. Our leaders evidently never saw a war to which the word "more" didn't apply. Hence the Afghan War, where impending disaster is just an invitation to fuel the flames of an already roaring fire. Here's a partial rundown of news from that devolving conflict: In the last week, Nuristan, a province on the Pakistani border, essentially fell to the Taliban after the U.S. withdrew its forces from four key bases. Similarly in Khost, another eastern province bordering Pakistan where U.S. forces once registered much-publicized gains (and which Richard Holbrooke, now President Obama's special envoy to the region, termed "an American success story"), the Taliban is largely in control. It is, according to Yochi Dreazen and Anand Gopal of the Wall Street Journal, now "one of the most dangerous provinces" in the country. Similarly, the Taliban insurgency, once largely restricted to the Pashtun south, has recently spread fiercely to the west and north. At the same time, neighboring Pakistan is an increasingly destabilized country amid war in its tribal borderlands, a terror campaign spreading throughout the country, escalating American drone attacks, and increasingly testy relations between American officials and the Pakistani government and military. Meanwhile, the U.S. command in Afghanistan is considering a strategy that involves pulling back from the countryside and focusing on protecting more heavily populated areas (which might be called, with the first U.S. Afghan War of the 1980s in mind, the Soviet strategy). The underpopulated parts of the countryside would then undoubtedly be left to Hellfire missile-armed American drone aircraft. In the last week, three U.S. helicopters -- the only practical way to get around a mountainous country with a crude, heavily mined system of roads -- went down under questionable circumstances (another potential sign of an impending Soviet-style disaster). Across the country, Taliban attacks are up; deadly roadside bombs or IEDs are fast on the rise (a 350% jump since 2007); U.S. deaths are at a record high and the numbers of wounded are rising rapidly; European allies are ever less willing to send more troops; and Taliban raids in the capital, Kabul, are on the increase. All this despite a theoretical 12-1 edge U.S., NATO, and Afghan troops have over the Taliban insurgents and their allies. In addition, our nation-building "partner," the hopeless Afghan President Hamid Karzai -- known in better times as "the mayor of Kabul" for his government's lack of reach -- was the "winner" in an election in which, it seemed, more ballot boxes were stuffed than voters arrived at the polls. In its wake, and in the name of having an effective "democratic" partner in Afghanistan, the foreigners stepped in: Senator John Kerry, Richard Holbrooke, and other envoys appeared in Kabul or made telephone calls to whisper sweet somethings in ears and twist arms. The result was a second round of voting slated for November 7th and likely only to compound the initial injury. No matter the result -- and Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai's opponent, has already withdrawn in protest from the runoff -- the winner will, once again, be the Taliban. (And let's not forget the recent New York Times revelation that the President's alleged drug-kingpin brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, whom American officials regularly and piously denounce, is, in fact, a long-term paid agent of the CIA and its literal landlord in the southern city of Kandahar. If you were a Taliban propagandist, you couldn't make this stuff up.) With the second round of elections already a preemptive disaster, and foreigners visibly involved in the process, all of this is a Taliban bonanza. The words "occupation," "puppet government," and the like undoubtedly ring ever truer in Afghan ears. You don't have to be a propaganda genius to exploit this sort of thing. In such a situation, even good imperial gamblers would normally cut their losses. Unfortunately, in Washington terms, what's happened in Afghanistan is not the definition of failure. In the economic lingo of the moment, the war now falls into the category of "too big to fail," which means upping the ante or doubling down the bet. Think of the Afghan War, in other words, as the AIG of American foreign policy. Playing with Dominos, Then and Now Have you noticed, by the way, that the worse Afghanistan gets, the more the pundits find themselves stumbling helplessly into Vietnam? Analogies to that old counterinsurgency catastrophe are now a dime a dozen. And no wonder. Even if it's obvious that Vietnam and Afghanistan, as places and historical situations, have little in common, what they do have is Washington. Our leaders, that is, seem repetitiously intent on creating analogies between the two wars. What is it about Washington and such wars? How is it that American wars conducted in places most Americans once couldn't have located on a map, and gone disastrously wrong, somehow become too big to fail? Why is it that, facing such wars -- whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican -- Washington's response is the bailout? As things go from bad to worse and the odds grow grimmer, our leaders, like the worst of gamblers, wager ever more. Why is it that, in obscure lands under obscure circumstances, American administrations somehow become convinced that everything -- the fate of our country, if not the planet itself -- is at stake? In Vietnam, this was expressed in the absurd "domino theory": if Vietnam fell, Thailand, Burma, India, and finally California would follow like so many toppling dominos. Now, Afghanistan has become the First Domino of our era, and the rest of the falling dominos in the twenty-first century are, of course, the terrorist attacks to come, once an emboldened al-Qaeda has its "safe haven" and its triumph in the backlands of that country. In other words, first Afghanistan, then Pakistan, then a mushroom cloud over an American city. In both the Vietnam era and today, Washington has also been mesmerized by that supposedly key currency of international stature, "credibility." To employ a strategy of "less," to begin to cut our losses and pull out of Afghanistan would -- they know with a certainty that passeth belief -- simply embolden the terrorist (in the Vietnam era, communist) enemy. It would be a victory for al-Qaeda's future Islamic caliphate (as it once would have been for communist global domination). By now, the urge to bail out Afghanistan, instead of bailing out of the place, has visibly become a compulsion, even for a foreign policy team that should know better, a team that is actually reading a book about how the Vietnam disaster happened. Unfortunately, the citizenry can't take the obvious first step and check that team, with all its attendant generals and plenipotentiaries, into some LBJ or George W. Bush Rehabilitation Center; nor is there a 12-step detox program to recommend to Washington's war addicts. And the "just say no" approach, not exactly a career enhancer, has been used so far by but a single, upright foreign service officer, Matthew P. Hoh, who sent a resignation letter as senior civilian representative in Zabul Province to the State Department in September. ("To put [it] simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures or resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war... The United States military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency. In a like manner our backing of the Afghan government in its current form continues to distance the government from the people.") More or Less More? In this context, despite all the media drama -- Is Obama "dithering" or not? Will he or won't he follow the advice of his generals? -- we already know one thing about the president's upcoming Afghan War decision with a painful degree of certainty: it will involve more, not less. It will up the ante, not cut our losses. As the New York Times put it recently, "[T]he debate [within the administration] is no longer over whether to send more troops, but how many more will be needed." In other words, we know that, in response to a war everyone on all sides of the Afghan debate in the U.S. now agrees is little short of disastrous, he will, in some fashion, feed the flames. Admittedly, President Obama himself has offered few indications of what exactly he plans to do (if he even knows). It's now being said, however, that, at the end of a highly publicized set of brainstorming sessions with his vice president, top advisors, generals, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congressional representatives, and cabinet officers, he may (or may not) announce a decision before he sets out for Tokyo on November 11th. Nonetheless, thanks to an endless series of high-level Washington leaks and whispers, beginning more than a month ago with the leaking to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward of Afghan War commander Stanley McChrystal's report to the president, we do know this: Every option Obama is considering has the word "more" (as in the Vietnam-era term "escalation") attached to it. There isn't a "less" (a de-escalation) option in sight. Withdrawal of any sort has, so press reports tell us, been officially taken off the table. The most publicity has gone, of course, to the "counterinsurgency" or COIN option put forward by General McChrystal and clearly backed by George W. Bush's favorite Iraqi "surge" general and present Centcom commander, David Petraeus. According to this option, the president would significantly increase the number of American boots on the ground to "protect" the Afghan people. The actual numbers of extra troops urged on Obama have undergone a strange process of growth-by-leak over the last weeks. Initially, as the New York Times reported, the general was supposedly recommending three possibilities: a low figure of 10,000-15,000 ("a high-risk option"), an in-between figure of 25,000 ("a medium-risk option"), and a top figure of 45,000 ("a low-risk option"). More recently, it's been suggested that McChrystal's three choices are: 10,000, 40,000, and 80,000 (or even possibly 44,000 and 85,000) -- his preference, for now, reportedly being 40,000. These new American troops would, of course, be over and above the approximately 70,000 already slated to be in-country by the end of 2009, more than a doubling of the force in place when the Obama administration came into office. The striking increase to almost 70,000 has, so far, led to a more intense but less successful war effort. In a recent grimly comic episode, a meeting of NATO defense ministers put its stamp of approval on General McChrystal's robust COIN option -- despite the fact that their governments seem unwilling to offer any extra soldiers in support of such an American surge. (The only exception so far has been British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who agreed to send a paltry 500 more troops -- with hedges and escape clauses at that.) Beyond General McChrystal's ultimate "more" option, at least three other options are reportedly being considered, all representing "less"; think of these as "less more" options. They include: *An option to significantly bulk up the training of the Afghan army and police force, so that we might hand our war off to them ASAP. This is, in reality, another "more" option, since thousands of new U.S. trainers and advisors would be needed. It has reportedly been favored by Senator Carl Levin and other Democrats in Congress fearful of major Vietnam-style troop escalations and the ensuing fallout at home. *An option to leave troops numbers in Afghanistan roughly at their present level and focus not on counterinsurgency, but on what's being called "counterterrorism-plus." This, in practical terms, means upping the use of U.S. drone aircraft and Special Forces teams, while focusing less on the Taliban in the Afghan countryside and more on taking out al-Qaeda and possibly Taliban operatives in the Pakistani tribal border regions. This option is said to be favored by Vice President Joe Biden, who also reportedly fears (perfectly reasonably) that a larger American "footprint" in Afghanistan might only turn Afghans even more strongly against a foreign occupation. This option is, in turn, often discussed by the U.S. media as if it were a de-escalatory approach and the next thing to an antiwar position. It, too, however, represents more. *An option recently put forward by John Kerry, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for what Jim Lobe of Interpress Service has termed "counterinsurgency lite." This would, according to the senator, involve more training of Afghan troops and the commitment of perhaps 10,000-15,000 additional American troops immediately. (In his typical way, however, Kerry managed to stop short of mentioning actual numbers.) Meanwhile, we would wait for other factors considered crucial for a successful counterinsurgency campaign to kick in: "enough reliable Afghan forces to partner with American troops," "local leaders we can partner with," and "the civilian side ready to follow swiftly with development aid that brings tangible benefits to the local population." Wielding a classic image of imperial control, the senator claims to want to put an "Afghan face" on the Afghan War -- that is, though no one ever says this, an Afghan mask over the American war. (Since the crucial factors he lays out for a successful counterinsurgency campaign are never likely to come into being, his, too, is a "less more"-style option.) Quagmires, Then and Now It's quite possible, of course, that the president will choose a "hybrid strategy,", mixing and matching from this list. He might, for instance, up drone attacks in Pakistan, raise troop levels "modestly" ? la Kerry, and send in more U.S. trainers and advisors -- a package that would surely be presented as part of a plan to pave the way for our future departure. All we do know, based on the last year, is that "more" in whatever form is likely to prove a nightmare, and yet anything less than escalation of some sort is not in the cards. No one in Washington is truly going to cut U.S. losses anytime soon. In the Vietnam era, there was a shorthand word for this: "quagmire." We were, as the antiwar song then went, "waist deep in the Big Muddy" and still wading in. If Vietnam was, in fact, a quagmire, however, it was so only because we made it so. Similarly, in changed circumstances, Afghanistan today has become the AIG of American foreign policy and Obama's team so many foreign policy equivalents of Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. And as with the economy, so with the expanding Af/Pak war: at the end of the day, it's the American taxpayer who will be left holding the bag. Let's think about what this means for a moment: According to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, the cost of keeping a single American soldier in Afghanistan is $1.3 million per year. According to Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post, it costs the Pentagon about $1 billion per year to station 1,000 U.S. troops in that country. It's fair to assume that this estimate doesn't include, among other things, long-term care for wounded soldiers or the cost of replacing destroyed or overused equipment. Nor do these figures include any civilian funds being spent on the war effort via the State Department, nor undoubtedly the funds being spent by the Pentagon to upgrade bases and facilities throughout the country. In other words, just about any decision by the president, including one simply focused on training Afghan soldiers and police, will involve an outlay of further multi-billions of dollars. Whatever choice the president makes, the U.S. will bleed money. Let's say that he makes the Kerry choice -- "just" perhaps 15,000 troops. That means at least $15 billion for starters. And there's no reason to believe that we're only talking a year here. The counterinsurgency types are talking 5-10 years to "turn the tide" of the insurgency. Those who are actually training the Afghan military and police, when quoted, don't believe they will be capable of taking what's called "responsibility" in a major way for years to come, if ever. Throw in domestic politics where a Democratic president invariably feels safer kicking the can down the road via escalation than being called "weak" -- though Obama is already being blasted by the right for "dithering" -- and you have about as toxic a brew as can be imagined. If the Afghan War is already too big to fail, what in the world will it be after the escalations to come? As with Vietnam, so now with Afghanistan, the thick layers of mythology and fervent prediction and projection that pass for realism in Washington make clear thinking on the war impossible. They prevent the serious consideration of any options labeled "less" or "none." They inflate projections of disaster based on withdrawal, even though similar lurid predictions during the Vietnam era proved hopelessly off-base. The United States lived through all the phases of escalation, withdrawal, and defeat in Vietnam without suffering great post-war losses of any sort. This time we may not be so lucky. The United States is itself no longer too big to fail -- and if we should do so, remind me: Who exactly will bail us out? Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the Cold War and beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. He also edited The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), an alternative history of the mad Bush years. From shniad at gmail.com Thu Nov 5 16:57:03 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:57:03 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <83904d240911051557v6308e312j555c0dffc81ef187@mail.gmail.com> Two scenarios: 1. WW2. Invading German troops are working with the local French police with the support of the corrupt Vichy Government. Thousands of French civilians have died in the invasion. One of these police officers kills five German soldiers, injures more, & then escapes. He is a hero. 2. Afghan War 2009. Invading British troops are working with the local Afghan police with the support of the corrupt Karzai Government. Thousands of Afghan civilians have died in the invasion. One of these police officers kills five British soldiers, injures more, & then escapes. He is a cowardly murderer. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Nov 5 17:37:34 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:37:34 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Six Signs That the American Empire Message-ID: <20091106093734.ed9da0bb.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Is Coming to an Early End by Michael T Klare, Tomdispatch.com AlterNet (October 27 2009) Memo to the CIA: You may not be prepared for time-travel, but welcome to 2025 anyway! Your rooms may be a little small, your ability to demand better accommodations may have gone out the window, and the amenities may not be to your taste, but get used to it. It's going to be your reality from now on. Okay, now for the serious version of the above: In November 2008, the National Intelligence Council (NIC), an affiliate of the Central Intelligence Agency, issued the latest in a series of futuristic publications intended to guide the incoming Obama administration. Peering into its analytic crystal ball in a report entitled Global Trends 2025, it predicted that America's global preeminence would gradually disappear over the next fifteen years - in conjunction with the rise of new global powerhouses, especially China and India. The report examined many facets of the future strategic environment, but its most startling, and news-making, finding concerned the projected long-term erosion of American dominance and the emergence of new global competitors. "Although the United States is likely to remain the single most powerful actor [in 2025]", it stated definitively, the country's "relative strength - even in the military realm - will decline and US leverage will become more constrained". That, of course, was then; this - some eleven months into the future - is now and how things have changed. Futuristic predictions will just have to catch up to the fast-shifting realities of the present moment. Although published after the onset of the global economic meltdown was underway, the report was written before the crisis reached its full proportions and so emphasized that the decline of American power would be gradual, extending over the assessment's fifteen-year time horizon. But the economic crisis and attendant events have radically upset that timetable. As a result of the mammoth economic losses suffered by the United States over the past year and China's stunning economic recovery, the global power shift the report predicted has accelerated. For all practical purposes, 2025 is here already. Many of the broad, down-the-road predictions made in Global Trends 2025 have, in fact, already come to pass. Brazil, Russia, India, and China - collectively known as the BRIC countries - are already playing far more assertive roles in global economic affairs, as the report predicted would happen in perhaps a decade or so. At the same time, the dominant global role once monopolized by the United States with a helping hand from the major Western industrial powers - collectively known as the Group of 7 (G-7) - has already faded away at a remarkable pace. Countries that once looked to the United States for guidance on major international issues are ignoring Washington's counsel and instead creating their own autonomous policy networks. The United States is becoming less inclined to deploy its military forces abroad as rival powers increase their own capabilities and non-state actors rely on "asymmetrical" means of attack to overcome the US advantage in conventional firepower. No one seems to be saying this out loud - yet - but let's put it bluntly: less than a year into the fifteen-year span of Global Trends 2025, the days of America's unquestioned global dominance have come to an end. It may take a decade or two (or three) before historians will be able to look back and say with assurance, "That was the moment when the United States ceased to be the planet's preeminent power and was forced to behave like another major player in a world of many competing great powers". The indications of this great transition, however, are there for those who care to look. Six Way Stations on the Road to Ordinary Nationhood Here is my list of six recent developments that indicate we are entering "2025" today. All six were in the news in the last few weeks, even if never collected in a single place. They (and other events like them) represent a pattern: the shape, in fact, of a new age in formation. 1. At the global economic summit in Pittsburgh on September 24th and 25th, the leaders of the major industrial powers, the G-7 (G-8 if you include Russia) agreed to turn over responsibility for oversight of the world economy to a larger, more inclusive Group of 20 (G-20), adding in China, India, Brazil, Turkey, and other developing nations. Although doubts have been raised about the ability of this larger group to exercise effective global leadership, there is no doubt that the move itself signaled a shift in the locus of world economic power from the West to the global East and South - and with this shift, a seismic decline in America's economic preeminence has been registered. "The G-20's true significance is not in the passing of a baton from the G-7/G-8 but from the G-1, the US", Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University wrote in the Financial Times. "Even during the 33 years of the G-7 economic forum, the US called the important economic shots". Declining American leadership over these last decades was obscured by the collapse of the Soviet Union and an early American lead in information technology, Sachs also noted, but there is now no mistaking the shifting of economic power from the United States to China and other rising economic dynamos. 2. According to news reports, America's economic rivals are conducting secret (and not-so-secret) meetings to explore a diminished role for the US dollar - fast losing its value - in international trade. Until now, the use of the dollar as the international medium of exchange has given the United States a significant economic advantage: it can simply print dollars to meet its international obligations while other nations must convert their own currencies into dollars, often incurring significant added costs. Now, however, many major trading countries - among them China, Russia, Japan, Brazil, and the Persian Gulf oil countries - are considering the use of the Euro, or a "basket" of currencies, as a new medium of exchange. If adopted, such a plan would accelerate the dollar's precipitous fall in value and further erode American clout in international economic affairs. One such discussion reportedly took place this summer at a summit meeting of the BRIC countries. Just a concept a year ago, when the very idea of BRIC was concocted by the chief economist at Goldman Sachs, the BRIC consortium became a flesh-and-blood reality this June when the leaders of the four countries held an inaugural meeting in Yekaterinburg, Russia. The very fact that Brazil, Russia, India, and China chose to meet as a group was considered significant, as they jointly possess about 43% of the world's population and are expected to account for 33% of the world's gross domestic product by 2030 - about as much as the United States and Western Europe will claim at that time. Although the BRIC leaders decided not to form a permanent body like the G-7 at this stage, they did agree to coordinate efforts to develop alternatives to the dollar and to reform the International Monetary Fund in such a way as to give non-Western countries a greater voice. 3. On the diplomatic front, Washington has been rebuffed by both Russia and China in its drive to line up support for increased international pressure on Iran to cease its nuclear enrichment program. One month after President Obama cancelled plans to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system in Eastern Europe in an apparent bid to secure Russian backing for a tougher stance toward Tehran, top Russian leaders are clearly indicating that they have no intention of endorsing strong new sanctions on Iran. "Threats, sanctions, and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive", declared the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V Lavrov, following a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Moscow on October 13th. The following day, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that the threat of sanctions was "premature". Given the political risks Obama took in canceling the missile program - a step widely condemned by Republicans in Washington - Moscow's quick dismissal of US pleas for cooperation on the Iranian enrichment matter can only be interpreted as a further sign of waning American influence. 4. Exactly the same inference can be drawn from a high-level meeting in Beijing on October 15th between Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and Iran's first vice president, Mohammed Reza Rahimi. "The Sino-Iran relationship has witnessed rapid development as the two countries' leaders have had frequent exchanges, and cooperation in trade and energy has widened and deepened", Wen said at the Great Hall of the People. Coming at a time when the United States is engaged in a vigorous diplomatic drive to persuade China and Russia, among others, to reduce their trade ties with Iran as a prelude to toughened sanctions, the Chinese statement can only be considered a pointed rebuff of Washington. 5. From Washington's point of view, efforts to secure international support for the allied war effort in Afghanistan have also met with a strikingly disappointing response. In what can only be considered a trivial and begrudging vote of support for the US-led war effort, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced on October 14th that Britain would add more troops to the British contingent in that country - but only 500 more, and only if other European nations increase their own military involvement, something he undoubtedly knows is highly unlikely. So far, this tiny, provisional contingent represents the sum total of additional troops the Obama administration has been able to pry out of America's European allies, despite a sustained diplomatic drive to bolster the combined NATO force in Afghanistan. In other words, even America's most loyal and obsequious ally in Europe no longer appears willing to carry the burden for what is widely seen as yet another costly and debilitating American military adventure in the Greater Middle East. 6. Finally, in a move of striking symbolic significance, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) passed over Chicago (as well as Madrid and Tokyo) to pick Rio de Janeiro to be the host of the 2016 summer Olympics, the first time a South American nation was selected for the honor. Until the Olympic vote took place, Chicago was considered a strong contender, especially since former Chicago resident Barack Obama personally appeared in Copenhagen to lobby the IOC. Nonetheless, in a development that shocked the world, Chicago not only lost out, but was the city eliminated in the very first round of voting. "Brazil went from a second-class country to a first-class country, and today we began to receive the respect we deserve", said Brazilian President Luiz In?cio Lula da Silva at a victory celebration in Copenhagen after the vote. "I could die now and it already would have been worth it". Few said so, but in the course of the Olympic decision-making process the US was summarily and pointedly demoted from sole superpower to instant also-ran, a symbolic moment on a planet entering a new age. On Being an Ordinary Country These are only a few examples of recent developments which indicate, to this author, that the day of America's global preeminence has already come to an end, years before the American intelligence community expected. It's increasingly clear that other powers - even our closest allies - are increasingly pursuing independent foreign policies, no matter what pressure Washington tries to bring to bear. Of course, none of this means that, for some time to come, the US won't retain the world's largest economy and, in terms of sheer destructiveness, its most potent military force. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the strategic environment in which American leaders must make critical decisions, when it comes to the nation's vital national interests, has changed dramatically since the onset of the global economic crisis. Even more important, President Obama and his senior advisers are, it seems, reluctantly beginning to reshape US foreign policy with the new global reality in mind. This appears evident, for example, in the administration's decision to revisit US strategy on Afghanistan. It was only in March, after all, that the president embraced a new counterinsurgency-oriented strategy in that country, involving a buildup of US boots on the ground and a commitment to protracted efforts to win hearts and minds in Afghan villages where the Taliban was resurgent. It was on this basis that he fired the incumbent Afghan War commander, General David D McKiernan, replacing him with General Stanley A McChrystal, considered a more vigorous proponent of counterinsurgency. When, however, McChrystal presented Obama with the price tag for the implementation of this strategy - 40,000 to 80,000 additional troops (over and above the 20,000-odd extra troops only recently committed to the fight) - many in the president's inner circle evidently blanched. Not only will such a large deployment cost the US treasury hundreds of billions of dollars it can ill afford, but the strains it is likely to place on the Army and Marine Corps are likely to be little short of unbearable after years of multiple tours and stress in Iraq. This price would be more tolerable, of course, if America's allies would take up more of the burden, but they are ever less willing to do so. Undoubtedly, the leaders of Russia and China are not entirely unhappy to see the United States exhaust its financial and military resources in Afghanistan. Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that Vice President Joe Biden, among others, is calling for a new turn in US policy, foregoing a counterinsurgency approach and opting instead for a less costly "counter-terrorism" strategy aimed, in part, at crushing Al Qaeda in Pakistan - using drone aircraft and Special Forces, rather than large numbers of US troops (while leaving troop levels in Afghanistan relatively unchanged). It is too early to predict how the president's review of US strategy in Afghanistan will play out, but the fact that he did not immediately embrace the McChrystal plan and has allowed Biden such free rein to argue his case suggests that he may be coming to recognize the folly of expanding America's military commitments abroad at a time when its global preeminence is waning. One senses Obama's caution in other recent moves. Although he continues to insist that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is impermissible and that the use of force to prevent this remains an option, he has clearly moved to minimize the likelihood that this option - which would also be plagued by recalcitrant "allies" - will ever be employed. On the other side of the coin, he has given fresh life to American diplomacy, seeking improved ties with Moscow and approving renewed diplomatic contact with such previously pariah states as Burma, Sudan, and Syria. This, too, reflects a reality of our changing world: that the holier-than-thou, bullying stance adopted by the Bush administration toward these and other countries for almost eight years rarely achieved anything. Think of it as an implicit acknowledgement that the US is now descending from its status as the globe's "sole superpower" to that of an ordinary country. This, after all, is what ordinary countries do; they engage other countries in diplomatic discourse, whether they like their current governments or not. So, welcome to the world of 2025. It doesn't look like the world of our recent past, when the United States stood head and shoulders above all other nations in stature, and it doesn't comport well with Washington's fantasies of global power since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. But it is reality. For many Americans, the loss of that preeminence may be a source of discomfort, or even despair. On the other hand, don't forget the advantages to being an ordinary country like any other country: Nobody expects Canada, or France, or Italy to send another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, on top of the 68,000 already there and the 120,000 still in Iraq. Nor does anyone expect those countries to spend $925 billion in taxpayer money to do so - the current estimated cost of both wars, according to the National Priorities Project. The question remains: How much longer will Washington feel that Americans can afford to subsidize a global role that includes garrisoning much of the planet and fighting distant wars in the name of global security, when the American economy is losing so much ground to its competitors? This is the dilemma President Obama and his advisers must confront in the altered world of 2025. _____ Michael T Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and author of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy (2009). A documentary film version of his previous book, Blood and Oil, is available from the Media Education Foundation at Bloodandoilmovie.com. (c) 2009 Tomdispatch.com All rights reserved. http://www.alternet.org/story/143514/ 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 mstainsby at resist.ca Thu Nov 5 17:38:31 2009 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:38:31 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Impacts of Pew Funding: What others are saying Message-ID: <4AF37007.3050305@resist.ca> Impacts of Pew Funding What others are saying from "Offsetting Resistance: The effects of foundation funding from the Great Bear Rainforest to the Athabasca River", a special report by Dru Oja Jay and Macdonald Stainsby. Released September, 2009. ?The Western Canada Wilderness Committee ended up not taking the money from Pew Charitable Trust. We gave it back because Pew wanted to run our organization and our board of directors. I have two close friends who did work for them and got totally over-ruled in their campaigns and ended up taking a leave of absence from environmental work because they were so hurt by some of the ?methods? of persuasion from Pew.? ?Sue Fox, Western Canada Wilderness Committee, in a comment posted to www.dominionpaper.ca ?While the proliferating campaigns do involve grassroots groups, in every instance of which I am aware the campaign is in reality implementation of a wilderness strategy formulated by a small group of professional environmentalists working for the Pew Charitable Trusts... Pew professionals advise each campaign, helping develop campaign plans that are then funded by the foundation. The unwritten rule is that if you want funding you must adopt the Pew approach.... There is little opposition to Pew?s dominance; most members of western wilderness campaigns are not aware that strategy and tactics are controlled by Pew. Even Oregon Natural Resources Council, which once challenged the political wisdom of the eastern environmental establishment and thereby created (with help from other grassroots groups) the Ancient Forest Movement, has become meekly subservient to Pew?s views on how to save western wilderness. Consequently, Oregon?s Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden, is proclaimed an environmental hero for sponsoring additions to the Mt. Hood-Columbia Gorge Wilderness Areas and avoids pressure to stand up for the largest complexes of roadless lands in the region--the Greater Kalmiopsis and the Klamath?s vast roadless areas. Similarly, Washington?s Senator Murray, a Democrat, has a bill to designate 106,000 acres of wilderness near Seattle. Three million acres in Washington State are eligible for wilderness designation. In the short-run Pew?s strategy will garner additional success as more modest wilderness bills pass into law. The price for these victories may include development of larger, more ecologically important natural areas. But more is at stake. Movements are by their very nature not controlled or controllable, that is, they are by definition grassroots. Because distinctions between grassroots and hierarchical, and between movements and interest groups have been blurred, however, silent control by those with will and money becomes possible while diversity and democracy suffer.? ?Felice Pace, ?How the Pew Charitable Trust is Smothering the Grassroots Environmental Movement,? published in Counterpunch ?Big Industry has given up its 20th century tactics of demonizing enviros for a whole new strategy. Why should industry play the villain when it can green up its image by hand-picking the conservation groups asking the least and give them fat foundation grants, a seat at the bargaining table, and all the (corporate-owned) media money can buy. Once in a while, Industry throws them a bone?like postponing drilling the Arctic Refuge or setting aside a minuscule ?rocks and ice? wilderness area on unloggable land. All that?s asked in return is a promise from the enviro-lites not to challenge the root cause of nearly every environmental problem: corporate rule?leaving genuine solutions like real campaign finance reform, ending corporate tax subsidies, stopping private land clearcutting, or canceling the federal timber sale program off the table. For a perfect specimen of corporate-funded environmentalism look no further than Pew Charitable Trusts, a $5-billion foundation/organization founded by the children of Joseph N. Pew, CEO of Sun Oil Company (Sunoco), which has made tens of millions of dollars worth of grants to middle-of-the-road environmental groups.... An environmental foundation backed by Big Oil money? Does that mean the Pew family one day just turned over a new green leaf? Or are entities such as Pew nothing more than Big Oil?s strategy to create their own weak ?enemies? by propping up the moderates?? ?Josh Schlossberg, ?A Bias for Life? published in Counterpunch ?The necessity of buying liberals impressed itself on the [Pew] family rather late, in the 1980s. But since then it has more than made up for lost time. Today, Pew Charitable Trusts (now seven in all) represent one of the largest donors to the environmental movement, investing about $20 million a year. But this does not tell the full story of coercion through money. At the head of the Pew environmental sector sits Joshua Reichert. Reichert and subordinates Tom Wathen and John Gilroy allocate Pew money, such as the $1.5 million spent in 1995-6 to buy off vigorous defenders of the Endangered Species Act and ensure a revised and neutered law. They also help direct the donations of other foundations mustered in the Environmental Grantmakers Association, which collectively doles out more than $350 million a year. Pew never goes it alone. It always works in coalitions with these others, which means no radical opposition to its environmental policies can get any money. (Notable exceptions include the Turner Foundation, and smaller opponents of the Pew Cartel such as Levinson and Patagonia). Meanwhile, the Pew Trusts? endowment is wisely invested in the very corporations that a vigorous environmental movement would adamantly be opposing. In its initial National Forest Campaign, Pew demanded that recipients of grant money agree to focus their attention on government actions; corporate wrongdoers were not to be named. This extreme plan was modified after some recipients balked. The Charitable Trusts? money increases with the fortunes of timber firms, mining, oil and chemical companies and arms manufacturers. The annual yield from these investments far exceeds the dispensations to environmental groups. Take just one of the seven Pew trust funds- the Pew Memorial Trust. This enterprise made $205 million in ?investment income? in 1993 from such stocks as Weyerhaeuser ($16 million), the mining concern Phelps Dodge ($3.7 million), International Paper ($4.56 million) and Atlantic Richfield, which is pushing hard to open the Arctic to oil development ($6.1 million). The income yield from rapacious companies accruing to Pew in this single trust is twice as large as its total grants, and six times as large as all of Pew?s environmental dispensations.? ? Alexander Cockburn and Ken Silverstein, Washington Babylon, published by Verso in 1996 (Pew has since 'diversified' its investment practices, and mainains a more 'balanced' portfolio today.) "The question is, ?How in the face of nearly unlimited gas and oil industry money can we ever hope to stop tar sands production?? We are confident that this can be accomplished through the strategy outlined below. [...] We will not make the decisions to slow and clean up the tar sands ? those in positions of authority will [...] It is critical that the campaign have some type of coordinating structure to insure [sic] that all groups and strategic tracks are connected. This coordinating structure also needs some authority to direct funds to high priority activities quickly. While NGOs generally prefer a network structure that allows for maximum communication, and minimal centralized control, foundations investing most heavily in the campaign have a vested interest in exercising some control over the process. [...] The Coordination Center shall remain invisible [original emphasis] to the outside and to the extent possible, staff will be ?purchased? from engaged organizations. [...] The Tar Sands Campaign Steering Committee will consist of the Overall Coordinator, U.S. and Canadian Coordinators. Their job is to constantly refine campaign strategy, insure [sic] coordination within and across work groups and borders, as well as to help raise funds and make all funding decisions.? ? Michael J. Marx, PhD, ?Tar Sands Campaign Strategy 2.1? October 2008. In the document, marked ?confidential? which was leaked via internet, Marx lays out the framework for the operations of the North American Tar Sands Coalition, funded by numerous foundations, including Pew. http://www.mediacoop.ca/blog/macdonald/2046 From garyrumor2 at yahoo.com Thu Nov 5 21:55:44 2009 From: garyrumor2 at yahoo.com (Gary Crethers) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 20:55:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Shooting at Fort Hood, CIA Convicted of Kidnapping, Tea Party Anti Health Rally Message-ID: <458082.66273.qm@web43504.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Shootings At Fort Hood, CIA Convicted In ItalyNovember 5th, 2009 Major Malik Hasan, a seemingly mild mannered Muslim Psychiatrist and Major in the US Army turned on his fellow military men shooting and killing 12, wounding 31. He was wounded but not killed by the base security officers. Military personnel do not normally carry weapons when on base. Fort Hood is the largest military base in the USA with over 40,000 troops assigned there. It seems that Major Hasan was about to be assigned to Iraq and he was unhappy about it. His specialty is dealing with the traumas related to war operations of soldiers. He apparently was not looking foward to being assigned to active duty in a war zone. It is reported that he had made moves to hire a lawyer to see if he could retire from the military. Why this man acted as he did is not known. But it seems that he did not want to participate in the American war machine in action against his own co-religionists. But that is simply a supposition my part. It is sad to hear of senseless killing, about as senseless as a car bomb or an air strike by a long distance drone. Most victims from war are civilians, innocents caught in the crossfire. Yesterday the Italian prosecutors office won a victory. This is also a victory for the rule of law and an indication that the Italian judiciary is truly independent. A judge convicted 23 CIA agents in absentia for kidnapping a Muslim Cleric off the Italian streets. This morning on Democracy Now one of the prosecutors was interviewed. He says that if any of these CIA agents come to EU they can be arrested on Italian warrants. Only the Italian Minister in Charge can ask Interpol for an international arrest warrant or ask the USA government to extradite through reciprocal extradition treaties but the current government in Italy has not done so. This is from the NY Times ?Italy Convicts 23 Americans for C.I.A. Renditions By RACHEL DONADIO Published: November 4, 2009 MILAN ? In a landmark ruling, an Italian judge on Wednesday convicted a base chief for the Central Intelligence Agency and 22 other Americans, almost all C.I.A. operatives, of kidnapping a Muslim cleric from the streets of Milan in 2003. The case was a huge symbolic victory for Italian prosecutors, who drew the first convictions involving the American practice of rendition, in which terrorism suspects are captured in one country and taken for questioning in another, often one more open to coercive interrogation techniques. Critics of the Bush administration have long hailed the case as a repudiation of the tactics it used to fight terrorism. And the fact that Italy would actually convict intelligence agents of an allied country was seen as a bold move that could set a precedent in other cases. Still, the convictions may have little practical effect. They do not seem to change the close relations between the United States and Italy. Nor did they reveal whether the government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had approved the kidnapping. And it seemed highly unlikely that anyone, Italian or American, would spend any time in prison. Judge Oscar Magi handed an eight-year sentence to Robert Seldon Lady, a former C.I.A. base chief in Milan, and five-year sentences to the 22 other Americans, including an Air Force colonel and 21 C.I.A. operatives. Three of the other high-ranking Americans were given diplomatic immunity, including Jeffrey Castelli, a former C.I.A. station chief in Rome. Citing state secrecy, the judge did not convict five high-ranking Italians charged in the abduction, including a former head of Italian military intelligence, Nicol? Pollari. All the Americans were tried in absentia and are considered fugitives. Through their court-appointed lawyers, they pleaded not guilty. Italian prosecutors had charged the Americans and seven members of the Italian military intelligence agency in the abduction of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, known as Abu Omar, on Feb. 17, 2003. Prosecutors said he was snatched in broad daylight, flown from an American air base in Italy to a base in Germany and then on to Egypt, where he asserts that he was tortured. Armando Spataro, the counter terrorism prosecutor who brought the case, said he was considering asking the Italian government for an international arrest warrant for the fugitive Americans. In May, Mr. Magi ruled that there was enough evidence to proceed with the case even after Italy?s Constitutional Court ruled in March that any evidence of coordination between the Italian secret services and the C.I.A. violated state secrecy rules and was therefore inadmissible. Mr. Magi also asked for $1.45 million in damages for Mr. Nasr and $750,000 for his wife, Ghali Nabila. In separate lawsuits, Mr. Nasr, who is now living in Alexandria, Egypt, is seeking $14 million in damages from the defendants, and his wife is seeking $7.4 million against the Italian authorities. In August the couple also filed a suit with the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International applauded Wednesday?s ruling. In a statement, Tom Parker, Amnesty International?s United States point man for terrorism issues, called on the Obama administration to ?repudiate the unlawful practice of extraordinary rendition.? The administration has closed secret overseas prisons but is keeping the practice of rendition in place. Prosecutors were able to reconstruct his disappearance using cellphone records traced to the American agents. The operatives used false names but left a paper trail of unencrypted cellphone records and credit card bills at luxury hotels in Milan. ?The C.I.A. has not commented on any of the allegations surrounding Abu Omar,? said Paul Gimigliano, a C.I.A. spokesman. The former C.I.A. official said that if Italian prosecutors were successful in getting an international arrest warrant, the convicted spies would probably face the threat of arrest anywhere outside the United States for the rest of their lives. Most of the top C.I.A. officers said to have planned the Abu Omar rendition have left the agency, with the exception of Stephen R. Kappes, who at the time was the assistant director of the C.I.A.?s clandestine branch.? Today there was a rally of anti health care activists in Washington, DC It was organized by Freedom works the same group that organized many of the protests last August at local town hall meetings. According to CBS news they offered free bus rides for the mostly elderly protestors. There were several thousand persons who came to the events that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was advertising on Fox TV last week. This is from the CBS news article. ?Bring out Pelosi!? the crowd outside the Capitol Building chanted during today?s hour-long rally, spearheaded by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who is quickly becoming the face of the conservative branch of the Republican party. They furiously booed the mention of ?Pelosi-care? and, prompted by the crisp notes of a bugle, yelled ?Charge!? ?It is not Michele Bachmann?s fault? the activists are angry, Bachmann reportedly said on a conference call Wednesday night. ?It is [House] Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi?s.? The protesters were fueled ? literally and figuratively ? by lobbying organizations like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, the groups behind the August town hall protests and ?tea party? events. Freedom works promoted this week?s event on their Web site DontKillGrandma.com with recommendations for protest tactics. Americans for Prosperity brought protesters from areas like New Jersey and North Carolina to the rally on buses, free of charge. Once there, they were happily passing out donuts to the crowd.? Today President Obama met with leaders of America?s native peoples as he had promised in his campaign. This is the first time a president has met Native American leaders since President Clinton was in office back in the 1990?s. President Obama noted that reservations have up to an 80% unemployment rate according to an article from Fox-LA. Tags: Shootings in Texas at Fort Hood. CIA Convicted of Kidna From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Nov 6 03:39:00 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:39:00 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Iron Cheer of Empire Message-ID: <20091106193900.c1349e13.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> No free tortillas in the Workhouse Republic by Joe Bageant JoeBageant.com (October 28 2009) Ajijic, Mexico - Every afternoon when I knock off from writing, after I suck down a Modelo beer and take an hour nap, I step out onto the 400-year-old cobbled street, with its hap-scatter string of vendors lining both sides. All sorts of vendors - vegetable vendors, vendors of tacos, chicharrones, chenille bedspreads and plucked chickens, cigarros, soft drinks, sopa and suet. Merchants whose business address consists of a card table in front of their casita. Here in this working class neighborhood on Calle Zaragoza, tourists seldom venture, and the neighborhood merchants' customers are their neighbors. Their goods are the common fare of daily family life in Mexico. Today, at a table less than two blocks away, I purchased a dozen brown eggs, with the idea of making huevos rancheros. The purchase took three quarters of an hour, and included stumbling but cheerful half English/half Spanish conversations with the six vendors between my casita and the table of Gabriel, the old egg and cheese vendor with an artificial leg and wizened smile who assures me that rooster-fertilized eggs make a man go all night. "I am too old to care about that", I half speak, half gesture in that rudimentary sign language understood everywhere. "Hawwww" he chortles and says something in Spanish I cannot understand. An English speaking bystander, a teenager with a backward baseball cap and dressed in "LA sag", translates: "He says his pendejo is as hard as his plastic leg. You still alive! You never too old!" These vendors are not poor people or peasants. They own homes, drive cars, watch cable television, send their children to college and do most of the things North Americans do. But their jobs are their livelihoods, not their lives, and every transaction is permeated with the ebb and flow of daily neighborhood and family life. "Is Maria going to graduate after all? Si! But by just by the hair in her nose! Who is going to sell fireworks for the Feast of Saint Andrew?" (Saint Andrew is the patron saint of Ajijic.) Behind the plastered brick walls along the street mechanics fix cars, dentists pull teeth and teachers cheer preschoolers onward in a chirping Spanish rendition of Eensy Weensy Spider. The entire street is busily, but not hectically, engaged in making a living, most of the people doing so within fifty feet of where they will sleep tonight. But before they sleep they will sit out on the street, or perhaps the tiny neighborhood plaza, gossiping with the same neighbors who've been their customers all day. The same families into which their children will marry and whose sick elders they will burn candles for in the ancient stone church, founded as a Spanish colonial mission to civilize the Huichol Indians who've since retreated up into the mountains to honor their "god of the opening clouds" in peyote rituals. Obviously work and commerce have their problems here, just as anywhere else. The peso rises and falls. Cheap Chinese imports crowd out domestic goods. People work hard, especially tradesmen and laborers, but there is a complete lack of obsession and stress that characterizes North American jobs. Which, of course, many Canadians and Americans retired to Ajijic take for laziness. It may be my bias, or my imagination, or my distaste for toil, but from here America looks like one big workhouse, "under God, indivisible, with time off to shit, shower and shop". A country whose citizens have been reduced to "human assets" of a vast and relentless economic machine, moving human parts oiled by commodities and kept in motion by the edict, "produce or die". Where employment and a job dominates all other aspects of life, and the loss of which spells the loss of everything. Yeah, yeah, I know, them ain't jobs - in America we don't have jobs, we have careers. I've read the national script, and am quite aware that all those human assets writing computer code and advertising copy, or staring at screen monitors in the "human services" industry are "performing meaningful and important work in a positive workplace environment". Performing? Is this brain surgery? Or a stage act? If we are performing, then for whom? Exactly who is watching? Proof abounds of the unending joy and importance of work and production in our wealth-based economy. Just read the job recruitment ads. Or ask any of the people clinging fearfully by their fingernails to those four remaining jobs in America. But is a job - hopefully a good one - and workplace strivance really everything? Most of us would say, "Well of course not". But in a nation that now sends police to break up the tent camps and car camps of homeless unemployed citizens who once belonged to the middle class, it might well be everything. In one of those divine moments of synchronicity writers pray for, I just saw reinforcement of the above. Checking my email web browser, one of those annoying ads masquerading as advice, popped up. It reads: "Doing good work is no longer enough! Ten tips to keep from being laid off your job." Shown is a cheerful young woman at a desk, feeling deliriously safe about her job, judging from her hysterical bug-eyed smile, thanks to "These Ten Tips!" from a commercial jobs agency. When personal employment fears, job terror and insecurity, can be captured and turned into a job for someone else, there's not much room left for the general spirit of commonality, or a sense of a shared commons (such as this Mexican street) of the nation's work-life. Not when any of us could become indigent at a moment's notice. But you won't hear anyone complaining. America doesn't like whiners. A whiner or a cynic is about the worst thing you can be in the land of gunpoint optimism. Foreigners often remark on the upbeat American personality. I assure them that our American corpocracy has its ways of pistol whipping or sedating its human assets into the appropriate level of cheeriness. Appearing cheerful is vital in a society where all of life is monitored by an employer, a credit rating bureau or the media's projection of the world, and mediated by the financialization of life's every aspect. Every action and movement is a transaction, some as large as the mortgage, others as small as the purchase of a bus token, or the cost of a cell phone call, gasoline, vehicle maintenance and parking costs for movement within the sprawling asphalt grids we call communities. Even respite from work with its vacation "leisure destinations" put on the credit card, and even the greatest commons of all, nature, has a cost of access, whether it be admission to national parks or the cost of camping and other "recreational equipment". In the background a tabulator relentlessly calculates our bill for the thoroughly transactional and mediated life. Quit paying the bills and you are disappeared. Erased from the screens of a society of watchers watching each other - or watching celebrities, those godlike creatures dwelling on the Olympus of the most watched ... and dreaming of perhaps being watched on Oprah by even more watchers than already watch us for some fleeting few seconds. There is a flickering screen or monitor in front of and between every citizen of the mediated society of watchers. Whether we watch television or other media matters not, we dwell among the watchers in a surveillance society of our peers. We dress appropriately, speak middle class English, not urban street slang or redneck, and look as prosperous as possible, or as hip as possible, or as learned or pious or whatever within our peer groups, and for outsider groups. No jokers, smokers or midnight tokers allowed in Mainstream American society and culture, which consists of working, consuming and "appearing to be", but never purely being. We flow willingly through the transactional circuitry of the wealth economy like ghosts, optimistic and eerily cheerful, encountering one another through the hierarchical commodity affinity groups we call our peers, people who consume the same things we do, and have the same purchased identity and "lifestyle" we do. Swimmers in a sea of mass produced goods and mass produced identities through consumption of those goods, we strive for uniqueness, but not very hard, lest we lose the commodities we've acquired. This is stamped deep within our American being by the greater forces of commodity capitalism; we seem to carry it with us wherever we go. We want to experience uniqueness. Thus Americans and Canadians complain that there are now "too many gringos" in Ajijic", implying that they are different than the rest of their own kind. But the truth is that we are all very commonly issued products of a profit driven workhouse where no human commons is allowable, lest the workers find meaning and joy in each other as human beings, and perhaps become less work driven, less productive and less profitable. Best that their lives remain mediated, disembodied from the great commons of the human spirit, unmoored from the great natural commons binding all living things called Earth - images of which will be provided for your delight on The Nature Channel at 9 pm tonight. Until then, stay cheerful. Pay your bills on time. Good night! Meanwhile, night is falling in Ajijic. Next door a child protests his nightly bath. A Chihuahua yips in the casita across the courtyard, the flickering blue light of a television shatters like harmless lightning on the face of a very large old woman fallen asleep in an armchair beneath a hanging tapestry of Christ feeding his lambs. Which reminds me. Tomorrow morning I must make those huevos rancheros. http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2009/10/the-iron-cheer-of-empire.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 suzannedk at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 05:33:00 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:33:00 +0100 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: Afghanistan Just Got Messier In-Reply-To: References: <83904d240911041330lc67381kd41d6037b277d7e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Suzanne de Kuyper Date: Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [R-G] Afghanistan Just Got Messier To: sid-l at googlegroups.com, "Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion." Yes, it is wonderful what Abdullah did. Karsai and the U.S. need dressing down amd Abdullah did it. suzannedk at gmail.com On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > http://www.progressive.org/wx110209.html > > The > Progressive > November 2, 2009 > > *Afghanistan Just Got Messier* > > By Matthew Rothschild > > The mess that is Afghanistan just got messier for Washington. > > Abdullah?s withdrawal from the presidential runoff leaves Hamid Karzai in > power but without legitimacy. > > He?s widely perceived to have rigged the last election, and Abdullah took > himself out, he says, because he couldn?t be assured that Kazai wouldn?t do > it again. > > And then they cancelled the election with only Karzai in it, citing > security > and cost reasons. But maybe they didn?t want to deal with the embarrassment > of Karzai running unopposed, or the even deeper humiliation of a tiny > turnout. > > As a result, though, Karzai has become further delegitimized. > > He was already in the soup. People in Afghanistan recognize that he?s > corrupt. And Malalai Joya, the outspoken feminist who was booted from > parliament, has been denouncing him for years now for surrounding himself > with drug lords and warlords and war criminals. Even his own brother is > involved in the drug trade. > > In Afghanistan, Joya says, Karzai is seen, correctly, as a Washington > stooge. And we?re seen there, correctly, as an occupying power. > > We?ve been down this road before. > > In Vietnam, the United States propped up one illegitimate leader after > another, but that didn?t help the war effort at all. It only further > alienated the people of Vietnam. > > We?re seeing the same thing happening in Afghanistan right now. > > Karzai is our guy in Kabul, but that?s about it. Many if not most people in > Afghanistan disdain him. And the more he plays ball with Washington, the > less support he has at home. > > The United States can?t defeat an insurgency by backing an illegitimate > government. > > And the United States can?t defeat an insurgency when the American people > are already opposed to the war. > > Obama needs to realize all this, reverse course, and head for the exits, > before he makes matters even worse. > _______________________________________________ > 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 intnsred at golgotha.net Fri Nov 6 05:35:51 2009 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:35:51 -0500 Subject: [R-G] Shooting at Fort Hood, CIA Convicted of Kidnapping, Tea Party Anti Health Rally In-Reply-To: <458082.66273.qm@web43504.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <458082.66273.qm@web43504.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200911060735.51300.intnsred@golgotha.net> > It is sad to hear of senseless killing, about as senseless as a car bomb > or an air strike by a long distance drone. Most victims from war are > civilians, innocents caught in the crossfire. It's sad to hear of killing, but the killing of the soldiers preparing to do another round of occupation in the continuing US war of aggression on Iraq was not "senseless". The major killed war criminals. Whether we want to admit it or not, every soldier participating in these wars are war criminals. They may have had an excuse in 2002 or 2003 that these were not imperial wars of aggression and thus war crimes, but now there is no doubt and no excuse. The soldiers deploying are cowards, sheepishly following orders and committing their crimes. As the Pentagon likes to brag, they *volunteered* to participate in these crimes. The only brave soldiers in uniform are the heroes that refuse to deploy, who do their jail time and take their "dishonorable" discharge and social smearing. As the old saying goes, if you live by the sword you'll die by the sword. That is exactly what happened to the soldiers who died in Texas. -- "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial." -- "The Investigation and the Evidence," BBC News, October 5, 2001. To date no evidence has been offered by the US that Bin Laden was behind the attacks of Sep. 11. From suzannedk at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 05:57:09 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:57:09 +0100 Subject: [R-G] Shooting at Fort Hood, CIA Convicted of Kidnapping, Tea Party Anti Health Rally In-Reply-To: <200911060735.51300.intnsred@golgotha.net> References: <458082.66273.qm@web43504.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <200911060735.51300.intnsred@golgotha.net> Message-ID: It was even less than senseless because of the profession of the shooter as well as his faith. Psychiatry takes profoud study and self examination for years at great cost and commitment. That he was to be deployed where he might be forced to kill those of his own faith may well have driven him over the edge. The result, beaurocraticly, may be that the military no longer accepts soldiers of the Muslim fath who are in positions of social work or psychiatric professsions! Considering the lack of integrety in the military systems that might be a good idea but really only ilustrates the profound totla corruption of the U.S. defence systems. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Intense Red wrote: > > It is sad to hear of senseless killing, about as senseless as a car bomb > > or an air strike by a long distance drone. Most victims from war are > > civilians, innocents caught in the crossfire. > > It's sad to hear of killing, but the killing of the soldiers preparing to > do another round of occupation in the continuing US war of aggression on > Iraq was not "senseless". > > The major killed war criminals. Whether we want to admit it or not, every > soldier participating in these wars are war criminals. They may have had an > excuse in 2002 or 2003 that these were not imperial wars of aggression and > thus war crimes, but now there is no doubt and no excuse. The soldiers > deploying are cowards, sheepishly following orders and committing their > crimes. As the Pentagon likes to brag, they *volunteered* to participate in > these crimes. The only brave soldiers in uniform are the heroes that refuse > to deploy, who do their jail time and take their "dishonorable" discharge > and social smearing. > > As the old saying goes, if you live by the sword you'll die by the sword. > That is exactly what happened to the soldiers who died in Texas. > > > -- > "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden > to > the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial." -- "The > Investigation and the Evidence," BBC News, October 5, 2001. To date no > evidence has been offered by the US that Bin Laden was behind the attacks > of Sep. 11. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 garyrumor2 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 6 07:04:56 2009 From: garyrumor2 at yahoo.com (Gary Crethers) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 06:04:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Shooting at Fort Hood, CIA Convicted of Kidnapping, Tea Party Anti Health Rally In-Reply-To: References: <458082.66273.qm@web43504.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <200911060735.51300.intnsred@golgotha.net> Message-ID: <636764.88105.qm@web43508.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I don't take as hard a line as you do. I think that in this world as it is there is a place for a military service for defensive purposes and for a limited amount of internationally agreed upon police actions and even that I would limit to peace keeping to keep combatants apart such as UN actions. I would certainly not include US sponsored imperialist wars of aggression such as the invasion of Afghanistan given the cloak of international acceptance by the presence of token forces from NATO. ?? With that as a basis there certainly is no need for such a massive war machine in the USA. It is only required to impose American authority on the rest of the world. To some extent this is aided by the NATO members, Japan, Taiwan?and South Korea who have minimal military establishments because they know the USA will provide the major military might to protect them. This protection is mainly a protection of the interests of the multinational corporations and their local ancillary branches. This is not a protection of the people but of the oligarchy's that rule in each of these so called democracies. ? While the?rest of these allies are able to spend their wealth on providing for the needs of their populace, the USA no longer can afford to support its massive military machine without making its populace suffer. In fact it is partly to keep the military machine supplied with recruits that the country has such a weak infrastructure of social services. I am sure when the planners determined that they would be better off with a professional army and not a draft that they also considered the level of unemployment required to keep a certain number of 'volunteers' available. This is conscription by another name. ??? In any case the USA, this so called arsenal of democracy is now enthralled to a perpetual war machine and the side effect of the occasional flipped out trooper is to be expected as a consequence. It will?be simply factored in. ________________________________ From: Suzanne de Kuyper To: garyrumor2 at yahoo.com Sent: Fri, November 6, 2009 4:57:09 AM Subject: Re: [R-G] Shooting at Fort Hood, CIA Convicted of Kidnapping, Tea Party Anti Health Rally It was even less than senseless because of the profession of the shooter as well as his faith.? Psychiatry takes profoud study and self examination for years at great cost and commitment.? That he was to be deployed where he might be forced to kill those of his own faith? may well have driven him over the edge.? The result, beaurocraticly, may be that the military no longer accepts soldiers of the Muslim fath who are in positions of social work or psychiatric professsions!? Considering the lack of integrety in the military systems that might be a good idea but really only ilustrates the profound totla corruption of the U.S. defence systems. Suzanne? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? suzannedk at gmail.com On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Intense Red wrote: >? > It is sad to hear of senseless killing, about as senseless as a car bomb >? > or an air strike by a long distance drone. Most victims from war are >? > civilians, innocents caught in the crossfire. > >? It's sad to hear of killing, but the killing of the soldiers preparing to > do another round of occupation in the continuing US war of aggression on > Iraq was not "senseless". > >? The major killed war criminals. Whether we want to admit it or not, every > soldier participating in these wars are war criminals. They may have had an > excuse in 2002 or 2003 that these were not imperial wars of aggression and > thus war crimes, but now there is no doubt and no excuse. The soldiers > deploying are cowards, sheepishly following orders and committing their > crimes. As the Pentagon likes to brag, they *volunteered* to participate in > these crimes. The only brave soldiers in uniform are the heroes that refuse > to deploy, who do their jail time and take their "dishonorable" discharge > and social smearing. > >? As the old saying goes, if you live by the sword you'll die by the sword. > That is exactly what happened to the soldiers who died in Texas. > > > -- > "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden > to > the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial." -- "The > Investigation and the Evidence," BBC News, October 5, 2001. To date no > evidence has been offered by the US that Bin Laden was behind the attacks > of Sep. 11. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 gmail.com Fri Nov 6 12:02:23 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:02:23 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Abbas feels betrayed by Obama Message-ID: <83904d240911061102p75928554h11fdd788821af364@mail.gmail.com> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/6510059/Analysis-Mahmoud-Abbas-feels-betrayed-by-Barack-Obama.html Daily Telegraph 6 November 2009 *Analysis: Mahmoud Abbas feels betrayed by Barack Obama With friends like Barack Obama, Mahmoud Abbas might feel he is in little need of enemies.* By Adrian Blomfield in Jerusalem *Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, will not contest elections in January Middle East peace hopes were in disarray after Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate Palestinian leader, announced he would stand down within weeks Photo: GETTY IMAGES * The Palestinian leader is a vital US ally and just about the only official in the occupied territories with whom Israel is prepared to negotiate. But the White House has done him few favours of late. Just six weeks ago, much to the delight of the Obama administration, Mr Abbas was enjoying a surprising renaissance. A successful congress of his Fatah party, which saw popular newcomers inducted into its hierarchy, and an impressive upswing in the economy had combined to convince many Palestinians to shift their support from the Islamists of Hamas to his moderate leadership. Then, in the space of a few days last month, it all fell apart. Under pressure from Washington, Mr Abbas agreed to withdraw his support for the Goldstone Report, which had controversially accused Israel of war crimes during its offensive against Hamas in Gaza nearly a year ago. When ordinary Palestinians erupted in fury and many in his own party joined the barrage of criticism, Mr Abbas reversed his decision to the fury of Israel and the irritation of the United States. Mr Abbas's last hope of mollifying his people was to achieve a victory in his demand for a freeze of all Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in exchange for a resumption of talks with Israel. The United States initially appeared to back his position but suddenly softened its stance and lent support for an Israeli offer to simply "restrict" settlements. Already badly weakened by the Goldstone debacle, Mr Abbas was in no position to countenance anything less than a total freeze. Mr Abbas was marooned again and the peace process stalled. The United States will now be praying he can be persuaded to change his mind. Mr Abbas is known for his commitment to peace even when many of those around him are not. He was instrumental in persuading the PLO to begin talks with Israel two decades ago and was one of the most important engineers of the Oslo Accords in 1993. With the exception of Salam Fayyad, the reformist and pro-American prime minister, the peace making credentials of other Palestinian leaders are at best open to question. But, however much the Americans might wish it, Mr Fayyad is not thought to have sufficient political support to win an election. If Mr Abbas cannot have his mind changed, President Obama's ambition of completing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within two years will increasingly look like wishful thinking. From shniad at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 12:05:08 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:05:08 -0800 Subject: [R-G] For Whose Sake Wear A Poppy? Message-ID: <83904d240911061105i312e1ed6uf9ed6b0feb6f342b@mail.gmail.com> http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1257526784.html Friday, November 06, 2009 For Whose Sake Wear A Poppy? It?s a common misconception that propaganda must be consciously created. The campaign posters for this year?s poppy appeal show how good intentions can have deeply ideological consequences. The simplest form of propaganda is omission. How can you not feel sympathy for someone who has had their legs blown off? How can you not pity the war widow left to struggle on a pittance? The easiest way of course is not to know about them. That's exactly how our pity and sympathy for the victims of our invasions are kept in check. We?re not told much, so we don?t care much. With the noblest of intentions, one consequence of the poppy campaign is to elicit selective sympathy. It focuses our grief on one specific group of casualties ? no surprise, our own. Meanwhile the victims of our invasions slip further from view, perhaps further despised for bringing this tragedy upon 'our boys'. Exclusive focus on our own soldiers is of course the current media method of dealing with the hell we have made of Afghanistan and Iraq. For those who supported these invasions reporting their true horror and failure would mean admitting complicity. So roll on the squaddies, let the tragedy be theirs. Rather than the criminality of the invasion all attention turns to the plight of Tommy Atkins. Rather than failed states and piles of civilian corpses, the tragedy becomes one of shoddy equipment and shitty living conditions. It?s Vietnam all over again. You rain hell down on civilian populations and then paint the whole thing as a tragedy sustained by your own side. Hopefully, you eventually withdraw. *For Tony Blair's sake wear a Poppy? * Which brings us to a second sphere of unintended propaganda. Another awful consequence of wearing a poppy is that it may assist the ambitions of those who send armies off into immoral adventures. The danger is of a sort of morality by association. By honouring all soldiers of all wars, immoral wars are given a boost. While clearly there is something noble about risking your life to save others, it?s far more questionable whether it is noble to risk your life for a lie ? even if you sincerely believed the lie. It is simply not true that Iraq or Afghanistan were invaded to bring democracy, or find weapons of mass destruction, or save western civilisation. The fact that many of the invading soldiers believed these lies has no bearing on the matter. By honouring all soldiers of all wars the line between moral and immoral wars is blurred. Leaders who wage war out of avarice and ego are falsely associated with those who fight and die for more noble reasons. At worst, perhaps the next immoral adventure gets a boost, and more civilian and military lives are extinguished. Of course it is truly shameful that those who sacrifice so much are treated so badly on their return home. If we do ?owe our freedom? to these people then why is this begging bowl approach necessary, why doesn't the state cover the cost? If these invasions are carried out for moral reasons, why doesn't the moral responsibility extend to the dead and injured? The awful but obvious answer is that governments don't really care about soldiers. They need them for protection of property, and to assist with the acquisition of other peoples? property, but they are as expendable today as they were to the Duke of Wellington. Sadly there's usually plenty more cannon-fodder to hand. From fentona at shaw.ca Fri Nov 6 12:11:29 2009 From: fentona at shaw.ca (Anthony Fenton) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:11:29 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Tar Wars Message-ID: A short BBC piece on the struggle to shut down the tar sands... Direct download .avi file: http://snipr.com/t1qu4 Background: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nkyw2 From shniad at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 12:18:32 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:18:32 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Remembrance Day: November 11 Message-ID: <83904d240911061118s32375924hcb889f6d2bbd667e@mail.gmail.com> *Remembrance Day: November 11 Eric Bogle - The Band Played Waltzing Matilda http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG48Ftsr3OI* From shniad at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 12:39:42 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:39:42 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Honduras: agreement or farce? Message-ID: <83904d240911061139m67a97e05jd1cd961add7ccb54@mail.gmail.com> http://www.marxist.com/honduras-agreement-or-farce.htm *Honduras: agreement or farce?* *The ?Tegucigalpa/San Jos? Accord?, as it is now known, contemplates the creation of a government of ?unity and national reconciliation?. In practice this means power sharing between the coup plotters and Zelaya supporters* Written by Jorge Mart?n Wednesday, 04 November 2009 A lot of noise had been made about the so-called ?reinstatement of Zelaya?, but is that what is really happening. So far a lot of wheeling and dealing has taken place, but no concrete steps to put Zelaya back as the legitimate president. We will see in the coming days how real this agreement is. On Monday October 26, the negotiations between representatives of the legitimate president of Honduras, Mel Zelaya, and the regime of Micheletti, installed by the coup which removed Zelaya on June 28, had broken down. There was agreement on most of the points Zelaya?s delegates had raised earlier, bar one, that of Zelaya?s reinstatement as President. Coup-installed ?president? Micheletti boasted that he would only resign if Zelaya agreed not to take over. The arrival of a high level delegation from the United States, headed by US Assistant Secretary of State Tom Shannon changed all that. Micheletti, who had already received a phone call from Hillary Clinton, was told in no uncertain terms that the US would not recognise the November 29 elections called by the coup-regime unless a deal based on the San Jos? Accords was reached, including the reinstatement of Zelaya. As a matter of fact, as we have explained before, the terms of the San Jos? Accord were already extremely favourable for the coup plotters: a national unity government, general amnesty for the coup plotters, Zelaya giving up on his idea of convening of a Constituent Assembly and the reinstatement of Zelaya only for a couple of months until the January 28 hand over to a new government elected in a poll conducted by the same institutions which had carried out the coup against Zelaya. Why did Micheletti resist signing such terms for such a long time? He rightly feared that bringing Zelaya back to power, even if gagged and bound hand and foot, would be seen as a victory for the resistance movement which the people had organised for four months. This was extremely dangerous, as it could even lead to a victory for a resistance-backed candidate in the elections. If elections were free and fair and the resistance stood united behind trade union leader Carlos H Reyes, they could win the presidency. Opinion polls also indicate strong support for the candidate of the leftist Democratic Unification party for the mayor of the capital Tegucigalpa. However, the oligarchy was clearly divided. While one side saw negotiations as a delaying tactic which in the end would force the ?international community? to recognise the result of their November 29 elections, another side feared that a massive boycott of those elections on the part of the people would make them illegitimate. Washington threatened to increase the pressure on the oligarchy (including their US bank accounts). It seems that in the end a secret deal was reached between Shannon and National Party candidate Pepe Lobo, although they strenuously deny they had even met. The deal was to refer Zelaya?s reinstatement back to Congress, where the votes of Zelaya?s supporters in the Liberal Party (now split between Zelayistas and supporters of the coup) added to those of Lobo?s National Party congress members would have a majority. In exchange Zelaya and the ?international community? would recognise the November 29 elections, which Lobo hopes to win (if necessary by resorting to fraud). Zelaya, who had been holed up in the Brazilian embassy for 5 weeks since he was smuggled back into the country on September 21, welcomed the signing of the agreement as a victory. ?It is a triumph for Honduran democracy?, he said, ?it signifies my return to power in the coming days, and peace for Honduras?. A communiqu? by the National Front of Resistance Against the Coup also hailed the agreement as a victory for the people. Undoubtedly, had it not been for the heroic resistance of the workers, peasants and youth of Honduras for more than 4 months, the coup would have been consolidated and sooner or later recognised as legitimate by the international community. But we have to ask ourselves, what are the terms of the agreement, and, are these terms even going to be put into practice? The ?Tegucigalpa/San Jos? Accord?, as it is now known, contemplates the creation of a government of ?unity and national reconciliation?. In practice this means power sharing between the coup plotters and Zelaya supporters, a recipe for paralysis. Furthermore, the budget that this government will operate on will be one voted by Congress after the coup. The second point of the agreement rules out any ?direct or indirect? appeals for the convening of a Constituent Assembly, and any attempt to ?promote or support any popular consultation with the aim of reforming the constitution?. The immediate reason for the oligarchy to organise the coup was to prevent a popular consultation on the need to convene a Constituent Assembly. With this point inserted into the agreement, the reasons for the coup are vindicated. Point three deals with the recognition of the elections called by the coup-regime on November 29, and appeals to the people to participate in the elections. Point four states that the police and the army will be under the control of the Supreme Electoral Court for the purpose of organising and overseeing the elections for a period of one month before Election Day. Since elections are to be held on November 29, this means that the Armed Forces and the police will be outside of the control of the president. Point five deals with the question of the reinstatement of the president. What it actually says is that the negotiating commission, ?respectfully? asks National Congress, ?after consulting with the Supreme Court of Justice and other instances it considers appropriate?, to bring the Executive Power to the situation before June 28, until the end of its term of office on January 27. Therefore, the decision of restoring Zelaya to power is left in the hands of the same Congress which removed him, after consulting the Supreme Court which provided ?legitimacy? for his removal. What we have here is a situation where Zelaya makes all sorts of concessions, while his actual reinstatement is not even clearly stated! The agreement has a number of other points (particularly an appeal for the international community to recognise the elections and lift any sanctions) and ends with a point of thanks, stressing the role played by the Organisation of American States and US president Obama and US Secretary of State Clinton. But this agreement, as bad as it is, is not even the end of the saga. Congress is in fact suspended until after the elections, so it would have to call an emergency meeting in order to vote on reinstating Zelaya, who is still holed up in the Brazilian embassy. Meeting on Tuesday, November 3, Congress leaders voted to ? pass the parcel. They have asked for an opinion from the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and various other bodies on the question of Zelaya?s reinstatement before they take a decision. In the meantime Micheletti has interpreted the formation of a national unity government by November 5, in his own particular way. In a letter he has sent to Zelaya he has asked him to provide 10 names, from which members of the new government would be chosen, implying that he will be doing the choosing. So, from the point of view of Zelaya and the Resistance not much has changed. The legitimate president is still in precarious refuge at the Brazilian embassy, surrounded by riot police and the army. Police and the army continue to beat up peaceful resistance protestors. The coup plotters are still in power. Meanwhile, Washington is spinning the agreement as a victory for its diplomatic strategy, the oligarchy has come closer to getting international recognition for its elections on November 29, and Micheletti, the coup plotter, is still president. It is difficult to predict what will happen in the next few days and hours. Additional pressure from Washington might finally force the reinstatement of Zelaya (gagged, bound hand and foot and only for a couple of months). There could be more trickery on the part of the oligarchy to further delay his reinstatement. The only real way to break this deadlock would be for the masses to irrupt on the scene again and take the situation into their own hands. They can only trust in their own forces, no one else. From shniad at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 12:43:24 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:43:24 -0800 Subject: [R-G] The CPCCA: Combating Anti-Semitism or Shielding Israel? Message-ID: <83904d240911061143i6f081418u763f3ad2b6cadca6@mail.gmail.com> http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/270.php#continue The B u l l e t November 5, 2009 *Combating Anti-Semitism or Shielding Israel? Submission to the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism* Joanne Naiman I am writing this submission as a sociologist, a Jew, and a long-time opponent of all forms of oppression. As a person of Jewish descent, I obviously have a personal interest in seeing anti-Semitism addressed wherever it appears. However, as a social scientist I feel the term is currently being used without much precision. You describe your mission as an attempt to ?confront and combat the global resurgence of Antisemitism? and note that ?Antisemitism is widely regarded as at its worst level since the end of the Second World War.? These are certainly strong statements, and, if true, require serious action. However, other than noting that students on certain campuses in Canada are ?ridiculed and intimidated,? you provide no other concrete examples. (I will deal with the issue of criticism of Israel at a later point.) Anti-Semitism can be defined as hostility directed at those of Jewish origin. Like all forms of hostility to ethno-racial groups, anti-Semitism consists of both prejudice, that is, an attitude of dislike or hostility toward people of Jewish background, as well as discrimination, which is the denial of equal treatment or opportunities to these individuals. While these two phenomena are usually connected, they can be distinguished from each other. Prejudice is distasteful and can occasionally lead to hurtful acts ? including those of a violent nature. However, discrimination is generally the more serious of the two processes since it will inevitably hurt the victim?s life chances, such as getting a job or finding a place to live. There is ample evidence to show that in Canada Jews as a group do not regularly face discrimination; in fact, they are one of Canada?s most advantaged minority groups. When examining any of the traditional variables utilized to assess socioeconomic status ? such as occupation, education, and income ? Jews continually come out at or near the top when compared to other ethno-racial groups. In The Encyclopedia of Canada?s Peoples (1999), Morton Weinfeld notes that ?by any criterion, Jews have been successful.? According to Weinfeld, Jews in Canada have low rates of unemployment, have a high number of individuals in ?desirable? occupations, have high levels of educational attainment, and ?can be numbered among the wealthiest Canadians.? More recently, neither Ornstein (2006) nor Galabuzi (2006) considered Jews to be a disadvantaged group relative to others. Moreover, the economic and social advantages that have accrued in general to the Jewish community in Canada have also been reflected in what social scientists refer to as an accumulation of social capital. Put simply, those with economic and social advantage are generally able to make important economic and political connections, i.e. to ?network? with those who have influence, including those in the media. While one must tread lightly on this reality ? given the anti-Semitic stereotypes often expressed about Jews and their excess of power ? it would be inaccurate to assume that the Jewish population in Canada has no advantage in this area. Hate Crimes But what about prejudice? Certainly most Jews in Canada can tell you of vile slurs, stereotypes, or biased comments that they have received or heard. More serious are hate crimes. According to Statistics Canada (June 2004), there were 928 hate crime incidents in 2001-2002, with Jewish people or their institutions the most likely target, at 25% of all crimes. However, by 2007 Statistics Canada noted (May 2009) that police-reported hate crime overall had dropped, and that Blacks were targeted most often (33%). There were 185 religiously-motivated incidents in 2007, down from 220 in 2006, with two-thirds of these against Jews. While such slurs and hate crimes are certainly disturbing, they can hardly be seen as a wave of anti-Semitism. Indeed, the majority of hate crimes are listed as being mischief offences, such as graffiti on public property. To sum up then, the data indicate that the Jewish population of Canada is, overall, socioeconomically advantaged, and that the number of hate crimes against Jews has been dropping. What, then, is the ?problem of anti-Semitism? that your committee is asking governments to address? The reality is that what is repeatedly being referred to as ?new anti-Semitism? is actually an escalating critique of the policies of the State of Israel (Klug, 2004). For example, there have indeed been tensions on many university campuses in recent years. However, these cannot be accurately seen as being rooted in anti-Semitism. Rather, tensions have arisen between Zionists and those who support the Palestinian cause, and Jewish students and faculty can often be found in the latter group. Resolving these tensions requires that university administrators encourage civil debates, and show fairness to differing opinions. Unfortunately, the repeated cries of ?anti-Semitism? from Zionists have put university administrators in awkward positions. On some campuses (such as Carleton and York) their rash overreaction and uncritical responses not only showed bias but actually aggravated tensions. How do we explain the strong attachment of Jews to Israel, given that most Jews are not immigrants from that country? In Canada as around the world, since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, to be Jewish has meant being inextricably linked to the State of Israel. From the outset, Israel declared itself to be a ?Jewish state,? and its flag has as its centerpiece the Star of David, the symbol of the Jewish religion. Many Jews have relatives living in Israel, and have visited there many times. When I attended Hebrew School, we studied modern Hebrew (not Yiddish, the historical language of our people), the history and geography of Israel, and sang ?Hatikvah,? the Israeli national anthem. Like most Jews, I was told that Israel was the guarantee that we would never experience another Holocaust. The strong defense of the State of Israel by the Jewish community can be understood as part of what is referred to by sociologists as ethnocentrism. American author Joel Charon (2007,159) writes: ?As we interact and become part of a society or group, we generally come to feel something good about belonging to that group?Becoming part of a group encourages a sense of loyalty, and that loyalty encourages ethnocentrism. Loyalty means a commitment to something we regard as important and right. It brings a feeling of obligation to serve and defend. Criticism and threats to the group are defended against.? Thus, if Jews see support for the State of Israel as an essential part of being Jewish ? and the only thing between them and another Holocaust ? then any criticism of that State or its policies will be seen, de facto, as an attack on Jews as a group. In the face of growing global opposition to current Israeli government policies, well-meaning Jews ? who simply cannot accept that their people would do anything immoral ? have turned to both blaming the victim (?the Palestinians started it?) and blaming those who support the victim (they?re anti-Semites or ?self-hating Jews?). Thus, it is not surprising that as the criticism of Israeli government policies has increased worldwide, so have cries of the growth of a global resurgence of anti-Semitism. The London Declaration states that ?calls for the destruction of the State of Israel are inherently anti-Semitic.? Is a call for the end of a theocracy and the creation of a fully democratic Israeli state, where all citizens ? of whatever religion or background ? are treated equally and humanely then anti-Semitic? This may seem like an absurd possibility, but for most Jews this is indeed the case. Allowing equality of rights and freedoms to all its citizens, regardless of religion, would diminish the ?Jewishness? of the State of Israel, and therefore it is de facto anti-Semitism. This leaves those who are critical of current Israeli policies in an impossible situation. If people criticize the policies of the Islamic State of Iran, or they call for human rights and equality for all its citizens, are they anti-Islamic? Was opposition to the Apartheid regime of South Africa anti-White? The ever-increasing cries of anti-Semitism are a way of deflecting attention from real horrors ? the daily humiliations, evictions, land expropriation, mass imprisonment and killings ? currently being inflicted on the Palestinian people by Israel. In one of the true ironies of history, we now find Jews around the world ? who swore after the Holocaust that they would never again be victims ? claiming that they are the real victims in the Middle East and around the world. Indeed, some argue (Israeli author Avraham Burg, 2008, for example) that the perpetual need of Jews to see their victimization as unique is the key to understanding both the cries of ?a new anti-Semitism? and an unwillingness to empathize with the ongoing plight of the Palestinians. The CPCCA was created to examine a social phenomenon that, while odious, is certainly far from being a major social problem in Canada. Compare it to, for example, the many thousands of homeless people roaming our streets; the native communities in the North with inadequate housing and water; the escalating suicide rates of Native youth; the large numbers of farmers and fishers who can no longer make a living; and the real and persistent racism faced by many in Canada. While the CPCCA is not affiliated to the government, many Canadians will be asking ? and rightly so ? why at this time a committee of parliamentarians was created to deal with what is a minor social problem in this country. The only answer can be that the Jewish community has greater political influence than, say, Indigenous people, the poor, or racial minorities. Shielding Israel My worry, then, is that however well-meaning the intent of this committee, it is almost certain to unintentionally fan the flames of anti-Semitism, convincing those already disposed to believe it that Jews hold undue sway in the political arena and have too much power. This possibility is enhanced by the failure of this Coalition to publicly reveal its funding sources, particularly since an ?Inter-Parliamentary Coalition? gives the impression that you are a publicly-funded government entity. Moreover, to say on your website that the only funding accepted is that which doesn't ?compromise the terms of reference and the mandate of the CPCCA? is, at minimum, na?ve. Your committee wants to develop meaningful suggestions to combat anti-Semitism. I have tried to argue that what the Jewish community refers to as anti-Semitism is almost always either a critique of the abhorrent and illegal policies of the State of Israel, or is a prejudice against Jews that has arisen from opposition to the policies of the only country in the world that considers itself a Jewish state. The global criticism of South Africa ended when Apartheid ended. Thus, in its final report the CPCCA could do no better than to advocate for major changes to current Israeli government policies. Minimally Israel must dismantle the Apartheid wall, end the dual system of law in the occupied West Bank that favours Jewish settlers, and end its collective punishment of 1.5 million Gazans (a violation of Article 43 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and a gross violation of international humanitarian law). A failure to implicate current Israeli policy in any possible growth of anti-Semitism worldwide will certainly convince many that the CPCCA was biased from the outset. ? Joanne Naiman is a retired sociology professor living in Vancouver. Sources: * Burg, Avraham. 2008. The Holocaust is Over; We Must Rise from Its Ashes. Houndmills, G.B.: Palgrave Macmillan. * Charon, Joel. 2008. Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective, 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Nelson-Wadsworth. * Galabuzi, Grace-Edward. 2006. Canada's Economic Apartheid: The Social Exclusion of Racialized Groups in the New Century. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. * Klug, Brian. 2004. ?The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism? The Nation. January 15. * Naiman, Joanne. 2007. How Societies Work: Class, Power, and Change in a Canadian Context, 4th ed. Halifax: Fernwood. * Ornstein, Michael. 2006. ?Extremely Disadvantaged Ethno-Racial Groups in Toronto.? * Statistics Canada. 2009. ?Police-reported hate crime.? The Daily, May 13. www.statcan.ca. * ----------------- 2004. ?SPOTLIGHT: Hate crime? Infomat, June 8, 2004. www.statcan.ca. * Weinfeld, Morton. 1999. ?Economic Life?, The Encyclopedia of Canada?s People (Jews). From shniad at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 14:44:18 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:44:18 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Palestinian State May Have to Be Abandoned: chief Palestinian negotiator Message-ID: <83904d240911061344g646e3337n146bfc565b5a61f0@mail.gmail.com> http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/11/04/world/international-us-palestinians-israel-deadlock.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=erekat&st=cse The New York Times November 4, 2009 *Palestinian State May Have to Be Abandoned: Erekat* *The alternative left for Palestinians is to "refocus their attention on the one-state solution where Muslims, Christians and Jews can live as equals. It is very serious. This is the moment of truth for us."* * -- Saeb Erekat* RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Palestinians may have to abandon the goal of an independent state if Israel continues to expand Jewish settlements and the United States does not stop it, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Wednesday. It may be time for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to "tell his people the truth, that with the continuation of settlement activities, the two-state solution is no longer an option," Erekat told a news conference. Israel has rejected the idea of a de facto annexation of the occupied West Bank, incorporating the Palestinians as citizens, as "demographic timebomb" that would make Jews the minority. Citing a 2003 peace "road map," Abbas has made a cessation of Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank a precondition for resuming statehood talks with Israel. The road map also required that Palestinians dismantle armed groups like Islamist Hamas, which opposes peace talks. That did not happen, and Hamas now controls the Gaza Strip -- half the Palestinian polity -- in a running challenge to Abbas's mandate. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who met Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Saturday, unsuccessfully urged Abbas to negotiate with Israel and resolve the settlement issue within the framework of the talks. Erekat said Clinton -- who praised as unprecedented Netanyahu's offer to temporarily limit construction in West Bank settlements to 3,000 additional housing units -- was only opening the door to more settlements in the next two years. The alternative left for Palestinians is to "refocus their attention on the one-state solution where Muslims, Christians and Jews can live as equals," Erekat said. "It is very serious. This is the moment of truth for us." DICTATION VS NEGOTIATION Erekat said Netanyahu's concept of a separate Palestinian state alongside Israel with limited powers of sovereignty and his uncompromising position on the future of Jerusalem were tantamount to dictating the terms of peace negotiations. Netanyahu, Erekat said, told Abbas "that Jerusalem will be the eternal and united capital of Israel, that refugees won't be discussed, that our state will be demilitarized, that we have to recognize the Jewish state, that it's not going to be the 1967 borders, that the skies will be under his control" . "This is dictation and not negotiations," he said. Netanyahu and Abbas last met in New York in September in a handshake meeting arranged by U.S. President Barack Obama. Palestinians seek to establish their future state on all of the West Bank and Gaza, lands captured from Jordan and Egypt in a 1967 war, with East Jerusalem as its capital. "Anything short of that is a non-option for us," Erekat said. "If the Israelis believe they want to partition the West Bank with us, this is a no-go. This is a non-starter," Erekat said, in reference to Israeli control of West Bank settlements, adjacent land, and the territory's eastern Jordan Valley border. Clinton reaffirmed in Cairo on Wednesday that Washington does not accept the legitimacy of the Israeli settlements. But she added, in another nudge to Palestinians to talk with Israel: "Getting into final status negotiations will allow us to bring an end to settlement activity." Erekat said Palestinians "made a mistake" in the past by agreeing to negotiate with Israel without insisting on a settlement halt, and they were not about to repeat that error. In a statement, Netanyahu said Israel's aim remained the quick resumption of peace talks. But he also deplored the split between Hamas and Abbas's secular Fatah faction, which has widened over the president's disputed call for a January 24 ballot. "The possibility that Palestinian election might be held soon is causing a polarization of Palestinian Authority positions regarding Israel and is hindering the opening of negotiations," Netanyahu's office quoted him as saying. From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 6 17:27:42 2009 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:27:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Congress is set to kill Goldstone Report :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <711990.56374.qm@web111507.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> This Action, on Change.org, the url?? :) don't let them?? :) http://war.change.org/actions/view/dont_let_them http://www.change.org/profile/189788/actions ? CLICK HERE to tell Congress: DON'T BURY THE GOLDSTONE REPORT http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/301/t/10074/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=28033 I'm asking you to tell your representative to vote NO on H. Res 867 when it comes up for a vote tomorrow. Why? The resolution, which is riddled with errors and outright fabrications (see below), calls on President Obama to bury the Goldstone Report, which was commissioned by the United Nations to examine violations of international law during the Gaza conflict. This report offers the only pathway to accountability, and the campaign to demonize it and its authors is part of a larger effort to shred international law so that war crimes against civilians can be committed with impunity. We urge you to click HERE to contact your representative today to tell them to vote NO on H. Res 867. The resolution, which you can read in full here, calls the Goldstone findings 'irredeemably biased'. In fact, the Goldstone Report is well-researched, and fair-minded. It accuses both Israel and Hamas of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, while rightfully placing greater emphasis on Israeli violations of international law, especially regarding the killing of civilians. It also calls on Israel and Hamas to conduct credible, independent investigations or face the International Criminal Court. ? Cecilie Surasky Jewish Voice for Peace The full text of Goldstone's detailed analysis of the bill, followed by an analysis by professor Stephen Zunes of the Tikkun advisory board: The Honorable Howard Berman Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Ranking Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs October 29, 2009 Dear Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, ? It has come to my attention that a resolution has been introduced in the Unites States House of Representatives regarding the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, which I led earlier this year. I fully respect the right of the US Congress to examine and judge my mission and the resulting report, as well as to make its recommendations to the US Executive branch of government. However, I have strong reservations about the text of the resolution in question - text that includes serious factual inaccuracies and instances where information and statements are taken grossly out of context. I undertook this fact-finding mission in good faith, just as I undertook my responsibilities vis ? vis the South African Standing Commission of Inquiry Regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, the International War Crimes Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the International Panel of the Commission of Enquiry into the Activities of Nazism in Argentina, the Independent International Commission on Kosovo, and the Volker Committee investigation into the UN's Iraq oil-for-food program in 2004/5. I hope that you, in similar good faith, will take the time to consider my comments about the resolution and, as a result of that consideration, make the necessary corrections. Whereas clause #1: "Whereas, on January 12, 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed Resolution A/HRC/S-9/L.1, which authorized a `fact-finding mission' regarding Israel's conduct of Operation Cast Lead against violent militants in the Gaza Strip between December 27, 2008, and January 18, 2009;" This whereas clause ignores the fact that I and others refused this original mandate, precisely because it only called for an investigation into violations committed by Israel. The mandate given to and accepted by me and under which we worked and reported reads as follows: ". . .to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after". Whereas clause #2: "Whereas the resolution pre-judged the outcome of its investigation, by one-sidedly mandating the `fact-finding mission' to `investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by . . . Israel, against the Palestinian people . . . particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression'" This whereas clause ignores the fact that the expanded mandate that I demanded and received clearly included rocket and mortar attacks on Israel and as the report makes clear was so interpreted and implemented. It was the report carried out under this broadened mandate - not the original, rejected mandate - that was adopted by the Human Rights Council and that included the serious findings made against Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups. Whereas clause #3: "Whereas the mandate of the `fact-finding mission' makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel's defensive measures;" This whereas clause is factually incorrect. As noted above, the expanded mandate clearly included the rocket and mortar attacks. Moreover, Chapter XXIV of the Report considers in detail the relentless rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel and the terror they caused to the people living within their range. The resulting finding made in the report is that these attacks constituted serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. Whereas clause #4: "Whereas the `fact-finding mission' included a member who, before joining the mission, had already declared Israel guilty of committing atrocities in Operation Cast Lead by signing a public letter on January 11, 2009, published in the Sunday Times, that called Israel's actions `war crimes';" This whereas clause is misleading. It overlooks, or neglects to mention, that the member concerned, Professor Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics, in the same letter, together with other leading international lawyers, also condemned as war crimes the Hamas rockets fired into Israel. Whereas clause #5: "Whereas the mission's flawed and biased mandate gave serious concern to many United Nations Human Rights Council Member States which refused to support it, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;" This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The mandate that was given to the Mission was certainly not opposed by all or even a majority of the States to which reference is made. I am happy to provide further details if necessary. Whereas clause #6: "Whereas the mission's flawed and biased mandate troubled many distinguished individuals who refused invitations to head the mission;" This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The initial mandate that was rejected by others who were invited to head the mission was the same one that I rejected. The mandate I accepted was expanded by the President of the Human Rights Council as a result of conditions I made. Whereas clause #8: "Whereas the report repeatedly made sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead;" This whereas clause is factually incorrect. The findings included in the report are neither "sweeping" nor "unsubstantiated" and in effect reflect 188 individual interviews, review of more than 300 reports, 30 videos and 1200 photographs. Additionally, the body of the report contains a plethora of references to the information upon which the Commission relied for our findings. Whereas clause #9: "Whereas the authors of the report, in the body of the report itself, admit that `we did not deal with the issues . . . regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers `in the fog of war.';" This whereas clause is misleading. The words quoted relate to the decision we made that it would have been unfair to investigate and make finding on situations where decisions had been made by Israeli soldiers "in the fog of battle". This was a decision made in favor of, and not against, the interests of Israel. Whereas clause #10: "Whereas in the October 16th edition of the Jewish Daily Forward, Richard Goldstone, the head of the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict', is quoted as saying, with respect to the mission's evidence-collection methods, `If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven.'" The remark as quoted is both inaccurate and taken completely out of context. What I had explained to The Forward was that the Report itself would not constitute evidence admissible in court of law. It is my view, as jurist, that investigators would have to investigate which allegations they considered relevant. That, too, was why we recommended domestic investigations into the allegations. Whereas clause #11: "Whereas the report, in effect, denied the State of Israel the right to self- defense, and never noted the fact that Israel had the right to defend its citizens from the repeated violent attacks committed against civilian targets in southern Israel by Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations operating from Gaza;" It is factually incorrect to state that the Report denied Israel the right of self-defense. The report examined how that right was implemented by the standards of international law. What is commonly called ius ad bellum, the right to use military force was not considered to fall within our mandate. Israel's right to use military force was not questioned. Whereas clause #12: "Whereas the report largely ignored the culpability of the Government of Iran and the Government of Syria, both of whom sponsor Hamas and other Foreign Terrorist Organizations;" This whereas clause is misleading. Nowhere that I know of has it ever been suggested that the Mission should have investigated the provenance of the rockets. Such an investigation was never on the agenda, and in any event, we would not have had the facilities or capability of investigating these allegations. If the Government of Israel has requested us to investigate that issue I have no doubt that we have done our best to do so. Whereas clause #14: "Whereas, notwithstanding a great body of evidence that Hamas and other violent Islamist groups committed war crimes by using civilians and civilian institutions, such as mosques, schools, and hospitals, as shields, the report repeatedly downplayed or cast doubt upon that claim;" This is a sweeping and unfair characterization of the Report. I hope that the Report will be read by those tasked with considering the resolution. I note that the House resolution fails to mention that notwithstanding my repeated personal pleas to the Government of Israel, Israel refused all cooperation with the Mission. Among other things, I requested the views of Israel with regard to the implementation of the mandate and details of any issues that the Government of Israel might wish us to investigate. This refusal meant that Israel did not offer any information or evidence it may have collected regarding actions by Hamas or other Palestinian groups in Gaza. Any omission of such information and evidence in the report is regrettable, but is the result of Israel's decision not to cooperate with the Fact-Finding mission, not a decision by the mission to downplay or cast doubt on such information and evidence. Whereas clause #15: "Whereas in one notable instance, the report stated that it did not consider the admission of a Hamas official that Hamas often `created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against [the Israeli military]' specifically to `constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack.';" This whereas clause is misleading, since the quotation is taken out of context. The quotation is part of a section of the report dealing with the very narrow allegation that Hamas compelled civilians, against their will, to act as human shields. The statement by the Hamas official is repugnant and demonstrates an apparent disregard for the safety of civilians, but it is not evidence that Hamas forced civilians to remain in their homes in order to act as human shields. Indeed, while the Government of Israel has alleged publicly that Hamas used Palestinian civilians as human shields, it has not identified any cases where it claims that civilians were doing so under threat of force by Hamas or any other party. Whereas clause #16: "Whereas Hamas was able to significantly shape the findings of the investigation mission's report by selecting and prescreening some of the witnesses and intimidating others, as the report acknowledges when it notes that `those interviewed in Gaza appeared reluctant to speak about the presence of or conduct of hostilities by the Palestinian armed groups . . . from a fear of reprisals';" The allegation that Hamas was able to shape the findings of my report or that it pre-screened the witnesses is devoid of truth. I challenge anyone to produce evidence in support of it. Sincerely, Justice Richard J. Goldstone ? And this from Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, who wrote this analysis in his capacity as a member of the advisory board of the Tikkun community. More info on the House Resolution Condemning the Goldstone Report by Steve Zunes ? There are a number of disturbing aspects of H. Res. 867, with implications that go well beyond simply attacking the report of the United Nations Human Rights Council's fact-finding commission on the Gaza conflict, which documented war crimes by armed forces of both Hamas and Israel.? Below is an analysis of some of the more misleading and disturbing clauses in the resolution: The lead-off clause cynically places "fact-finding mission" in quotes, implying that this was not in fact the purpose of the investigation of a reputable and experienced team.?? In addition, the commission's mandate was not, as the resolution claims, to investigate "Israel's conduct?against violent militants," but the conduct of its forces in relation to the civilian population. This is followed by a series of clauses criticizing the original mandate of the UN Human Rights Council which called only for an investigation of Israeli war crimes.? This is completely moot, however, since commission head Justice Richard Goldstone - to his credit - refused to accept the position unless its mandate was changed to one which would investigate possible war crimes by both sides in the conflict. and the mandate of the commission was thereby broadened.? The House resolution does not mention this, however, implying that the original mandate was the basis of the report.? In reality, from the start of the actual investigation, there was not such a bias against Israel, since it dedicating over 70 pages to detail a whole series of violations of the laws of war by Hamas, including rocket attacks into civilian-populated areas of Israel, torture of Palestinian opponents, and continued holding of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.?? Yet H. Res. 867 makes no mention of this extensive critical reporting in the report regarding Hamas' violations of international humanitarian law, thereby giving the false impression that the report unfairly only dealt with the actions of the Israeli armed forces.? The inclusion of these clauses is apparently designed to give the false impression that the report was based upon this original one-sided mandate and ignore the fact that it had long been superseded by the revised balanced mandate upon which the report is actually based. The resolution claims that the report makes "sweeping and unsubstantiated determinations that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead."? If one bothers to actually read the report, there were indeed detailed and well-substantiated evidence of deadly attacks against schools, mosques, private homes and businesses nowhere near legitimate military targets.? In particular, the report cites in detail eleven incidents in which Israeli armed forces engaged in direct attacks against civilians, including cases where people were shot "while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags." The report's conclusion that Israel's military assault on Gaza was "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish humiliate and terrorize a civilian population" echo detailed empirical reports released in recent months by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, among others.? Criticism of this report, therefore, is criticism of these reputable human rights groups as well. Then the resolution goes on to claim that the report denies Israel's right to self-defense.? This is patently false.? There was absolutely nothing in the report that denies Israel's right to self-defense.? It simply insists that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have the right to attack civilians. The resolution resolves that Congress go on record that the report is "irredeemably biased," ignoring - among other things - that the head of the commission was Richard Goldstone, who has had a longstanding reputation for fairness and objectivity and previously led the war crimes prosecutions for Yugoslavia.? He is also Jewish, a longtime supporter of Israel, a member of the board of directors of Friends of Hebrew University and other Zionist groups, and the father of an Israeli citizen.?? He wrote most of it, he approved the final version, and has steadfastly defended it.? This resolution, then, is a direct attack on the integrity of one of the world's most principled defenders of human rights. The resolution even claims that the report is part of an effort "to delegitimize the democratic State of Israel and deny it the right to defend its citizens and its existence can be used to delegitimize other democracies and deny them the same right."? In reality, there is absolutely nothing in the report that delegitimizes Israel or its right to defend its citizens, nor is there anything in the report that could conceivably delegitimize other democracies or deny other democracies their right to exist or defend their citizens.? This is demagoguery at its most extreme and appears to be a right-wing effort to silence defenders of international humanitarian law by putting Congress on record as saying that documenting a given country's war crimes is tantamount to denying that country's right to exist and its right to self-defense. There are other clauses in the resolution which take a number of quotes out of context and engage in other misrepresentations to make the case that, in the resolution's words, the report is "irredeemably biased."? Perhaps most seriously, there is the final clause of the resolution which endorses Israel's right to attack Syria and Iran because of their alleged support of Hamas. As a result, it is critical that there be a full-press effort to defeat this resolution.? Please call your Congressperson first thing Monday and encourage them to vote against H. Res. 867. --Stephen Zunes, www.stephenzunes.org From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Fri Nov 6 17:34:57 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 09:34:57 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Inference of Fraud Message-ID: <20091107093457.87b71c7b.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> What is not given but must be taken? False Flag Operations by David M Shapiro CUNY Academic Commons (October 31 2009) My favorite topic since 9/11 is the financial crisis. Some outstanding issues that I've yet to see credibly addressed by US leaders are the following: 1. Why did none of the financial institutions that allegedly needed (and actually received) TARP funds beginning in the Fall of 2008 not warn their shareholders of their precarious financial positions in prior public filings (for example, Forms 10-K / 10-Q)? 2. If senior management and the boards of directors of these financial institutions were genuinely caught short and did not possess actual knowledge of the precarious financial positions of the financial institutions under their stewardship, did they possess constructive knowledge (that is, they could have and should have known of the precarious financial condition)? 3. If they neither could have nor should known about the precariousness of the financial conditions of the financial institutions under their stewardship, how relevant and reliable were the accounting information systems of these financial institutions? 4. If the precariousness of the financial conditions was neither forecast nor capable of forecast (for example, the perfect storm), why did some entities (for example, hedge funds) take significant positions (for example, credit default swap protection from loss of value of Lehman Brothers debt) from which they benefited enormously after the public dissemination of the precariousness of the financial positions of the financial institutions was exploited by politicians (for example, US Congress), administrators (for example, US Treasury Secretary), and regulators (for example, Federal Reserve Bank of New York) to bail-out financial institutions' creditors? 5. If the financial institutions and the ultimate beneficiaries of the bail-outs (for example, financial institutions' creditors) were indeed 'too big to fail', why haven't the individuals responsible for creating the bail-outs acted forthwith to correct such bigness and systemic risk? 6. If the financial institutions (and their creditors) have largely recovered as a result of the bail-outs, why hasn't the US economy created more jobs? 7. If the financial institutions' responsibility is neither job creation in the US nor development of projects promoting the general welfare of the US, why were they so important that they had to be rescued by US taxpayers? The US taxpayers will support a bipartisan group (that is, the so-called Angelides Commission) to investigate the financial crisis. Some hope for a Pecora Commission redux. What are the odds that it will more closely resemble a 9/11 Commission redux? http://dshapiro32.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2009/10/31/false-flag-operations/ TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ From aaron.doncaster at gmail.com Fri Nov 6 18:00:03 2009 From: aaron.doncaster at gmail.com (aaron doncaster) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 18:00:03 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Shooting at Fort Hood, CIA Convicted of Kidnapping, Tea Party Anti Health Rally In-Reply-To: <636764.88105.qm@web43508.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <458082.66273.qm@web43504.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <200911060735.51300.intnsred@golgotha.net> <636764.88105.qm@web43508.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <164236a30911061700q20377ff7tc8d96c42254043c8@mail.gmail.com> This kind of stuff happened in the lead up to the end of the vietnam war. I have been making the for a few weeks and nobody seems to care. Strategically the empire is week. The Taliban,regardless of thier religious fascism is seen as a force for national liberation and are gaining strength. the soldiers over sees are demoralied ashigh ranking officials critisize the war and resign in protes, now this shooting, and more will happen unless the troops are brought home. now is tjhe time to rebuild a stron anti-war anti-imperialist movement that takes to the streets and engage in direct action, civil disobedeance and economic sabotage in order to bring the troops home. This shooting is the beginning of a new phase in the resistence,the war has been brought to american soil now an effort must be made to continue to(even at risk of sounding cliche and like we are Weather Underground worshippers)bring the war home.I think the Amercian antiwar movement needs to become more militant!!! Aaron On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:04 AM, Gary Crethers wrote: > I don't take as hard a line as you do. I think that in this world as it is > there is a place for a military service for defensive purposes and for a > limited amount of internationally agreed upon police actions and even that I > would limit to peace keeping to keep combatants apart such as UN actions. I > would certainly not include US sponsored imperialist wars of aggression such > as the invasion of Afghanistan given the cloak of international acceptance > by the presence of token forces from NATO. > With that as a basis there certainly is no need for such a massive war > machine in the USA. It is only required to impose American authority on the > rest of the world. To some extent this is aided by the NATO members, Japan, > Taiwan and South Korea who have minimal military establishments because they > know the USA will provide the major military might to protect them. This > protection is mainly a protection of the interests of the multinational > corporations and their local ancillary branches. This is not a protection of > the people but of the oligarchy's that rule in each of these so called > democracies. > While the rest of these allies are able to spend their wealth on > providing for the needs of their populace, the USA no longer can afford to > support its massive military machine without making its populace suffer. In > fact it is partly to keep the military machine supplied with recruits that > the country has such a weak infrastructure of social services. I am sure > when the planners determined that they would be better off with a > professional army and not a draft that they also considered the level of > unemployment required to keep a certain number of 'volunteers' available. > This is conscription by another name. > In any case the USA, this so called arsenal of democracy is now > enthralled to a perpetual war machine and the side effect of the occasional > flipped out trooper is to be expected as a consequence. It will be simply > factored in. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Suzanne de Kuyper > To: garyrumor2 at yahoo.com > Sent: Fri, November 6, 2009 4:57:09 AM > Subject: Re: [R-G] Shooting at Fort Hood, CIA Convicted of Kidnapping, Tea > Party Anti Health Rally > > It was even less than senseless because of the profession of the shooter as > well as his faith. Psychiatry takes profoud study and self examination for > years at great cost and commitment. That he was to be deployed where he > might be forced to kill those of his own faith may well have driven him > over the edge. The result, beaurocraticly, may be that the military no > longer accepts soldiers of the Muslim fath who are in positions of social > work or psychiatric professsions! Considering the lack of integrety in the > military systems that might be a good idea but really only ilustrates the > profound totla corruption of the U.S. defence systems. > > Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Intense Red wrote: > > > > It is sad to hear of senseless killing, about as senseless as a car > bomb > > > or an air strike by a long distance drone. Most victims from war are > > > civilians, innocents caught in the crossfire. > > > > It's sad to hear of killing, but the killing of the soldiers preparing > to > > do another round of occupation in the continuing US war of aggression on > > Iraq was not "senseless". > > > > The major killed war criminals. Whether we want to admit it or not, > every > > soldier participating in these wars are war criminals. They may have had > an > > excuse in 2002 or 2003 that these were not imperial wars of aggression > and > > thus war crimes, but now there is no doubt and no excuse. The soldiers > > deploying are cowards, sheepishly following orders and committing their > > crimes. As the Pentagon likes to brag, they *volunteered* to participate > in > > these crimes. The only brave soldiers in uniform are the heroes that > refuse > > to deploy, who do their jail time and take their "dishonorable" discharge > > and social smearing. > > > > As the old saying goes, if you live by the sword you'll die by the > sword. > > That is exactly what happened to the soldiers who died in Texas. > > > > > > -- > > "There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden > > to > > the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial." -- > "The > > Investigation and the Evidence," BBC News, October 5, 2001. To date no > > evidence has been offered by the US that Bin Laden was behind the attacks > > of Sep. 11. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 garyrumor2 at yahoo.com Fri Nov 6 23:13:02 2009 From: garyrumor2 at yahoo.com (Gary Crethers) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:13:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Worthless Debates Over Half Measures Or Real Change Message-ID: <318731.74367.qm@web43505.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Worthless Debate Over Nothing, Or Real Change We need to end capitalist dominance of our world. Simple solution, end it. Not such a simple solution, because the last administration and all their allies did their best to get us so far under that we could not imagine anything but paying back all that debt we have accumulated. But I suggest a more radical solution. We declare a Jubilee for the entire planet. We reset the world?s economy at zero and start over again. But not just start over, we star with a completely different economic system. All we need to do is to agree on a more logical and equitable system of resource distribution. It doesn?t have to be totally rational, because it needs to satisfy the desire for more and for being better that humans have. That is the alpha male genetic tendency that we seem to have inherited from our ape ancestors. We can encourage that tendency and aggravate it again and have this roller coaster economic ride that is exasperated by the use of computer technology to intensify and speed it up. Or we can discourage it and sublimate that tendency by encouraging other forms of excellence like sport, art, etc. Small children have all these traits. They have tendencies to cooperate and to they have the same tendencies to dominate, to include and exclude in a primitive form as they later exhibit as adults in more sophisticated forms. We can modify children?s behavior and we can do the same for adults. Advertisers know that repetition for a period of about two weeks of just about anything will convince subconsciously. It must be repeated but if it is reinforced almost any behavior can be modified. I have Geico insurance and a Capital One credit card. I am sure it is not because they are particularly good. They simply are persistent and good at advertising. People started smoking because of the media perception that it was cool. Now people have stopped smoking because of the constant repetition of the message that it is bad. Smoking is addictive. This is not an easy thing to give up, but people have it in their minds that it is bad, even though their bodies tell them they need to smoke. That shows the power of suggestion. Drugs became popular in the culture because of all the positive imagery in the media about them. I know I personally could not wait to try them because of all I had read and seen on TV. The positive messages of excitement, sex and rebellion far outweighed the social message of the discredited authority. Now we have the group that represented the former druggies, not the serious one but the I didn?t inhale Clinton types, the ones who partied but not too hard, the intellectually adventurous, the geeks and the policy wonk hipsters, but also the members of the establishment who like to think of themselves as being progressive, these are the people in power. The sons and daughters of privilege and the people who worked hard to get to a position of privilege, these are the people in power. They are the members of the ruling elites who believe in thinking smarter but not with a heavy handedness of the other side. Who are the other side? We saw them with the Bush crew. But the question is what do we do? I am afraid the ?I didn?t inhale? crowd isn?t willing to take a real chance. They are too vested in the system or they had to make too many compromises to get to the position of power. But now they are in power and if they don?t take some chances then they will be kicked out again and the Bush sort of thugs will be back with their talk of going to the dark side and their belief in American Exceptionalism and their willingness to impose neo fascist police state controls in the name of security. Do we really want that? They are howling for blood, like a pack of hungry wolves, they stand at the gates of power waiting for the wonks and hipsters to screw up. More that that what I see is a failure of nerve. This insistance of bringing on board some moderates of the other side, of meeting them half way, of being fair minded, all that is old school and in this day and age it is certainly not what is required. People voted them into power to make changes not to dither and make nice with the old group that got kicked out of power. By playing nice the other side smells blood and weakness. They don?t see this group as trying to be fair, they see them as typically wishy washy liberal. It is time for the real left to take over. It is time for those who inhaled, and injected and dropped and took chances and had ideas to step foward and say now we need to make radical moves. It is time for the world to get ready and take the plunge into another way of perceiving the world. Half measures made for the sake of trying not to offend is a path to nowhere. It is the way to become displaced and removed from power. The opportunity have been given by the people to a small group and these people need to be willing to act and act decisively. They may not be ready to end capitalism, but they sure as hell don?t need to be propping it up and getting us all further in debt to a system that is collapsing. We need to rein it in, pull it down just as the capitalists brought down the lame version of communism that existed back then, now we need to be willing to do the same for this rampaging beast of capitalism. It is frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog. It needs to be put down before it infects us all. 10.2% unemployment officially and a rate of closer to 20% if we include those working part time and those who have stopped searching and live in the underground economy is unacceptable in a system with almost no safety net as ours is since we demolished the one we had in a hubris-tic flight of fantasy during the Clinton administration when we were convinced that prosperity and full employment would last forever and not until the next roll of the coaster. That is the problem with these so called smart people who believe in capitalism. They cannot see past the next roll of the dice and they are believers in this crazy way of running a world because they are blinded by their own intellect. We need not smart ass thinkers looking for another quick fix. We need people who are willing to walk away from it and look to the safety and security of the whole world. We need responcible radicals who are willing to say no to this addiction to the highs and the inevitable lows of a system based on bubbles and financial gimmickry. We nave to get back to the basics and design a method of allocation that takes care of real needs first with production in the real economy and not with fake financial instruments. When we return to reality then perhaps we can build a system that works for people and not for wall street and its devotees. Tags: Jacobin Revival Of the Radical Move For Change From srobin21 at comcast.net Fri Nov 6 23:37:22 2009 From: srobin21 at comcast.net (Steven Robinson) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 22:37:22 -0800 Subject: [R-G] 10-Week Chicago Teamsters Strike Wins Back Health Care Message-ID: <636927A920064FBC84DEDCADFDCC6CA2@StevenPC> 10-Week Chicago Teamsters Strike Wins Back Health Care By Enku Ide Labor Notes November 5, 2009 While Congress and health care executives played political volleyball with health care reform, workers at SK Hand Tools in Chicago took matters into their own hands. When their employer unilaterally dropped health insurance and tried to strip pensions and cut pay, 70 members of Teamsters Local 743 struck on August 25. Now they're returning to their production lines, where they make wrenches and other tools for Sears, having saved their health care and pensions. They took big pay cuts, but not as deep as what management had demanded: dropping pay from an average $14 to just above Illinois's minimum wage, $8 an hour. Although management dumped health care in early May, workers weren't told. Many had to find out by word of mouth from other workers, or were clued in when hit with surprising medical bills. Workers said managers later told them they'd been too busy to inform employees. Since May, many workers have had to forgo needed medical care or are now amassing debt. Richard Berg, president of the local, said SK wanted to "slam down the standard of living of these people forever." The workers had another plan in mind, taking a unanimous vote to strike and standing firm for more than two months. It was the unit's first strike. The settlement secures workers' individual health care, and allows them to access pensions and family health care through the Teamsters' multi-employer trust fund. Steward and strike co-captain Dave Biedrzycki said many workers had over 30 years in and were ready to retire, making the pensions a priority. According to Berg, the cost and quality of individual insurance has remained the same as before, although family plans will now be more expensive. Workers did accept deep wage cuts, 20 percent for some and 30 percent for others, in their new contract. Berg says the union recognized that the company is in financial trouble, but hopes to be in a good place to bargain for better conditions when the company returns to profitability. Workers at SK Hand Tools were far from lonely in facing the loss of health benefits in the sour economy. According to the Center for American Progress, 2.4 million workers have lost coverage during the recession. Cuts have been most stark in manufacturing, with 733,600 workers losing employer-based coverage between December 2007 and May, when SK Hand Tools quietly stopped paying the bills. The strike also highlighted a painful distinction in the workforce: While union members won their health care back, non-union workers at the shop did not recover theirs, nor did SK workers in a Machinists local in Ohio. Biedrzycki said, "We wanted to make sure this didn't happen to anyone else. We wanted to let other people know-this can happen to you. We really have to thank the unions and organizations that came out to support us. This is something I'll never forget." Berg says that the national health care debate hit home for Local 743 members. "The workers would look on TV or in the newspaper and only see insurance executives and business people," he said. "Nobody was speaking for working people. When we struck, workers at SK Hand Tools felt that they had become a voice for working people." http://labornotes.org/2009/11/chicago-teamsters-strike-wins-back-health-care This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 7 00:33:30 2009 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 23:33:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] MADRE: October 2009 Highlights from the Month :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <443112.97982.qm@web111502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> This Action, on Change.org, the url?? :) global human rights?? :) http://globalhealth.change.org/actions/view/global_human_rights http://www.change.org/profile/189788/actions Read about, and advocate for global human rights?? :) ? http://www.madre.org/index.php?video=1 Join the Challenge Today! The race for the most donations begins again today! Join MADRE for America's Giving Challenge, and help us put women's human rights first today. What can you do? Donate $10. Spread the word: ask ten friends to donate $10.? To win $1,000, we need more people to donate before 3pm on Friday, October 30 than any other group. Learn More. Radio in Iraq: Empowering Women Through the Airwaves We have exciting news! Last week, MADRE's partner organization, the Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), launched a new radio broadcast: the Al Mousawat Radio. Yanar Mohammed, OWFI's director, wants to know: what are you listening to? What artists/songs do you think Al Mousawat Radio should share with the women and youth of Iraq? Let us know. Provide Medical Kits for Midwives in Palestine In the West Bank, Palestinian women in labor are routinely denied access to necessary medical care by Israeli military checkpoints and roadblocks. MADRE is putting together Safe Birthing Kits, a kit of midwife-specific medical supplies that will improve the safety and quality of home childbirth. Learn More. http://www.madre.org/index/get-involved-3/act-for-change-9/provide-medical-kits-for-midwives-in-palestine-157.html Obama Continues Failed Bush-Era Policy on Cuba The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on a resolution calling for an end to the US embargo against Cuba. For the 18th consecutive year, a nearly unanimous grouping of nations came together to condemn this 47-year-old policy, now continuing under the Obama Administration. MADRE joins the General Assembly in condemning this embargo. Read More. Storytelling and Youth Media in Colombia Miguel Macias, a youth media producer and MADRE volunteer, recently traveled to Bogota, Colombia to lead a multimedia workshop.? The participants were young people affiliated with Taller de Vida, a MADRE sister organization.? Below are his reflections on the experience, featuring a video produced by one of the participants. Read more. A Discussion on the Way Forward in Afghanistan MADRE Policy and Communications Director Yifat Susskind appeared on GRITtv, hosted by Laura Flanders, to discuss women's rights under occupation in Afghanistan.? Watch the Video. ? Childbirth Under Occupation: A Conversation Between Aisha Saifi and Yifat Susskind In the West Bank, Palestinian women in labor are routinely denied access to necessary medical care by Israeli military checkpoints and roadblocks. MADRE partners with Midwives for Peace, a group of Palestinian and Israeli midwives who ensure that skilled, well-equipped midwives are available to women in their community.? MADRE's Yifat Susskind interviewed Aisha Saifi, a Palestinian midwife and coordinator of Midwives for Peace. Read more. ?http://www.madre.org/index.php?s=4&news=227 Hundreds of Indigenous Women Stand Against Violence In early October, over four hundred women met in Waspam, an Indigenous region in Nicaragua. They came from communities across Nicaragua, from Mexico, from across Central America and beyond, drawn by the need to discuss solutions to violence against women. Read more. http://madreblogs.typepad.com/mymadre/2009/10/hundreds-of-indigenous-women-stand-against-violence.html Face to Face with Fatima Ahmed Fatima Ahmed, president of Zenab for Women in Development, a MADRE partner and community-based women's organization in Sudan, came by the MADRE office to update us on the success of current projects she overlooks and organizes with the help of MADRE.? She spoke about the success of the Women Farmers Unite, a union of women she helped to organize beginning in 2007. Read more. ?In This IssueJoin the Challenge Iraq: Radio ProjectPalestine: Safe Birth Kits Cuba: Obama and the EmbargoColombia: Youth Media Afghanistan: An InterviewPalestine: An InterviewNicaragua: Against Violence Sudan: Women Farmers Increase Your Impact Become a Women's Human Rights Sustainer and ensure that MADRE's programs remain strong and vibrant. Learn How. Shop Your IdealsFrom MADRE's Webstore Find a beautiful selection of hand-crafted items at MADRE's Webstore! From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Nov 7 07:45:51 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 23:45:51 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The Anti-Empire Report Message-ID: <20091107234551.9ef81c5b.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by William Blum www.killinghope.org (November 04 2009) "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets". - Voltaire Question: How many countries do you have to be at war with to be disqualified from receiving the Nobel Peace Prize? Answer: Five. Barack Obama has waged war against only Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. He's holding off on Iran until he actually gets the prize. Somalian civil society and court system are so devastated from decades of war that one wouldn't expect its citizens to have the means to raise serious legal challenges to Washington's apparent belief that it can drop bombs on that sad land whenever it appears to serve the empire's needs. But a group of Pakistanis, calling themselves "Lawyers Front for Defense of the Constitution", and remembering just enough of their country's more civilized past, has filed suit before the nation's High Court to make the federal government stop American drone attacks on countless innocent civilians. The group declared that a Pakistan Army spokesman claimed to have the capability to shoot down the drones, but the government had made a policy decision not to. {1} The Obama administration, like the Bush administration, behaves like the world is one big lawless Somalia and the United States is the chief warlord. On October 20 the president again displayed his deep love of peace by honoring some eighty veterans of Vietnam at the White House, after earlier awarding their regiment a Presidential Unit Citation for its "extraordinary heroism and conspicuous gallantry". {2} War correspondent Michael Herr has honored Vietnam soldiers in his own way: "We took space back quickly, expensively, with total panic and close to maximum brutality. Our machine was devastating. And versatile. It could do everything but stop." {3} What would it take for the Obamaniacs to lose any of the stars in their eyes for their dear Nobel Laureate? Perhaps if the president announced that he was donating his prize money to build a monument to the First - "Oh What a Lovely" - World War? The memorial could bear the inscription: "Let us remember that Rudyard Kipling coaxed his young son John into enlisting in this war. John died his first day in combat. Kipling later penned these words: If any question why we died, Tell them, because our fathers lied." "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature." - James Madison, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson (April 02 1798). A wise measure, indeed, but one American president after another has dragged the nation into bloody war without the approval of Congress, the American people, international law, or world opinion. Millions marched against the war in Iraq before it began. Millions more voted for Barack Obama in the belief that he shared their repugnance for America's Wars Without End. They had no good reason to believe this - Obama's campaign was filled with repeated warlike threats against Iran and Afghanistan - but they wanted to believe it. If machismo explains war, if men love war and fighting so much, why do we have to compel them with conscription on pain of imprisonment? Why do the powers-that-be have to wage advertising campaigns to seduce young people to enlist in the military? Why do young men go to extreme lengths to be declared exempt for physical or medical reasons? Why do they flee into exile to avoid the draft? Why do they desert the military in large numbers in the midst of war? Why don't Sweden or Switzerland or Costa Rica have wars? Surely there are many macho men in those countries. "Join the Army, visit far away places, meet interesting people, and kill them". War licenses men to take part in what would otherwise be described as psychopathic behavior. "Sometimes I think it should be a rule of war that you have to see somebody up close and get to know him before you can shoot him". - Colonel Potter, M*A*S*H "In the struggle of Good against Evil, it's always the people who get killed". - Eduardo Galeano After the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, a Taliban leader declared that "God is on our side, and if the world's people try to set fire to Afghanistan, God will protect us and help us". {4} "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." - George W Bush, 2004, during the war in Iraq {5} "I believe that Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis." - Barack Obama {6} Why don't church leaders forbid Catholics from joining the military with the same fervor they tell Catholics to stay away from abortion clinics? God, war, the World Bank, the IMF, free trade agreements, NATO, the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, "anti-war" candidates, and Nobel Peace Prizes can be seen as simply different instruments for the advancement of US imperialism. Tom Lehrer, the marvelous political songwriter of the 1950s and 1960s, once observed: "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize". Perhaps each generation has to learn anew what a farce that prize has become, or always was. Its recipients include quite a few individuals who had as much commitment to a peaceful world as the Bush administration had to truth. One example currently in the news: Bernard Kouchner, co-founder of Medecins Sans Frontieres which won the prize in 1998. Kouchner, now France's foreign secretary, has long been urging military action against Iran. Last week he called upon Iran to make a nuclear deal acceptable to the Western powers or else there's no telling what horror Israel might inflict upon the Iranians. Israel "will not tolerate an Iranian bomb", he said. "We know that, all of us". {7} There is a word for such a veiled threat - "extortion", something normally associated with the likes of a Chicago mobster of the 1930s ... "Do like I say and no one gets hurt". Or as Al Capone once said: "Kind words and a machine gun will get you more than kind words alone". The continuing desperate quest to find something good to say about US foreign policy Not the crazy, hateful right wing, not racist or disrupting public meetings, not demanding birth certificates ... but the respectable right, holding high positions in academia and in every administration, Republican or Democrat, members of the highly esteemed Council on Foreign Relations. Here's Joshua Kurlantzick, a "Fellow for Southeast Asia" at CFR, writing in the equally esteemed and respectable Washington Post about how - despite all the scare talk - it wouldn't be so bad if Afghanistan actually turned into another Vietnam because "Vietnam and the United States have become close partners in Southeast Asia, exchanging official visits, building an important trading and strategic relationship and fostering goodwill between governments, businesses and people on both sides ... America did not win the war there, but over time it has won the peace ... American war veterans publicly made peace with their old adversaries ... A program [to exchange graduate students and professors] could ensure that the next generation of Afghan leaders sees an image of the United States beyond that of the war." {8} And so on. On second thought, this is not so much right-wing jingoism as it is ... uh ... y'know ... What's the word? ... Ah yes, "pointless". Just what is the point? Germany and Israel are on excellent terms ... therefore, what point can we make about the Holocaust? As to America not winning the war in Vietnam, that's worse than pointless. It's wrong. Most people believe that the United States lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, by poisoning the earth, the water, the air, and the gene pool for generations, the US in fact achieved its primary purpose: it left Vietnam a basket case, preventing the rise of what might have been a good development option for Asia, an alternative to the capitalist model; for the same reason the United States has been at war with Cuba for fifty years, making sure that the Cuban alternative model doesn't look as good as it would if left in peace. And in all the years since the Vietnam War ended, the millions of Vietnamese suffering from diseases and deformities caused by US sprayings of the deadly chemical "Agent Orange" have received from the United States no medical care, no environmental remediation, no compensation, and no official apology. That's exactly what the Afghans - their land and/or their bodies permeated with depleted uranium, unexploded cluster bombs, and a witch's brew of other charming chemicals - have to look forward to in Kurlantzick's Brave New World. "If the US relationship with Afghanistan eventually resembles the one we now have with Vietnam, we should be overjoyed", he writes. God Bless America. One further thought about Afghanistan: The suggestion that the United States could, and should, solve its (self-created) dilemma by simply getting out of that god-forsaken place is dismissed out of hand by the American government and media; even some leftist critics of US policy are reluctant to embrace so bold a step - Who knows what horror may result? But when the Soviet Union was in the process of quitting Afghanistan (during the period of May 1988 to February 1989) who in the West insisted that they remain? For any reason. No matter what the consequences of their withdrawal. The reason the Russians could easier leave than the Americans can now is that the Russians were not there for imperialist reasons, such as oil and gas pipelines. Similar to why the US can't leave Iraq. Washington's eternal "Cuba problem" - the one they can't admit to. "Here we go again. I suppose old habits die hard", said US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, on October 28 before the General Assembly voted on the annual resolution to end the US embargo against Cuba. "The hostile language we have just heard from the Foreign Minister of Cuba", she continued, "seems straight out of the Cold War era and is not conducive to constructive progress". Her 949-word statement contained not a word about the embargo; not very conducive to a constructive solution to the unstated "Cuba problem", the one about Cuba inspiring the Third World, the fear that the socialist virus would spread. Since the early days of the Cuban Revolution assorted anti-communists and capitalist true-believers around the world have been relentless in publicizing the failures, real and alleged, of life in Cuba; each perceived shortcoming is attributed to the perceived shortcomings of socialism - It's simply a system that can't work, we are told, given the nature of human beings, particularly in this modern, competitive, globalized, consumer-oriented world. In response to such criticisms, defenders of Cuban society have regularly pointed out how the numerous draconian sanctions imposed by the United States since 1960 have produced many and varied scarcities and sufferings and are largely responsible for most of the problems pointed out by the critics. The critics, in turn, say that this is just an excuse, one given by Cuban apologists for every failure of their socialist system. However, it would be very difficult for the critics to prove their point. The United States would have to drop all sanctions and then we'd have to wait long enough for Cuban society to make up for lost time and recover what it was deprived of, and demonstrate what its system can do when not under constant assault by the most powerful force on earth. In 1999, Cuba filed a suit against the United States for $181.1 billion in compensation for economic losses and loss of life during the first 39 years of this aggression. The suit held Washington responsible for the death of 3,478 Cubans and the wounding and disabling of 2,099 others. In the ten years since, these figures have of course all increased. The sanctions, in numerous ways large and small, make acquiring many kinds of products and services from around the world much more difficult and expensive, often impossible; frequently, they are things indispensable to Cuban medicine, transportation or industry; simply transferring money internationally has become a major problem for the Cubans, with banks being heavily punished by the United States for dealing with Havana; or the sanctions mean that Americans and Cubans can't attend professional conferences in each other's country. These examples are but a small sample of the excruciating pain inflicted by Washington upon the body, soul and economy of the Cuban people. For years American political leaders and media were fond of labeling Cuba an "international pariah". We don't hear much of that any more. Perhaps one reason is the annual vote in the General Assembly on the resolution, which reads: "Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba". This is how the vote has gone: Year Votes (Yes-No) No Votes 1992 59-2 US, Israel 1993 88-4 US, Israel, Albania, Paraguay 1994 101-2 US, Israel, Uzbekistan 1995 117-3 US, Israel, Uzbekistan 1996 138-3 US, Israel, Uzbekistan 1997 143-3 US, Israel 1998 157-2 US, Israel 1999 155-2 US, Israel, Marshall Islands 2000 167-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands 2001 167-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands 2002 167-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands 2003 173-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2004 179-3 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2005 182-4 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2006 183-4 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2007 184-4 US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau 2008 185-3 US, Israel, Palau 2009 187-3 US, Israel, Palau How it began, from State Department documents: Within a few months of the Cuban revolution of January 1959, the Eisenhower administration decided "to adjust all our actions in such a way as to accelerate the development of an opposition in Cuba which would bring about a change in the Cuban Government, resulting in a new government favorable to US interests". {9} On April 6 1960, Lester D Mallory, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, wrote in an internal memorandum: "The majority of Cubans support Castro ... The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship ... every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba". Mallory proposed "a line of action which ... makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government". {10} Later that year, the Eisenhower administration instituted the suffocating embargo. Notes 1. The Nation (Pakistan English-language daily newspaper), October 10 2009 2. Washington Post, October 20 2009 3. Michael Herr, Dispatches (1991), page 71 4. New York Daily News, September 19 2001 5. Washington Post, July 20 2004, page 15, citing the New Era (Lancaster, Pennsylvania), from a private meeting of Bush with Amish families on July 9. The White House denied that Bush had said it. (Those Amish folks do lie a lot you know.) 6. Washington Post, August 17 2008 7. Daily Telegraph (UK), October 26 2009 8. Washington Post, October 25 2009 9. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Volume VI, Cuba (1991), page 742 10. Ibid, page 885 _____ 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://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer75.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 menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 7 10:02:07 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:02:07 -0600 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Norman_Finkelstein=3A_Zionism=92s_Version_?= =?windows-1252?q?of_History?= Message-ID: Zionism?s Version of History By Norman Finkelstein Video Posted November 05, 2009 My guest tonight is a Jewish American political scientist and author who Jewish supporters of Israel right or wrong love to hate. He is ? Norman Finkelstein. Norman Finkelstein grew up in New York City where, before he obtained academic employment, he was a part-time social worker with teenage dropouts. He completed his undergraduate studies at New York?s Binghampton University in 1974. After studying in Paris, he went on to get his Master?s degree in political science, and later his PhD in political studies, from Princeton University. He has held faculty positions at five American universities. The reason why Finkelstein is vilified by Jewish supporters of Israel right or wrong can be simply stated. In his writing and public speaking, as in his doctoral thesis, he is committed to exposing books which present Zionism?s version of history. They are, he writes and says, part of a ?monumental hoax?, ?fraud? and ?nonsense?. His friend Noam Chomsky once warned him in a letter that he would get into trouble because, Chomsky wrote, ?you?re going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they?re going to destroy you.? A dramatic moment in Zionism?s on-going attempt to destroy Finkelstein, and also its highly successful strategy for restricting academic freedom in general, came in June of last year (twenty o seven) when, giving in to Zionist pressure, Chicago?s DePaul University denied him tenure. Prior to that decision, Finkelstein had been an assistant professor at DePaul for six years, and described in an official university statement as ?a prolific scholar and outstanding teacher.? Video: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23900.htm From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 7 10:13:30 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:13:30 -0600 Subject: [R-G] William Bowles: Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires or . . . Message-ID: . . . just a graveyard with a pipeline running through it? By William Bowles ?The US does not need a final victory over the Talibs. Despite their widely advertized ferocious conflict, the US and the Talibs manage to coexist quite successfully in Afghanistan?? ? Andrei KONUROV, US Objectives in Afghanistan [1] Come on folks, it?s just good sense, there is no way the Empire can actually win the war in Afghanistan. As I have stated before it?s not about ?winning? but occupation. Afghanistan is basically a stepping stone on the way to some place else and leaving an oil pipeline behind with a friendly government in place to protect it. Ah, but the best laid plans of mice and men etc? And this is why it bears no comparison to the idiotic occupation that the Soviets got sucked into, except for the slaughter of course. But from a strategic and economic perspective, along with Iran, Pakistan and India, Afghanistan commands the entrance to East Asia and there?s gold in them thar hills! Just as with Iraq, Afghanistan has been turned into a garrison state, hence the strategic ?retreat? into the cities that has been proposed by the ISAF consiglieri. It?s basically screw the peasants, let ?em rot, as long as we can hold the centre ie, Kabul and a couple of other strategically important towns, why waste ammo and lose, by comparison with the number of Afghan deaths, and what is for a war, a small number of ISAF fatalities (230 UK troops). But remember, one Western death is considered to be the equivalent to a lot of ?ragheads?, ?gooks? or whatever dehumanizing derogative derives from the latest slaughter. So as far as the Western public is concerned a few hundred ISAF/USUK/NATO deaths translates to maybe thousands having died? Whatever, having the citizens on the side of the Empire is vitally important! ?The figures suggest opposition to the war has risen sharply over the past couple of weeks, a period that has seen the Karzai election debacle, and the deaths of five British soldiers. ?Over a third of people, 35 per cent, think British troops should be withdrawn immediately, compared with 25 per cent a fortnight ago. ?And overall, almost three-quarters, 73 per cent, want troops out now or within a year. And strikingly, 57 per cent think victory is no longer possible.? ? Snowmail Email, Chan.4 TV, 5 November, 2009 Think of it this way: the road maybe long and full of potholes but as long as the bridge stands they can get over it.[2] Afghanistan is the bridge and just one piece in a strategic jigsaw that?s been in the works getting on for a couple of centuries. The point is, what do we mean when we say ?getting out of Afghanistan?? Just look at Iraq, who talks about Iraq anymore (unless there?s some horrendous car bombing that kills enough to make the headlines). The state/media acts as if it?s all over bar the shouting; they don?t talk about it, there is simply no mention of USUK occupation forces in Iraq. The point is they are there and they are there to stay. The strategy maybe different, circumstances determine how the occupier deploys its forces. So okay, for the sake of argument, all the troops leave Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan? What will they leave behind? Shattered, broken, mostly former countries or the shells of one. Many of the countries Western capitalism has gotten into since the fall of the Soviet Union, have been broken up and turned to shit (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, for starters). But this is the point! Chaos as an imperial strategy. This is the legacy of thirty years of ?free market? capitalism. The point is, they will still be there, economically, politically and of course militarily even if using proxy forces (trained, equipped and led by the ?former? occupiers). It all comes down to the same thing. As long as they have a ?government? in place that does as its told and doesn?t mess with who owns what, they?ll live with that, as long as they can sell it back home, to us of course. The occupation is about three objectives: 1) Opening up markets for the West previously denied them and 2) taking out and/or ?containing? the competition ie Russia and China and 3) resources. From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 7 10:40:14 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:40:14 -0600 Subject: [R-G] John Pilger: Breaking the Great Australian Silence Message-ID: John Pilger's ZSpace Page / ZSpace Thank you all for coming tonight, and my thanks to the City of Sydney and especially to the Sydney Peace Foundation for awarding me the Peace Prize. It's an honour I cherish, because it comes from where I come from. I am a seventh generation Australian. My great-great grandfather landed not far from here, on November 8th, 1821. He wore leg irons, each weighing four pounds. His name was Francis McCarty. He was an Irishman, convicted of the crime of insurrection and "uttering unlawful oaths". In October of the same year, an 18 year old girl called Mary Palmer stood in the dock at Middlesex Gaol and was sentenced to be transported to New South Wales for the term of her natural life. Her crime was stealing in order to live. Only the fact that she was pregnant saved her from the gallows. She was my great-great grandmother. She was sent from the ship to the Female Factory at Parramatta, a notorious prison where every third Monday, male convicts were brought for a "courting day" - a rather desperate measure of social engineering. Mary and Francis met that way and were married on October 21st, 1823. Growing up in Sydney, I knew nothing about this. My mother's eight siblings used the word "stock" a great deal. You either came from "good stock" or "bad stock". It was unmentionable that we came from bad stock - that we had what was called "the stain". One Christmas Day, with all of her family assembled, my mother broached the subject of our criminal origins, and one of my aunts almost swallowed her teeth. "Leave them dead and buried, Elsie!" she said. And we did - until many years later and my own research in Dublin and London led to a television film that revealed the full horror of our "bad stock". There was outrage. "Your son," my aunt Vera wrote to Elsie, "is no better than a damn communist". She promised never to speak to us again. The Australian silence has unique features. Growing up, I would make illicit trips to La Perouse and stand on the sandhills and look at people who were said to have died off. I would gape at the children of my age, who were said to be dirty, and feckless. At high school, I read a text book by the celebrated historian, Russel Ward, who wrote: "We are civilized today and they are not." "They", of course, were the Aboriginal people. My real Australian education began at the end of the 1960s when Charlie Perkins and his mother, Hetti, took me to the Aboriginal compound at Jay Creek in the Northern Territory. We had to smash down the gate to get in. The shock at what I saw is unforgettable. The poverty. The sickness. The despair. The quiet anger. I began to recognise and understand the Australian silence. Tonight, I would like to talk about this silence: about how it affects our national life, the way we see the world, and the way we are manipulated by great power which speaks through an invisible government of propaganda that subdues and limits our political imagination and ensures we are always at war - against our own first people and those seeking refuge, or in someone else's country. Last July, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said this, and I quote: "It's important for us all to remember here in Australia that Afghanistan has been a training ground for terrorists worldwide, a training ground also for terrorists in South-East-Asia, reminding us of the reasons that we are in the field of combat and reaffirming our resolve to remain committed to that cause." There is no truth in this statement. It is the equivalent of his predecessor John Howard's lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Shortly before Kevin Rudd made that statement, American planes bombed a wedding party in Afghanistan. At least sixty people were blown to bits, including the bride and groom and many children. That's the fifth wedding party attacked, in our name. The prime minister was standing outside a church on a Sunday morning when he made his statement. No reporter challenged him. No one said the war was a fraud: that it began as an American vendetta following 9/11, in which not a single Afghan was involved. No one put it to Kevin Rudd that our perceived enemy in Afghanistan were introverted tribesmen who had no quarrel with Australia and didn't give a damn about south-east Asia and just wanted the foreign soldiers out of their country. Above all, no one said: "Prime Minister, There is no war on terror. It's a hoax. But there is a war of terror waged by governments, including the Australian government, in our name." That wedding party, Prime Minister, was blown to bits by one the latest smart weapons, such as the Hellfire bomb that sucks the air out of the lungs. In our name. During the first world war, the British prime minister David Lloyd George confided to the editor of the Manchester Guardian: "If people really knew [the truth], the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they don't know and they can't know." What has changed? Quite a lot actually. As people have become more aware, propaganda has become more sophisticated. One of the founders of modern propaganda was Edward Bernays, an American who believed that people in free societies could be lied to and regimented without them realising. He invented a euphemism for propaganda -- "public relations", or PR. "What matters," he said, "is the illusion." Like Kevin Rudd's stage-managed press conferences outside his church, what matters is the illusion. The symbols of Anzac are constantly manipulated in this way. Marches. Medals. Flags. The pain of a fallen soldier's family. Serving in the military, says the prime minister, is Australia's highest calling. The squalor of war, the killing of civilians has no reference. What matters is the illusion. The aim is to ensure our silent complicity in a war of terror and in a massive increase in Australia's military arsenal. Long range cruise missiles are to be targeted at our neighbours. The Rudd government and the Pentagon have launched a competition to build military robots which, it is said, will do the "army's dirty work" in "urban combat zones". What urban combat zones? What dirty work? Silence. "I confess," wrote Lord Curzon, viceroy of India, over a century ago, "that countries are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a great game for the domination of the world." We Australians have been in the service of the Great Game for a very long time. Do the young people who wrap themselves in the flag at Gallipoli every April understand that only the lies have changed - that sanctifying blood sacrifice in colonial invasions is meant to prepare us for the next one? When Prime Minister Robert Menzies sent Australian soldiers to Vietnam in the 1960s, he described them as a 'training team', requested by a beleaguered government in Saigon. It was a lie. A senior official of the Department of External affairs wrote this secret truth: "Although we have stressed the fact publicly that our assistance was given in response to an invitation by the government of South Vietnam, our offer was in fact made following a request from the United States government." Two versions. One for us, one for them. Menzies spoke incessantly about "the downward thrust of Chinese communism". What has changed? Outside the church, Kevin Rudd said we were in Afghanistan to stop another downward thrust. Both were lies. During the Vietnam war, the Department of Foreign Affairs made a rare complaint to Washington. They complained that the British knew more about America's objectives than its committed Australian ally. An assistant secretary of state replied. "We have to inform the British to keep them on side," he said. "You are with us, come what may." How many more wars are we to be suckered into before we break our silence? How many more distractions must we, as a people, endure before we begin the job of righting the wrongs in our own country? "It's time we sang from the world's rooftops," said Kevin Rudd in opposition, "[that] despite Iraq, America is an overwhelming force for good in the world [and] I look forward to working with the great American democracy, the arsenal of freedom...". Since the second world war, the arsenal of freedom has overthrown 50 governments, including democracies, and crushed some 30 liberation movements. Millions of people all over the world have been driven out of their homes and subjected to crippling embargos. Bombing is as American as apple pie. In his acceptance of the 2005 Nobel Prize for Literature, Harold Pinter asked this question: "Why is the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought of Stalinist Russia well known in the West while American criminal actions never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it never happened. It didn't matter. It was of no interest." In Australia, we are trained to respect this censorship by omission. An invasion is not an invasion if "we" do it. Terror is not terror if "we" do it. A crime is not a crime if "we" commit it. It didn't happen. Even while it was happening it didn't happen. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. In the arsenal of freedom we have two categories of victims. The innocent people killed in the Twin Towers were worthy victims. The innocent people killed by Nato bombers in Afghanistan are unworthy victims. Israelis are worthy. Palestinians are unworthy. It gets complicated. Kurds who rose against Saddam Hussein were worthy. But Kurds who rise against the Turkish regime are unworthy. Turkey is a member of Nato. They're in the arsenal of freedom. The Rudd government justifies its proposals to spend billions on weapons by referring to what the Pentagon calls an "arc of instability" that stretches across the world. Our enemies are apparently everywhere -- from China to the Horn of Africa. In fact, an arc of instability does indeed stretch across the world and is maintained by the United States. The US Air Force calls this "full spectrum dominance". More than 800 American bases are ready for war. These bases protect a system that allows one per cent of humanity to control 40 per cent of wealth: a system that bails out just one bank with $180 billion - that's enough to eliminate malnutrition in the world, and provide education for every child, and water and sanitation for all, and to reverse the spread of malaria. On September 11th, 2001, the United Nations reported that on that day 36,615 children had died from poverty. But that was not news. Journalists and politicians like to say the world changed as a result of the September 11th attacks. In fact, for those countries under attack by the arsenal of freedom, nothing has changed. What has changed is not news. According to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a military coup has taken place in the United States, with the Pentagon now ascendant in every aspect of foreign policy. It doesn't matter who is president - George Bush or Barack Obama. Indeed, Obama has stepped up Bush's wars and started his own war in Pakistan. Like Bush, he is threatening Iran, a country Hillary Clinton said she was prepared to "annihilate". Iran's crime is its independence. Having thrown out America's favourite dictator, the Shah, Iran is the only resource-rich Muslim country beyond American control. It doesn't occupy anyone else's land and hasn't attacked any country -- unlike Israel, which is nuclear-armed and dominates and divides the Middle East on America's behalf. In Australia, we are not told this. It's taboo. Instead, we dutifully celebrate the illusion of Obama, the global celebrity, the marketing dream. Like Calvin Klein, brand Obama offers the thrill of a new image attractive to liberal sensibilities, if not to the Afghan children he bombs. This is modern propaganda in action, using a kind of reverse racism - the same way it deploys gender and class as seductive tools. In Barack Obama's case, what matters is not his race or his fine words, but the power he serves. In an essay for The Monthly entitled Faith in Politics, Kevin Rudd wrote this about refugees: "The biblical injunction to care for the stranger in our midst is clear. The parable of the Good Samaritan is but one of many which deal with the matter of how we should respond to a vulnerable stranger in our midst... We should never forget that the reason we have a UN convention on the protection of refugees is in large part because of the horror of the Holocaust when the West (including Australia) turned its back on the Jewish people of occupied Europe who sought asylum." Compare that with Rudd's words the other day. "I make absolutely no apology whatsoever," he said, "for taking a hard line on illegal immigration to Australia ... a tough line on asylum seekers." Are we not fed up with this kind of hypocrisy? The use of the term "illegal immigrants" is both false and cowardly. The few people struggling to reach our shores are not illegal. International law is clear - they are legal. And yet Rudd, like Howard, sends the navy against them and runs what is effectively a concentration camp on Christmas Island. How shaming. Imagine a shipload of white people fleeing a catastrophe being treated like this. The people in those leaking boats demonstrate the kind of guts Australians are said to admire. But that's not enough for the Good Samaritan in Canberra, as he plays to the same bigotry which, as he wrote in his essay, "turned its back on the Jewish people of occupied Europe". Why isn't this spelt out? Why have weasel words like "border protection" become the currency of a media crusade against fellow human beings we are told to fear, mostly Muslim people? Why have journalists, whose job is to keep the record straight, become complicit in this campaign? After all, Australia has had some of the most outspoken and courageous newspapers in the world. Their editors were agents of people, not power. The Sydney Monitor under Edward Smith Hall exposed the dictatorial rule of Governor Darling and helped bring freedom of speech to the colony. Today, most of the Australian media speaks for power, not people. Turn the pages of the major newspapers; look at the news on TV. Like border protection, we have mind protection. There's a consensus on what we read, see and hear: on how we should define our politics and view the rest of the world. Invisible boundaries keep out facts and opinion that are unacceptable. This is actually a brilliant system, requiring no instructions, no self-censorship. Journalists know not what to do. Of course, now and then the censorship is direct and crude. SBS has banned its journalists from using the phrase "Palestinian land" to describe illegally occupied Palestine. They must describe these territories as "the subject of negotiation". That is the equivalent of somebody taking over your home at the point of a gun and the SBS newsreader describing it as "the subject of negotiation". In no other democratic country is public discussion of the brutal occupation of Palestine as limited as in Australia. Are we aware of the sheer scale of the crime against humanity in Gaza? Twenty-nine members of one family - babies, grannies - are gunned down, blown up, buried alive, their home bulldozed. Read the United Nations report, written by an eminent Jewish judge, Richard Goldstone. Those who speak for the arsenal of freedom are working hard to bury the UN report. For only one nation, Israel, has a "right to exist" in the Middle East: only one nation has a right to attack others. Only one nation has the impunity to run a racist apartheid regime with the approval of the western world, and with the prime minister and the deputy prime minister ofb Australia fawning over its leaders. In Australia, any diversion from this unspoken impunity attracts a campaign of craven personal abuse and intimidation usually associated with dictatorships. But we are not a dictatorship. We are a democracy. Are we? Or are we a murdochracy. Rupert Murdoch set the media war agenda shortly before the invasion of Iraq when he said, "There's going to be collateral damage. And if you really want to be brutal about it, better get it done now." More than a million people have been killed in Iraq as a result of that invasion - "an episode", according to one study, "more deadly than the Rwandan genocide". In our name. Are we aware of this in Australia? I once walked along Mutanabi Street in Baghdad. The atmosphere was wonderful. People sat in cafes, reading. Musicians played. Poets recited. Painters painted. This was the cultural heart of Mesopotania, the great civilisation to which we in the West owe a great deal, including the written word. The people I spoke to were both Sunni and Shia, but they called themselves Iraqis. They were cultured and proud. Today, they are fled or dead. Mutanabi Street has been blown to bits. In Baghdad, the great museums and libraries are looted. The universities are sacked. And people who once took coffee with each other, and married each other, have been turned into enemies. "Building democracy", said Howard and Bush and Blair. One of my favourite Harold Pinter plays is Party Time. It's set in an apartment in a city like Sydney. A party is in progress. People are drinking good wine and eating canap? They seem happy. They are chatting and affirming and smiling. They are stylish and very self aware. But something is happening outside in the street, something terrible and oppressive and unjust, for which the people at the party share responsibility. There's a fleeting sense of discomfort, a silence, before the chatting and laughing resumes. How many of us live in that apartment? Let me put it another way. I know a very fine Israeli journalist called Amira Hass. She went to live in and report from Gaza. I asked her why she did that. She explained how her mother, Hannah, was being marched from a cattle train to the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen when she saw a group of German women looking at the prisoners, just looking, saying nothing, silent. Her mother never forgot what she called this despicable "looking from the side". I believe that if we apply justice and courage to human affairs, we begin to make sense of our world. Then, and only then, can we make progress. However, if we apply justice in Australia, it's tricky, isn't it? Because we are then obliged to break our greatest silence - to no longer "look from the side" in our own country. In the 1960s, when I first went to South Africa to report apartheid, I was welcomed by decent, liberal people whose complicit silence was the underpinning of that tyranny. They told me that Australians and white South Africans had much in common, and they were right. The good people of Johannesburg could live within a few kilometres of a community called Alexandra, which lacked the most basic services, the children stricken with disease. But they looked from the side and did nothing. In Australia, our indifference is different. We have become highly competent at divide and rule: at promoting those black Australians who tell us what we want to hear. At professional conferences their keynote speeches are applauded, especially when they blame their own people and provide the excuses we need. We create boards and commissions on which sit nice, decent liberal people like the prime minister's wife. And nothing changes. We certainly don't like comparisons with apartheid South Africa. That breaks the Australian silence. Near the end of apartheid, black South Africans were being jailed at the rate of 851 per 100,000 of population. Today, black Australians are being jailed at a national rate that is more than five times higher. Western Australia jails Aboriginal men at eight times the apartheid figure. In 1983, Eddie Murray was killed in a police cell in Wee Waa in New South Wales by "a person or persons unknown". That's how the coroner described it. Eddie was a rising rugby league star. But he was black and had to be cut down to size. Eddie's parents, Arthur and Leila Murray, launched one of the most tenacious and courageous campaigns for justice I've known anywhere. They stood up to authority. They showed grace and patience and knowledge. And they never gave in. When Leila died in 2003, I wrote a tribute for her funeral. I described her as an Australian hero. Arthur is still fighting for justice. He's in his sixties. He's a respected elder, a hero. A few months ago, the police in Narrabri offered Arthur a lift home and instead took him for a violent ride in their bullwagon. He ended up in hospital, bruised and battered. That is how Australian heroes are treated. In the same week the police did this - as they do to black Australians, almost every day - Kevin Rudd said that his government, and I quote, "doesn't have a clear idea of what's happening on the ground" in Aboriginal Australia. How much information does the prime minister need? How many ideas? How many reports? How many royal commissions? How many inquests? How many funerals? Is he not aware that Australia appears on an international "shame list" for having failed to eradicate trachoma, a preventable disease of poverty that blinds Aboriginal children? In August this year, the United Nations once again distinguished Australia with the kind of shaming once associated with South Africa. We discriminate on the basis of race. That's it in a nutshell. This time the UN blew a whistle on the so-called "intervention", which began with the Howard government smearing Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory with allegations of sex slavery and paedophile rings in "unthinkable numbers", according to the minister for indigenous affairs. In May last year, official figures were released and barely reported. Out of 7433 Aboriginal children examined by doctors, 39 had been referred to the authorities for suspected abuse. Of those, a maximum of four possible cases were identified. So much for the "unthinkable numbers". Of course, child abuse does exist, in black Australia and white Australia. The difference is that no soldiers invaded the North Shore; no white parents were swept aside; no white welfare has been "quarantined". What the doctors found they already knew: that Aboriginal children are at risk - from the effects of extreme poverty and the denial of resources in one of the world's richest countries. Billions of dollars have been spent - not on paving roads and building houses, but on a war of legal attrition waged against black communities. I interviewed an Aboriginal leader called Puggy Hunter. He carried a bulging brief case and he sat in the West Australian heat with his head in his hands. I said, "You're exhausted." He replied, "Look, I spend most of my life in meetings, fighting lawyers, pleading for our birthright. I'm just tired to death, mate." He died soon afterwards, in his forties. Kevin Rudd has made a formal apology to the First Australians. He spoke fine words. For many Aboriginal people, who value healing, the apology was very important. However, the Sydney Morning Herald published a remarkably honest editorial. It described the apology as "a piece of political wreckage" that "the Rudd government has moved quickly to clear away... in a way that responds to some of its supporters' emotional needs". Since the apology, Aboriginal poverty has got worse. The promised housing programme is a grim joke. No gap has even begun to be bridged. Instead, the federal government has threatened communities in the Northern Territory that if they don't hand over their precious freehold leases, they will be denied the basic services that we, in white Australia, take for granted. In the 1970s, Aboriginal communities were granted comprehensive land rights in the Northern Territory, and John Howard set about clawing back these rights with bribery and bullying. The Labour government is doing the same. You see, there are deals to be done. The Territory contains extraordinary mineral wealth, especially uranium. And Aboriginal land is wanted as a radioactive waste dump. This is very big business, and foreign companies want a piece of the action. It is a continuation of the darkest side of our colonial history: a land grab. Where are the influential voices raised against this? Where are the peak legal bodies? Where are those in the media who tell us endlessly how fair-minded we are? Silence. But let us not listen to their silence. Let us pay tribute to those Australians who are not silent, who don't look from the side - those like Barbara Shaw and Larissa Behrendt, and the Mutitjulu community leaders and their tenacious lawyer George Newhouse, and Chris Graham, the fearless editor of the National Indigenous Times. And Michael Mansell, Lyle Munro, Gary Foley, Vince Forrester and Pat Dodson, and Arthur Murray. And let us celebrate Australia's historian of courage and truth, Henry Reynolds, who stood against white supremacists posing as academics and journalists. And the young people who closed down Woomera detention camp, then stood up to the political thugs who took over Sydney during Apec two years ago. And good for Ian Thorpe, the great swimmer, whose voice raised against the intervention has yet to find an echo among the pampered sporting heroes in a country where the gap between white and black sporting facilities and opportunity has closed hardly at all. Silences can be broken, if we will it. In one of the greatest poems of the English language, Percy Shelley wrote this: Rise like lions after slumber In unvanquishable number Shake your chains to earth like dew Which in sleep has fallen on you Ye are many - they are few But we need to make haste. An historic shift is taking place. The major western democracies are moving towards a corporatism. Democracy has become a business plan, with a bottom line for every human activity, every dream, every decency, every hope. The main parliamentary parties are now devoted to the same economic policies - socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor - and the same foreign policy of servility to endless war. This is not democracy. It is to politics what McDonalds is to food. How do we change this? We start by looking beyond the stereotypes and clich?that are fed to us as news. Tom Paine warned long ago that if we were denied critical knowledge, we should storm what he called the Bastille of words. Tom Paine did not have the internet, but the internet on its own is not enough. We need an Australian glasnost, the Russian word from the Gorbachev era, which broadly means awakening, transparency, diversity, justice, disobedience. It was Edmund Burke who spoke of the press as a Fourth Estate. I propose a people's Fifth Estate that monitors, deconstructs and counters the official news. In every news room, in every media college, teachers of journalism and journalists themselves need to be challenged about the part they play in the bloodshed, inequity and silence that is so often presented as normal. The public are not the problem. It's true some people don't give a damn - but millions do, as I know from the responses to my own films. What people want is to be engaged - a sense that things matter, that nothing is immutable, that unemployment among the young and poverty among the old are both uncivilised and wrong. What terrifies the agents of power is the awakening of people: of public consciousness. This is already happening in countries in Latin America where ordinary people have discovered a confidence in themselves they did not know existed. We should join them before our own freedom of speech is quietly withdrawn and real dissent is outlawed as the powers of the police are expanded. "The struggle of people against power, "wrote Milan Kundera, "is the struggle of memory against forgetting." In Australia, we have much to be proud of - if only we knew about it and celebrated it. Since Francis McCarty and Mary Palmer landed here, we've progressed only because people have spoken out, only because the suffragettes stood up, only because the miners of Broken Hill won the world's first 35-hour week, only because pensions and a basic wage and child endowment were pioneered in New South Wales. In my lifetime, we have become one of the most culturally diverse places on earth, and it has happened peacefully, by and large. That is a remarkable achievement - until we look for those whose Australian civilisation has seldom been acknowledged, whose genius for survival and generosity and forgiving have rarely been a source of pride. And yet, they remain, as Henry Reynolds wrote, the whispering in our hearts. For they are what is unique about us. I believe the key to our self respect - and our legacy to the next generation - is the inclusion and reparation of the First Australians. In other words, justice. There is no mystery about what has to be done. The first step is a treaty that guarantees universal land rights and a proper share of the resources of this country. Only then can we solve, together, issues of health, poverty, housing, education, employment. Only then can we feel a pride that comes not from flags and war. Only then can we become a truly independent nation able to speak out for sanity and justice in the world, and be heard. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/4036 From tchilds at resist.ca Sat Nov 7 15:20:28 2009 From: tchilds at resist.ca (tchilds at resist.ca) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:20:28 +0000 Subject: [R-G] Canada steps up oil sands push in United States Message-ID: <666352478-1257632415-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1866820708-@bda699.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> The Harper government appears hellbent to make Canada's legacy one that further degrades the environment and climate necessary to survive. tc http://www.financialpost.com/m/story.html?id=2194535&s=Home Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry From menecraj at shaw.ca Sat Nov 7 15:20:42 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:20:42 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Latin America's economic rebels Message-ID: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/27/bolivia-ecuador-economy guardian.co.uk Wednesday 28 October 2009 Latin America's economic rebels Ecuador and Bolivia are achieving remarkable growth because they reject conventional economic wisdom Mark Weisbrot Among the conventional wisdom that we hear every day in the business press is that developing countries should bend over backwards to create a friendly climate for foreign corporations, follow orthodox (neoliberal) macroeconomic policy advice and strive to achieve an investment-grade sovereign credit rating so as to attract more foreign capital. Guess which country is expected to have the fastest economic growth in the Americas this year? Bolivia. The country's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, was elected in 2005 and took office in January 2006. Bolivia, the poorest country in South America, had been operating under IMF agreements for 20 consecutive years, and its per-capita income was lower than it had been 27 years earlier. Evo sent the IMF packing just three months after he took office, and then moved to re-nationalise the hydrocarbons industry (mostly natural gas). Needless to say this did not sit well with the international corporate community. Nor did Bolivia's decision in May 2007 to withdraw from the World Bank's international arbitration panel, which had a tendency to settle disputes in favour of international corporations and against governments. But Bolivia's re-nationalisation and increased royalties on hydrocarbons has given the government billions of dollars of additional revenue (Bolivia's entire GDP is only about $16.6bn, with a population of 10 million people). These revenues have been useful for a government that wants to promote development, and especially to maintain growth during the downturn. Public investment increased from 6.3% of GDP in 2005 to 10.5% in 2009. Bolivia's growth through the current world downturn is even more remarkable in that it was hit hard by falling prices for its most important exports - natural gas and minerals - and also by a loss of important export preferences in the US market. The Bush administration cut off Bolivia's trade preferences that were granted under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, allegedly to punish Bolivia for insufficient co-operation in the "war on drugs". In reality, it was more complicated: Bolivia expelled the US ambassador because of evidence that the US government was supporting the opposition to the Morales government, and the ATPDA revocation followed soon thereafter. In any case, the Obama administration has so far not changed the Bush administration's policies toward Bolivia. But Bolivia has proven that it can do quite well without Washington's co-operation. Ecuador's leftist president, Rafael Correa, is an economist who, well before he was elected in December 2006, understood and wrote about the limitations of neoliberal economic dogma. He took office in 2007 and established an international tribunal to examine the legitimacy of the country's debt. In November 2008 the commission found that part of the debt was not legally contracted, and in December Correa announced that the government would default on roughly $3.2bn of its international debt. He was vilified in the business press, but the default was successful. Ecuador cleared a third of its foreign debt off its books by defaulting and then buying the debt back at about 35 cents on the dollar. The country's international credit rating remains low, but no lower than it was before Correa's election, and it was even raised a notch after the buyback was completed. The Correa government also incurred foreign investors' wrath by renegotiating its deals with foreign oil companies to capture a larger share of revenue as oil prices rose. And Correa has bucked pressure from Chevron and its powerful allies in Washington to drop his support of a lawsuit against the company for alleged pollution of ground waters, with damages that could exceed $27bn. How has Ecuador done? Growth has averaged a healthy 4.5% over Correa's first two years. And the government has made sure that it has trickled down: healthcare spending as a percent of GDP has doubled, and social spending in general has expanded considerably from 5.4% to 8.3% of GDP in two years. This includes a doubling of the cash transfer programme to poor households, a $474m increase in spending for housing, and other programmes for low-income families. Ecuador was hit hard by a 77% drop in the price of its oil exports from June 2008 to February 2009, as well as a decline in remittances from abroad. Nonetheless it has weathered the storm pretty well. Other unorthodox policies, in addition to the debt default, have helped Ecuador to stimulate its economy without running too low on reserves. Ecuador's currency is the US dollar, so that rules out using exchange rate policy and most monetary policy for counter-cyclical efforts in a recession - a significant handicap. Instead, Ecuador was able to cut deals with China for a billion-dollar advance payment for oil and another $1bn loan. The government also has begun requiring Ecuadorian banks to repatriate some of their reserves held abroad, expected to bring back another $1.2bn, and it has started repatriating $2.5bn in central bank reserves held abroad in order to finance another large stimulus package. Ecuador's growth will probably come in at about 1% this year, which is pretty good relative to most of the hemisphere. For example, Mexico, at the other end of the spectrum, is projected to have a 7.5% decline in GDP for 2009. The standard reporting and even quasi-academic analysis of Bolivia and Ecuador says they are victims of populist, socialist, "anti-American" governments - aligned with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba, of course - and on the road to ruin. To be sure, both countries have many challenges ahead, the most important of which will be to implement economic strategies that can diversify and develop their economies over the long run. But they have made a good start so far, by giving the conventional wisdom of the economic and foreign policy establishment - in Washington and Europe - the respect it has earned. From mstainsby at resist.ca Sat Nov 7 16:16:21 2009 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:16:21 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Dr O'Connor Cleared once and for all! Message-ID: <4AF5FFC5.50308@resist.ca> Doctor who suggested oilsands-cancer link cleared of misconduct charge By Florence Loyie, Canwest News Service November 7, 2009 EDMONTON - An embattled family physician who raised concerns about a possible link between Alberta's oilsands and cancer rates in a remote aboriginal community received vindication this week when he was cleared of causing "undue alarm." Dr. John O'Connor found himself in hot water after he claimed in 2003 and 2004 that residents of Fort Chipewyan, Alta., had unusually high rates of blood, colon, bile-duct and liver cancer. The province did a statistical analysis of all cancer cases reported in Fort Chipewyan and found no evidence of elevated cancer rates in the community compared to the rest of the local health region or all of Alberta. The community is a few hundred kilometres downstream from Fort McMurray, at the heart of Alberta's oilsands operations. In 2007, Health Canada physicians laid four complaints of professional misconduct against O'Connor with the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons, including blocking access to files, billing irregularities, engendering a sense of mistrust in government in Fort Chipewyan, and causing "undue alarm" among residents of the community. The charges could have resulted in O'Connor's licence being temporarily suspended or possibly permanently withdrawn. Several weeks later, the college cleared O'Connor of three of the charges, except causing undue alarm. The physician left Alberta that year for Nova Scotia, where he set up a clinic. However, he continued to work with Alberta's northern aboriginal communities via the Internet and periodically flew to Fort McMurray and Fort McKay, Alta., to see patients. Last February, O'Connor received some vindication when the Alberta Cancer Board released a study that found higher-than-expected rates of some rare cancers among residents in Fort Chipewyan, about 700 kilometres north of Edmonton. The study said the increases could be due to chance but could also be caused by environmental factors. The study suggested ongoing monitoring for the next five to 10 years. In March, Fort Chipewyan residents issued a statement to Health Canada and the College of Physicians and Surgeons, demanding that the remaining charge against O'Connor be dismissed. "This charge of ?causing undue alarm' since it was lodged was the cause of much frustration and disbelief by residents of Fort Chipewyan," the statement said. "Frustration, because the residents of the community have never been consulted on whether we agree with the charge; and disbelief that the very responsible authority who is charged with protecting our interests and our health was actually lodging the complaints against Dr. John O'Connor, rather than coming to the aid of our community to find resolution to Dr. John O' Connor's claims." On Friday, O'Connor was informed he had been cleared of the remaining charge. "The college has closed the file," O'Connor said. "There are no more complaints and I am in good standing with the college. For me, this removes a big monkey off my back. I feel years younger." News that the doctor had been cleared was cheered by some Fort Chipewyan residents. "As you know, this last remaining charge of ?causing undue alarm' has never sat right with the residents of Fort Chipewyan," said George Poitras, consultation co-ordinator for government and industry relations for the Mikisew Cree First Nation. "We are completely ecstatic that this news has finally arrived. It has been long overdue." Now that the doctor has been cleared, it is time for the Alberta government to begin a comprehensive health study on the community, and investigate the reasons for the higher rates of rare cancers among residents, Poitras said. Edmonton Journal floyiethejournal at canwest.com http://www.canada.com/health/suggested+oilsands+cancer+link+cleared/2197... From garyrumor2 at yahoo.com Sat Nov 7 18:21:01 2009 From: garyrumor2 at yahoo.com (Gary Crethers) Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:21:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Modernism, Hinduism, Fundamentalism and Daily Life Message-ID: <212047.63641.qm@web43504.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Another Day WonderingNovember 7th, 2009 I was out for a walk. I do that on weekends. I was passing the local Christ Chapel and I noticed 3 or 4 attractive women going in, on a Saturday afternoon. I was tempted to follow, but the noise coming out of the place was daunting. It was a large party of some sort and they were all dressed to impress. I was sweaty in my tee shirt and shorts and decided to keep on walking. Perhaps that is where all the women are I mused. But these were all white girls and I like women of color or at least some interesting character. My personal life sucks. I am in an ongoing debate with my seemingly ex girlfriend about what happens next. Is she coming back? Am I going to be perpetually alone again. Last time I went 8 years between relationships. If she and I don?t get back together I will probably hang the whole relationship business up and retire to a monastery or something. Problem is I don?t much care for organized religion. I do like ritual, and my life has a series of definite routines that I go through. It helps keep me out of trouble and from falling into despair. But I don?t exactly believe in anything other than the eventual evolution of mankind into some kind of space being or devolution into some sort of ape man. Other than that I go in for radical socialism with an anarchist streak, and an occasional gnostic insight into the deeper reality beneath the curtain of day to day existence, but mostly it is going to work and doing chores. My first Jewish girlfriend said I reminded her of Woody Allen and thought I was a great lover. My second Jewish girlfriend had her dad call the DA on me and he told me to go back to her or I would face the consequences. I chose the consequences and they towed away my last VW Bug. I still have her black Lotus cup. My revenge I guess. I had to choose between a rich Jewish girl from Beverly Hills adjacent who believed the world portrayed on TV was real and a crazy French Hare Krishna girl who wanted me to help her get her daughters back from her evil Hare Krishna husband. I was in love with a third woman, a Filipino Punk rock Anarchist girl who ran the local Food Not Bombs, but she was not interested in me. But that was when I first moved to LA and was still a San Francisco romantic type of guy. Before the LA working and commuting grind had worn me down. I would get up at 6am and drive from Venice Beach to work in Santa Fe Springs, stop in downtown LA on the way home, then visit my Beverly Hills adjacent girlfreind, and finaly go home to my French girlfriend in Venice around 11 pm, five days a week. I chose the French girl and ended up in India talking to her evil husband at the center of Krishna-land in Vrindaban. He asked me what sex with his wife was like. I thought that this was in bad taste and I changed the subject. Among the Krishnas adultery is considered to be a heinous crime, almost as bad as having sex period. But as a modern guy I didn?t even know about all the prohibitions until it was too late. I was damned for sure unless I drank the water of the Yamuna. That is the name of the river where Krishna bathed. It is supposed to wash away 10,000 years of bad karma. I drank. I got sick. There was cow feces in the water that I noticed after I had taken my sip. I grew up on a farm so I know about such things. Cow shit and horse shit are totaly different. Cows make large flat round things called cow paddies. Horses make round balls like meatballs that pile up in mini pyramids. As a kid I stepped in plenty of both. The trip to India was taken to see if I could find the guru I needed to make my life right. My French girlfriend had just had a baby by another boyfriend and he was moving in. I switched from my French girlfreind back to my former hooker girlfriend from Oakland. Her mother was a Pentecostal and spoke in tongues. This girl was my favorite girlfriend but she could not stay away from the streets. She would come in at 3 am wake me up, we would make love or do drugs then she would go back out in the street and I wouldn?t know if she was coming back or not. I was in San Francisco then. I had moved back after a couple years in LA. Then I went to India and then I went back to LA. I left all those girls behind after my trip to India. I wanted to do the right thing. I was determined to live right. In India I had met people who lived a life that was not based on making money. The value system was older, pre capitalist in many ways. I was impressed. People I met in the airport and on the trains would tell me they liked western technology but not western culture. They didn?t like all the drugs and sexual confusion and the decadence in general. After what I had just been through, I was wondering about the west myself. In the last couple of decades I had been through half a dozen serious relationships. I had a son by a woman who hated me and two women had had abortions. I had been through several religions and political scenes and although I still had a reasonably good self image, probably due to my mother telling me I was descended from the Pharaohs of Egypt, but I was shaken by the lack of any real constancy in my life. I had had a dozen jobs. None of them lasting more than a couple of years and watched two major corporations I worked for go out of business one after the other. Almost everyone I knew was taking serious drugs, or involved with heavy religious cults or both. Where was our world headed? In India I had met quite a few gurus and even participated in a battle of the gurus when devotees of one guru stole devotees of ISKON and initiated them in to the other gurus group. This was one of the Gaudia Vaishnavite god brothers of ISKON founder Prabhupada. The Indian fellow believers in Krishna as the supreme Godhead were not allowed to initiate the followers of ISKON. There was a tension and rivalry between the groups. Wealthy westerners were in ISKON. ISKON is the name for the Hare Krishnas in the the world founded by Prabhupada who had gone to the west to preach in the 1960?s. I remember the first time I had met them in the streets of NYC when I was 14 and was on my first solo trip to the big apple. There they were a small group at that time. But by the time I went to India in 1993 they were a large international body with tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of members from mostly wealthy and middle class backgrounds. The Krisna religion originated in India and Prabhupada was a member of the Gaudia Vaishnavite tendency that traced its roots to Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in the 15th century. He revitalized the existing Krishna cult and created the Hare Krishna chant. He is considered to be the most recent incarnation of Lord Krishna by the believers. There are millions of Indian Krishnas of various stripes and most of them are not rich westerners. That is where the conflict comes in. The Indian groups want some of the western money. ISKON temples are beautiful. Non ISKON temples often are run down. Some of them have been taken over by monkeys and you need guides to go with you to beat them off or they will steal your watches and jewelry. No joke monkeys like shiny stuff. They trade it for food. In a historical context the time of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was when Muslim religionists were ruling most of northern India and attempting to replace the Hindu gods with the universal faith of Islam. The Krishna movement with its emphasis on devotional service. chanting, and a reform of the caste system saying that all devotees would become Brahmin?s or upper caste upon initiation was a responce to the universal appeal and simplicity of Islam. The temptation to convert to Islam was a path out of the social constraints that had evolved with the rigid caste system that had developed over the centuries in Vedic Indian society. The Krisna religion offered another path out of the constraints of caste but within a more traditional Indian frame of reference. People would still have the rich culture of the Hindu religion with a focus on Krisna as the chief deity. This would offer an answer to Islam which insisted on dropping much of the rich culture of India by the convert in favor of Arabic rooted traditions. By choosing Krisna there would still be the traditional culture with the reform of all being in one caste as Brahmans thus escaping the social bottleneck that caste had placed Indian Culture in. Anyway when I went to India I was impressed with the ruins of a culture that had extended for centuries. The country was just then switching from its pro socialist, pro Russian orientation to one more open to western capitalism. But at the time India was still a country in which philosophy prevailed over money and people asked you what you thought not what kind of work you did. I liked that. I was also impressed with how the country was not overly sexualized like the west had become. In the west the culture had at least since the 1950?s been focused on youth and the hard and fast sex drive of adolescents. Sexual imagery prevails in the west. It is used to sell products in an off hand manner that simply did not exist in India at that time. Women were covered in saris, the sexes were segregated and boys held hands. It was not because they were gay but because the culture said it was ok for you to show public affection for members of your own sex but not for the opposite sex. In some ways women were repressed in India but in others they were respected in ways that no longer existed in the west. The culture was much more traditional as in upholding the values as propounded by religious leaders. The west in contrast is modern, secular and our religious values are often a reaction to secularism instead of a reflection of tradition. At the time religion was traditional there. What has emerged since then, Hindu, Muslim and Christian fundamentalism are all reactions to modernism. Some say fundamentalism is an extreme example of modernism. I say it is an extreme reaction to it. It is not traditional. Traditional culture is one that respects others and has developed over centuries as part of the slow moving currents of civilization. Modernism, the cultural attribute of industrialism that emerged in the last 3 centuries is something different. It is new in the world and represents a break from traditional culture. We are still thrashing out the consequences of modernism and its side effects. Perhaps that is what is meant by calling fundamentalism an extreme example if modernism. It is a consequence of it. Just as car bombs and aerial assaults and computers. These are all the consequences of modernism. The cultural confusion. breakdown of social relations such as marriage and such is a consequence of modernism. Some of it is not so bad, all of it is confusing and some of it is very destructive to the health of children and adults. We mostly see the negative consequences among the poor, young, sick and elderly. Because capitalism places emphasis on greed and greed is for the strong. Others suffer, the strong survive. It is a social system that breeds strong individuals and crushes the rest. It ultimately eats its children and forces its elderly to commit suicide. Capitalist children to succeed are under pressure almost from birth to succeed. A successful capitalist child is surrounded by educators and specialists. It is only for the wealthy and it is a daunting system that leads to an extremely low birth rate because of the extreme cost of producing viable offspring. We can see that the countries that have most accepted capitalist relations have low birth rates even below reproduction having to import people from the non capitalist world to sustain the economic development. But this is a symptom of advanced capitalism. Primitive capitalism with its needs for many hands produces massive population explosions as what happened all around the world over the last three centuries. The question there is can the world sustain much more primitive captialist growth? I don?t think so. The environment is thrown so far out of whack that another couple of billion people might do us in. I have been told there are only 8 billion individual souls for this planet. It will be interesting to see if that turns out to be true. I have rambled quite far from my original tale of walking by a church on a Saturday afternoon. Perhaps my girlfreind and I will get back together, perhaps not. I started to say I went 8 years without anyone. It was not when I immediately returned from India. I went back to San Francisco got that girlfreind back took her to France where I tried to live but could not get along with her. I came back here. She followed me and we had a son. We broke up again and then after she went back to France determined I would not get involved with anyone again until I had my surgery a few years ago and I realized if I wanted to find love in this world I had better do it before it was too late. Maybe it is. But that is another story for another day. Today I will end up musing on the nature of culture in late capitalist America. We have been living through a period where the culture is driven by the technology which is as the late Marshall McLuhan said ?The Medium Is The Message?. In other words we are driven to wrap our cultural lives around a technology that is created by system that promulgates the new regardless of its effect on the culture because the culture has been taken over by the capitalist agenda. New is good. Old is bad. But it is not even that. It is more like who cares about social relations as long as the rich get richer and the rest fend for themselves as best they can. Ancient Rome when presented with labor saving technology refused it. The emperor at the time said what will I do with all these people if we throw them out of work? He was only speaking of the Roman populace. What about our world where as it stands 20% of the labor force is redundant. Growth might kill us all if it is not green. We need to start thinking small, narrow our vision to what do we need to live. Not what do a few need to have grandiose lives while they sell the rest of us a mess of pottage. We can continue wreaking the worlds cultures in the name of modernism, capitalism and so called progress until the reaction becomes so strong that the fundamentalists blow us all up or take it over and place us in a new dark age. It could easily happen. Every day I meet angry people who simply want the pain to end. People that upset don?t want enlightenment, they want dictatorship. A new national socialism is not far from the surface. If we don?t come up with an enlightened solution we will get one from the well springs of hate and pain. We don?t have much time. I am no member of the ruling class. But I grew up in the suburbs of New York, near where the masters of the universe lived. As children we were told we were going to take our place in the Corporations of New York. It didn?t happen for me, but I have that cultural background. I understand what they wanted us to do. I refused. I wanted a better way. I still do. What about you? Any ideas? Tags: Capitalism, Modernism & Traditional Society. Relationships & From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sat Nov 7 20:14:31 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:14:31 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Credit as a Public Utility Message-ID: <20091108121431.b6e5dd45.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> The Key to Monetary Reform by Richard C Cook Global Research (May 26 2007) We live in an era of deregulation, where economists and politicians speak of "the market", not government, as the appropriate vehicle for economic decisions. President Ronald Reagan said in his 1981 inaugural address, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem". This attitude has defined the US approach since then, including the Clinton years, when even a Democratic administration cut the size of the federal bureaucracy and tried to reduce its impact. The laissez-faire attitude has continued under President George W Bush, though resistance is appearing from the Democratic majority elected to Congress in 2006 with respect to selected issues such as the high cost of student loans. But if market-based economics is so wonderful, why do we have stagnating employee incomes, rapidly increasing control of wealth by the very rich, a middle class in decline, growing poverty, collapse of our manufacturing job base, a bursting housing bubble, resurgent commodity inflation, soaring but shaky stock prices, a trillion dollar war in the Middle East financed by runaway deficit spending, and capital markets dominated by predatory equity and hedge funds? Why and how has "the market" done so much damage to the many while enriching the few? On top of everything else is the exponential growth of debt. American households today are deeper in debt than at any time in history. So is the federal government. So are state and local governments. So is business. The only ones not in debt are the financial institutions and their controllers to whom everyone else owes money. Maybe this is what is really meant by "the market". Total US societal debt has been reliably estimated at $48 trillion dollars and growing. If we assume, on the low side, that the cost of this debt is six percent interest per year, that's about $3 trillion per year in interest payments alone. This is equivalent to almost a quarter of the entire US gross domestic product. It doesn't even count the repayment of the principle on the loans where repayment reduces the available purchasing power, thus making new loans constantly necessary. Debt is an albatross around the neck of every citizen and resident, every man, woman, and child. Things have become worse since 2005 when Congress passed a much more onerous bankruptcy law at the urging of the financial industry. Some types of debt, such as student loans and taxes, can never be forgiven. And as the debt ripples through the economy it makes everything else more expensive and turns individual financial problems into crises. It affects people's health, keeps them up at night with worry, and even drives many to alcohol, legal or illegal drugs, or even suicide. Worldwide, economic stresses and the need to constantly work harder and find new sources of income just to survive contribute to tension among nations and increase the chances of war or terrorism. Is this really the legacy of the most highly developed and productive economy in the history of the world? Hasn't something gone terribly wrong? Credit as a Public Utility In other recent reports the author has analyzed the structural causes whereby a developed economy like that of the US fails to generate sufficient purchasing power through wages, salaries, and dividends to balance the cumulative prices of goods and services. In order to compensate, nations have historically attempted to generate trade surpluses to boost their income earnings, often resulting in international rivalries and war. Over the last several decades, the US, with its chronic negative trade balance, has compensated for the gap between purchasing power and prices with debt of all types and in all sectors of the economy, both private and public. One effect of this general debt policy has been "dollar hegemony", whereby the dollars sent abroad to purchase products from countries like China come back in investment by the Chinese and other governments in the Treasury bonds that float the federal budget deficit. In his reports, the author has proposed a series of monetary reform initiatives that are based on the idea that credit, properly conceived, should be viewed as a public utility like water or electricity, not the exclusive private domain of the financial industry. Given the high degree of interest by readers in these ideas, the author has concluded that a more in-depth explanation of credit is needed. In particular, the author wishes to show that the concept of credit as a public utility is not a new idea. In fact it is inherent in the notion of a republic, a commonwealth of citizens, under which the US was founded, as well as other forms of government throughout history. What is really anomalous is not the idea that credit should be viewed as a public, not a private heritage, but that the notion of the private ownership of credit to be allocated under "market" conditions ever should have gained so much credence in the first place. Overview of the History of Credit from Ancient Times through the Bank of England The free market ideology current in the US and, increasingly, in other Western nations which today are losing touch with their former social democratic history, is the most extreme expression of private versus public control of community life anywhere in the world in the last 6,000 years. From shniad at gmail.com Sun Nov 8 09:04:05 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:04:05 -0800 Subject: [R-G] (Juan Cole) Erekat Sees One-State Solution if Settlements are not Halted Message-ID: <83904d240911080804u20da5997k3efcb26749181512@mail.gmail.com> http://www.juancole.com/2009/11/erekat-sees-one-state-solution-if.html Juan Cole November 05, 2009 Erekat Sees One-State Solution if Settlements are not Halted I think the whole thing is over with. I can't see a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank as it is now configured, and I can't imagine the Netanyahu government halting settlements. * -- Juan Cole* Saeb Erekat, chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization Steering Committee , said Wednesday that Palestine Authority president Mahmoud Abbas should be frank with the Palestinian people and admit to them that there is no possibility of a two-state solution given continued Israeli colonization of the West Bank. It is morally and ethically unconscionable to leave millions of Palestinians in a condition of statelessness, in which they have no rights (Warren Burger defined citizenship as the 'right to have rights' as my colleague Margaret "Peggy" Sommers pointed out in her new book). Therefore, if there isn't going to be a 2-state solution, there will have to be a one-state solution, in which Israel gives citizenship to the Palestinians. (As it is, 20% of Israelis are Palestinian Arabs and that proportion will grow to 33% by 2030 if they are not expelled by sometime Moldavian night club bouncer and now foreign minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman.) Aljazeera English has a video interview with Saree Makdision Erekat's statement: The Israeli colonies in the West Bank are actively encouraged by the Israeli government. Haaretz reported last winter on a hitherto secret database on the settlements kept by the Israeli government : ' An analysis of the data reveals that, in the vast majority of the settlements - about 75 percent - construction, sometimes on a large scale, has been carried out without the appropriate permits or contrary to the permits that were issued. The database also shows that, in more than 30 settlements, extensive construction of buildings and infrastructure (roads, schools, synagogues, yeshivas and even police stations) has been carried out on private lands belonging to Palestinian West Bank residents. . . the settlements in which massive construction has taken place on private Palestinian lands. Entire neighborhoods built without permits or on private lands are inseparable parts of the settlements. The sense of dissonance only intensifies when you find that municipal offices, police and fire stations were also built upon and currently operate on lands that belong to Palestinians. ' The USG Open Source Center translated some of what Erekat said in an interview with Al-Hayat published on Sunday: ' Erekat: Difficult Meeting In his turn, Erekat has stressed to Al-Hayah that the meeting with Clinton was "frank and difficult." Erekat added that Abbas insisted that if the US Administration wanted to resume the peace process, then it would have to compel Israel to halt the settlements, including the natural growth, and to start the negotiations from where they stopped in 2008. Erekat added: "It is very clear that the US side has only achieved from Israel stances that reject its commitment to halt the settlements, and hence the US Administration, as chairman of the International Quartet, has to reveal the side that refuses and hinders the launch of the peace process, namely Israel." Erekat continued: "If the US Administration cannot compel Israel to halt the construction of settlements, who will believe that it will be able to compel Israel to withdraw to the borders of 4 June 1967, to withdraw from Eastern Jerusalem, and to resolve the issue of the refugees according to the UN resolutions, with Resolution No. 194 at their forefront?" Erekat stressed that Abbas, in his meeting with Clinton, reiterated his rejection of "the Palestinian state with interim borders," and also rejected Netanyahu's proposals of constructing 3,000 housing units in the settlements, and excluding Jerusalem from any agreement on the settlements; he said "this is rejected chapter and verse." Erekat attributed the difficulty in yesterday's meeting between Abbas and Clinton to the Israeli stances rejecting the implementation of its commitments stipulated by the "Road Map." Erekat stressed that the US Administration would have to reveal the side that hinders the resumption of the negotiations. In reply to a question by Al-Hayah about whether Clinton exerted yesterday any pressure on Abbas, Erekat said: The issue has nothing to do with pressure, but with interests. He pointed out that President Obama, in his meeting with Abbas in May 2009, described the establishment of an independent Palestinian State within 24 months as "US higher interest." Erekat added: "The United States has 230,000 soldiers in the region. If it thinks that it can solve the problems through the use of Marines and through wars, then it is completely mistaken." Erekat stressed: This region needs to drain the quagmire of the Israeli occupation as an introduction to security and stability. He continued: "Here, we are talking about a system of interests. We have shown all possible preparations to fulfill all our commitments, but the Israeli side has not yet recognized its commitments." ' I think the whole thing is over with. I can't see a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank as it is now configured, and I can't imagine the Netanyahu government halting settlements. From shniad at gmail.com Sun Nov 8 09:05:19 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:05:19 -0800 Subject: [R-G] House Resolution Designates Venezuela a State Sponsor of Terrorism Message-ID: <83904d240911080805u4b620bb3x8a2c334f70e1fdb@mail.gmail.com> http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/11/04/house-resolution-designates-venezuela-a-#more7886 The Peoples Voice 11/04/09 * House Resolution Designates Venezuela a State Sponsor of Terrorism* by Stephen Lendman At a time of growing US poverty, hunger, homelessness, and despair, imperial wars without end, and the Obama administration even worse than its predecessor, Venezuela: -- is a model participatory democracy; -- holds free, fair and open elections; -- respects the rule of law, civil liberties, and human rights; -- doesn't intimidate its neighbors; -- uses its resources responsibly for the people; -- provides essential social services for the needy; -- champions judicial fairness and the rule of law; -- has a model free and open media; -- wages no foreign wars; -- doesn't torture or imprison its adversaries; -- conducts effective operations to halt illicit drugs trafficking; -- promotes global peace, solidarity, equality and social justice; and -- its only threat is its good example that shames its northern neighbor. In contrast, America: -- is a serial belligerent and world class bully; -- spends more on militarism than the rest of the world combined at a time it has no enemies; -- backs the world's worst dictators and faux democrats like Colombia's Alvaro Uribe, a man closely linked to the country's paramilitary death squads and drug cartels; and -- through the CIA, has actively engaged in global drugs trafficking since the agency's 1947 founding; it profits hugely from its dealings with local traffickers; so do major US banks and other powerful business and financial interests. In addition, Washington -- serves the rich at the public's expense; -- tolerates corruption at the highest levels; -- subverts democracy through electoral fraud; -- has a closed, corrupted dominant media system serving the powerful, not the greater good; -- incarcerates hundreds of political prisoners; -- uses torture as official policy; and -- wages state-sponsored terrorism and global wars. So consider the hypocrisy. On October 27, Rep. Connie Mack (Rep. FL) introduced HR 872: Calling for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to be designated a state sponsor of terrorism for its support of Iran, Hezbollah, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP). Its sole co-sponsor was Rep. Ron Klein (Dem. FL). Connie Mack is a notorious right-wing ideologue. In an accompanying statement he said: "The evidence linking Venezuela's Hugo Chavez to the FARC and Hezbollah - two of the most dangerous terrorist organizations, responsible for many bombings, kidnappings, killings and drug trafficking - is overwhelming. Naming Venezuela as a state sponsor of terrorism will strengthen the stability of the region. The Administration must not turn a blind eye to Chavez's dangerous aggression and must add Venezuela to the state sponsors of terrorism with delay." Fact Check Iran hasn't attacked a neighbor in over 200 years, but has defended itself vigorously when attacked, including during the 1980-88 war with Iraq, a conflict the Carter administration triggered in an attempt to destabilize and weaken both countries. Noted Latin America expert James Petras calls the FARC-EP the "longest standing, largest peasant-based guerrilla movement in the world (that was) founded in 1964 by two dozen peasant activists (to defend) autonomous rural communities from" Colombian military and paramilitary violence. Hezbollah is no terrorist organization. It's a legitimate resistance group, and, as a political party, is part of Lebanon's elected government. In addition, it's well respected for providing essential social services, including a network of schools, medical clinics, and organized relief after Israeli South Lebanon bombings in 1993, 1996, and 2006. Also, according to Aijaz Ahmad writing in the Indian magazine, Frontline: It's "the only entity which has, through armed resistance, forced the Israelis to relinquish any territory that the Jewish state has ever captured" through decades of regional belligerency. Mack Attack Round Two HR 872 is round two for Mack. On March 13, 2008, he and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R. FL) introduced HR 1049 (with eight co-sponsors) "calling for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to be designated a state sponsor of terrorism (and) condemn(ing) the Venezuelan government for it support of terrorist organizations," at that time referring to the FARC-EP. The resolution died in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Referred there as well, the new one won't fare better. Otherwise the implications are serious as state terrorism designation means halting normal relations, prohibiting US companies from exporting and operating there, and denying America vitally needed Venezuelan oil. It's the nation's fourth largest supplier after Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico. In its "State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview," the US States Department imposes the following sanctions: 1. "A ban on arms-related exports and sales. 2. Controls over exports of dual-use items (that may be anything, including oil), requiring 30-day Congressional notification for goods and services that could significantly enhance the terrorist-list country's military capability or ability to support terrorism. 3. Prohibitions on economic assistance. 4. Imposition of miscellaneous financial and other restrictions, including: -- Requiring the United States to oppose loans by the World Bank and other international financial institutions; -- Lifting diplomatic immunity to allow families of terrorist victims to file civil lawsuits in US courts; -- Denying companies and individuals tax credits for income earned in terrorist-listed countries; -- Denial of duty-free treatment of goods exported to the United States; -- Authority to prohibit any US citizen from engaging in a financial transaction with a terrorist-list government without a Treasury Department license; and -- Prohibition of Defense Department contracts above $100,000 with companies controlled by terrorist-list states." In other words, it halts virtually all normal diplomatic, political and business dealings with "terrorist-list states." Corporate interests won't tolerate it at a time every business opportunity counts. Nor will Venezuela with strong regional support given the political, security and economic implications. As long as Bolivarianism flourishes, expect new efforts to vilify, isolate, destabilize, and topple Chavez, no more likely to succeed than others, and here's why. According to the Venezuelan Institute of Data Analysis (IVAD), his latest approval rating tops 62% after nearly 11 years as president. Governing responsibly keeps him popular compared to Barack Obama's noticeable slippage from his post inaugural high. According to the November 3 Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, only 28% of voters strongly approve of his performance, 41% strongly disapprove, 46% somewhat approve, 52% somewhat disapprove, and for Congress it's far worse - 15% say its doing a good or excellent job compared to 53% ranking it poor. Given Washington's inattention to essential needs, watch for even greater erosion compared to Chavez remaining popular by a two-to-one margin - a profile befitting a democrat, not a state-sponsor of terrorism. Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen at sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://republicbroadcasting.org/Global%20Research/index.php?cmd=archives.year&ProgramID=33&year=9 From shniad at gmail.com Sun Nov 8 09:13:13 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:13:13 -0800 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?Honduras=3A_A_Victory_for_=93Smart_Power?= =?windows-1252?q?=94?= Message-ID: <83904d240911080813o6f2e75d5of00ce8b6dec1040e@mail.gmail.com> * http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15912 *GlobalResearch.ca November 3, 2009 * Honduras: A Victory for ?Smart Power? * by Eva Golinger *What ?smart power? achieved was a way to disguise Washington?s unilateralism as multilateralism. From day one, Washington imposed its agenda... for a majority of people in Latin America, the victory of Obama?s ?smart power? in Honduras is a dark and dangerous shadow closing in on us. * Henry Kissinger said that diplomacy is the ?art of restraining power?. Obviously, the most influential ideologue on US foreign policy of the twenty first century was refering to the necesity to ?restrain the power? of other countries and goverments in order to maintain the dominant world power of the United States. Presidents in the style of George W. Bush employed ?Hard Power? to achieve this goal: weapons, bombs, threats and military invasions. Others, like Bill Clinton, used ?Soft Power?: cultural warfare, Hollywood, ideals, diplomacy, moral authority and campaigns to ?win the hearts and minds? of those in enemy nations. The Obama administration has opted for a mutation of these two concepts, fusioning military power with diplomacy, political and economic influence with cultural penetration and legal manuvering. They call this ?Smart Power?. It?s first application is the coup d?etat in Honduras, and as of today, it?s worked to perfection. During her confirmation hearing before the Senate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked that ?we should use what has been called ?smart power?, the complete range of tools that are at our disposal ? diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural ? choosing the correct tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With ?smart power?, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy.? Clinton later reinforced this concept affirming that the ?wisest path will be to first use persuasion.? So, what is intelligent about this concept? It?s a form of politics that is difficult to classify, difficult to detect and difficult to deconstruct. Honduras is a clear example. On one hand, President Obama condemned the coup against President Zelaya while his ambassador in Tegucigalpa held regular meetings with the coup leaders. Secretary of State Clinton repeated over and over again during the past four months that Washington didn?t want to ?influence? the situation in Honduras ? that Hondurans needed to resolve their crisis, without outside interference. But it was Washington that imposed the mediation process ?led? by President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, and Washington that kept funding the coup regime and its supporters via USAID, and Washington that controlled and commanded the Honduran armed forces, involved in repressing the people and imposing a brutal regime, through its massive military presence in the Soto Cano military base. Washington lobbyists also wrote the San Jos? ?agreement?, and in the end, it was the high level State Department and White House delegation that ?persuaded? the Hondurans to accept the agreement. Despite the constant US interference in the coup d?etat in Honduras ? funding, design, and political and military support ? Washington?s ?smart power? approach was able to distort public opinion and make the Obama administration come out as the grand victor of ?multilateralism?. What ?smart power? achieved was a way to disguise Washington?s unilateralism as multilateralism. From day one, Washington imposed its agenda. On July 1st, spokespeople for the Department of State admitted in a press briefing that they had prior knowledge of the coup in Honduras. They also admitted that two high level State Department officials, Thomas Shannon and James Steinberg, were in Honduras the week before the coup meeting with the civil and military groups involved. They said their purpose was to ?impede the coup?, but how, therefore, can they explain that the airplane that forcefully exiled President Zelaya left from the Soto Cano military base in the presence of US military officers? The facts demonstrate the truth about Washington and the coup in Honduras, and the subsequent successful experiment with ?smart power?. Washington knew about the coup before it happened, yet continued to fund those involved via USAID and NED. The Pentagon aided in the illegal forced exile of President Zelaya, and later, the Obama administration used the Organization of American States (OAS) ? during a moment at which it was on the border of extinction ? as a fa?ade to impose its agenda. The discourse of the Department of State always legitimated the coup leaders, calling on ?both parts?to resolve the political dispute in a peaceful way through dialogue.? Since when is an illegal usurper of power considered a ?legitimate part? capable of dialogue? Obviously, a criminal actor who takes power by force is not interested in dialoguing. Based on this Washington logic, the world should call on the Obama administration to ?resolve its political dispute with Al Qaeda in a peaceful way through dialogue, and not war?. The Obama/Clinton ?smart power? achieved its first victory during the initial days of the coup, persuading the member states of the OAS to accept a 72-hour wait period to allow the coup regime in Honduras to ?think through its actions?. Soon after, Secretary of State Clinton imposed the mediation efforts, led by Arias, and by then, so much space had been ceded to Washington, that the US just stepped in and took the reigns. When President Zelaya went to Washington and met with Clinton, it was obvious who was in control. And that?s how they played it out, buying more and more time up until the last minute, so that even if Zelaya returns to power now he will have no space or time to govern. The people were left out, excluded. Months of repression, violence, persecution, human rights violations, curfews, media closures, tortures and political assasinations have been forgotten. What a relief, as Subsecretary of State Thomas Shannon remarked upon achieving the signature of Micheletti and Zelaya on the final ?agreement?, that the situation in Honduras was resolved ?without violence?. Upon signature of the ?agreement? this past October 30th, Washington immediately lifted the few restrictions it had imposed on the coup regime as a pressure tactic. Now they can get visas again and travel north, they don?t have to worry about the millions of dollars from USAID, which hadn?t even been suspended in the first place. The US military in presence in Soto Cano can reinitiate all their activities ? oh wait, they never stopped in the first place. The Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) of the Pentagon affirmed just days after the coup that ?everything is normal with our armed forces in Honduras, they are engaging in their usual activities with their Honduran counterparts.? And Washington is already preparing its delegation of elections observors for the November 29th presidential elections ? they are already on their way. Forget about Cold War torturer Billy Joya who was scheming with the coup regime against the resistance; or the Colombian paramilitary forces sent in to help the coup regime ?control? the population. Don?t worry anymore about the sonic warfare LRAD weapon used to torture those inside the Brazilian embassy in an attempt to oust Zelaya from the building. Nothing happened. As Thomas Shannon said, ?we congratulate two great men for reaching this historic agreement?. And Secretary of State Clinton commented that ?this agreement is a tremendous achievement for the Hondurans.? Wait, for who? In the end, the celebrated ?agreement? imposed by Washington only calls upon the Honduran Congress ? the same Congress that falsified Zelaya?s resignation letter in order to justify the coup, and the same Congress that supported the illegal installation of Micheletti in the presidency ? to determine whether or not it wants to reinstate Zelaya as president. And only after receiving a legal opinion from the Honduran Supreme Court ? the same one that said Zelaya was a traitor for calling for a non-binding poll vote on potential future constitutional reform, and the same one that ordered his violent capture. Even if the Congress? answer is positive, Zelaya would not have any power. The ?agreement? stipulates that the members of his cabinet will be imposed by those political parties involved in the coup, the armed forces will be under the control of the Supreme Court that supported the coup, and Zelaya could be tried for his alleged ?crime? of ?treason? because he wanted to have a non-binding poll on constitutional reform. Per the ?agreement? a truth commission would supervise its implementation. Today, Ricardo Lagos, ex president of Chile and staunch Washington ally, was announced as the leader of the Honduran Truth Commission. Lagos is co-director of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Dialogue, a right wing think tank that influences Washington?s policies on Latin America. Lagos also was charged with creating a Chilean version of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), la Fundaci?n Democracia y Desarrollo, to ?promote democracy? in Latin America, US-style. Upon leaving the presidency in 2006, Lagos was named President of the Club of Madrid ? an exclusive club of ex presidents dedicated to ?promoting democracy? around the world. Several key figures involved in currently destabilizing left-leaning Latin American governments are members of this ?club?, including Jorge Quiroga and Gonzalo S?nchez de Lozada (ex presidents of Bolivia), Felipe Gonz?lez (ex prime minister of Spain), V?clav Havel (ex president of the Chech Republic) and Jos? Mar?a Aznar (ex prime minister of Spain), amongst many others. In the end, ?smart power? was sufficiently intelligent to deceive those who today celebrate an ?end to the crisis? in Honduras. But for a majority of people in Latin America, the victory of Obama?s ?smart power? in Honduras is a dark and dangerous shadow closing in on us. Initiatives such as ALBA have just begun to achieve a level of Latin American independence from the dominant northern power. For the first time in history, the nations and peoples of Latin America have been collectively standing strong with dignity and sovereignty, building their futures. And then along came Obama with his ?smart power?, and ALBA was hit by the coup in Honduras, Latin American integration has been weakened by the US military expansion in Colombia, and the struggle for independence and sovereignty in Washington?s backyard is being squashed by a sinister smile and insincere handshake. Bowing before Washington, the crisis in Honduras ?was resolved?. Ironically, the same crisis was fomented by the US in the first place. There is talk of similar coups in Paraguay, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Venezuela, where subversion, counterinsurgency and destabilization increase daily. The people of Honduras remain in resistance, despite the ?agreement? reached by those in power. Their determined insurrection and commitment to justice is a symbol of dignity. The only way to defeat imperialist agression ? soft, hard or smart - is through the union and integration of the people. ?The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes longer.? ? Henry Kissinger Eva Golinger is a Venezuelan-American attorney from New York, living in Caracas, Venezuela since 2005 and author of the best-selling books, ?The Ch?vez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela? (2006 Olive Branch Press) and ?Bush vs. Ch?vez: Washington?s War on Venezuela? (2007, Monthly Review Press). Since 2003, Eva, a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College and CUNY Law School in New York, has been investigating, analyzing and writing about US intervention in Venezuela using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain information about the US Government?s efforts to destabilize progressive movements in Latin America.* * From garyrumor2 at yahoo.com Sun Nov 8 15:09:20 2009 From: garyrumor2 at yahoo.com (Gary Crethers) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:09:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] Health, Influenza, Factory Farming, Women Of Afghanistan Message-ID: <693309.63222.qm@web43510.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Influenza History And Industrial Farming. Afghanistan ReminderNovember 8th, 2009 Afghani Women say the United States Military should get out of Afghanistan. That is the position of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. They claim that the struggle against the warlords and Taliban is complicated by the presence of the NATO forces led by the USA. The CIA and other US agencies are funding the various factions of warlords instead of helping Afghani civil society. Before the 1980?s Afghanistan had a civil society that functioned. It is similar to Lebanon in that regard another country that was wracked with civil war for decades. The world is drowning in shit. Humans creating factory farms that concentrate so many animals together that they become shit factories. Producing much more waste than can be used as fertilizer. They also are pumped full of antibiotics and some of them have been genetically modified to the point that they cannot even survive in the environment. Turkeys sold commercially are unable to survive outside of the factory farm. Meat sold in America, the result of factory farming is becoming more and more industrial and it is now the number one cause of air pollution. water pollution and global warming in the world. This is from the author of ?Eating Animals?. Johnathan Safran Foer. He became a vegetarian convert after his wife gave birth to their son and he investigated the source of foods. There is no way to produce enough meat ethically, or according to traditional methods to feed the entire population the amount of meat we consume at this time. That is largely the result of the fast food industry consuming vast quantities of dead animals. This is an industry that is based on force feeding massive amounts of adulterated meats to the populace. The result is food that is not nutritionally sound, that causes dangerous diseases such as swine flu and is the cause of massive amounts of pollution. Some diseases originate in these industrial food sources, others are from more primitive sources such as the Chinese practice of keeping fowls, fish and humans in close proximity in a semi tropical environment with overcrowding. But the interesting question is, if this is true what can be done to avoid it and if it is true why now and not before. The flu, something that we are familiar with has sources that may ore may not be understood. This is a brief history from Natural News.com ?412 BC ? Major epidemic of a disease (which, although not called influenza, probably was influenza) recorded by Hippocrates. 1357 AD ? The term, ?influenza,? from the Italian word meaning ?influence,? was coined. Popular belief at that time blamed the development of flu on the influence of the stars. 1485 ? ?Sweating sickness,? a flu-like malady, sickens hundreds of thousands of people in Britain. The Lord Mayor of London, his successor and six aldermen die. The Royal Navy cannot leave port due to the sickness of sailors. Doctors prescribe tobacco juice, lime juice, emetics, cathartics and bleeding as treatments for the disease. 1580 ? First recorded influenza pandemic begins in Europe and spreads to Asia and Africa. 1700s ? Influenza pandemics in 1729-1730, 1732-1733, 1781-1782. 1781 ? Major epidemic causing high mortality among the elderly spreads across Russia from Asia. 1830 ? Major epidemic causing high mortality among the elderly spreads across Russia from Asia. 1831, 1833-1834 ? Influenza pandemics hit. 1847-1848 ? Influenza sweeps through the Mediterranean to southern France and then continues across in Western Europe. 1878 ? A disease causing high mortality in poultry becomes known as the ?fowl plague.? Fowl plague is now called HPAI avian influenza. 1889-1890 ? The ?Russian flu? spreads through Europe and reaches North America in 1890. 1900 ? Major epidemic. 1918-1919 ? The ?Spanish Flu? circles the globe (though some experts think it may have started in the U.S.). Caused by an H1N1 flu virus, it is the worst influenza pandemic (and subsequently, epidemic) to date. There are more than half a million U.S. deaths; worldwide death estimates range from 20 million to 100 million. According to Web MD, ?The pandemic comes before the era of antibiotics ? which are now essential in treating the secondary bacterial infections that often kill flu-weakened patients ? so it?s difficult to say whether this flu would have the same dreadful impact in the modern world. But it is a very frightening disease, with very high death rates among young, previously healthy adults.? 1924 ? The first outbreak of HPAI avian influenza ? bird flu ? in the U.S. It does not spread among humans. Late 1920s ? Richard Shope shows that swine influenza can be transmitted through filtered mucous, implying that influenza is caused by a virus. 1933 ? Sir Christopher Andrewes, Wilson Smith and Sir Patrick Laidlaw isolate the first human influenza virus. 1940 ? Frank Macfarlane Burnet grows influenza on a laboratory growth system (embryonated chicken eggs). 1941 ? George K. Hirst discovers that influenza causes hemagglutination of red blood cells, thus providing a new method of assaying for the virus 1955 ? Sir Christopher Andrewes, along with Burnet and Bang, coins the term ?myxovirus? for the influenza family. 1957-1958 ? The ?Asian Flu? causes the second pandemic of the 20th century. Caused by an H2N2 virus, it begins in China and kills one million people worldwide, including 70,000 Americans. 1968-1969 ? The ?Hong Kong Flu? causes the last flu pandemic. It was caused by an H3N2 virus and killed some 34,000 Americans. The relatively low death toll is thought to have been due to two factors. First, the virus contained the N2 protein humans had been exposed to before. Second, an H3 virus circulated around the turn of the century, giving some immune protection to elderly people who had caught the flu back then. Mid-1970s ? Researchers realize that enormous pools of influenza virus continuously circulate in wild birds. 1976 ? Swine flu breaks out among a handful of soldiers stationed at Fort Dix, N.J. One dies. It?s an H1N1 virus, and health officials worry that they are seeing the return of the 1918 H1N1 Spanish Flu pandemic. As the virus is circulating among U.S. pigs, President Gerald Ford calls for a crash vaccination program. Despite delays, a vaccine is made and a quarter of the U.S. population is inoculated. There were 25 deaths from a rare paralytic complication of the vaccination (Guillain-Barre syndrome). Nobody else died of swine flu, which never caused an epidemic. 1977 ? Mild Russian influenza epidemic occurs. 1983 ? The second HPAI outbreak occurs in the U.S. Caused by an H5N2 virus, it does not spread among humans. However, this severe poultry epidemic strikes chickens, turkeys and guinea fowl in Pennsylvania and Virginia. It is finally brought under control after the destruction of 17 million birds. 1988 ? Wiley, Wilson and Skehel determine the location of the antigenic sites on the hemagglutinin molecule by X-ray crystallography. 1996 ? HPAI H5N1 bird flu is isolated from a farmed goose in Guangdong, China. May 1997 ? The first person known to catch H5N1 bird flu dies in Hong Kong. The virus has been causing an epidemic among poultry in the city. November-December 1997 ? There are 18 new human cases of H5N1 bird flu in Hong Kong, 12 with direct contact with infected poultry. Six people die. Officials destroy 1.4 million chickens and ducks. Jan. 5, 2003 ? Health authorities in Vietnam inform the WHO office in Hanoi of an outbreak of severe respiratory illness in 11 previously healthy children hospitalized in Hanoi, with the most recent hospital admission on Jan. 4. Seven cases were fatal and two patients remain critically ill. A 12th case, a sibling of one of the Hanoi cases, died of a respiratory illness in a provincial hospital.? The site then has an explosion of information on deaths from Bird flu in particular. This is an article from last spring about Swine Flu mix with Bird Flu. ?Expert Warns Of Swine Flu-Bird Flu Mix (CBS/AP) Bird flu kills more than 60 percent of its human victims, but doesn?t easily pass from person to person. Swine flu can be spread with a sneeze or handshake, but kills only a small fraction of the people it infects. So what happens if they mix? This is the scenario that has some scientists worried: The two viruses meet - possibly in Asia, where bird flu is endemic - and combine into a new bug that is both highly contagious and lethal, and can spread around the world. Scientists are unsure how likely this possibility is, but note that the new swine flu strain - a never-before-seen mixture of pig, human and bird viruses - has shown itself to be especially adept at snatching evolutionarily advantageous genetic material from other flu viruses. ?This particular virus seems to have this unique ability to pick up other genes,? said leading virologist Dr. Robert Webster, whose team discovered an ancestor of the current flu virus at a North Carolina pig farm in 1998. The current swine flu strain - known as H1N1 - has sickened more than 2,350 people in 26 countries. While people can catch bird flu from birds, the bird flu virus - H5N1 - does not easily jump from person to person. It has killed at least 258 people worldwide since it began to ravage poultry stocks in Asia in late 2003.? Here is the information about the source of the current swine flu. Pig farms in North Carolina, not Mexico. But the current outbreak may have begun in Mexico where agribusiness has fewer regulations to worry about. This is from a Wikepedia article about Swine Influenza. ?Although there is no formal national surveillance system in the United States to determine what viruses are circulating in pigs, there is an informal surveillance network in the United States that is part of a world surveillance network. Swine influenza was first proposed to be a disease related to human influenza during the 1918 flu pandemic, when pigs became sick at the same time as humans. The first identification of an influenza virus as a cause of disease in pigs occurred about ten years later, in 1930. For the following 60 years, swine influenza strains were almost exclusively H1N1. Then, between 1997 and 2002, new strains of three different subtypes and five different genotypes emerged as causes of influenza among pigs in North America. In 1997?1998, H3N2 strains emerged. These strains, which include genes derived by reassortment from human, swine and avian viruses, have become a major cause of swine influenza in North America. Reassortment between H1N1 and H3N2 produced H1N2. In 1999 in Canada, a strain of H4N6 crossed the species barrier from birds to pigs, but was contained on a single farm. The H1N1 form of swine flu is one of the descendants of the strain that caused the 1918 flu pandemic. As well as persisting in pigs, the descendants of the 1918 virus have also circulated in humans through the 20th century, contributing to the normal seasonal epidemics of influenza.[ However, direct transmission from pigs to humans is rare, with only 12 cases in the U.S. since 2005. Nevertheless, the retention of influenza strains in pigs after these strains have disappeared from the human population might make pigs a reservoir where influenza viruses could persist, later emerging to reinfect humans once human immunity to these strains has waned. Swine flu has been reported numerous times as a zoonosis in humans, usually with limited distribution, rarely with a widespread distribution. Outbreaks in swine are common and cause significant economic losses in industry, primarily by causing stunting and extended time to market. For example, this disease costs the British meat industry about ?65 million every year.? This is from an interesting article from the CDC on the origins of the 1918 pandemic. Although it is fairly technical it is not above the level of an attentive reader and should be of interest. ?1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics Jeffery K. Taubenberger* and David M. Morens? *Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rockville, Maryland, USA; and ?National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA The ?Spanish? influenza pandemic of 1918?1919, which caused ?50 million deaths worldwide, remains an ominous warning to public health. Many questions about its origins, its unusual epidemiologic features, and the basis of its pathogenicity remain unanswered. The public health implications of the pandemic therefore remain in doubt even as we now grapple with the feared emergence of a pandemic caused by H5N1 or other virus. However, new information about the 1918 virus is emerging, for example, sequencing of the entire genome from archival autopsy tissues. But, the viral genome alone is unlikely to provide answers to some critical questions. Understanding the 1918 pandemic and its implications for future pandemics requires careful experimentation and in-depth historical analysis. An estimated one third of the world?s population (or ?500 million persons) were infected and had clinically apparent illnesses (1,2) during the 1918?1919 influenza pandemic. The disease was exceptionally severe. Case-fatality rates were >2.5%, compared to <0.1% in other influenza pandemics (3,4). Total deaths were estimated at ?50 million (5?7) and were arguably as high as 100 million (7). The impact of this pandemic was not limited to 1918?1919. All influenza A pandemics since that time, and indeed almost all cases of influenza A worldwide (excepting human infections from avian viruses such as H5N1 and H7N7), have been caused by descendants of the 1918 virus, including "drifted" H1N1 viruses and reassorted H2N2 and H3N2 viruses. The latter are composed of key genes from the 1918 virus, updated by subsequently incorporated avian influenza genes that code for novel surface proteins, making the 1918 virus indeed the "mother" of all pandemics. In 1918, the cause of human influenza and its links to avian and swine influenza were unknown. Despite clinical and epidemiologic similarities to influenza pandemics of 1889, 1847, and even earlier, many questioned whether such an explosively fatal disease could be influenza at all. That question did not begin to be resolved until the 1930s, when closely related influenza viruses (now known to be H1N1 viruses) were isolated, first from pigs and shortly thereafter from humans. Seroepidemiologic studies soon linked both of these viruses to the 1918 pandemic (8). Subsequent research indicates that descendants of the 1918 virus still persists enzootically in pigs. They probably also circulated continuously in humans, undergoing gradual antigenic drift and causing annual epidemics, until the 1950s. With the appearance of a new H2N2 pandemic strain in 1957 ("Asian flu"), the direct H1N1 viral descendants of the 1918 pandemic strain disappeared from human circulation entirely, although the related lineage persisted enzootically in pigs. But in 1977, human H1N1 viruses suddenly "reemerged" from a laboratory freezer (9). They continue to circulate endemically and epidemically. Thus in 2006, 2 major descendant lineages of the 1918 H1N1 virus, as well as 2 additional reassortant lineages, persist naturally: a human epidemic/endemic H1N1 lineage, a porcine enzootic H1N1 lineage (so-called classic swine flu), and the reassorted human H3N2 virus lineage, which like the human H1N1 virus, has led to a porcine H3N2 lineage. None of these viral descendants, however, approaches the pathogenicity of the 1918 parent virus. Trying To Understand What Happened By the early 1990s, 75 years of research had failed to answer a most basic question about the 1918 pandemic: why was it so fatal? No virus from 1918 had been isolated, but all of its apparent descendants caused substantially milder human disease. Moreover, examination of mortality data from the 1920s suggests that within a few years after 1918, influenza epidemics had settled into a pattern of annual epidemicity associated with strain drifting and substantially lowered death rates. Did some critical viral genetic event produce a 1918 virus of remarkable pathogenicity and then other critical genetic event occur soon after the 1918 pandemic to produce an attenuated H1N1 virus? In 1995, a scientific team identified archival influenza autopsy materials collected in the autumn of 1918 and began the slow process of sequencing small viral RNA fragments to determine the genomic structure of the causative influenza virus (10). These efforts have now determined the complete genomic sequence of 1 virus and partial sequences from 4 others. The primary data from the above studies (11?17) and a number of reviews covering different aspects of the 1918 pandemic have recently been published (18?20) and confirm that the 1918 virus is the likely ancestor of all 4 of the human and swine H1N1 and H3N2 lineages, as well as the "extinct" H2N2 lineage. No known mutations correlated with high pathogenicity in other human or animal influenza viruses have been found in the 1918 genome, but ongoing studies to map virulence factors are yielding interesting results. The 1918 sequence data, however, leave unanswered questions about the origin of the virus (19) and about the epidemiology of the pandemic. When and Where Did the 1918 Influenza Pandemic Arise? Before and after 1918, most influenza pandemics developed in Asia and spread from there to the rest of the world. Confounding definite assignment of a geographic point of origin, the 1918 pandemic spread more or less simultaneously in 3 distinct waves during an ?12-month period in 1918?1919, in Europe, Asia, and North America (the first wave was best described in the United States in March 1918). Historical and epidemiologic data are inadequate to identify the geographic origin of the virus (21), and recent phylogenetic analysis of the 1918 viral genome does not place the virus in any geographic context (19). Although in 1918 influenza was not a nationally reportable disease and diagnostic criteria for influenza and pneumonia were vague, death rates from influenza and pneumonia in the United States had risen sharply in 1915 and 1916 because of a major respiratory disease epidemic beginning in December 1915 (22). Death rates then dipped slightly in 1917. The first pandemic influenza wave appeared in the spring of 1918, followed in rapid succession by much more fatal second and third waves in the fall and winter of 1918?1919, respectively (Figure 1). Is it possible that a poorly-adapted H1N1 virus was already beginning to spread in 1915, causing some serious illnesses but not yet sufficiently fit to initiate a pandemic? Data consistent with this possibility were reported at the time from European military camps (23), but a counter argument is that if a strain with a new hemagglutinin (HA) was causing enough illness to affect the US national death rates from pneumonia and influenza, it should have caused a pandemic sooner, and when it eventually did, in 1918, many people should have been immune or at least partially immunoprotected. "Herald" events in 1915, 1916, and possibly even in early 1918, if they occurred, would be difficult to identify. The 1918 influenza pandemic had another unique feature, the simultaneous (or nearly simultaneous) infection of humans and swine. The virus of the 1918 pandemic likely expressed an antigenically novel subtype to which most humans and swine were immunologically naive in 1918 In summary, its origin remains puzzling. Were the 3 Waves in 1918?1919 Caused by the Same Virus? If So, How and Why? Historical records since the 16th century suggest that new influenza pandemics may appear at any time of year, not necessarily in the familiar annual winter patterns of interpandemic years, presumably because newly shifted influenza viruses behave differently when they find a universal or highly susceptible human population. Thereafter, confronted by the selection pressures of population immunity, these pandemic viruses begin to drift genetically and eventually settle into a pattern of annual epidemic recurrences caused by the drifted virus variants. In the 1918?1919 pandemic, a first or spring wave began in March 1918 and spread unevenly through the United States, Europe, and possibly Asia over the next 6 months . Illness rates were high, but death rates in most locales were not appreciably above normal. A second or fall wave spread globally from September to November 1918 and was highly fatal. In many nations, a third wave occurred in early 1919 (21). Clinical similarities led contemporary observers to conclude initially that they were observing the same disease in the successive waves. The milder forms of illness in all 3 waves were identical and typical of influenza seen in the 1889 pandemic and in prior interpandemic years. In retrospect, even the rapid progressions from uncomplicated influenza infections to fatal pneumonia, a hallmark of the 1918?1919 fall and winter waves, had been noted in the relatively few severe spring wave cases. The differences between the waves thus seemed to be primarily in the much higher frequency of complicated, severe, and fatal cases in the last 2 waves. But 3 extensive pandemic waves of influenza within 1 year, occurring in rapid succession, with only the briefest of quiescent intervals between them, was unprecedented. The occurrence, and to some extent the severity, of recurrent annual outbreaks, are driven by viral antigenic drift, with an antigenic variant virus emerging to become dominant approximately every 2 to 3 years. Without such drift, circulating human influenza viruses would presumably disappear once herd immunity had reached a critical threshold at which further virus spread was sufficiently limited. The timing and spacing of influenza epidemics in interpandemic years have been subjects of speculation for decades. Factors believed to be responsible include partial herd immunity limiting virus spread in all but the most favorable circumstances, which include lower environmental temperatures and human nasal temperatures (beneficial to thermolabile viruses such as influenza), optimal humidity, increased crowding indoors, and imperfect ventilation due to closed windows and suboptimal airflow. However, such factors cannot explain the 3 pandemic waves of 1918?1919, which occurred in the spring-summer, summer-fall, and winter (of the Northern Hemisphere), respectively. The first 2 waves occurred at a time of year normally unfavorable to influenza virus spread. The second wave caused simultaneous outbreaks in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres from September to November. Furthermore, the interwave periods were so brief as to be almost undetectable in some locales. Reconciling epidemiologically the steep drop in cases in the first and second waves with the sharp rises in cases of the second and third waves is difficult. Assuming even transient postinfection immunity, how could susceptible persons be too few to sustain transmission at 1 point and yet enough to start a new explosive pandemic wave a few weeks later? Could the virus have mutated profoundly and almost simultaneously around the world, in the short periods between the successive waves? Acquiring viral drift sufficient to produce new influenza strains capable of escaping population immunity is believed to take years of global circulation, not weeks of local circulation. And having occurred, such mutated viruses normally take months to spread around the world. At the beginning of other "off season" influenza pandemics, successive distinct waves within a year have not been reported. The 1889 pandemic, for example, began in the late spring of 1889 and took several months to spread throughout the world, peaking in northern Europe and the United States late in 1889 or early in 1890. The second recurrence peaked in late spring 1891 (more than a year after the first pandemic appearance) and the third in early 1892 (21). As was true for the 1918 pandemic, the second 1891 recurrence produced of the most deaths. The 3 recurrences in 1889?1892, however, were spread over >3 years, in contrast to 1918?1919, when the sequential waves seen in individual countries were typically compressed into ?8?9 months. What gave the 1918 virus the unprecedented ability to generate rapidly successive pandemic waves is unclear. Because the only 1918 pandemic virus samples we have yet identified are from second-wave patients (16), nothing can yet be said about whether the first (spring) wave, or for that matter, the third wave, represented circulation of the same virus or variants of it. Data from 1918 suggest that persons infected in the second wave may have been protected from influenza in the third wave. But the few data bearing on protection during the second and third waves after infection in the first wave are inconclusive and do little to resolve the question of whether the first wave was caused by the same virus or whether major genetic evolutionary events were occurring even as the pandemic exploded and progressed. Only influenza RNA?positive human samples from before 1918, and from all 3 waves, can answer this question. What Was the Animal Host Origin of the Pandemic Virus? Viral sequence data now suggest that the entire 1918 virus was novel to humans in, or shortly before, 1918, and that it thus was not a reassortant virus produced from old existing strains that acquired 1 or more new genes, such as those causing the 1957 and 1968 pandemics. On the contrary, the 1918 virus appears to be an avianlike influenza virus derived in toto from an unknown source (17,19), as its 8 genome segments are substantially different from contemporary avian influenza genes. Influenza virus gene sequences from a number of fixed specimens of wild birds collected circa 1918 show little difference from avian viruses isolated today, indicating that avian viruses likely undergo little antigenic change in their natural hosts even over long periods (24,25). One possible explanation is that these unusual gene segments were acquired from a reservoir of influenza virus that has not yet been identified or sampled. All of these findings beg the question: where did the 1918 virus come from? In contrast to the genetic makeup of the 1918 pandemic virus, the novel gene segments of the reassorted 1957 and 1968 pandemic viruses all originated in Eurasian avian viruses (26); both human viruses arose by the same mechanism?reassortment of a Eurasian wild waterfowl strain with the previously circulating human H1N1 strain. Proving the hypothesis that the virus responsible for the 1918 pandemic had a markedly different origin requires samples of human influenza strains circulating before 1918 and samples of influenza strains in the wild that more closely resemble the 1918 sequences. Why did so many young healthy persons die? One theory that may partially explain these findings is that the 1918 virus had an intrinsically high virulence, tempered only in those patients who had been born before 1889, e.g., because of exposure to a then-circulating virus capable of providing partial immunoprotection against the 1918 virus strain only in persons old enough (>35 years) to have been infected during that prior era (35). But this theory would present an additional paradox: an obscure precursor virus that left no detectable trace today would have had to have appeared and disappeared before 1889 and then reappeared more than 3 decades later. Could a 1918-like Pandemic Appear Again? If So, What Could We Do About It? In its disease course and pathologic features, the 1918 pandemic was different in degree, but not in kind, from previous and subsequent pandemics. Despite the extraordinary number of global deaths, most influenza cases in 1918 (>95% in most locales in industrialized nations) were mild and essentially indistinguishable from influenza cases today. Furthermore, laboratory experiments with recombinant influenza viruses containing genes from the 1918 virus suggest that the 1918 and 1918-like viruses would be as sensitive as other typical virus strains to the Food and Drug Administration?approved antiinfluenza drugs rimantadine and oseltamivir. However, some characteristics of the 1918 pandemic appear unique: most notably, death rates were 5?20 times higher than expected. Clinically and pathologically, these high death rates appear to be the result of several factors, including a higher proportion of severe and complicated infections of the respiratory tract, rather than involvement of organ systems outside the normal range of the influenza virus. Also, the deaths were concentrated in an unusually young age group. Finally, in 1918, 3 separate recurrences of influenza followed each other with unusual rapidity, resulting in 3 explosive pandemic waves within a year?s time. Each of these unique characteristics may reflect genetic features of the 1918 virus, but understanding them will also require examination of host and environmental factors. Until we can ascertain which of these factors gave rise to the mortality patterns observed and learn more about the formation of the pandemic, predictions are only educated guesses. We can only conclude that since it happened once, analogous conditions could lead to an equally devastating pandemic.? I edited out some of the purely technical sections but even so it is a tough read and essentialy the article asks more questions than it answers. We know that these viruses exist in animal populations. They transfer over to human populations through a system of transference that is not well understood. The majority of cases seem to come from Asia but the record from the 1918 pandemic seem to show the American military base of Fort Riley, Kansas as an early source in the spring of 1918. This is from an article on the flu By Molly Billings ?The origins of this influenza variant is not precisely known. It is thought to have originated in China in a rare genetic shift of the influenza virus. The recombination of its surface proteins created a virus novel to almost everyone and a loss of herd immunity. Recently the virus has been reconstructed from the tissue of a dead soldier and is now being genetically characterized. The name of Spanish Flu came from the early affliction and large mortalities in Spain (BMJ,10/19/1918) where it allegedly killed 8 million in May (BMJ, 7/13/1918). However, a first wave of influenza appeared early in the spring of 1918 in Kansas and in military camps throughout the US. Few noticed the epidemic in the midst of the war. Wilson had just given his 14 point address. There was virtually no response or acknowledgment to the epidemics in March and April in the military camps. It was unfortunate that no steps were taken to prepare for the usual recrudescence of the virulent influenza strain in the winter. The lack of action was later criticized when the epidemic could not be ignored in the winter of 1918 (BMJ, 1918). These first epidemics at training camps were a sign of what was coming in greater magnitude in the fall and winter of 1918 to the entire world. The war brought the virus back into the US for the second wave of the epidemic. It first arrived in Boston in September of 1918 through the port busy with war shipments of machinery and supplies. The war also enabled the virus to spread and diffuse. Men across the nation were mobilizing to join the military and the cause. As they came together, they brought the virus with them and to those they contacted. The virus killed almost 200,00 in October of 1918 alone. In November 11 of 1918 the end of the war enabled a resurgence. As people celebrated Armistice Day with parades and large partiess, a complete disaster from the public health standpoint, a rebirth of the epidemic occurred in some cities. The flu that winter was beyond imagination as millions were infected and thousands died. Just as the war had effected the course of influenza, influenza affected the war. Entire fleets were ill with the disease and men on the front were too sick to fight. The flu was devastating to both sides, killing more men than their own weapons could.? What is worse factory farming or intensive farming in hot humid climates? One is modern and has only been a factor in recent decades. The other has been around for thousands of years and is only intensified by the increased population and the speed of communications. We cannot avoid contact in the modern world but we can seek to eradicate the sources of disease in these manners. A) Eating a mainly vegetarian diet. B) Ending Factory Farming of livestock, C) Stricter implimentation of approved sanitary regimes, D) Reducing population concentrations of animals and humans. E) Limiting Fast Food diets and stricter health standards for restaurants including manditory paid sick leave for employees. Tags: Hands off Afghanistan., Health Considerations and Factory Farming, Influenza Pandemics From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Sun Nov 8 16:24:26 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:24:26 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Harnessing Hippogriffs Message-ID: <20091109082426.28602656.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by John Michael Greer The Archdruid Report (November 04 2009) Druid perspectives on nature, culture, and the future of industrial society One of the more interesting aspects of writing these essays is that I can never predict in advance what will get me a flurry of outraged responses each week. It's a fair bet that something always does; the collective conversation of the modern industrial world has become so overheated in the last decade or so that it's difficult to say much of anything without getting somebody in a swivet; still, what it is that sets off the swiveteers routinely catches me by surprise. Last week was no exception. Of all the things in that essay that might plausibly have launched the usual cries of outrage, the one that did so was an offhand reference to the free market fundamentalists of the Austrian school, many of whom insist that the proper solution to every economic problem is to let the market have its way. As it happens, in making that comment I was thinking specifically of Michael Shedlock aka Mish, whose blog {1} is one of the handful I read daily. {1} http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/ Mish is among the most thoughtful and articulate proponents of the Austrian school in today's blogosphere, and he has an excellent eye for the economic news that matters - which is by and large exactly the economic news that the rest of the media avoids covering. Very nearly the only thing on his blog that makes me roll my eyes is his repeated insistence that the market is always right and government regulation is always wrong; no matter how berserk the market gets, its vagaries are for the best, and any problems should be corrected by privatizing even more government functions. Now of course Mish is hardly an official spokesperson for the Austrian school, as if there were such a thing, but he's not exactly alone in his insistence, either. Enough people in the peak oil scene share similar views that it's probably necessary to say something about the free market and its potential for solving or creating problems during the twilight years of industrialism ahead of us. Any such comments need to be prefaced, though, by a reminder that a spectrum consists of something other than its two endpoints. Just as a great many people on the left have picked up the dubious habit of using labels such as "fascism" for any political system to the right of Hillary Clinton, a great many people on the right seem to have convinced themselves that any form of economic regulation at all is tantamount to some sort of neo-Marxist hobgoblin - a "socialist-communist-ecologist" system, to use a phrase that actually appeared in one of the comments fielded by last week's post. Now it bears remembering that drowning is not the only alternative to dying of dehydration; there's a middle ground that is noticeably more pleasant than either. The same principle also applies in economics. The experiment of having government own all the means of production in an industrial society, along the lines proposed by Marx, received a thorough test at the hands of the Communist bloc and failed abjectly. At the same time, the experiment of having government keep its hands off the economy altogether in an industrial society, along the lines proposed by a great many free-market proponents these days, received an equally thorough test, and failed just as dismally. The test took place a little earlier; in America, it ran from the end of the Civil War into the first decade of the twentieth century, and the result was a catastrophic sequence of booms and busts, the transfer of most of the nation's wealth to a tiny minority of wealthy people, the bitter impoverishment of nearly everyone else, and a level of social unrest that included two presidential assassinations and so many bomb attacks on the rich and their families that bomb-throwing anarchists became a regular theme of music-hall songs. Now it's always possible for theorists to contrast a Utopian portrait of a free-market economy against the gritty and unwelcome realities of extreme socialism, just as it's possible for people on the other side of the spectrum to contrast a Utopian portrait of a socialist economy against the equally gritty and unwelcome realities of unfettered capitalism. Both make great rhetorical strategies, since the human mind is easily misled by binary logic: if A is evil, it seems wholly reasonable to claim that the opposite of A must be good. The real world does not work that way, but this is hardly the only case in which rhetoric ignores reality. The problem with the rhetoric, however, may be stated a bit more precisely: however pleasant they look on paper, free markets do not exist. Strictly speaking, they are as mythical as hippogriffs. It occurs to me that some of my readers may not be as familiar with hippogriffs as they ought to be. (Tut, tut - what do they teach children these days?) For those who lack so basic an element in their education, a hippogriff is the offspring of a gryphon and a mare; it has the head, body, hind legs, and tail of a horse, and the forelimbs and wings of a giant eagle. Hippogriffs are said to be the strongest and swiftest of all flying creatures, which is why Astolpho rode one to the terrestrial paradise to recover Orlando's lost wits in Orlando Furioso, and why Juss rode one to the summit of Koshtra Pivrarcha to rescue Goldry Bluszco in The Worm Ouroboros. They are splendid creatures, no question; their only disadvantage, really, is the minor point that they don't happen to exist, and drawing up plans to use them as a new, energy-efficient means of air transport in the face of peak oil, for instance, will inevitably come to grief on that annoying little detail. Free markets are subject to essentially the same little problem. There have been many examples of market economies in history that were not controlled by governments, but there have been no examples of market economies that were not controlled, and if one were to be set up, it would remain a free market for maybe a week at most. Adam Smith explained why in memorable language in The Wealth of Nations (1776): "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or some contrivance to raise prices". When a market is not controlled by government edicts, religious taboos, social customs, or some other outside force, it will quickly be controlled by combinations of individuals whose wealth and strategic position in the market enable them to maximize the economic benefits accruing to them, by squeezing out rivals, manipulating prices, buying up their suppliers, bribing government officials, and the like: that is to say, behaving the way capitalists behave whenever they are left to their own devices. This is what created the profoundly dysfunctional economy of Gilded Age America, and it also played a very large role in setting up the current debacle. There's a rich irony here, in that the market economy portrayed in textbooks - in which buyers and sellers are numerous and independent enough that free competition regulates their interactions - is exactly the sort of commons that so many free market proponents insist should be eliminated wholesale in favor of private ownership. All commons systems, as Garrett Hardin pointed out in a famous essay a while back, are hideously vulnerable to abuse unless they are managed in ways that prevent individuals from exploiting the commons for their own private benefit. This year's Nobel laureate in economics, Elinor Ostrom, won her award for demonstrating that it's entirely possible to manage a commons so that Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" does not happen, and she's quite right - there have been many examples of successfully managed commons in history. Strip away the management that keeps it from being abused, however, and the free market, like any other commons, rapidly destroys itself. This does not mean that the best, or for that matter the only, alternative to the unchecked rule of corporate robber barons is Marxist-style state ownership of the economy; once again, dying from heatstroke is not the only alternative to dying from hypothermia. It means, rather, that something between these two extremes might be worth trying, especially if it can be shown by historical evidence to work tolerably well in practice. Of course this is what history shows; broadly speaking, economies that leave the means of production in private hands, but use appropriate regulation to harness their energies to the public good, consistently produce more prosperity for more people than either unfettered capitalism or extreme socialism. This being said, the midpoint between these extremes may not lie where today's conventional wisdom tends to place it. Consider an example from the not too distant past: a large industrial nation with a capitalist economy, but remarkably tough regulations restricting the growth of private fortunes and the abuses to which capitalist economies are so often prone. The wealthiest people in that nation paid more than two-thirds of their annual income in tax, and monopolistic practices on the part of corporations faced harsh and frequently applied judicial penalties. The financial sector was particularly tightly leashed: interest rates on savings were fixed by the government, usury laws put very low caps on the upper end of interest rates for loans, and hard legal barriers prevented banks from expanding out of local markets or crossing the firewall between consumer banking and the riskier world of corporate investment. Consumer credit was difficult enough to get, as a result, that most people did without it most of the time, using layaway plans and Christmas Club savings programs to afford large purchases. According to the standard rhetoric of free market proponents these days, so rigidly controlled an economy ought by definition to be hopelessly stagnant and unproductive. This shows the separation of rhetoric from reality, however, for the nation I have just described was the United States during the presidency of Dwight D Eisenhower: that is, during one of the most sustained periods of prosperity, innovation, economic development and international influence this nation has ever seen. Now of course there were other factors behind America's 1950s success, just as there were other factors behind the decline since then; still, it's worth noting that as the economic regulations of the 1950s have been dismantled - in every case, under the pretext of boosting American prosperity - the prosperity of most Americans has gone down, not up. It makes a good measure of how far we have come as a nation - and not in a useful direction - that the economic policies of one of the most successful 20th century Republican administrations would be rejected by most of today's Democrats as too far to the left. A case could be made, in fact, that far and away the most sensible thing the US Congress could do today, in the face of an economy that has very nearly choked to death on its own bubbles, is to reenact the economic legislation in place in the 1950s, line for line. (When you're hiking in the woods, and discover that you've taken a trail that leads someplace you don't want to go, your best bet is normally to turn around and go back to the last place where you were still going in the right direction.) Yet there's an interesting point that also ought to be made about the economic regulation of the 1950s. Outside of antitrust legislation, not that much of it applied to the economy of goods and services on any level, whether that of Mom and Pop grocery stores or big industrial conglomerates. The bulk of it, and very nearly all the strictest elements of it, focused on the financial industry. More broadly speaking, instead of regulating the production and consumption of goods and services, the economic policies of the Eisenhower era focused on regulating money: on ensuring that too much of it did not end up concentrated unproductively in too few hands, and on controlling its propensity to multiply as enthusiastically as rabbits on Viagra. The relative success of these measures points toward a distinction already made in these posts, and to practical steps that will be explored in next week's post. _____ John Michael Greer, The Grand Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids in America (AODA), has been active in the alternative spirituality movement for more than 25 years, and is the author of more than twenty books, including The Druidry Handbook (Weiser, 2006) and The Long Descent: A User's Guide to the End of the Industrial Age (New Society, 2008). He lives in Cumberland, Maryland. ? http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/11/harnessing-hippogriffs.html http://www.billtotten.blogspot.com http://www.ashisuto.co.jp From mstainsby at resist.ca Sun Nov 8 18:35:42 2009 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:35:42 -0700 Subject: [R-G] African-Americans slam Obama in White House protest Message-ID: <4AF771EE.2060305@resist.ca> African-Americans slam Obama in White House protest (AFP) ? 1 day ago WASHINGTON ? Decrying Barack Obama as "white power in black face," hundreds of African-Americans marched on the White House Saturday to protest policies of the first black US president, and demand that he bring US troops home. More than 200 people gathered for the first public demonstration by African Americans against the Obama administration since his historic inauguration in January, and slammed the president for continuing what they described as Washington's "imperialist" agenda around the world. "We recognize that Barack Hussein Obama is white power in black face," civil rights activist Omali Yeshitela, chairman of the Black is Back coalition which arranged the protest, called into a megaphone as the group marched outside the mansion's gates. "He is a tool of our imperialist enemies and we demand our freedom. And we demand that Obama withdraw all the troops from Afghanistan right now." Protesters also called for Obama to order troops out of Iraq and to scrap Africom, the controversial year-old United States Africa Command, and demanded "hands off" Venezuela and ends to the Cuba embargo and the Zimbabwe blockade. Several demonstrators held up placards bearing messages such as "US out of Afghanistan" and "Stop US war against Iraq." Charles Baron, a New York city councilman and former member of the Black Panthers, a Black Power movement in the mid-1960s and 1970s, attacked the president for turning a cold shoulder to the plight of African-Americans. "We're not satisfied with him, and... this hope and change rap has not been a reality for black people," Baron told AFP during the demonstration. "We are glad that Barack Obama broke up the white male monopoly on the White House, but we were not looking for a change in the occupant of the White House from white to black, we were looking for change in foreign policies and domestic policies," he added. "To have a black person exploiting me just like a white person, that's no easier pain." The group also was calling for the release of former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted in 1982 of killing a white police officer and sentenced to death. The US Supreme Court upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction in April and rejected his bid for a new trial. Black Americans voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Obama in last year's election, when he defeated Republican Senator John McCain. About 13 percent of US citizens are African-Americans. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hQPy9x-3dKK0YOBQ3crtDlhOp8xA From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Nov 9 02:24:51 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:24:51 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] America Owned by Its Army Message-ID: <20091109182451.07566ec4.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by William Pfaff williampfaff.com (November 06 2009) It is possible that the creation of an all-professional American army was the most dangerous decision ever taken by Congress. The nation now confronts a political crisis in which the issue has become an undeclared contest between Pentagon power and that of a newly elected president. Barack Obama has yet to declare his decision on the war in Afghanistan, and there is every reason to think that he will follow military opinion. Yet he is under immense pressure from his Republican opponents to, in effect, renounce his presidential power, and step aside from the fundamental strategic decisions of the nation. The officer he named to command the war in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, demands a reinforcement of forty thousand soldiers, raising the total US commitment to over 100 thousand troops (or more, in the future). He says that he cannot succeed without them, and even then may be unable to win the war within a decade. Yet the American public is generally in doubt about this war, most of all the president's own liberal electorate. President Obama almost certainly will do as the the general requests, or something very close to it. He can read the wartime politics in this situation. The Vietnam war was opposed by the public by the 1970s, when according to the Pentagon Papers, the government itself knew that victory was unlikely. Today the public doubts victory in the war in Afghanistan. However the version of Vietnam history most Americans (who were not there!) read today says there really was no defeat at all. It is argued that there was only a collapse of civilian support for the war, caused by the liberal press, producing popular disaffection both at home and inside the conscript army, with a breakdown of military discipline, "fraggings" (murders) of aggressive combat leaders, and demoralization in the ranks. This is the version most military officers believe today. It is an American version of the "stab in the back" myth believed in German military and right-wing political circles after the first world war. In the US case, the Vietnam defeat was painfully clear at the time, and few believed that either the US Congress or the Nixon Administration (which signed the peace agreement with North Vietnam) were parties to any betrayal of the United States. Today the revised interpretation of the Vietnam war, claiming that it actually was a lost victory, has become an important issue because most Pentagon leaders are committed to the "Long War" against "Muslim terrorism." An Obama administration order to withdraw from Afghanistan, Iraq (or Pakistan) would be attacked by many in Congress and the media, and by implicitly insubordinate elements in the military community, as "surrender" by an Obama government lacking patriotism and unfit to govern. Conservative politicians are convinced that any policy not set on total victory for the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan - and in coming months, perhaps in Somalia, Yemen, or possibly in Palestine, or sub-Saharan Africa, (or even in an Iran determined to pursue its nuclear ambitions) - would mean American humiliation and defeat. After Vietnam, Congress ended conscription (which in that war had become heavily corrupt: the poor and working classes were drafted, while many of the privileged had influential families and found complacent doctors or college deans willing to hand over unjustified draft exemptions to those - like the future Vice President Richard Cheney - who had "other priorities" than patriotism and national service. Congress created a new all-volunteer army. The sociology of the new army was very different from the old citizens' army. The new one was also composed of people who wanted to be soldiers, or wanted the college education that an enlistment could earn you, or often were high-school graduates who didn't have much in the way of other career choices, but since 9/11, and the Iraq invasion, the new army has increasingly relied on immigrants or other young foreigners who can earn permanent US residence by way of a US Army enlistment. The US also increasingly has relied on foreign mercenaries hired by private companies. Its professional character is fundamentally different from the old army. In the old army, career West Point officers were during wartime largely outnumbered by war-service-only officers, the graduates of Officer Candidate schools or Reserve Officers trained in universities (where much of the cost of higher education could be earned in exchange for a fixed term of duty afterwards as a junior commissioned officer). Thus the US army from the start of the Second World War to the end of Vietnam was effectively a democratic army, with civilian conscripts, and the majority of its non-commissioned and commissioned officers peacetime civilians, with solid commitments to civilian society, often with families at home - doing their temporary (or "for the war's duration") patriotic duty. Professional armies have often been considered a threat to their own societies. It was one of Frederick the Great's own officers who described Prussia "as an army with a state, in which it was temporarily quartered, so to speak". The French revolutionary statesman Mirabeau said that "war is Prussia's national industry". Considering the portion of the US national budget that is now consumed by the Pentagon, much the same could be said of the United States. The new army also has political ambitions. It now dominates US foreign relations with a thousand bases worldwide and regional commanders like imperial proconsuls. Both General McChrystal and his superior, General David H Petraeus, have been mentioned as future presidential candidates. The last general who became American president was Dwight Eisenhower. He is the one who warned Americans against "the military-industrial complex". _____ William Pfaff is the author of eight books on American foreign policy, international relations, and contemporary history, including books on utopian thought, romanticism and violence, nationalism, and the impact of the West on the non-Western world. His newspaper column, featured in The International Herald Tribune for more than a quarter-century, and his globally syndicated articles, have given him the widest international influence of any American commentator. (c) Copyright 2009 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights Reserved. http://www.williampfaff.com/article.php?storyid=440 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 9 05:21:42 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:21:42 -0600 Subject: [R-G] John Pilger: War Is Peace. Ignorance Is Strength Message-ID: War Is Peace. Ignorance Is Strength http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger80.1.html by John Pilger October 16, 2009 Barack Obama, winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, is planning another war to add to his impressive record. In Afghanistan, his agents routinely extinguish wedding parties, farmers and construction workers with weapons such as the innovative Hellfire missile, which sucks the air out of your lungs. According to the UN, 338,000 Afghan infants are dying under the Obama-led alliance, which permits only $29 per head annually to be spent on medical care. Within weeks of his inauguration, Obama started a new war in Pakistan, causing more than a million people to flee their homes. In threatening Iran ? which his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said she was prepared to "obliterate" ? Obama lied that the Iranians were covering up a "secret nuclear facility," knowing that it had already been reported to the International Atomic Energy Authority. In colluding with the only nuclear-armed power in the Middle East, he bribed the Palestinian Authority to suppress a UN judgment that Israel had committed crimes against humanity in its assault on Gaza ? crimes made possible with US weapons whose shipment Obama secretly approved before his inauguration. At home, the man of peace has approved a military budget exceeding that of any year since the end of the Second World War while presiding over a new kind of domestic repression. During the recent G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, hosted by Obama, militarized police attacked peaceful protesters with something called the Long-Range Acoustic Device, not seen before on US streets. Mounted in the turret of a small tank, it blasted a piercing noise as tear gas and pepper gas were fired indiscriminately. It is part of a new arsenal of "crowd-control munitions" supplied by military contractors such as Raytheon. In Obama's Pentagon-controlled "national security state," the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, which he promised to close, remains open, and "rendition," secret assassinations and torture continue. The Nobel Peace Prize?winner's latest war is largely secret. On 15 July, Washington finalized a deal with Colombia that gives the US seven giant military bases. "The idea," reported the Associated Press, "is to make Colombia a regional hub for Pentagon operations . . . nearly half the continent can be covered by a C-17 [military transport] without refueling," which "helps achieve the regional engagement strategy." Translated, this means Obama is planning a "rollback" of the independence and democracy that the people of Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Paraguay have achieved against the odds, along with a historic regional cooperation that rejects the notion of a US "sphere of influence." The Colombian regime, which backs death squads and has the continent's worst human rights record, has received US military support second in scale only to Israel. Britain provides military training. Guided by US military satellites, Colombian paramilitaries now infiltrate Venezuela with the goal of overthrowing the democratic government of Hugo Ch?vez, which George W Bush failed to do in 2002. Obama's war on peace and democracy in Latin America follows a style he has demonstrated since the coup against the democratic president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, in June. Zelaya had increased the minimum wage, granted subsidies to small farmers, cut back interest rates and reduced poverty. He planned to break a US pharmaceutical monopoly and manufacture cheap generic drugs. Although Obama has called for Zelaya's reinstatement, he refuses to condemn the coup-makers and to recall the US ambassador or the US troops who train the Honduran forces determined to crush a popular resistance. Zelaya has been repeatedly refused a meeting with Obama, who has approved an IMF loan of $164m to the illegal regime. The message is clear and familiar: thugs can act with impunity on behalf of the US. Obama, the smooth operator from Chicago via Harvard, was enlisted to restore what he calls "leadership" throughout the world. The Nobel Prize committee's decision is the kind of cloying reverse racism that has beatified the man for no reason other than he is a member of a minority and attractive to liberal sensibilities, if not to the Afghan children he kills. This is the Call of Obama. It is not unlike a dog whistle: inaudible to most, irresistible to the besotted and boneheaded. "When Obama walks into a room," gushed George Clooney, "you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere." The great voice of black liberation Frantz Fanon understood this. In The Wretched of the Earth, he described the "intermediary [whose] mission has nothing to do with transforming the nation: it consists, prosaically, of being the transmission line between the nation and a capitalism, rampant though camouflaged." Because political debate has become so debased in our media monoculture ? Blair or Brown; Brown or Cameron ? race, gender and class can be used as seductive tools of propaganda and diversion. In Obama's case, what matters, as Fanon pointed out in an earlier era, is not the intermediary's "historic" elevation, but the class he serves. After all, Bush's inner circle was probably the most multiracial in presidential history. There was Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, all dutifully serving an extreme and dangerous power. Britain has seen its own Obama-like mysticism. The day after Blair was elected in 1997, the Observer predicted that he would create "new worldwide rules on human rights" while the Guardian rejoiced at the "breathless pace [as] the floodgates of change burst open." When Obama was elected last November, Denis MacShane MP, a devotee of Blair's bloodbaths, unwittingly warned us: "I shut my eyes when I listen to this guy and it could be Tony. He is doing the same thing that we did in 1997." From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 9 05:23:44 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:23:44 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Pilger: We Are Prepared for Another War of Aggression Message-ID: http://lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger79.1.html The Lying Game: How We Are Prepared for Another War of Aggression by John Pilger October 3, 2009 In 2001, the Observer in London published a series of reports that claimed an "Iraqi connection" to al-Qaeda, even describing the base in Iraq where the training of terrorists took place and a facility where anthrax was being manufactured as a weapon of mass destruction. It was all false. Supplied by US intelligence and Iraqi exiles, planted stories in the British and US media helped George Bush and Tony Blair to launch an illegal invasion which caused, according to the most recent study, 1.3 million deaths. Something similar is happening over Iran: the same syncopation of government and media "revelations," the same manufacture of a sense of crisis. "Showdown looms with Iran over secret nuclear plant," declared the Guardian on 26 September. "Showdown" is the theme. High noon. The clock ticking. Good versus evil. Add a smooth new US president who has "put paid to the Bush years." An immediate echo is the notorious Guardian front page of 22 May 2007: "Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq." Based on unsubstantiated claims by the Pentagon, the writer Simon Tisdall presented as fact an Iranian "plan" to wage war on, and defeat, US forces in Iraq by September of that year ? a demonstrable falsehood for which there has been no retraction. The official jargon for this kind of propaganda is "psy-ops," the military term for psychological operations. In the Pentagon and Whitehall, it has become a critical component of a diplomatic and military campaign to blockade, isolate and weaken Iran by hyping its "nuclear threat": a phrase now used incessantly by Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, and parroted by the BBC and other broadcasters as objective news. And it is fake. On 16 September, Newsweek disclosed that the major US intelligence agencies had reported to the White House that Iran's "nuclear status" had not changed since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007, which stated with "high confidence" that Iran had halted in 2003 the program it was alleged to have developed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed this, time and again. The current propaganda-as-news derives from Obama's announcement that the US is scrapping missiles stationed on Russia's border. This serves to cover the fact that the number of US missile sites is actually expanding in Europe and the "redundant" missiles are being redeployed on ships. The game is to mollify Russia into joining, or not obstructing, the US campaign against Iran. "President Bush was right," said Obama, "that Iran's ballistic missile program poses a significant threat [to Europe and the US]." That Iran would contemplate a suicidal attack on the US is preposterous. The threat, as ever, is one-way, with the world's superpower virtually ensconced on Iran's borders. Iran's crime is its independence. Having thrown out America's favorite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a "right to exist" in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the region on Washington's behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbor. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear "deterrence," it is Iran. As one of the original signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has been a consistent advocate of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In contrast, Israel has never agreed to an IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant at Dimona remains an open secret. Armed with as many as 200 active nuclear warheads, Israel "deplores" UN resolutions calling on it to sign the NPT, just as it deplored the recent UN report charging it with crimes against humanity in Gaza, just as it maintains a world record for violations of international law. It gets away with this because great power grants it immunity. Obama's "showdown" with Iran has another agenda. On both sides of the Atlantic the media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war. The US/Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal says 500,000 troops will be required in Afghanistan over five years, according to America's NBC. The goal is control of the "strategic prize" of the gas and oilfields of the Caspian Sea, Central Asia, the Gulf and Iran ? in other words, Eurasia. But the war is opposed by 69 per cent of the British public, 57 per cent of the US public, and almost every other human being. Convincing "us" that Iran is the new demon will not be easy. McChrystal's spurious claim that Iran "is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups" is as desperate as Brown's pathetic echo of "a line in the sand." During the Bush years, according to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a military coup took place in the US, and the Pentagon is now ascendant in every area of American foreign policy. A measure of its control is the number of wars of aggression being waged simultaneously and the adoption of a "first-strike" doctrine that has lowered the threshold on nuclear weapons, together with the blurring of the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons. All this mocks Obama's media rhetoric about "a world without nuclear weapons." In fact, he is the Pentagon's most important acquisition. His acquiescence with its demand that he keep on Bush's secretary of "defense" and arch war-maker, Robert Gates, is unique in US history. He has proved his worth with escalated wars from south Asia to the Horn of Africa. Like Bush's America, Obama's America is run by some very dangerous people. We have a right to be warned. When will those paid to keep the record straight do their job? -- John Pilger was born and educated in Sydney, Australia. He has been a war correspondent, filmmaker and playwright. Based in London, he has written from many countries and has twice won British journalism's highest award, that of "Journalist of the Year," for his work in Vietnam and Cambodia. His latest book is Freedom Next Time: Resisting the Empire. From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 9 05:41:05 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:41:05 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Climate Change on the Road to Nowhere Message-ID: http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/817/41997 David Spratt: Powerful working towards climate talks disaster David Spratt 11 November 2009 The global community is supposed to be negotiating an agreement to contain greenhouse gas emissions to manageable levels. But with less than two months to the Copenhagen climate change conference, the big players are stuck in an elaborate game of chicken. Maybe that's the nature of diplomacy, but some have already written off the December meeting's capacity to produce a detailed agreement. Sir David King and Lord Stern are among many luminaries saying no deal is better than a bad deal, and economist Jeffrey Sachs said in September he fears "a toothless agreement that could be more posturing than progress". Grist.org columnist David Roberts sees the negotiating process so far as akin to "an aquarium full of hamsters connected to rudimentary motors. ?There?s a lot of frantic running, a lot of sweat and heat, but in the end, very little light", he said in July. A more significant assessment came from European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso in the Age in September. He warned the "draft text contains some 250 pages: a feast of alternative options, a forest of square brackets ... If we don't sort this out, it risks becoming the longest and most global suicide note in history". Europe's leading climate scientist, Potsdam Institute Director Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, said the chance of getting a decent deal at this "most important meeting in the history of the human species" is "pie in the sky" because rich countries like the US are unwilling to sign up to ambitious enough targets. "In a sense the US is climate illiterate", he told the September 28 British Telegraph. From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 9 10:25:12 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:25:12 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Kucinich: Why I Voted NO (to health care "reform") Message-ID: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/08-0 Why I Voted NO by Dennis Kucinich We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system. Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick. But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross. By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy. During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies. Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street. This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care. Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals. From menecraj at shaw.ca Mon Nov 9 10:42:56 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:42:56 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Tracking Your Representatives' Health Care Cash Message-ID: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/-name-office-party-health.html Tracking Your Representatives' Health Care Cash Published by CRP on June 25, 2009 (For the most up-to-date health care charts and downloadable spreadsheets included in this blog post, check out our health care tools page.) (The chart and downloadable spreadsheet on this page were updated on August 14, 2009, to include 2009 second quarter campaign contributions.) If you're trying to understand all of the reasons why your representatives may support or oppose certain health care reform measures, we can add the money-in-politics puzzle pieces. Here's a cool tool that brings together data from various parts of OpenSecrets.org to show how much money each current lawmaker has raised from various health-related industries and the health sector overall since 1989 (including the haul of President Obama, who tops every one of these lists). Sort by column to discover that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Senate Health Committee, is the top recipient of pharmaceutical cash, or that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), has collected more money from health insurers than all other current members of Congress. Please note that this includes contributions from individuals and political action committees to both the lawmakers' candidate committees and leadership PACs. Also, the health insurance industry numbers here are a combination of contributions from health and accident insurers, HMOs and other health services. You can also download an Excel version of the following information to slice and dice the data any way you please: HealthSums_111th.xls (Note: If you do use this data, please be sure to credit CRP.) [see comprehensive table!] From shniad at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 11:21:56 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:21:56 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Congressman Kucinich explains why he voted No on the new health care bill Message-ID: <83904d240911091021x7ed5f6e2m63bb8d5a992caed9@mail.gmail.com> *From:* The Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee *Sent:* Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:40 AM *Subject:* Congressman Kucinich addresses vote on H.R. 3962 [image: Dennis Kucinich - www.Kucinich.us] Congressman Kucinich addresses vote on H.R. 3962 *While the political process in Washington suffers through its grotesque pantomime on health care, let us prepare our neighborhoods, our communities, our states for the eventual triumph of single payer health care.* *Download, print and circulate the petition among friends and neighbors.* *(November 7, 2009)* Congressman Dennis Kucinich after voting against H.R. 3962 addresses why he voted NO, stating: "We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system." "Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick." "But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross." "By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, *Think Progress*, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy." "During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies." "Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street." "This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care." "Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals." Please know the struggle for real health care reform will continue. Contribute, we can make a difference. Thank you. The Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee Today, Dennis Kucinich - Addresses Health Care on Democracy Now Today, Monday, November 9th, Congressman Dennis Kucinich will be addressing Health Care, on Democracy Now - a daily television / radio program hosted by Amy Goodman. For station listings in your area and more information about Democracy Now! please visit, http://www.democracynow.org/stations Thank you. The Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Committee From suzannedk at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 12:02:08 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:02:08 +0100 Subject: [R-G] The Wall Message-ID: Twenty years on the United States and Israel are building walls of all types as fast as they are able to do so. This Berlin Wall celebration is ironic and sad reminder of a time of anticipation of a normalcy the United States and Israel are ensuring will not come again ever. Our liberties and rights erode daily in the belief that they are permanent fixtures of Weatern humanity Most take them for granted. The exact recipe of losing all of them entirely. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com From deanosor at mailup.net Thu Nov 5 06:23:52 2009 From: deanosor at mailup.net (dean tuckerman) Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:23:52 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: Nov 30 Climate Action & NEW BOOK: "The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattle" References: Message-ID: <3D6D3E1B-8DBC-48C2-812E-F21DE6B1CBB8@mailup.net> from David Solnit Begin forwarded message: > Hi Friends, > > Two things I'd like to tell you about: > > AN ACTION: A Global Day of Action for Climate Justice on the ten > year anniversary of Seattle WTO shutdown, Nov 30, 2009. Yesterday > African delegates walked out of pre-Copenhagen trade talks > demanding the US and rich countries and European activists > blockaded the talks. The key fight over the future of the planet is > taking place right now around climate; corporate market solutions > are the new WTO and the US and the rich countries are undermining > any efforts at climate solutions to avert even more catastrophic > impacts. What could shift things right now is people in the US > (doing what we did ten years ago) showing mass resistance to the US > government and corporate capitalism's obstruction and false > solutions. Please join one of the regional actions being planned in > SF and around the US (details here soon) and sign up to take or > support direct action and get your folks together now! > > A BOOK: AK Press asked me to make a book reflecting on the Seattle > WTO shutdown from an organizers view. With my sister Rebecca > Solnit, Kate and the AK Press collective workers, designer Jason > Justice and contributions from fellow organizers we did it just in > time for the ten year anniversary. Please support by buying a > book , get ten at half-off, and pass on the announcement below. > > hope and resistance, David Solnit > > > > > *** PLEASE POST, CIRCULATE & SHARE WITH OTHERS *** > ?To many mass movements in developing countries that had long been > fighting lonely, isolated battles, Seattle was the first delightful > sign that people in imperialist countries shared their anger and > their vision of another kind of world.??Arundhati Roy > > AK Press is please to announce the release of a new book in honor > of the tenth anniversary of the Seattle WTO protests: November 30, > 1999 > > THE BATTLE OF THE STORY OF THE BATTLE OF SEATTLE > By David Solnit & Rebecca Solnit > with Anuradha Mittal, Chris Dixon, Stephanie Guilloud, and Chris Borte > > From dawn to dusk on November 30, 1999, tens of thousands of people > shut down the World Trade Organization meeting, facing cops firing > tear gas and rubber bullets, the National Guard, and the suspension > of civil liberties. An unexpected history was launched from the > streets of Seattle, one in which popular power would matter as much > as corporate power, in which economics assumed center-stage, and > people began envisioning who else they could be and what else their > economies and societies might look like. > > The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattle explores how that > history itself has become a battleground and how our perception of > it shapes today?s movements against corporate capitalism and for a > better world. David Solnit recounts activist efforts to intervene > in the Hollywood star-studded movie, Battle in Seattle, and pulls > lessons from a decade ago for today. Rebecca Solnit writes of > challenging mainstream misrepresentation of the Seattle protests > and reflects on official history and popular power.Core organizer > Chris Dixon tells the real story of what happened during those five > days in the streets of Seattle. > > Profusely illustrated, with a reprint of the original 1999 Direct > Action Network?s ?Call to Action? broadsheet?including key > articles by Stephanie Guilloud, Chris Borte, and Chris Dixon?and a > powerful introduction from Anuradha Mittal, The Battle of the Story > of the Battle of Seattle is a tribute to the scores of activists > struggling for a better world around the globe. It?s also a highly- > charged attack on media mythmaking in all its forms, from Rebecca > Solnit?s battle with the New York Times to David Solnit?s battle > with Hollywood, and beyond. Every essay in this book sets the > record straight about what really happened in Seattle, and more > importantly why it happened. This is the real story. > > David Solnit lived and organized in Seattle in 1999 with the Direct > Action Network, a group co-initiated by the Art and Revolution > Collective, of which he was a part. He has been a mass direct > action organizer since the early ?80s, and in the ?90s became a > puppeteer and arts organizer. He is the editor of Globalize > Liberation: How to Uproot the System and Build a Better World and > co-author with Aimee Allison of Army of None: Strategies to Counter > Military Recruitment, End War and Build a Better World. He > currently works as a carpenter in Oakland, California and organizes > with Courage to Resist, supporting GI resisters, and with the > Mobilization for Climate Justice West. > > Rebecca Solnit is an activist, historian and writer who lives in > San Francisco. Her twelfth book, A Paradise Built in Hell: The > Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster, came out this > fall. The previous eleven include 2007?s Storming the Gates of > Paradise; A Field Guide to Getting Lost; Hope in the Dark: Untold > Histories, Wild Possibilities; Wanderlust: A History of Walking; As > Eve Said to the Serpent: On Landscape, Gender and Art; River of > Shadows, Eadweard Muybridge and the Technological Wild West (for > which she received a Guggenheim, the National Book Critics Circle > Award in criticism, and the Lannan Literary Award). A contributing > editor to Harper?s, she frequently writes for the political site > Tomdispatch.com. She has worked on antinuclear, antiwar, > environmental, indigenous land rights and human rights campaigns > and movements over the years. > > Available now in electronic galleys. Contact Kate Khatib > (kate at akpress.org) to request a copy for review. Please consider > scheduling articles to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the > Seattle WTO protests on November 30, 2009. > > > > > > SPECIAL OFFER FROM AK PRESS! > > http://www.akpress.org/2008/items/battleofseattleakpress > > The Battle of the Story of the Battle of Seattle is now available > for preorder at the AK Press website, and will ship in mid- > November. Individuals can get a 25% discount on the cover price (a > modest $12) by ordering in advance. If, however, you or your > organization is interested in buying copies in bulk at a wholesale > rate, to sell or give away at upcoming events or convergences, we > have a special deal for you! > > Order 10 or more copies of The Battle of the Story of the Battle of > Seattle by November 20, and get 50% off the cover price. Books will > be shipped to arrive by N30. (Orders must be prepaid, and are non- > returnable, except in the case of damaged books. Shipping fees vary > based on location.) > > Email kate at akpress.org for more information or to place an order, > or simply place your order for 10 or more copies on our website, > note *Special 50% off deal* in the comments box during checkout, > and we'll apply the 50% discount before we charge your card. > > Questions? Email kate at akpress.org, or call the warehouse at (510) > 208-1700. ? > > > THE BATTLE OF THE STORY OF THE BATTLE OF SEATTLE > > ISBN: 978-1-904859635 > > November 2009 > > 5.5 X 8.5, 128 pages > $12.00 > 40+ B&W Illustrations > > CURRENT EVENTS > ? > > > For more information or to request a review copy, please contact: > > Kate Khatib > kate at akpress.org > p (410) 878-7706 > f (510) 208-1701 > 674-A 23rd Street > Oakland, CA 94612 > http://www.akpress.org > > Please send any and all reviews to the addresses above. > From shniad at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 12:44:29 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:44:29 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Netanyahu committing national suicide - Financial Times Message-ID: <83904d240911091144g334bedbn99cf0097a8c1066d@mail.gmail.com> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d952ee0-cc97-11de-8e30-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1 Financial Times November 8 2009 *Editorial* *A man humiliated* The decision by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, not to run for re-election next year looks like the act of a man who has reached the end of his political tether. He is the principal Palestinian advocate of a negotiated two-state peace agreement with Israel. If he stands by his threat to quit it could deal a devastating blow to that process, if not destroy it. It is possible that Mr Abbas is bluffing, using the threat of his resignation as a negotiating tactic. But there can be no doubt that recent actions by the US administration and Israel have left him humiliated, and destroyed what remained of his credibility with his Palestinian people and his Fatah party. The final straw came last week when Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, praised Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, for ?restraint?, and appeared to support Israel?s refusal to halt the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank as a pre-condition for peace talks. It followed two other recent events that badly undermined the Palestinian leader with his domestic constituency. In New York he was forced into a very public handshake with Mr Netanyahu at their meeting with Barack Obama, US president. But most damaging was when he bowed to US pressure to delay his endorsement of the report by Judge Richard Goldstone on war crimes during Israel?s onslaught on Gaza ? and then reversed his decision under furious attack from his own ministers. Mr Abbas?s position has been steadily eroded over time because he has absolutely nothing to show for his years of pursuing a peace strategy based on a negotiated settlement ? except for expanded Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land. If a figure such as Mr Abbas cannot survive in the present climate, then he is likely to be replaced by a far more radical and uncompromising leadership. No Palestinian leader can or will negotiate while Israeli colonisation of the West Bank continues. Mr Netanyahu?s refusal to call a halt to expanding settlements means in effect there will be no two-state solution. If that is so, then the prospect is for a long and bitter fight for equal rights within one state. That would spell the end of Israel as a democratic Jewish state. It would come to resemble in many ways the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. If Mr Netanyahu believes that he has achieved a victory by refusing to halt the settlements, he is wrong. It is more like a project of national suicide. From shniad at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 13:07:58 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:07:58 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali: Palestine and the Region in the Obama era - The Emerging Framework Message-ID: <83904d240911091207m1f1068c7vc52696cad89c86a9@mail.gmail.com> *http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23853.htm Robbing Gaza Chomsky: Palestine and the Region in the Obama era The Emerging Framework. Recorded October 29, 2009 Location: Logan Hall, Institute of Education, Bedford Way Speakers: Prof. Noam Chomsky - Professor Emeritus in Linguistics at MIT; world renowned author and leading intellectual Tariq Ali - Historian, Author and well known political commentator The Imperial College Political Philosophy Society, in association with Palestine societies at UCL, SOAS, Goldsmiths, LSE, Imperial and Kings, proudly present one of the greatest political philosophers of all time: MIT Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky, for what could be his last trip to London. You need to clik on the link below in order to watch the Video of Naom Chomsky and Tariq Ali http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23853.htm Click play and wait a moment for video to load * From shniad at gmail.com Mon Nov 9 13:08:35 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:08:35 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Orthodoxy of war needs challenging Message-ID: <83904d240911091208h7662e69brf71f8498b72e3e52@mail.gmail.com> http://www.calgarysun.com/news/columnists/bill_kaufmann/2009/11/06/11655676-sun.html Calgary Sun November 6, 2009 *Orthodoxy of war needs challenging* * By BILL KAUFMANN* * Our federal leaders hide behind the respect rightly shown our soldiers to callously carry on a costly mission they know is doomed.* Another Remembrance Day approaches, with its professions of solidarity with military sacrifice. We'll not fail them -- a pledge that goes beyond pondering wars past. In ways both subtle and not so opaque, the day will be employed to sanctify a troubled Afghan mission through the unassailable sentiment of honouring our war dead and serving soldiers. We'll hear from politicians and others a call to not break faith with our aging veterans -- a covenant, as we've heard before, that carries on to our soldiers in Afghanistan. It's an orthodoxy not supposed to be challenged during a week of remembrance. But failing to do so is what breaks faith with the troops of today. "Support the Troops" is a motto meant to resonate louder this week, but what does it, or should it, really mean? Years ago, a War Amps campaign to educate Canadians while illuminating conflict's bloody waste and carnage employed the slogan "Never Again!" If anyone's failed to take the phrase to heart, it's our federal leaders who hide behind the respect rightly shown our soldiers to callously carry on a costly mission they know is doomed. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has publicly acknowledged the Afghan debacle can't be won by the military force available and he's well aware NATO generals have admitted only a minimum force of 400,000 troops -- four times those currently deployed -- could subdue the country. Even so, most of our Parliamentarians have been content to submit Canada's combat troops to a drawn-out, arbitrary 2011 pullout reeking of political deference to our southern neighbours. And we have no assurances the Canadian troops left there won't be drawn into fighting that's assured by the presence of foreign soldiers. We're told our soldiers are protecting Afghan civilians from roadside bombs that wouldn't be planted if our troops weren't there. In the next few days, our politicians on their Remembrance Day soapboxes will also falsely claim our soldiers are protecting Canada while they put uniformed Canadians in harm's way. In September, ex-U.S. Marine Matthew Hoh resigned his diplomatic post in Afghanistan and his letter explaining the move should be required reading for Canada's leaders. Hoh expresses disgust over NATO military sacrifice for a corrupt Kabul regime whose illegitimacy fuels an insurgency he says is bent more on expelling foreign occupiers than pledging fealty to the Taliban. While noting the physical and mental destruction wrought, "the dead return only ... to be received by families who must be reassured their dead have sacrificed for a purpose worthy of fathers lost, love vanished and promised dreams unkept," he wrote. "I have lost confidence such assurances can be made anymore." The assurances Canadians receive from their elected leaders comes in salutes this week to the legitimacy of a puppet Afghan president propped up by electoral fraud and our country's blood. In his best Baghdad Bob impersonation, Trade Minister Stockwell Day has insisted the Taliban-boosting vote farce shows Afghanistan "moving in the right direction." He could surely explain how the deaths of five British soldiers at the hands of one of their Afghan trainees signals the safety of Canadian military mentors there. And a Canadian brigadier general refusing to answer questions on what he knew about the possible torture of prisoners by our Afghan allies doesn't lend itself to cenotaphs, poppies or poetry. Remembrance's torch has been passed to the failing hands of our politicians who refuse to put a quick end to a mission unworthy of the troops they claim to honour. BILL.KAUFMANN at SUNMEDIA.CA From intnsred at golgotha.net Mon Nov 9 13:09:01 2009 From: intnsred at golgotha.net (Intense Red) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:09:01 -0500 Subject: [R-G] The Wall In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200911091509.02972.intnsred@golgotha.net> > Twenty years on the United States and Israel are building walls of all > types as fast as they are able to do so. And this ignores the little-known literal US wall built from sea to sea across the Korean peninsula that existed before the Berlin Wall came down. Our propaganda just ignores such hypocrisies. While one can argue reasons for building such a Korean wall, when combined with the US opposition to the North/South Korean "Sunshine Policy" and other political issues, it's clear that the US is more interested in imperialism -- walls or no walls -- than in peace or people. -- "Inner beauty is important, but not nearly as important as outer beauty." -- Ellen Degeneres, from a Cover Girl TV commercial. Isn't it "wonderful" what the TV teaches?! And is Ellen really that degenerate or will she just say anything for money? From realiteee1 at yahoo.com Mon Nov 9 15:20:51 2009 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 14:20:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] singlepayeraction.org: "If it were up to me..." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <548135.23512.qm@web111503.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> This Action, on Change.org, the url?? :) get single-payer?? :) http://healthcare.change.org/actions/view/get_single-payer http://www.change.org/profile/189788/actions ? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told her Democratic House Caucus last month: "If it were up to me, we'd have single payer." Uh, excuse me Madame Speaker - It is up to you! That's why Single Payer Action is focusing on the Democrats in Congress. Because -- it is up to them. More precisely, it's up to the House Single Payer Caucus -- The 88 members of Congress who have co-sponsored HR 676 - the single payer bill in the House. If only half of them stood with us in opposition to Obamacare -- it would go down in flames -- as it deservedly must. And everybody in, nobody out single payer would be national news. In recent weeks, we have been traveling around the country calling on single payer activists -- doctors, nurses, patients, insurance consumers -- to come together to pressure the Single Payer Caucus to vote against Obamacare. Obamacare is nothing but bailout to the insurance industry. It will force uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance -- whether they can afford it or not - from corporations designed to rip them off. The so-called public option is half-baked -- whether opt out, opt in, triggered, linked to Medicare rates or not -- it will be an abject failure. It won't control costs. It won't cover everyone. It won't stop the wave of medical bankruptcies. It leaves the insurance corporations in the driver's seat. And it will probably strengthen them by taking the sickest and most expensive patients off their hands. Activists from Vermont and Massachusetts tell us that they now regret not working to defeat similar half-baked measures for reform in their states. Passages of those reforms did more harm than good and set back the movement for single payer in their states for years. Let's not make the same mistake at the national level. Call your member of Congress -- Congressional switchboard: 202.224.3121 -- and urge them to vote against Obama's bailout of the insurance industry. Urge your member of Congress to launch a national debate on single payer, everybody in, nobody out health insurance. (Dr. Marcia Angell -- former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine -- called single payer not only the best health care reform -- but the only health care reform that will both control costs and cover everyone.) So please --? donate now whatever you can afford - $10, $25, $50, $100 or more -- to support Single Payer Action.??????????? If you donate $100 or more now -- only three days left on this offer -- we will ship you a first edition of Ralph Nader's new book - his first book of fiction -- "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!" (Seven Stories Press, 2009). Signed by Ralph Nader. In it, Ralph envisions the type of grassroots explosion for single payer that we are witnessing all around the country. Except multiplied in every state of the union. Many times over. Ralph calls his book a practical utopia. We call it an instant classic. And Ralph will sign it for you. For your donation of $100 or more to Single Payer Action. So donate now. And we'll ship you the book that Harper's Lewis Lapham called "as inspired a work of the political imagination as Tom Paine's Common Sense." (Only a limited number of first editions left -- so act now.) Thank you for your ongoing support. Onward to single payer. ? Russell Mokhiber ? PS: Publisher's Weekly reported last week that Nader's book has sold 35,000 of the 40,000 copies of the first edition -- in the first month alone. So, if you want an autographed copy of the first edition hardcover of Ralph's first work of non-fiction -- donate now. This offer ends in three days -- on midnight October 30, 2009. Thank you. And onward to single payer. ? No trigger, because triggers don't get pulled.? Also, please, advocate for singlepayer healthcare, with Community First Choice Option and CLASS Act (Community Choice Act for the handicapped, elderly, autistic, disabled, etc.); H.R. 676 & S. 703, are the best of the lot, so far; i.m.h.o.. Related group and actions?? :) http://www.singlepayeraction.org//join.html Healthcare Reform Actions?? :) http://healthcare.change.org/actions/view/healthcare_reform_actions http://www.change.org/profile/189788/actions From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Mon Nov 9 17:15:55 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:15:55 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Republic of Fools Message-ID: <20091110091555.45f9275b.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> The Evil Empire by Paul Craig Roberts CounterPunch (November 6 - 8 2009) The US government is now so totally under the thumbs of organized interest groups that "our" government can no longer respond to the concerns of the American people who elect the president and the members of the House and Senate. Voters will vent their frustrations over their impotence on the president, which implies a future of one-term presidents. Soon our presidents will be as ineffective as Roman emperors in the final days of that empire. Obama is already set on the course to a one-term presidency. He promised change, but has delivered none. His health care bill is held hostage by the private insurance companies seeking greater profits. The most likely outcome will be cuts in Medicare and Medicaid in order to help fund wars that enrich the military/security complex and the many companies created by privatizing services that the military once provided for itself at far lower costs. It would be interesting to know the percentage of the $700+ billion "defense" spending that goes to private companies. In American "capitalism", an amazing amount of taxpayers' earnings go to private firms via the government. Yet, Republicans scream about "socializing" health care. Republicans and Democrats saw opportunities to create new sources of campaign contributions by privatizing as many military functions as possible. There are now a large number of private companies that have never made a dollar in the market, feeding instead at the public trough that drains taxpayers of dollars while loading Americans with debt service obligations. Obama inherited an excellent opportunity to bring US soldiers home from the Bush regime's illegal wars of aggression. In its final days, the Bush regime realized that it could "win" in Iraq by putting the Sunni insurgents on the US military payroll. Once Bush had 80,000 insurgents collecting US military pay, violence, although still high, dropped in half. All Obama had to do was to declare victory and bring our boys home, thanking Bush for winning the war. It would have shut up the Republicans. But this sensible course would have impaired the profits and share prices of those firms that comprise the military/security complex. So instead of doing what Obama said he would do and what the voters elected him to do, Obama restarted the war in Afghanistan and launched a new one in Pakistan. Soon Obama was echoing Bush and Cheney's threats to attack Iran. In place of health care for Americans, there will be more profits for private insurance companies. In place of peace there will be more war. Voters are already recognizing the writing on the wall and are falling away from Obama and the Democrats. Independents who gave Obama his comfortable victory have now swung against him, recently electing Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia to succeed Democrats. This is a protest vote, not a confidence vote in Republicans. Obama's credibility is shot. And so is Congress's, assuming it ever had any. The US House of Representatives has just voted to show the entire world that the US House of Representatives is nothing but the servile, venal, puppet of the Israel Lobby. The House of Representatives of the American "superpower" did the bidding of its master, AIPAC, and voted 344 to 36 to condemn the Goldstone Report. In case you don't know, the Goldstone Report is the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. The "Gaza Conflict" is the Israeli military attack on the Gaza ghetto, where 1.5 million dispossessed Palestinians, whose lands, villages, and homes were stolen by Israel, are housed. The attack was on civilians and civilian infrastructure. It was without any doubt a war crime under the Nuremberg standard that the US established in order to execute Nazis. Goldstone is not only a very distinguished Jewish jurist who has given his life to bringing people to accountability for their crimes against humanity, but also a Zionist. However, the Israelis have demonized him as a "self-hating Jew" because he wrote the truth instead of Israeli propaganda. US Representative Dennis Kucinich, who is now without a doubt a marked man on AIPAC's political extermination list, asked the House if the members had any realization of the shame that the vote condemning Goldstone would bring on the House and the US government. The entire rest of the world accepts the Goldstone report. The House answered with its lopsided vote that the rest of the world doesn't count as it doesn't give campaign contributions to members of Congress. This shameful, servile act of "the world's greatest democracy" occurred the very week that a court in Italy convicted 23 US CIA officers for kidnapping a person in Italy. The CIA agents are now considered "fugitives from justice" in Italy, and indeed they are. The kidnapped person was renditioned to the American puppet state of Egypt, where the victim was held for years and repeatedly tortured. The case against him was so absurd that even an Egyptian judge ordered his release. One of the convicted CIA operatives, Sabrina deSousa, an attractive young woman, says that the US broke the law by kidnapping a person and sending him to another country to be tortured in order to manufacture another "terrorist" in order to keep the terrorist hoax going at home. Without the terrorist hoax, America's wars for special interest reasons would become transparent even to Fox "News" junkies. Ms deSousa says that "everything I did was approved back in Washington", yet the government, which continually berates us to "support the troops", did nothing to protect her when she carried out the Bush regime's illegal orders. Clearly, this means that the crime that Bush, Cheney, the Pentagon, and the CIA ordered is too heinous and beyond the pale to be justified, even by memos from the despicable John Yoo and the Republican Federalist Society. Ms deSousa is clearly worried about herself. But where is her concern for the innocent person that she sent into an Egyptian hell to be tortured until death or admission of being a terrorist? The remorse deSousa expresses is only for herself. She did her evil government's bidding and her evil government that she so faithfully served turned its back on her. She has no remorse for the evil she committed against an innocent person. Perhaps deSousa and her 22 colleagues grew up on video games. It was great fun to plot to kidnap a real person and fly him on a CIA plane to Egypt. Was it like a fisherman catching a fish or a deer hunter killing a beautiful eight-point buck? Clearly, they got their jollies at the expense of their renditioned victim. The finding of the Italian court, and keep in mind that Italy is a bought-and-paid-for US puppet state, indicates that even our bought puppets are finding the US too much to stomach. Moving from the tip of the iceberg down, we have Ambassador Craig Murray, rector of the University of Dundee and until 2004 the UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, which he describes as a Stalinist totalitarian state courted and supported by the Americans. As ambassador, Murray saw the MI5 intelligence reports from the CIA that described the most horrible torture procedures. "People were raped with broken bottles, children were tortured in front of their parents until they [the parents] signed a confession, people were boiled alive". "Intelligence" from these torture sessions was passed on by the CIA to MI5 and to Washington as proof of the vast al Qaeda conspiracy. Ambassador Murray reports that the people delivered by CIA flights to Uzbekistan's torture prisons "were told to confess to membership in Al Qaeda. They were told to confess they'd been in training camps in Afghanistan. They were told to confess they had met Osama bin Laden in person. And the CIA intelligence constantly echoed these themes." "I was absolutely stunned", says the British ambassador, who thought that he served a moral country that, along with its American ally, had moral integrity. The great Anglo-American bastion of democracy and human rights, the homes of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, the great moral democracies that defeated Nazism and stood up to Stalin's gulags, were prepared to commit any crime in order to maximize profits. Ambassador Murray learned too much and was fired when he vomited it all up. He saw the documents that proved that the motivation for US and UK military aggression in Afghanistan had to do with the natural gas deposits in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The Americans wanted a pipeline that bypassed Russia and Iran and went through Afghanistan. To insure this, an invasion was necessary. The idiot American public could be told that the invasion was necessary because of 9/11 and to save them from "terrorism", and the utter fools would believe the lie. "If you look at the deployment of US forces in Afghanistan, as against other NATO country forces in Afghanistan, you'll see that undoubtedly the US forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It's what it's about. It's about money, its about energy, it's not about democracy." Guess who the consultant was who arranged with then Texas governor George W Bush the agreements that would give to Enron the rights to Uzbekistan's and Turkmenistan's natural gas deposits and to Unocal to develop the trans-Afghanistan pipeline. It was Karzai, the US-imposed "president" of Afghanistan, who has no support in the country except for American bayonets. Ambassador Murray was dismissed from the UK Foreign Service for his revelations. No doubt on orders from Washington to our British puppet. _____ Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2008). He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts at yahoo.com http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11062009.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 suzannedk at gmail.com Tue Nov 10 01:51:26 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:51:26 +0100 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: Rising Military Expenditure: The Coming U.S. Budget Attack In-Reply-To: <1102815445512.1101807978350.23602.3.20140018@scheduler> References: <1102815445512.1101807978350.23602.3.20140018@scheduler> Message-ID: Ahead, the long term military plan is to have the NATO country colonies take over the U.S. wars of choice and whim and Interest completely, their mandatory buying of only U.S. armament items a constant U.S. cash flow, supported by various intimidation tactics when that flow falters. This is the plan. We watch the steps to impliment it. When it is operational enough, the U.S. will begin to return funds to it's infrastructure. Plan. Maybe. suzannedk at gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Global Research E-Newsletter Date: Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM Subject: Rising Military Expenditure: The Coming U.S. Budget Attack To: suzannedk at gmail.com Rising Military Expenditure: The Coming U.S. Budget Attack By Shamus Cooke URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15964 Global Research, November 8, 2009 The United States is moving backwards... fast. State budget cuts are decimating essential health and social services; public education is being destroyed; the social safety net is in tatters. To make matters worse, all of this is occurring when the loss of jobs stands at a twenty-six year high with no end in sight. But this is only phase one. The federal government intends to balance its books too, at the expense of society's neediest. Instead of governors presiding over painful cuts, the President will be doing the gutting. And although his proposed budget isn't due until February, the President's spokespeople are priming the media to play a major propaganda role in what will be a colossal blow against working and poor people. Obama's Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, has been particularly busy promoting the future cutbacks, repeating that ?the country must live within its mean;? ?deficits must be brought down dramatically? ? something that will ?require very hard choices.? What are these hard choices? One possible option is no longer available. The biggest annual deficit producer is the U.S. military, which Obama will not radically reduce. Instead, he will increase it; Taxpayers will pay $660 billion (!) in 2010 toward the military. And maybe more ? military commanders see more fighting in the future, not less; consequently, they want more money. The New York Times reports: ?...Admiral. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not say how much additional money would be needed, but one figure in circulation within the Pentagon and among outside defense budget analysts is $50 billion.? (November 4, 2009). Senate Democrat John Murtha thinks only $40 billion extra will do the trick, making the military budget an even $700 billion for 2010. A different ?hard choice? that could fix the deficit is to drastically raise taxes on the very wealthy. To this end, Obama has made the wholly-inadequate pledge to ?roll back the Bush tax cuts.? Taxing the super-rich an extra 4 percent isn't going to do the trick; not even close. At bare minimum, their taxes should be raised an additional 35 percent, to the pre-Regan level. But Obama would never propose such an idea. The solutions Obama has proposed are the ones that Geithner is actually referring to when he says ?very hard choices.? Last January, Obama told the conservative Washington Post that, to lower deficits, he would ?reform entitlement programs? ? social security, Medicare, etc. Reform in this case means to eliminate, or drastically reduce. The Washington Post reports: ?President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare "bargain" with the American people, saying that the nation's long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.? When will this happen? The Post answers: ?[the] administration will begin confronting the issues of entitlement reform and long-term budget deficits soon after it jump-starts job growth and the stock market.? (January 16, 2009). The upward swing in the stock market gave Geithner the green light to begin his anti-entitlement public relations campaign. By choosing not to drastically reduce military spending and not to greatly increase taxes for the super rich and corporations, Obama will have few other options: the federal deficit is too high, especially after the Bush/Obama bank bailouts. These bailouts, combined with decades of reduced taxes for the very wealthy, created the conditions that led to our ?deficit crisis.? The solution that Obama is proposing will further devastate millions already suffering from unemployment, unlivable wages, and little hope for the future. It can be further presumed that, while Obama is getting the U.S. ?financial house in order,? the Federal Reserve will assist by increasing interest rates ? something demanded by U.S. foreign creditors ? thereby significantly risking cutting into Wall Street's most recent profits and opening up the possibility of transforming our Great Recession into another full-blown depression. This is not a matter of ?if,? but ?when.? The imbalances in the U.S. economy are too massive; a giant ?restructuring? must take place. The bank bailouts merely intensified the already enormous economic contradictions. Who pays for this restructuring will shape the future for years to come. As Obama implements his anti-worker plan, he will encounter tremendous resistance. The once-loved President will leave office more hated than Bush. Once the Obama illusion is completely shattered, workers can begin to act independently. We must demand that the corporate elite pay for the crisis they created. Their efforts to push this crisis onto us must be fought at every step. This can be done by clearly articulating our solutions to the crisis ? taxing the super-rich and the corporations, a massive public works campaign, and ending foreign wars (for starters) ? and promoting these ideas through local and national coalitions of labor unions, community groups, students, the unemployed, etc. If we are united and fighting for a clear vision of the future, we will win. If we rely on the Democrats to solve this problem our fate is sealed. Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscook at yahoo.com Please support Global Research Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers. Your endorsement is greatly appreciated Subscribe to the Global Research e-newsletter Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com ? Copyright Shamus Cooke, Global Research, 2009 The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15964 ? Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia ? Copyright 2005-2007 Forward email http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1101807978350&ea=suzannedk%40gmail.com&a=1102815445512 This email was sent to suzannedk at gmail.com by crgeditor at yahoo.com. Update Profile/Email Address http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=oo&v=001Y9XAqyV8VF0P5VFIo8dIEgRMYPodUcIXhUEb881xtaEy4w6h0SRIA4pJhLiBl1_Zsf-EpCdQnpY%3D Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM) http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&v=001Y9XAqyV8VF0P5VFIo8dIEgRMYPodUcIXhUEb881xtaEy4w6h0SRIA4pJhLiBl1_Zsf-EpCdQnpY%3D Privacy Policy: http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp Email Marketing by Constant Contact(R) www.constantcontact.com GLOBAL RESEARCH | v | Montreal | Canada From menecraj at shaw.ca Tue Nov 10 03:50:53 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:50:53 -0600 Subject: [R-G] The Fall of the Wall Message-ID: The Fall of the Wall Victor Grossman, Berlin November 10, 2009 I hate to sound like the grouchy Grinch. Here in Berlin radio and TV are celebrating the Fall of the Wall twenty years ago so intensively there's hardly a moment for the weather report, which, unfortunately for all the planned events, turned out nasty and rainy. From my window I just watched the fireworks' brave attempts to spite the clouds and drizzle. It is well-nigh impossible to be nasty about that strange event in 1989 when a seemingly random remark by an East German big shot opened the gates to a mass rush by East Berliners to West Berlin and, soon after, points further westward. There was general euphoria, bliss, the commonest word was "Wahnsinn" - "insane, crazy, unbelievable." Then and now it seemed petty to entertain even the tiniest critical idea. Without a doubt, the great event permitted happy reunions of many families and opened the way for East Germans to visit no longer only Prague, Warsaw or Moscow but also Paris, Washington and Munich, as well as West Berlin. It was truly a blissful occasion. TV has shown the film footage a thousand times but the crossing, embraces, the dancing on the wall are still moving, even to tears. But as a socialist American, one of a handful who lived on the eastern side of the Wall, who tries to analyze history, I find it impossible to banish certain heretic recollections and doubts. For moments of mass euphoria, wonderful as they are for those involved, do not always explain history. And for me too many issues and questions remain unexplained or simply unasked. Why does no one recall that it was Eastern Germany, the GDR, which pushed for reunification during the postwar years while Chancellor Adenauer brusquely rejected all proposals, even general elections. Only then, and after West Germany set up its own state, formed an army, joined NATO and insisted on regaining huge hunks of what was now Poland, were such attempts finally abandoned? Why is it never mentioned that the GDR, though certainly undergoing an economic crisis, was in less of a crisis than all of Germany today, and that until its very end it had no unemployment, no homelessness, free medical care, child care, education and a sufficiently stable standard of living? Why is it forgotten that many of its travel restrictions had been considerably eased in the two previous years, so that not only pensioners, who were always able to visit West Germany, but 1-2 million GDR citizens had been able to visit West Germany in 1987-1989. Young people wanted desperately to travel, it is true; but their chances of being able to were already improving. Sadly, there was often a stuffy, intolerant atmosphere in the GDR, traceable to the limitations of its aged leadership, to bad traditions inherited (or in part imposed) by the USSR, but also to a kind of paranoia which was, however, not fully unrealistic in its fears of being swallowed by West Germany, which is just what finally happened. From the start geographically and historically Germany's weaker third, the GDR was always under powerful, merciless attack. This created endless problems for GDR leaders, which they were never able to solve satisfactorily. Nevertheless, most participants in the demonstrations and rebellions in the fateful autumn of 1989 wanted an improved GDR not a dead one. Only after Chancellor Kohl, Willy Brandt and other West German leaders promised them not only freedom but all the consumer goods they had gazed at so enviously in TV shows, summarized most succinctly with the two words West marks and bananas - rarely available in the GDR - were they lured by the seductive songs of the Lorelei beauties from the Rhine. Many have done very well thanks to their status as Federal German citizens. Certainly all consumer goods and travel possibilities are available while the leaden speeches and dull media articles are gone and forgotten, though replaced by endless platitudes and deadening commercials. And for freedoms won there have been freedoms lost. In the GDR, according to one bon-mot, you were wise not to criticize Honecker and other government or party big shots. But you could say whatever you wanted against your foreman, the manager, the factory director. Today, it was found, this was reversed. People were fired for rejecting unpaid overtime, for asking what a colleague earned, for simply being suspected of eating a company-owned roll or forgetting to turn in a 13 cent coupon. Beggars, the homeless, patrons of free food outlets, people with untreated tooth gaps - all unknown in GDR days - are now taken for granted. So are towns with closed factories and a population of pensioners, with most young people off somewhere far away hunting jobs. Another factor was important to historians: the GDR had been founded with certain basic principles. Above all, as a bulwark against fascism, led for many years almost exclusively by anti-Nazis, replete with books, films, theater, even the names of streets, schools and youth clubs anti-fascist in nature. This was in extreme contrast with a West German establishment whose military brass and diplomatic corps, academia, police and courts and up to the peak of the government were riddled with former Nazis, not a few of them earnest criminals. In 1961 when the Wall was built they were still to a remarkable degree in leadership. When the Wall came down in 1989 most old Nazis were retired or dead, but the giant concerns, trusts and banks which built up Hitler and made billions from his war - and hundred thousands of slave laborers - were for the most part still powerful. When the Wall went down they swarmed back to East Germany, and beyond - the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania. Their army and navy, built by war criminals, still led by militarists, was no longer blocked by the GDR and was maneuvering or fighting in parts of Africa, the Near east, Afghanistan. Two wars were waged since the Wall went down. And while the GDR had aided Allende, Vietnam, Algeria, Nicaragua, the ANC and SWAPO of southern Africa, the Federal Republic was always on the other side. Yes, the euphoria of the common people who always suffer from the deeds of the big shots was understandable. But today in all Germany wealthy men in towering skyscrapers coolly decide the fates of tens of thousands: fire 3000 here, 10,000 there, move this factory a thousand miles eastward, close that one. It is as if they were playing some gigantic Monopoly game. Nokia, Opel-GM, Siemens, pharma firms, weapons makers: to a great extent they rule the roost, more than ever with the newest German government, despite its sweet smiles about Freedom and the Wall. But isn't there just a note of worry in their declamations. The latest crisis, by no means cured, is making some people think a bit more carefully. Some of them even spite the media and the pronouncements and vote for a party which calls for re-thinking, sometimes even for socialism. Not the same as in the GDR with its many weaknesses, but a state no longer ruled by the Monopoly men in their skyscrapers. Perhaps the ingenious domino ceremonies and slightly soggy fireworks in their insistence on We are the greatest reflect these very worries. From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Nov 10 04:26:58 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:26:58 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Dreams Die Hard Message-ID: <20091110202658.aca68802.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Clusterfuck Nation by James Howard Kunstler Comment on current events by the author of The Long Emergency (2005) www.kunstler.com (November 09 2009) In The Long Emergency (2005, Atlantic Monthly Press), I said that we ought to expect the federal government to become increasingly impotent and ineffectual - that this would be a hallmark of the times. In fact, I said that any enterprise organized at the colossal scale would function poorly in years ahead, whether it was a government, a state university, a national chain retail company, or a giant midwestern farm. It is characteristic of the compressive contraction our society faces that giant hypercomplex systems will wobble and fail. We should expect this. It's tragic that the avatar of hopefulness himself, Barack Obama, stepped into his role at exactly the moment when this set of conditions was getting traction. It is sure to get worse, and there are going to be a lot of disappointed people out there who will be suffering terrible losses and real pain in daily life. Societies don't do well when the public falls into the broad despair that is the opposite of hope. That's when the long knives and the tribal animosities come out and things get smashed. Within the context of conventional party politics - the kind that has been baseline "normal" in the USA for a long time - we see this playing out in two factions that are increasingly out-of-touch with reality. The Obama government has made itself hostage to a toxic form of pretense and lying. In order to sustain the wish for "hope" - if not hope itself - the President and his White House advisors along with his cabinet appointments, are pretending that the historical forces of compressive contraction are not underway. They're flat-out lying about the employment figures issued in the government's name. They're willfully ignoring the comprehensive bankruptcy gripping government at all levels. They refuse to bring the law to bear against "the malefactors of great wealth". They appear to not understand the epochal energy scarcity problem the whole world faces, or its implications for industrial economies. Most of all, they persist in promoting the lie that this economy can return to the prior state of reckless debt accumulation (aka "consumerism") that has made us so ridiculous and unhealthy. The trouble with self-delusion, either in a person or a society, is that reality doesn't care what anybody believes, or what story they put out. Reality doesn't "spin". Reality does not have a self-image problem. Reality does not yield its workings to self-esteem management. These days, Americans don't like reality very much because it won't let them push it around. Reality is an implacable force and the only question for human beings in the face of it is: what will you do? In other words, it's not really possible to manage reality, but you can certainly choose to manage your affairs within reality. We won't do that because it's too difficult. This harsh situation leaves the public increasingly with little more than bad feelings of discouragement and persecution. It's astonishing that all the smart people around the president don't get this. Reality unfolds emergently, and this ought to interest us. For instance, I have maintained for many years that we are approaching the twilight of the automobile age - and the implications of this for daily life in the USA are pretty large. For a long time, I had assumed that this change of circumstances would proceed from our problems with the oil supply. But reality is sly. It has thrown two new plot twists into the story lately. America's romance with cars may not founder just on the fuel supply question. It now appears that our problems with capital are so severe that far fewer people will be able to borrow money from banks to buy cars at the rate, and in the way, that the system has been organized to depend on. Our problems with capital are also depriving us of the ability to pay to fix the hypercomplex system of county roads, interstate highways, and even city streets that make motoring possible. What will we do For now, a cashless government gives out cash-for-clunkers, which is basically a self-esteem building program designed to make the government feel better about itself because it is ostensibly taking eleven-miles-per-gallon cars off the road and replacing them with 27-miles-per-gallon cars, thus forestalling scary problems with climate change. It's dumb of course, but the failure of leadership is comprehensive. Even the elite environmentalists at the Aspen Institute are preoccupied with finding new "green" ways to keep all the cars running. They put zero effort into the idea of walkable communities, or restoring the railroad system, which will be the reality-based remedies for the car-dependency problem. The Republican right wing is, if anything, even more childishly delusional. For Glen Beck and Sarah Palin it comes down to "drill, baby, drill". They know nothing about the geology of oil - they don't even believe that the earth is more than six-thousand years old, meaning they don't believe in geology, period - but they are inflamed with the faith of eight-year-old children that we must have a lot more oil in the ground because this is America and God loves us more than people in other parts of the planet so it must be there. As their disappointment mounts, their childish ideas will turn cruel and sadistic. They'll seek to punish anybody who believes that the earth is more than six thousand years old. The catch is, if they get into power in the election cycles ahead, they'll be impotent and ineffectual even at persecuting their enemies. In the meantime, American life will just wind down, no matter what we believe. It won't wind down to a complete stop. Its near-term destination is to lower levels of complexity and scale than what we've been used to for a long time. People will be able to drive fewer cars fewer miles. The roads will get worse. They'll be worse in some places than others. There will be fewer jobs to go to and fewer things sold. People who live in communities scaled to the energy and capital realities of the years ahead are liable to be more comfortable. We're surely going to have trouble with money. Households will drown in debt and lose all their savings. Money could be scarce or worthless. Credit will be scarcer. Both factions of American political life indulge in the fiction of control. History is reality's big brother. It is taking us someplace that we don't want to go, so it will probably have to drag us there kicking and screaming. For starters, both reality and history will probably take us out to some woodshed of the national soul and beat the crap out of us. That could be a salutary thing, since the crap consists of all the lies we tell ourselves. Once we're rid of all that, we may rediscover a few things left inside our collective identity that are worth regarding with real self-respect. http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/11/dreams-die-hard.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 realiteee1 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 10 12:18:09 2009 From: realiteee1 at yahoo.com (james m nordlund) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:18:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [R-G] support women's healthcare now In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <611915.19963.qm@web111510.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> support women's healthcare now http://womensrights.change.org/actions/view/support_womens_healthcare_now As well, no trigger, because triggers don't get pulled.? Also, please, advocate for singlepayer healthcare, with Community First Choice Option and CLASS Act (Community Choice Act for the handicapped, elderly, autistic, disabled, etc.); H.R. 676 & S. 703, are the best of the lot, so far; i.m.h.o.. Related actions and group?? :) Healthcare Reform Actions?? :) http://healthcare.change.org/actions/view/healthcare_reform_actions http://www.change.org/profile/189788/actions http://www.singlepayeraction.org//join.html From shniad at gmail.com Tue Nov 10 13:07:31 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:07:31 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing? Message-ID: <83904d240911101207h620b2903xb962d1574bc9d6b6@mail.gmail.com> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/is-the-house-health-care_b_350190.html?view=screen * *Huffington Post November 8, 2009 *Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing?* *Is the House bill better than nothing? I don't think so. It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right.* Marcia Angell, M.D. Physician, Author, Senior Lecturer, Harvard Medical School Well, the House health reform bill -- known to Republicans as the Government Takeover -- finally passed after one of Congress's longer, less enlightening debates. Two stalwarts of the single-payer movement split their votes; John Conyers voted for it; Dennis Kucinich against. Kucinich was right. Conservative rhetoric notwithstanding, the House bill is not a "government takeover." I wish it were. Instead, it enshrines and subsidizes the "takeover" by the investor-owned insurance industry that occurred after the failure of the Clinton reform effort in 1994. To be sure, the bill has a few good provisions (expansion of Medicaid, for example), but they are marginal. It also provides for some regulation of the industry (no denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions, for example), but since it doesn't regulate premiums, the industry can respond to any regulation that threatens its profits by simply raising its rates. The bill also does very little to curb the perverse incentives that lead doctors to over-treat the well-insured. And quite apart from its content, the bill is so complicated and convoluted that it would take a staggering apparatus to administer it and try to enforce its regulations. What does the insurance industry get out of it? Tens of millions of new customers, courtesy of the mandate and taxpayer subsidies. And not just any kind of customer, but the youngest, healthiest customers -- those least likely to use their insurance. The bill permits insurers to charge twice as much for older people as for younger ones. So older under-65's will be more likely to go without insurance, even if they have to pay fines. That's OK with the industry, since these would be among their sickest customers. (Shouldn't age be considered a pre-existing condition?) Insurers also won't have to cover those younger people most likely to get sick, because they will tend to use the public option (which is not an "option" at all, but a program projected to cover only 6 million uninsured Americans). So instead of the public option providing competition for the insurance industry, as originally envisioned, it's been turned into a dumping ground for a small number of people whom private insurers would rather not have to cover anyway. If a similar bill emerges from the Senate and the reconciliation process, and is ultimately passed, what will happen? First, health costs will continue to skyrocket, even faster than they are now, as taxpayer dollars are pumped into the private sector. The response of payers -- government and employers -- will be to shrink benefits and increase deductibles and co-payments. Yes, more people will have insurance, but it will cover less and less, and be more expensive to use. But, you say, the Congressional Budget Office has said the House bill will be a little better than budget-neutral over ten years. That may be, although the assumptions are arguable. Note, though, that the CBO is not concerned with total health costs, only with costs to the government. And it is particularly concerned with Medicare, the biggest contributor to federal deficits. The House bill would take money out of Medicare, and divert it to the private sector and, to some extent, to Medicaid. The remaining costs of the legislation would be paid for by taxes on the wealthy. But although the bill might pay for itself, it does nothing to solve the problem of runaway inflation in the system as a whole. It's a shell game in which money is moved from one part of our fragmented system to another. Here is my program for real reform: Recommendation #1: Drop the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 55. This should be an expansion of traditional Medicare, not a new program. Gradually, over several years, drop the age decade by decade, until everyone is covered by Medicare. Costs: Obviously, this would increase Medicare costs, but it would help decrease costs to the health system as a whole, because Medicare is so much more efficient (overhead of about 3% vs. 20% for private insurance). And it's a better program, because it ensures that everyone has access to a uniform package of benefits. Recommendation #2: Increase Medicare fees for primary care doctors and reduce them for procedure-oriented specialists. Specialists such as cardiologists and gastroenterologists are now excessively rewarded for doing tests and procedures, many of which, in the opinion of experts, are not medically indicated. Not surprisingly, we have too many specialists, and they perform too many tests and procedures. Costs: This would greatly reduce costs to Medicare, and the reform would almost certainly be adopted throughout the wider health system. Recommendation #3: Medicare should monitor doctors' practice patterns for evidence of excess, and gradually reduce fees of doctors who habitually order significantly more tests and procedures than the average for the specialty. Costs: Again, this would greatly reduce costs, and probably be widely adopted. Recommendation #4: Provide generous subsidies to medical students entering primary care, with higher subsidies for those who practice in underserved areas of the country for at least two years. Costs: This initial, rather modest investment in ending our shortage of primary care doctors would have long-term benefits, in terms of both costs and quality of care. Recommendation #5: Repeal the provision of the Medicare drug benefit that prohibits Medicare from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices. (The House bill calls for this.) That prohibition has been a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry. For negotiations to be meaningful, there must be a list (formulary) of drugs deemed cost-effective. This is how the Veterans Affairs System obtains some of the lowest drug prices of any insurer in the country. Costs: If Medicare paid the same prices as the Veterans Affairs System, its expenditures on brand-name drugs would be a small fraction of what they are now. Is the House bill better than nothing? I don't think so. It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right. From shniad at gmail.com Tue Nov 10 14:37:47 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:37:47 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Palestinians Mark the Fall of the Berlin Wall by Taking Down the Wall on Their Land In-Reply-To: <4AF989ED.2060203@sfu.ca> References: <4AF989ED.2060203@sfu.ca> Message-ID: <83904d240911101337i306894bejb2479c0afc84aac1@mail.gmail.com> Protesters reenacted the fall of the Berlin Wall to mark its 20th anniversary: 8 meter tall concrete wall dividing Ramallah and Jerusalem tipped over *Popular Struggle Coordination Committee* *9 November 2009* In a symbolic reenactment of the event that changed the world 20 years ago, demonstrators from all over the West Bank managed to topple a section of Israel's wall, 8 meters of reinforced concrete in height, near the infamous Qalandiya Checkpoint. [image: Demonstrators gather near the Wall] Demonstrators gather near the Wall [image: Palestinian activists prepare to tear down the Wall] Palestinian activists prepare to tear down the Wall [image: Activists take down part of the Wall] Activists take down part of the Wall [image: The Wall falls on a historic day] The Wall falls on a historic day On the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, hundreds of demonstrators from across the West Bank convened in Qalandiya to demand the immediate dismantling of Israel's wall. In a dramatic turn of events, protesters managed to tip over a a section of the wall, opening a passage in this strategic and symbolic location at the entrance to East-Jerusalem. Exactly twenty years ago today the Berlin Wall came crumbling down in two days that changed the world forever. Today, a wall twice as high and five times as long is being built by Israel in the West Bank, in blatant contempt of international law, to separate Palestinians from their lands. Despite the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion of 2004, that pronounced Israel's wall illegal, and called for its removal, no significant changes on the ground were made. After the demonstration ended, Mushir Ghazzal, an organizer with the popular struggle coordination committee, said that "Today's events prove that we must not wait for Israel to end its occupation on its own -- we Palestinians should do it with our own two hands. Like the Berlin Wall at the time, Israel's wall seems to us an undefiable reality, but twice this week it has caved in to the pressure of ordinary people fighting for their rights." The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall has been declared an international day of action against Israel's barrier. Last Friday, mass demonstrations were staged simultaneously in three villages along the path of the wall, including in Ni'ilin where protesters managed, for the first time ever in the West Bank, to topple the 8 meter tall concrete wall there. International Solidarity Movement : http://palsolidarity.org/2009/11/9253 From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Tue Nov 10 17:32:58 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:32:58 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] When the Dollar Rallies ... Message-ID: <20091111093258.9a5f9b7b.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> the Market will Crash by Mike Whitney Global Research (November 04 2009) Interest rates. The Fed does not need slinky women in plunging necklines to peddle money. All it needs is low interest rates. When rates are pushed lower than the rate of inflation, the Fed provides a subsidy for borrowing. This is not as hard to grasp as it sounds. If I offered to give you $1.00 for very ninety cents you gave me in return, you would buy as many dollars from me as you could. The Fed operates the same way. It generates market activity by creating incentives for borrowing. Borrowing leads to speculation, and speculation leads to steadily rising asset prices. This is how the game is played. The Fed is not an unbiased observer of free market activity. The Fed drives the market. It fuels speculation and controls behavior by fixing interest rates. When Lehman Brothers flopped last year, markets went into freefall. A sharp correction turned into a full-blown panic. The bubble burst and trillions of dollars in credit vanished in a flash. Trading in exotic debt-instruments stopped overnight. A global sell-off ensued. Markets crashed. For a while, it looked like the whole system might collapse. The Fed's emergency intervention pulled the system back from the brink, but the economy is still wracked with deflation. Billions in toxic waste now clog the Fed's balance sheet. The dollar has fallen like a stone. When the financial system blows up and credit is sucked down a capital-hole, the economy goes into a downward spiral. Businesses slash inventory and lay off workers, workers have to cut back on spending and credit. That creates less demand for products, which leads to more lay offs. This is the vicious circle policymakers try to avoid. That's why Fed chair Ben Bernanke wheeled out the heavy artillery and launched the most aggressive central bank intervention in history. The Fed dropped rates to zero, but its Quantitative Easing (QE) program (which monetizes the debt) actually pushes rates even lower to roughly negative two percent. Bernanke has underwritten every sector of the financial system with government guarantees. He has provided full-value loans for dodgy collateral which is worth only a fraction of its original value. The market can no longer operate without the Fed. The Fed IS the market, which is why it is foolish to talk about a "recovery". The idea of recovery implies a free-standing system based on supply and demand. But, for now, the government provides the demand, which is why there is no market and no recovery. Analysts at Goldman Sachs sum it up like this: "How much of the rebound in real GDP was due to the fiscal stimulus, and where do we stand in terms of the effects of stimulus thus far? Although precise answers are impossible at this juncture, several aspects of the report are consistent with our estimates that the fiscal package enacted in mid-February as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) would have accounted for virtually all of the growth reported for the third quarter." {1} Positive growth is an illusion created by government spending. The economy is still flat on its back. Consumer spending and credit are in sharp decline. Unemployment is steadily rising (although at a slower pace) and wages are flatlining with a chance of falling for the first time in thirty years. Deflationary pressures are building. The talk of a "jobless recovery" is intentionally misleading. Jobs ARE recovery; therefore a jobless recovery merely points to asset-inflation brought on by erratic monetary policy. Surging stocks shouldn't be confused with a genuine recovery. The Fed faces stiff headwinds ahead. Low interest rates can have unintended consequences. The "cheapness" of the greenback has made the dollar the funding currency for the carry trade. Investors are borrowing low cost dollars and using them to purchase higher interest assets elsewhere. The process, which is rapidly escalating, is fraught with peril as economist Nouriel Roubini points out in an article in the Financial Times: "Since March there has been a massive rally in all sorts of risky assets ... and an even bigger rally in emerging market asset classes (their stocks, bonds and currencies). At the same time, the dollar has weakened sharply, while government bond yields have gently increased but stayed low and stable ... "But while the US and global economy have begun a modest recovery, asset prices have gone through the roof since March in a major and synchronized rally ... Risky asset prices have risen too much, too soon and too fast compared with macroeconomic fundamentals. "So what is behind this massive rally? Certainly it has been helped by a wave of liquidity from near-zero interest rates and quantitative easing. But a more important factor fueling this asset bubble is the weakness of the US dollar, driven by the mother of all carry trades. The US dollar has become the major funding currency of carry trades as the Fed has kept interest rates on hold and is expected to do so for a long time. Investors who are shorting the US dollar to buy on a highly leveraged basis higher-yielding assets and other global assets are not just borrowing at zero interest rates in dollar terms; they are borrowing at very negative interest rates ... "Every investor who plays this risky game looks like a genius - even if they are just riding a huge bubble financed by a large negative cost of borrowing ... "... This policy feeds the global asset bubble it is also feeding a new US asset bubble ... "The reckless US policy that is feeding these carry trades is forcing other countries to follow its easy monetary policy ... This is keeping short-term rates lower than is desirable ... So the perfectly correlated bubble across all global asset classes gets bigger by the day. "But one day this bubble will burst, leading to the biggest co-ordinated asset bust ever: if factors lead the dollar to reverse and suddenly appreciate ... the leveraged carry trade will have to be suddenly closed as investors cover their dollar shorts. A stampede will occur as closing long leveraged risky asset positions across all asset classes funded by dollar shorts triggers a co-ordinated collapse of all those risky assets - equities, commodities, emerging market asset classes and credit instruments." {2} Everyone who watches the market has noticed the inverse correlation of stocks to the dollar. When the dollar fades, stocks soar. And when the dollar strengthens, stocks plunge. Eventually, the dollar will reverse course and stage a comeback, probably when Bernanke stops his printing operations. That will trigger the next severe correction which will burst bubbles across all asset classes. Bernanke's success in reflating sagging asset prices has depended entirely on interest rate manipulation and liquidity injections. There's been no effort to patch household balance sheets, increase production, or strengthen overall demand. It's a clever trick by a master illusionist, but it has its costs. When the dollar rallies, markets will crash. And Bernanke will be responsible. Notes: {1} http://www.zerohedge.com/article/hedging-their-bets {2} "The Mother of all Carry Trades Faces an Inevitable Bust", Nouriel Roubini, Financial Times) Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section§ionName=membership The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com (c) Copyright Mike Whitney, Global Research, 2009 (c) Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15919 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 Nov 11 04:17:26 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:17:26 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Monetary Causes of the Immigration Crisis Message-ID: <20091111201726.784610f5.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> The "Washington Consensus" has wrecked their economies by Richard C Cook Global Research (June 02 2007) There is nothing mysterious about the US immigration crisis, or the presence of twelve million or more illegal aliens, or the fact that many more are coming to a neighborhood near you. They are coming to the US because they are human beings who have to eat. They have to eat because they want to live. They cannot eat and live in their own countries because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because the monetary policies of the "Washington Consensus" have wrecked their economies. It has wrecked their economies in order to benefit the financiers who are behind the Washington Consensus, including the ones in their own countries who act as partners in running the lending programs that have caused so much damage. So what would be more fitting that the bureaucrats and politicians in Washington who approved these policies have the immigrants whose lives they ruined now greeting them with a nod every morning when they show up to mow their lawns, trim their bushes, and repair their homes? Not to mention the ones who are clamoring for social services and amnesty, who march in street demonstrations, who want to bring their relatives into the country with them, who may be starting to claim that the US really belongs to them, and some of whom clog the jails of the border states. Then there are the ones who send billions of dollars home each year to float the economies of their hapless home nations whose domestic economies are so dismally poor. When I was working at the US Treasury Department there was a joke: Question: "What did Davy Crockett say when he looked out over the wall of the Alamo?" Answer: "Where'd all them lawn maintenance guys come from?" Of course it really isn't a joke, especially when you realize the extent to which illegal aliens who work for low wages undercut the livelihood of so many American citizens. Or when you consider the human misery the illegals suffer from dislocated families, hiding from the law, being without health care, taking abuse from the criminals who transport them across the borders, or living every day in marginal or even subhuman conditions. The Washington Consensus is the set of monetary and economic conditions imposed through "Structural Adjustment Programs" on developing nations by the International Monetary Fund, along with similar arrangements imposed by the World Bank and other Western political and economic agencies as conditions of receiving loans. The Structural Adjustment Programs are part of a broader neo-liberal economic agenda euphemistically called "free-market reforms" by newspapers such as the Washington Post. They are the price paid by countries for loans from the international bankers who control large-scale lending to their governments. Such programs have deep historic roots. The IMF and World Bank date from the Bretton Woods agreements at the end of World War Two. While these agreements aimed at stabilizing the world monetary system and established the dollar as a de facto world reserve currency, they had an underlying intent to ensure a positive trade balance for the United States in order to maintain the full employment economy brought about by World War Two. All the world's nations were expected to be part of this system. When the Soviet Union refused to participate, giving precedence in the process to US objectives, we declared the start of the Cold War. The IMF's Structural Adjustment Programs include privatization of public resources and utilities, removal of barriers to investment by transnational corporations, the sale of state assets, elimination of price controls and subsidies from consumer markets, lowered business taxes, and layoffs of state employees. Then there are free-trade agreements such as NAFTA which has destroyed Mexican family agriculture. The conditions also include a shift of indigenous economies to the production of export commodities, away from local self-sustaining agriculture and small business. This typically results in a mass exodus from rural areas to urban slums and causes poverty, unemployment, and crime. These financial programs benefit the local educated elite who work with the Western agencies and global corporations but cause a deep and permanent stratification among social classes. The results have been the same everywhere in the world, particularly among the nations of Latin America, Africa, Southern Asia, and Eastern Europe. Everywhere the standard of living suffers for a majority of the local people. Now a worldwide crisis is developing, as the International Labour Organization reports that global unemployment has never been higher. Developing nations are susceptible to this exploitation mainly because they have no independent monetary system. Most use the US dollar as a reserve currency, which then feeds into the fractional reserve banking system that is operated by branches of banks headquartered in the US, Canada, Europe, and Japan. The local nations pay a heavy price for this service, not only through payment of market interest rates but also because banking profits leave the country for the financial centers elsewhere. Foreclosures and bankruptcies also result in a migration of property ownership outside the country. But change is stirring. Venezuela, for instance, has dropped out of the IMF and the World Trade Organization and plans to make its own way using funding from its oil revenues. Other Latin American nations are beginning to work with Venezuela as well as with Russia and China in locating alternative funding sources. China is replacing the IMF in some African countries by providing loans without conditions using dollars acquired from the US in trade. It is likely that the Washington Consensus will eventually disappear as the rest of the world grows up and realizes that the victor of World War Two cannot keep everyone else under their thumb forever. The big question is whether the US will go down fighting by attempting to control the rest of the world by force of arms, as it is now doing in the Middle East, or will it find a way to adapt to the new realities and live as a partner in peace with other nations and peoples. One thing is certain. The only way to stop the flood of illegal immigrants from completely overwhelming the US, Canada, and Europe is for these nations to help their less fortunate brethren become prosperous. This means abandoning the Washington Consensus and giving up the claims of the Western financiers to near-total domination of worldwide resources. It means, above, all, helping developing nations establish monetary systems that can unlock the productivity of their own people, minerals, and land. The problem is that the US and other developed nations themselves do not have democratic monetary systems. They too are suffering from their own overhang of massive amounts of unpayable debt due to their own fractional reserve banking systems that benefit the financial elites at the expense of their own populations. In fact the average citizen of the more prosperous nations is growing poorer every day and coming more and more to resemble economically the immigrants who are threatening their jobs. Wrapped around the souring of the debt-laden national economies is the worldwide financial bubble that every responsible analyst knows must deflate. The answer is not the so-called "soft landing", which in reality is a "controlled" worldwide financial crash that could last a decade or more, with the rich having the inside track on laundering and harboring their assets. Instead, the author has written a series of recent reports based on over twenty years of study with the US Treasury and the monetary reform movement. This program explains how the US can establish a new monetary system using American constitutional principles that would treat credit as a public utility rather than the private playground of the monetary controllers. These principles could be applied by developing nations as well. Once these principles were adopted, countries could build healthy, productive indigenous economies based on maximizing self-sufficiency and participating in regional and worldwide trading systems that benefit all parties. Then there would be no reason for millions of people to risk their lives, health, and social well-being to flee the deadly poverty of their homelands for the marginal poverty they find here. There really is no other answer. _____ Richard C Cook is the author of We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform (2009) and Challenger Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age (2007). He is a Washington, DC-based writer and consultant who, in addition to NASA, taught history and worked in the US Civil Service Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Carter White House and spent 21 years with the US Treasury Department. His website is at www.richardccook.com. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. To become a Member of Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section§ionName=membership The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com (c) Copyright Richard C Cook, Global Research, 2007 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5862 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 menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 11 08:49:27 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:49:27 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Despite smear campaign, Goldstone Report won't die Message-ID: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49161 POLITICS: U.N. Affirms Israeli-Hamas War Crimes Report By Thalif Deen UNITED NATIONS, Nov 5 (IPS) - A 575-page blistering report by Justice Richard Goldstone detailing war crimes in Gaza last December is refusing to die despite an aggressive Israeli smear campaign to kill it. The report, which was favourably voted by the 47-member Human Rights Council in Geneva last month, received overwhelming support Thursday in the 192-member General Assembly. The vote was 114 in favour and 18 against, with 44 abstentions. The 18 countries that voted against the resolution included the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Israel. Ambassador Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, singled out Ireland, one of the few Western nations to vote for the resolution, for "supporting" it. He also noted that a "sizeable number of European nations" abstained on the resolution. Among the abstentions were Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Denmark and Greece. "The General Assembly sent a powerful message," he told reporters, adding that if Israelis do not comply, "We will go after them." The Assembly requested Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to report within three months on the implementation of the resolution. Among other things, the resolution calls upon both the Israelis and the Palestinians to undertake independent investigations of their own on the serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws during the 22-day conflict in Gaza in December. Still, Mansour said he rejects any equation of the "occupying power's aggression and crimes with actions committed in response by the Palestinian side". "We wish to clearly reaffirm that there is absolutely no symmetry or proportionality between the occupier and the occupied," he added. U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff rejected the Goldstone report as "deeply flawed" and "unbalanced". He said the United States was fully committed to a two-state solution - Israel and Palestine - and will do nothing to hinder it. Last month, the 15-member Security Council debated the report but refused to take a vote primarily because of the opposition by the United States, a veto-wielding member of the Council. In Geneva, the Human Rights Council endorsed the report last month by a vote of 25 in favour, six against, 11 abstentions and five no-shows. The report was also the subject of a vote Tuesday by the U.S. House of Representatives, traditionally sympathetic towards Israel. That vote, condemning the report, was 344 in favour and 36 against. Nadia Hijab, senior fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Palestine Studies, told IPS the importance of the Goldstone Report is evident given the amount of effort Israel, the United States and their allies are investing in trying to bury it. She said irrespective of the strength or weakness of the General Assembly resolution, the report is important because of its very existence. Not only does it provide an authoritative basis for Palestinians seeking reparations and accountability, but it also puts the world on notice that international law must be upheld and impunity must end, she said. "It's simply not going to go away," said Hijab. The report, authored by a four-member international fact-finding mission headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, details war crimes charges against both Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas. The mission, and specifically Goldstone, has been politically crucified by pro-Israeli groups in the United States. The U.N. mission recommended that the Security Council require Israel to report to it, within the next six months, on investigations and prosecutions it should carry out with regard to the violations cited in the report. During the ruthless military operation, codenamed 'Operation Cast Lead,' the Israelis destroyed houses, factories, wells, schools, hospitals, police stations and other public buildings. The number of Palestinian killed during the conflict is estimated at between 1,387 and 1,417, mostly civilians, compared with four Israeli fatal casualties in southern Israel and nine soldiers killed during fighting, four of whom died as a result of friendly fire. The report also recommended that the Security Council set up its own body of independent experts to report to it on the progress of the Israeli investigations and prosecutions. "If the expert's reports do not indicate within six months that good faith, independent proceedings are taking place, the Security Council should refer the situation in Gaza to the Prosecutor in the International Criminal Court (ICC)," the report recommended. Hijab told IPS the Goldstone Report has already had an impact on the Israeli-Palestinian scene. "It will ensure that henceforth the Israeli state as well as Palestinian armed groups are more careful about the use of force," she said. In addition, she said, the initial misguided attempt by the leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) to "postpone" consideration has strengthened the hand of political parties and civil society in setting limits on how far the PA/PLO can go in their alliance with the U.S. and its erosion of Palestinian human rights. In short, the Goldstone Report has had a significant before it even reached the General Assembly, and it continues to be discussed the world over, Hijab declared. (END/2009) From suzannedk at gmail.com Wed Nov 11 09:58:12 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:58:12 +0100 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Monetary Causes of the Immigration Crisis In-Reply-To: <20091111201726.784610f5.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> References: <20091111201726.784610f5.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> Message-ID: The European Commission fined a giant U.S. computer company for the reasons enumerated in this article 21 million dollars in 2007. The company paid no mind and in 2009 was just fined 40 million for the same pratices, carefully. publicly and on International T.V., the reasons the same as this article, enumerated, only verbally limited to the the E.U.. Nielie Kroes does not speak for India, Africa, China, only a choice few of the Western countries, but the international message is loud and clear, the legal precident writ in a passionate commitment to law, International Humanitarian Law. Richard Goldstone will rejoice. Wonder what Congress will say on this decision? Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Bill Totten wrote: > > The "Washington Consensus" has wrecked their economies > > by Richard C Cook > > Global Research (June 02 2007) > > > There is nothing mysterious about the US immigration crisis, or the > presence of twelve million or more illegal aliens, or the fact that many > more are coming to a neighborhood near you. > > They are coming to the US because they are human beings who have to eat. > > They have to eat because they want to live. > > They cannot eat and live in their own countries because there are no jobs. > > There are no jobs because the monetary policies of the "Washington > Consensus" have wrecked their economies. > > It has wrecked their economies in order to benefit the financiers who are > behind the Washington Consensus, including the ones in their own countries > who act as partners in running the lending programs that have caused so > much damage. > > So what would be more fitting that the bureaucrats and politicians in > Washington who approved these policies have the immigrants whose lives > they ruined now greeting them with a nod every morning when they show up > to mow their lawns, trim their bushes, and repair their homes? Not to > mention the ones who are clamoring for social services and amnesty, who > march in street demonstrations, who want to bring their relatives into the > country with them, who may be starting to claim that the US really belongs > to them, and some of whom clog the jails of the border states. Then there > are the ones who send billions of dollars home each year to float the > economies of their hapless home nations whose domestic economies are so > dismally poor. > > When I was working at the US Treasury Department there was a joke: > > Question: "What did Davy Crockett say when he looked out over the wall of > the Alamo?" > > Answer: "Where'd all them lawn maintenance guys come from?" > > Of course it really isn't a joke, especially when you realize the extent > to which illegal aliens who work for low wages undercut the livelihood of > so many American citizens. Or when you consider the human misery the > illegals suffer from dislocated families, hiding from the law, being > without health care, taking abuse from the criminals who transport them > across the borders, or living every day in marginal or even subhuman > conditions. > > The Washington Consensus is the set of monetary and economic conditions > imposed through "Structural Adjustment Programs" on developing nations by > the International Monetary Fund, along with similar arrangements imposed > by the World Bank and other Western political and economic agencies as > conditions of receiving loans. > > The Structural Adjustment Programs are part of a broader neo-liberal > economic agenda euphemistically called "free-market reforms" by newspapers > such as the Washington Post. They are the price paid by countries for > loans from the international bankers who control large-scale lending to > their governments. > > Such programs have deep historic roots. The IMF and World Bank date from > the Bretton Woods agreements at the end of World War Two. While these > agreements aimed at stabilizing the world monetary system and established > the dollar as a de facto world reserve currency, they had an underlying > intent to ensure a positive trade balance for the United States in order > to maintain the full employment economy brought about by World War Two. > > All the world's nations were expected to be part of this system. When the > Soviet Union refused to participate, giving precedence in the process to > US objectives, we declared the start of the Cold War. > > The IMF's Structural Adjustment Programs include privatization of public > resources and utilities, removal of barriers to investment by > transnational corporations, the sale of state assets, elimination of price > controls and subsidies from consumer markets, lowered business taxes, and > layoffs of state employees. Then there are free-trade agreements such as > NAFTA which has destroyed Mexican family agriculture. > > The conditions also include a shift of indigenous economies to the > production of export commodities, away from local self-sustaining > agriculture and small business. This typically results in a mass exodus > from rural areas to urban slums and causes poverty, unemployment, and > crime. These financial programs benefit the local educated elite who work > with the Western agencies and global corporations but cause a deep and > permanent stratification among social classes. > > The results have been the same everywhere in the world, particularly among > the nations of Latin America, Africa, Southern Asia, and Eastern Europe. > Everywhere the standard of living suffers for a majority of the local > people. Now a worldwide crisis is developing, as the International Labour > Organization reports that global unemployment has never been higher. > > Developing nations are susceptible to this exploitation mainly because > they have no independent monetary system. Most use the US dollar as a > reserve currency, which then feeds into the fractional reserve banking > system that is operated by branches of banks headquartered in the US, > Canada, Europe, and Japan. > > The local nations pay a heavy price for this service, not only through > payment of market interest rates but also because banking profits leave > the country for the financial centers elsewhere. Foreclosures and > bankruptcies also result in a migration of property ownership outside the > country. > > But change is stirring. Venezuela, for instance, has dropped out of the > IMF and the World Trade Organization and plans to make its own way using > funding from its oil revenues. Other Latin American nations are beginning > to work with Venezuela as well as with Russia and China in locating > alternative funding sources. China is replacing the IMF in some African > countries by providing loans without conditions using dollars acquired > from the US in trade. > > It is likely that the Washington Consensus will eventually disappear as > the rest of the world grows up and realizes that the victor of World War > Two cannot keep everyone else under their thumb forever. The big question > is whether the US will go down fighting by attempting to control the rest > of the world by force of arms, as it is now doing in the Middle East, or > will it find a way to adapt to the new realities and live as a partner in > peace with other nations and peoples. > > One thing is certain. The only way to stop the flood of illegal immigrants > from completely overwhelming the US, Canada, and Europe is for these > nations to help their less fortunate brethren become prosperous. This > means abandoning the Washington Consensus and giving up the claims of the > Western financiers to near-total domination of worldwide resources. > > It means, above, all, helping developing nations establish monetary > systems that can unlock the productivity of their own people, minerals, > and land. The problem is that the US and other developed nations > themselves do not have democratic monetary systems. > > They too are suffering from their own overhang of massive amounts of > unpayable debt due to their own fractional reserve banking systems that > benefit the financial elites at the expense of their own populations. In > fact the average citizen of the more prosperous nations is growing poorer > every day and coming more and more to resemble economically the immigrants > who are threatening their jobs. > > Wrapped around the souring of the debt-laden national economies is the > worldwide financial bubble that every responsible analyst knows must > deflate. The answer is not the so-called "soft landing", which in reality > is a "controlled" worldwide financial crash that could last a decade or > more, with the rich having the inside track on laundering and harboring > their assets. > > Instead, the author has written a series of recent reports based on over > twenty years of study with the US Treasury and the monetary reform > movement. This program explains how the US can establish a new monetary > system using American constitutional principles that would treat credit as > a public utility rather than the private playground of the monetary > controllers. These principles could be applied by developing nations as > well. > > Once these principles were adopted, countries could build healthy, > productive indigenous economies based on maximizing self-sufficiency and > participating in regional and worldwide trading systems that benefit all > parties. Then there would be no reason for millions of people to risk > their lives, health, and social well-being to flee the deadly poverty of > their homelands for the marginal poverty they find here. There really is > no other answer. > > _____ > > Richard C Cook is the author of We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary > Reform (2009) and Challenger Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the > Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age (2007). > He is a Washington, DC-based writer and consultant who, in addition to > NASA, taught history and worked in the US Civil Service Commission, the > Food and Drug Administration, the Carter White House and spent 21 years > with the US Treasury Department. His website is at www.richardccook.com. > Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole > responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the > Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of > sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on > Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or > incorrect statements contained in this article. > > To become a Member of Global Research: > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section§ionName=membership > > The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles > on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. > The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication > of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial > internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com > > www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has > not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are > making such material available to our readers under the provisions of > "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, > economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed > without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving > it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted > material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission > from the copyright owner. > > For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com > > (c) Copyright Richard C Cook, Global Research, 2007 > > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5862 > > > TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click > on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this > essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From suzannedk at gmail.com Wed Nov 11 10:07:55 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:07:55 +0100 Subject: [R-G] Despite smear campaign, Goldstone Report won't die In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: CNN is beginning to show wide coverage of the Gaza and Palestinian fishermen unable to catch fish to feed their people, how many get shot and maimed by Israel fire from Israeli military boats that follow the fishermen! They are asking "Where is the world" as the genocide continues. Goldstone Report is alive and well. suzannedk at gmail.com On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:49 PM, RICHARD MENEC wrote: > http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49161 > > POLITICS: U.N. Affirms Israeli-Hamas War Crimes Report > > By Thalif Deen > > UNITED NATIONS, Nov 5 (IPS) - A 575-page blistering report by Justice > Richard Goldstone detailing war crimes in Gaza last December is refusing to > die despite an aggressive Israeli smear campaign to kill it. > > The report, which was favourably voted by the 47-member Human Rights > Council in Geneva last month, received overwhelming support Thursday in the > 192-member General Assembly. > > The vote was 114 in favour and 18 against, with 44 abstentions. > > The 18 countries that voted against the resolution included the United > States, Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Israel. > > Ambassador Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United > Nations, singled out Ireland, one of the few Western nations to vote for the > resolution, for "supporting" it. > > He also noted that a "sizeable number of European nations" abstained on the > resolution. > > Among the abstentions were Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, Spain, > Luxembourg, New Zealand, Denmark and Greece. > > "The General Assembly sent a powerful message," he told reporters, adding > that if Israelis do not comply, "We will go after them." > > The Assembly requested Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to report within three > months on the implementation of the resolution. > > Among other things, the resolution calls upon both the Israelis and the > Palestinians to undertake independent investigations of their own on the > serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws > during the 22-day conflict in Gaza in December. > > Still, Mansour said he rejects any equation of the "occupying power's > aggression and crimes with actions committed in response by the Palestinian > side". > > "We wish to clearly reaffirm that there is absolutely no symmetry or > proportionality between the occupier and the occupied," he added. > > U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff rejected the Goldstone report as "deeply > flawed" and "unbalanced". > > He said the United States was fully committed to a two-state solution - > Israel and Palestine - and will do nothing to hinder it. > > Last month, the 15-member Security Council debated the report but refused > to take a vote primarily because of the opposition by the United States, a > veto-wielding member of the Council. > > In Geneva, the Human Rights Council endorsed the report last month by a > vote of 25 in favour, six against, 11 abstentions and five no-shows. > > The report was also the subject of a vote Tuesday by the U.S. House of > Representatives, traditionally sympathetic towards Israel. That vote, > condemning the report, was 344 in favour and 36 against. > > Nadia Hijab, senior fellow at the Washington-based Institute for Palestine > Studies, told IPS the importance of the Goldstone Report is evident given > the amount of effort Israel, the United States and their allies are > investing in trying to bury it. > > She said irrespective of the strength or weakness of the General Assembly > resolution, the report is important because of its very existence. > > Not only does it provide an authoritative basis for Palestinians seeking > reparations and accountability, but it also puts the world on notice that > international law must be upheld and impunity must end, she said. > > "It's simply not going to go away," said Hijab. > > The report, authored by a four-member international fact-finding mission > headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, details war crimes charges against both > Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas. > > The mission, and specifically Goldstone, has been politically crucified by > pro-Israeli groups in the United States. > > The U.N. mission recommended that the Security Council require Israel to > report to it, within the next six months, on investigations and prosecutions > it should carry out with regard to the violations cited in the report. > > During the ruthless military operation, codenamed 'Operation Cast Lead,' > the Israelis destroyed houses, factories, wells, schools, hospitals, police > stations and other public buildings. > > The number of Palestinian killed during the conflict is estimated at > between 1,387 and 1,417, mostly civilians, compared with four Israeli fatal > casualties in southern Israel and nine soldiers killed during fighting, four > of whom died as a result of friendly fire. > > The report also recommended that the Security Council set up its own body > of independent experts to report to it on the progress of the Israeli > investigations and prosecutions. > > "If the expert's reports do not indicate within six months that good faith, > independent proceedings are taking place, the Security Council should refer > the situation in Gaza to the Prosecutor in the International Criminal Court > (ICC)," the report recommended. > > Hijab told IPS the Goldstone Report has already had an impact on the > Israeli-Palestinian scene. > > "It will ensure that henceforth the Israeli state as well as Palestinian > armed groups are more careful about the use of force," she said. > > In addition, she said, the initial misguided attempt by the leaders of the > Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) > to "postpone" consideration has strengthened the hand of political parties > and civil society in setting limits on how far the PA/PLO can go in their > alliance with the U.S. and its erosion of Palestinian human rights. > > In short, the Goldstone Report has had a significant before it even reached > the General Assembly, and it continues to be discussed the world over, Hijab > declared. > > (END/2009) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 gmail.com Wed Nov 11 13:42:21 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:42:21 -0800 Subject: [R-G] The Evil Empire Message-ID: <83904d240911111242u2b21f9f4h7c4416373b5e725d@mail.gmail.com> http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11062009.html Weekend Edition November 6-8, 2009 *Republic of Fools * The Evil Empire By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS The US government is now so totally under the thumbs of organized interest groups that ?our? government can no longer respond to the concerns of the American people who elect the president and the members of the House and Senate. Voters will vent their frustrations over their impotence on the president, which implies a future of one-term presidents. Soon our presidents will be as ineffective as Roman emperors in the final days of that empire. Obama is already set on the course to a one-term presidency. He promised change, but has delivered none. His health care bill is held hostage by the private insurance companies seeking greater profits. The most likely outcome will be cuts in Medicare and Medicaid in order to help fund wars that enrich the military/security complex and the many companies created by privatizing services that the military once provided for itself at far lower costs. It would be interesting to know the percentage of the $700+ billion ?defense? spending that goes to private companies. In American ?capitalism,? an amazing amount of taxpayers? earnings go to private firms via the government. Yet, Republicans scream about ?socializing? health care. Republicans and Democrats saw opportunities to create new sources of campaign contributions by privatizing as many military functions as possible. There are now a large number of private companies that have never made a dollar in the market, feeding instead at the public trough that drains taxpayers of dollars while loading Americans with debt service obligations. Obama inherited an excellent opportunity to bring US soldiers home from the Bush regime?s illegal wars of aggression. In its final days, the Bush regime realized that it could ?win? in Iraq by putting the Sunni insurgents on the US military payroll. Once Bush had 80,000 insurgents collecting US military pay, violence, although still high, dropped in half. All Obama had to do was to declare victory and bring our boys home, thanking Bush for winning the war. It would have shut up the Republicans. But this sensible course would have impaired the profits and share prices of those firms that comprise the military/security complex. So instead of doing what Obama said he would do and what the voters elected him to do, Obama restarted the war in Afghanistan and launched a new one in Pakistan. Soon Obama was echoing Bush and Cheney?s threats to attack Iran. In place of health care for Americans, there will be more profits for private insurance companies. In place of peace there will be more war. Voters are already recognizing the writing on the wall and are falling away from Obama and the Democrats. Independents who gave Obama his comfortable victory have now swung against him, recently electing Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia to succeed Democrats. This is a protest vote, not a confidence vote in Republicans. Obama?s credibility is shot. And so is Congress?s, assuming it ever had any. The US House of Representatives has just voted to show the entire world that the US House of Representatives is nothing but the servile, venal, puppet of the Israel Lobby. The House of Representatives of the American ?superpower? did the bidding of its master, AIPAC, and voted 344 to 36 to condemn the Goldstone Report. In case you don?t know, the Goldstone Report is the Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. The ?Gaza Conflict? is the Israeli military attack on the Gaza ghetto, where 1.5 million dispossessed Palestinians, whose lands, villages, and homes were stolen by Israel, are housed. The attack was on civilians and civilian infrastructure. It was without any doubt a war crime under the Nuremberg standard that the US established in order to execute Nazis. Goldstone is not only a very distinguished Jewish jurist who has given his life to bringing people to accountability for their crimes against humanity, but also a Zionist. However, the Israelis have demonized him as a ?self-hating Jew? because he wrote the truth instead of Israeli propaganda. US Representative Dennis Kucinich, who is now without a doubt a marked man on AIPAC?s political extermination list, asked the House if the members had any realization of the shame that the vote condemning Goldstone would bring on the House and the US government. The entire rest of the world accepts the Goldstone report. The House answered with its lopsided vote that the rest of the world doesn?t count as it doesn?t give campaign contributions to members of Congress. This shameful, servile act of ?the world?s greatest democracy? occurred the very week that a court in Italy convicted 23 US CIA officers for kidnapping a person in Italy. The CIA agents are now considered ?fugitives from justice? in Italy, and indeed they are. The kidnapped person was renditioned to the American puppet state of Egypt, where the victim was held for years and repeatedly tortured. The case against him was so absurd that even an Egyptian judge ordered his release. One of the convicted CIA operatives, Sabrina deSousa, an attractive young woman, says that the US broke the law by kidnapping a person and sending him to another country to be tortured in order to manufacture another ?terrorist? in order to keep the terrorist hoax going at home. Without the terrorist hoax, America?s wars for special interest reasons would become transparent even to Fox ?News? junkies. Ms. deSousa says that ?everything I did was approved back in Washington,? yet the government, which continually berates us to ?support the troops,? did nothing to protect her when she carried out the Bush regime?s illegal orders. Clearly, this means that the crime that Bush, Cheney, the Pentagon, and the CIA ordered is too heinous and beyond the pale to be justified, even by memos from the despicable John Yoo and the Republican Federalist Society. Ms. deSousa is clearly worried about herself. But where is her concern for the innocent person that she sent into an Egyptian hell to be tortured until death or admission of being a terrorist? The remorse deSousa expresses is only for herself. She did her evil government?s bidding and her evil government that she so faithfully served turned its back on her. She has no remorse for the evil she committed against an innocent person. Perhaps deSousa and her 22 colleagues grew up on video games. It was great fun to plot to kidnap a real person and fly him on a CIA plane to Egypt. Was it like a fisherman catching a fish or a deer hunter killing a beautiful 8-point buck? Clearly, they got their jollies at the expense of their renditioned victim. The finding of the Italian court, and keep in mind that Italy is a bought-and-paid-for US puppet state, indicates that even our bought puppets are finding the US too much to stomach. Moving from the tip of the iceberg down, we have Ambassador Craig Murray, rector of the University of Dundee and until 2004 the UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, which he describes as a Stalinist totalitarian state courted and supported by the Americans. As ambassador, Murray saw the MI5 intelligence reports from the CIA that described the most horrible torture procedures. ?People were raped with broken bottles, children were tortured in front of their parents until they [the parents] signed a confession, people were boiled alive.? ?Intelligence? from these torture sessions was passed on by the CIA to MI5 and to Washington as proof of the vast al Qaeda conspiracy. Amb. Murray reports that the people delivered by CIA flights to Uzbekistan?s torture prisons ?were told to confess to membership in Al Qaeda. They were told to confess they?d been in training camps in Afghanistan. They were told to confess they had met Osama bin Laden in person. And the CIA intelligence constantly echoed these themes.? ?I was absolutely stunned,? says the British ambassador, who thought that he served a moral country that, along with its American ally, had moral integrity. The great Anglo-American bastion of democracy and human rights, the homes of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, the great moral democracies that defeated Nazism and stood up to Stalin?s gulags, were prepared to commit any crime in order to maximize profits. Amb. Murray learned too much and was fired when he vomited it all up. He saw the documents that proved that the motivation for US and UK military aggression in Afghanistan had to do with the natural gas deposits in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The Americans wanted a pipeline that bypassed Russia and Iran and went through Afghanistan. To insure this, an invasion was necessary. The idiot American public could be told that the invasion was necessary because of 9/11 and to save them from ?terrorism,? and the utter fools would believe the lie. ?If you look at the deployment of US forces in Afghanistan, as against other NATO country forces in Afghanistan, you?ll see that undoubtedly the US forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It?s what it?s about. It?s about money, its about energy, it?s not about democracy.? Guess who the consultant was who arranged with then Texas governor George W. Bush the agreements that would give to Enron the rights to Uzbekistan?s and Turkmenistan?s natural gas deposits and to Unocal to develop the trans-Afghanistan pipeline. It was Karzai, the US-imposed ?president? of Afghanistan, who has no support in the country except for American bayonets. Amb. Murray was dismissed from the UK Foreign Service for his revelations. No doubt on orders from Washington to our British puppet. *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 gmail.com Wed Nov 11 13:42:40 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:42:40 -0800 Subject: [R-G] U.S. is doing no good in Afghanistan Message-ID: <83904d240911111242g5dfb5c35hc4f5c2b87966009a@mail.gmail.com> http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13755903?nclick_check=1 Mercury News (San Jose, California) 11/10/2009 *Opinion: U.S. is doing no good in Afghanistan* By Malalai Joya As an Afghan woman who was elected to Parliament, I am in the United States to ask President Barack Obama to immediately end the occupation of my country. Eight years ago, women's rights were used as one of the excuses to start this war. But today, Afghanistan is still facing a women's rights catastrophe. Life for most Afghan women resembles a type of hell that is never reflected in the Western mainstream media. In 2001, the U.S. helped return to power the worst misogynist criminals, such as the Northern Alliance warlords and druglords. These men ought to be considered a photocopy of the Taliban. The only difference is that the Northern Alliance warlords wear suits and ties and cover their faces with the mask of democracy while they occupy government positions. But they are responsible for much of the disaster today in Afghanistan, thanks to the U.S. support they enjoy. The U.S. and its allies are getting ready to offer power to the medieval Taliban by creating an imaginary category called the "moderate Taliban" and inviting them to join the government. A man who was near the top of the list of most-wanted terrorists eight years ago, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, has been invited to join the government. Over the past eight years the U.S. has helped turn my country into the drug capital of the world through its support of drug lords. Today, 93 percent of all opium in the world is produced in Afghanistan. Many members of Parliament and high ranking officials openly benefit from the drug trade. President Karzai's own brother is a well known drug trafficker. Meanwhile, ordinary Afghans are living in destitution. The latest United Nations Human Development Index ranked Afghanistan 181 out of 182 countries. Eighteen million Afghans live on less than $2 a day. Mothers in many parts of Afghanistan are ready to sell their children because they cannot feed them. Afghanistan has received $36 billion of aid in the past eight years, and the U.S. alone spends $165 million a day on its war. Yet my country remains in the grip of terrorists and criminals. My people have no interest in the current drama of the presidential election since it will change nothing in Afghanistan. Both Karzai and Dr. Abdullah are hated by Afghans for being U.S. puppets. The worst casualty of this war is truth. Those who stand up and raise their voice against injustice, insecurity and occupation have their lives threatened and are forced to leave Afghanistan, or simply get killed. We are sandwiched between three powerful enemies: the occupation forces of the U.S. and NATO, the Taliban and the corrupt government of Hamid Karzai. Now President Obama is considering increasing troops to Afghanistan and simply extending former President Bush's wrong policies. In fact, the worst massacres since 9/11 were during Obama's tenure. My native province of Farah was bombed by the U.S. this past May. A hundred and fifty people were killed, most of them women and children. On Sept. 9, the U.S. bombed Kunduz Province, killing 200 civilians. My people are fed up. That is why we want an immediate end to the U.S. occupation. MALALAI JOYA spoke at San Jose State University Saturday and signed copies of her new political memoir, A Woman Among Warlords, co-written with Derrick O"Keefe. The survivor of four assassination attempts, she was elected to Afghanistan"s parliament in 2005 and kicked out in 2007 by the warlords. She wrote this article for the Mercury News. From shniad at gmail.com Wed Nov 11 13:43:32 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:43:32 -0800 Subject: [R-G] A Line in the Sand Message-ID: <83904d240911111243l39af4dfeh1548938d0ff30ac5@mail.gmail.com> http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1257655700 Gush Shalom 07/11/09 *A Line in the Sand* Uri Avnery MAHMOUD ABBAS is fed up. The day before yesterday he withdrew his candidacy for the coming presidential election in the Palestinian Authority. I understand him. He feels betrayed. And the traitor is Barack Obama. A YEAR ago, when Obama was elected, he aroused high hopes in the Muslim world, among the Palestinian people as well as in the Israeli peace camp. At long last an American president who understood that he had to put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not only for the sake of the two peoples, but mainly for the US national interests. This conflict is largely responsible for the tidal waves of anti-American hatred that sweep the Muslim masses from ocean to ocean. Everybody believed that a new era had begun. Instead of the Clash of Civilizations, the Axis of Evil and all the other idiotic but fateful slogans of the Bush era, a new approach of understanding and reconciliation, mutual respect and practical solutions. Nobody expected Obama to exchange the unconditional pro-Israeli line for a one-sided pro-Palestinian attitude. But everybody thought that the US would henceforth adopt a more even-handed approach and push the two sides towards the Two-State Solution. And, no less important, that the continuous stream of hypocritical and sanctimonious blabbering would be displaced by a determined, vigorous, non-provocative but purposeful policy. As high as the hopes were then, so deep is the disappointment now. Nothing of all these has come about. Worse: the Obama administration has shown by its actions and omissions that it is not really different from the administration of George W. Bush. FROM THE first moment it was clear that the decisive test would come in the battle of the settlements. It may seem that this is a marginal matter. If peace is to be achieved within two years, as Obama?s people assure us, why worry about another few houses in the settlements that will be dismantled anyway? So there will be a few thousand settlers more to resettle. Big deal. But the freezing of the settlements has an importance far beyond its practical effect. To return to the metaphor of the Palestinian lawyer: ?We are negotiating the division of a pizza, and in the meantime, Israel is eating the pizza.? The American insistence on freezing the settlements in the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem was the flag of Obama?s new policy. As in a Western movie, Obama drew a line in the sand and declared: up to here and no further! A real cowboy cannot withdraw from such a line without being seen as yellow. That is precisely what has now happened. Obama has erased the line he himself drew in the sand. He has given up the clear demand for a total freeze. Binyamin Netanyahu and his people announced proudly - and loudly - that a compromise had been reached, not, God forbid, with the Palestinians (who are they?) but with the Americans. They have allowed Netanyahu to build here and build there, for the sake of ?Normal Life?, ?Natural Increase?, ?Completing Unfinished Projects? and other transparent pretexts of this kind. There will not be, of course, any restrictions in Jerusalem, the Undivided Eternal Capital of Israel. In short, the settlement activity will continue in full swing. To add insult to injury, Hillary Clinton troubled herself to come to Jerusalem in person in order to shower Netanyahu with unctuous flattery. There is no precedent to the sacrifices he is making for peace, she fawned. That was too much even for Abbas, whose patience and self-restraint are legendary. He has drawn the consequences. ?TO UNDERSTAND all is to forgive all,? the French say. But in this case, some things are hard to forgive. Certainly, one can understand Obama. He is engaged in a fight for his political life on the social front, the battle for health insurance. Unemployment continues to rise. The news from Iraq is bad, Afghanistan is quickly turning into a second Vietnam. Even before the award ceremony, the Nobel Peace Prize looks like a joke. Perhaps he feels that the time is not ripe for provoking the almighty pro-Israel lobby. He is a politician, and politics is the art of the possible. It would be possible to forgive him for this, if he admitted frankly that he is unable to realize his good intentions in this area for the time being. But it is impossible to forgive what is actually happening. Not the scandalous American treatment of the Goldstone report. Not the loathsome behavior of Hillary in Jerusalem. Not the mendacious talk about the ?restraint? of the settlement activities. The more so as all this goes on with total disregard of the Palestinians, as if they were merely extras in a musical. Not only has Obama given up his claim to a complete change in US policy, but he is actually continuing the policy of Bush. And since Obama pretends to be the opposite of Bush, this is double treachery. Abbas reacted with the only weapon he has at his command: the announcement that he will leave public life. THE AMERICAN policy in the ?Wider Middle East? can be compared to a recipe in a cookbook: ?Take five eggs, mix with flour and sugar? In real life: Take a local notable, give him the paraphernalia of government, conduct ?free elections?, train his security forces, turn him into a subcontractor. This is not an original recipe. Many colonial and occupation regimes have used it in the past. What is so special about its use by the Americans is the ?democratic? props for the play. Even if a cynical world does not believe a word of it, there is the audience back home to think about. That is how it was done in the past in Vietnam. How Hamid Karzai was chosen in Afghanistan and Nouri Maliki in Iraq. How Fouad Siniora has been kept in Lebanon. How Muhammad Dahlan was to be installed in the Gaza Strip (but was at the decisive moment forestalled by Hamas.) In most of the Arab countries, there is no need for this recipe, since the established regimes already satisfy the requirements. Abbas was supposed to fill this role. He bears the title of President, he was elected fairly, an American general is training his security forces. True, in the following parliamentary elections his party was soundly beaten, but the Americans just ignored the results and the Israelis imprisoned the undesirable Parliamentarians. The show must go on. BUT ABBAS is not satisfied with being the egg in the American recipe. I first met him 26 years ago. After the first Lebanon War, when we (Matti Peled, Ya?acov Arnon and I) went to Tunis to meet Yasser Arafat, we saw Abbas first. That was the case every time we came to Tunis after that. Peace with Israel was the ?desk? of Abbas. Conversations with him were always to the point. We did not become friends, as with Arafat. The two were of very different temperament. Arafat was an extrovert, a warm person who liked personal gestures and physical contact with the people he talked with. Abbas is a self-contained introvert who prefers to keep people at a distance. From the political point of view, there is no real difference. Abbas is continuing the line laid down by Arafat in 1974: a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The difference is in the method. Arafat believed in his ability to influence Israeli public opinion. Abbas limits himself to dealings with rulers. Arafat believed that he had to keep in his arsenal all possible means of struggle: negotiations, diplomatic activity, armed struggle, public relations, devious maneuvers. Abbas puts everything in one basket: peace negotiations. Abbas does not want to become a Palestinian Marshal Petain. He does not want to head a local Vichy regime. He knows that he is on a slippery slope and has decided to stop before it is too late. I think, therefore, that his intention to leave the stage is serious. I believe his assertion that it is not just a bargaining ploy. He may change his decision, but only if he is convinced that the rules of the game have changed. OBAMA WAS completely surprised. That has never happened before: an American client, totally dependent on Washington, suddenly rebels and poses conditions. That is exactly what Abbas has done now, when he recognized that Obama is unwilling to fulfill the most basic condition: to freeze the settlements. From the American point of view, there is no replacement. There are certainly some capable people in the Palestinian leadership, as well as corrupt ones and collaborators. But there is no one who is capable of rallying around him all the West Bank population. The first name that comes up is always Marwan Barghouti, but he is in prison and the Israeli government has already announced that he will not be released even if elected. Also, it is not clear whether he is willing to play that role in the present conditions. Without Abbas, the entire American recipe comes apart. Netanyahu, too, was utterly surprised. He wants phony negotiations, devoid of substance, as a camouflage for the deepening of the occupation and enlarging of the settlements. A ?Peace process? as a substitute for peace. Without a recognized Palestinian leader, with whom can he ?negotiate?? In Jerusalem, there is still hope that Abbas? announcement is merely a ploy, that it would be enough to throw him some crumbs in order to change his mind. It seems that they do not really know the man. His self-respect will not allow him to go back, unless Obama awards him a serious political achievement. From Abbas? point of view, the announcement of his retirement is the doomsday weapon. From shniad at gmail.com Wed Nov 11 13:43:49 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:43:49 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower Message-ID: <83904d240911111243k5a61d488r457af1abf6682256@mail.gmail.com> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency The Guardian 9 November 2009Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower *Exclusive:* Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official Terry Macalister [image: OilProduction] The world is much closer to running out of oilthan official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying. The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves. The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow ? which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies. *'There's suspicion the IEA has been influenced by the US' Link to this audio * In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oilproduction can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production. Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this. "Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added. A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added. The IEA acknowledges the importance of its own figures, boasting on its website: "The IEA governments and industry from all across the globe have come to rely on the World Energy Outlook to provide a consistent basis on which they can formulate policies and design business plans." The British government, among others, always uses the IEA statistics rather than any of its own to argue that there is little threat to long-term oil supplies. The IEA said tonight that peak oil critics had often wrongly questioned the accuracy of its figures. A spokesman said it was unable to comment ahead of the 2009 report being released tomorrow. John Hemming, the MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on peak oil and gas, said the revelations confirmed his suspicions that the IEA underplayed how quickly the world was running out and this had profound implications for British government energy policy. He said he had also been contacted by some IEA officials unhappy with its lack of independent scepticism over predictions. "Reliance on IEA reports has been used to justify claims that oil and gas supplies will not peak before 2030. It is clear now that this will not be the case and the IEA figures cannot be relied on," said Hemming. "This all gives an importance to the Copenhagen [climate change] talks and an urgent need for the UK to move faster towards a more sustainable [lower carbon] economy if it is to avoid severe economic dislocation," he added. The IEA was established in 1974 after the oil crisis in an attempt to try to safeguard energy supplies to the west. The World Energy Outlook is produced annually under the control of the IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, who has defended the projections from earlier outside attack. Peak oil critics have often questioned the IEA figures. But now IEA sources who have contacted the Guardian say that Birol has increasingly been facing questions about the figures inside the organisation. Matt Simmons, a respected oil industry expert, has long questioned the decline rates and oil statistics provided by Saudi Arabia on its own fields. He has raised questions about whether peak oil is much closer than many have accepted. A report by the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) last month said worldwide production of conventionally extracted oil could "peak" and go into terminal decline before 2020 ? but that the government was not facing up to the risk. Steve Sorrell, chief author of the report, said forecasts suggesting oil production will not peak before 2030 were "at best optimistic and at worst implausible". But as far back as 2004 there have been people making similar warnings. Colin Campbell, a former executive with Total of France told a conference: "If the real [oil reserve] figures were to come out there would be panic on the stock markets ? in the end that would suit no one." From mstainsby at resist.ca Wed Nov 11 14:57:50 2009 From: mstainsby at resist.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:57:50 -0700 Subject: [R-G] Israeli Rabbi's Guide to Killing Message-ID: <4AFB335E.5030601@resist.ca> Israeli Rabbi's Guide to Killing Causes Firestorm Written by Benjamin Joffe-Walt Published Tuesday, November 10, 2009 An Israeli Rabbi living in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank has caused a firestorm in both Israeli and Palestinian media with a new book outlining a series of Jewish theological arguments for killing those who threaten Israel or demand Israeli land. The 230-page book, "The King's Torah" was released over the weekend by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira and gives theological backing to Jews killing those perceived to be violating Jewish commandments or threatening the Jewish nation. A theological treatise based on Rabbi Shapira's interpretation of passages from the Jewish bible, "The King's Torah" is an extensive guide to when it is permissible for Jews to kill non-Jews. Rabbi Shapiro's book argues that Jewish law allows the killing of "non-Jews who demand the land for themselves", those from a nation which "helps a murderer of Jews," those spreading "hostile blasphemy" and "those who, by speech, weaken our sovereignty." "Any case in which the life of the civilian endangers Israel," the book states, "it is allowed to kill a gentile." "The permit also applies when the persecutor is threatening to kill indirectly rather than directly," Rabbi Shapiro's book reads. "If the civilian is aiding fighters it is permissible to kill... Any citizen who supports the war or the fighters or expresses satisfaction with their deeds - the killing is permitted." Rabbi Shapira's book argues that revenge is a necessity under Jewish law. "To defeat the wicked one should be vengeful, tit for tat," the book reads. "Revenge is a necessity... and sometimes doing savage things intended to create a true balance of terror." The book further states that Jews are permitted to kill children "If it is clear they will grow up to harm us." "If hurting an evil leader's children will pressure him to stop acting maliciously," Rabbi Shapira wrote, "you can hurt them." The book discusses the laws regarding such killings in theological terms, never specifically mentioning Palestinians, Arabs or Israeli soldiers sent to remove Jewish settlements. Its release comes weeks after the arrest of Yaakov Teitel, a Jewish Israeli settler of American origin who is understood to have admitted to killing Palestinians and attacking progressive and messianic Jews. Rabbi Shapira is head of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva, a religious school for Jewish boys based in the Yitzhar Jewish settlement a few miles southwest of the Palestinian city of Nablus. Rabbi Shapira's followers adhere to a radical form of Jewish religious nationalism and call for a Torah-based theocracy to replace the State of Israel, which they see as having abandoned core Jewish principals. The school is best known for its former leader, American-born Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg, seen as the spiritual heir to the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, the American-Israeli founder of the extreme-right political party Kach, classified by both Israel and the U.S. as a terrorist organization. Rabbi Ginzburg was imprisoned for an article praising Baruch Goldstein, an American-born Israeli physician who killed dozens of Muslim worshipers in Hebron and injured 150 others in 1994. Both Rabbi Ginzburg and Rabbi Ya'akov Yosef, another prominent leader of the radical Jewish religious nationalist movement, have recommended Rabbi Shapira's new book, which was first released over the weekend at a Jerusalem memorial for Rabbi Kahane. Rabbi Hank Skirball, the chairperson of Hiddush, an Israeli organization dedicated to religious freedom and equality, said Rabbi Shapira's book represented only the far right fringe of religious Jews. "It's a perversion of Jewish law and I don't think it's taken seriously by most," he told The Media Line. "It's giving people tremendous latitude to kill people they disagree with and opens itself up to violation of much more important prohibitions in Jewish law." "In Israel we did not kill the murderer of Prime Minister Yitshak Rabin and we didn't kill any of the people who created sedition at the time," he said. "We have freedom of speech and its very difficult to know what is dangerous and what is not. Jewish law does not provide for us to go out and kill someone for what he's saying. You are only allowed to kill someone if it is very obvious that he's about to kill you and you have no other way to save your life other than by killing him." Rabbi David Hartman, founder of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem and a philosopher of contemporary Judaism, said that the rabbis of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva were not taking into account the consequences of their teachings. "Has the Jewish tradition ever created a distinction based on race, gender, etc? Of course, there is no doubt that there are serious Jewish sources that do not look at the non-Jew with full equality," he told The Media Line. "But they have lots of sources they could use, and which sources you choose to read and don't read is important." "One of the interesting things about Jewish law is that perception is a part of the criteria," Rabbi Hartman said. "Jewish theologians aren't pure academics nor are they spokesmen, so they are not writing in a vacuum. The most serious Jewish theological figures are very careful about the implications or consequences of their writings." Rabbi Hartman argued that while such books touched a cultural chord, they were mostly ignored in the mainstream Jewish theological community. "I make a distinction between a cultural fringe and what is fringe in terms of Jewish theological thought," he told The Media Line. "On the one hand, this is not fringe, and you have mainstream kids talking this talk. But in terms of Jewish law, there is no significant Jewish theological movement to permit the blood of non-Jews. If you're looking at the major thinkers, nobody is talking with that language, whether they are ultra-orthodox, Sephardic or Ashkenazi, and these kinds of things are ignored." "The problem is that if you ignore something it doesn't mean it doesn't have any influence over students," Rabbi Hartman said. "Beware of that which you ignore, what is a cultural phenomenon today may become acceptable to major Jewish thinkers tomorrow." "For example, when it comes to Israel, our return to power and the desire to strengthen the claim to the land has created a push for a new Jewish theological creativity and a cultural phenomenon in which certain Jewish theological positions are given more significance than what the major Jewish theological authorities would allow." "Forty years ago there were no major Jewish theological figures who said the land of Israel was more significant than Pikuach Nefesh, the concept of the saving of a life," he said, in reference to Jewish theological debates over exchanging land captured by Israel for peace. "Today in the religious Zionist community there are major theological figures for whom this is now a self evident truth." From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 11 15:00:43 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:00:43 -0600 Subject: [R-G] What Goldstone says about the US Message-ID: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/11/2009111174626931966.html What Goldstone says about the US By Mark LeVine Opponents of the Goldstone report might well be hoping that after its lopsided condemnation in the US House of Representatives and successful relegation back to the UN's Human Rights Commission, the report will become little more than an historical footnote in a decades-long conflict. This might in fact occur, given the imbalance of power between the contending sides. But historians can do a great deal with footnotes. When the glare of history is finally shone upon the whole affair, it might well turn out that the reasons for such vehement opposition from US politicians, and only tepid (at best) support for it among other major powers, have far more to do with their own geostrategic interests than with protecting Israel. Back story The report, written by South African jurist Richard Goldstone, has caused uproar in Israel and the US for its alleged bias against Israel and avoidance of serious criticism of Hamas. The condemnation, House Resolution 867, passed by a 344-36 vote. Before the vote on the resolution, Goldstone sent a letter to members of Congress refuting most of the allegations contained in it. But his rebuttal did not lead to substantive changes in the report's accusations and apparently had no effect on the vote. Given the way in which opposition to the report unfolded it would be easy to conclude that this is merely another case of the vaunted Israel lobby shutting down any debate over Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories. Yet while Israel's supporters no doubt took the lead in pushing the resolution, there is a back story to this drama that has likely played an equally, if not more important, role in the firestorm it has generated. Why would the House go so far out of its way to stamp out even the consideration of war crimes accusations against Israel? And why would Barack Obama, the US president, have pressured Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, not to push the report in the UN when he had to know that such actions would cost Abbas most of his little remaining credibility among Palestinians? Accessory to war crimes There are two reasons for this. Firstly, if Israel is guilty of committing systematic war crimes across Gaza and the West Bank, then the US, which supported, funded and armed Israel during the war, is an accessory to those crimes. Goldstone explains in no uncertain terms that Gaza was not an aberration in terms of Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Rather, it marked not only a continuation of Israel's behaviour during the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, but "highlights a common thread of the interaction between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians which emerged clearly also in many cases discussed in other parts of the report. It referenced continuous and systematic abuse, outrages on personal dignity, humiliating and degrading treatment contrary to fundamental principles of international humanitarian law and human rights law". "The Mission concludes that the treatment of these civilians constitutes the infliction of a collective penalty on those persons and amounts to measures of intimidation and terror. Such acts are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and constitute a war crime," the report says. Put simply, if there is blood on Israel's hands, than it is has dripped all over America's shirt. Israel could not and would not have engaged in the level of wholesale destruction of Gaza painstakingly catalogued in the report without the support of the outgoing Bush administration, and acquiescence of the incoming Obama administration. Israeli narrative challenged Not only that, but on the same day the report was released the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Israel's military leadership is preparing the country for yet another invasion of Gaza in the near future. It is not clear how much of Gaza is left to be destroyed, but the report's detailed discussion of Israel's attacks on innumerable homes, mosques, schools, hospitals and other civilian facilities show what lengths Israel will go to to punish Gazans, and Palestinians more broadly. There is also the larger context of the peace negotiations. If Israel can be guilty of humanitarian crimes at this level, then it puts the entire Israeli narrative about the occupation - that it is ultimately about preserving the country's security - into question. In fact, the report declares precisely this, in paragraph 1674, when it argues that the Gaza invasion "cannot be understood and assessed in isolation from developments prior and subsequent to it. The operation fits into a continuum of policies aimed at pursuing Israel's political objectives with regard to Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territory as a whole". Almost everyone outside the US, including in Israel, understands that the occupation has always been about settlement, not security, since Israel could have militarily occupied the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 indefinitely without establishing a single settlement, and could withdraw from all its settlements tomorrow and maintain a military occupation until it felt secure enough to turn the territory over to Palestinians. As famed general Moshe Dayan once put it, the settlements in the Occupied Territories are essential "not because they can ensure security better than the army, but because without them we cannot keep the army in those territories. Without them the IDF would be a foreign army ruling a foreign population". But the US remains heavily invested in maintaining this security narrative; both because it is the core of the strategic alliance between the two countries with all the military, strategic and financial implications that come with it, and because, as with the Gaza invasion, the settlement enterprise could never have proceeded without US support, or at least acquiescence. This dynamic continues to operate today, as the same day House Resolution 867 was passed, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, explained that the US preferred to return to peace talks even without a settlement freeze, despite the fact that not stopping settlement construction during negotiations has been deemed by former senior Israeli negotiators such as Moshe Ben Ami and Yossi Beilin as among the single biggest factors dooming the Oslo peace process. The Obama administration refuses even to push the parameters painstakingly set by his Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton, before leaving office, to which both Israelis and Palestinians were very close to agreeing. Alarming precedent One has to wonder whether the US Middle East policy-making establishment, which is dominated by defence and security interests, is even interested in bringing about a speedy resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Beyond what the Goldstone report says about America's role in Israel's actions, the report holds a mirror up to US actions in its 'war on terror'. In so doing it paints for US policy-makers and politicians a more frightening picture of a future in which all countries are held accountable for their actions. Here it becomes clear that, as it has been for four decades, Israel is both the spear and the shield for the projection - and protection - of US power in the Middle East. It engages in activities the US cannot do openly, and it acts as the first line of defence when US interests might be attacked diplomatically. In going after Israel, the report, however unintended, is going after the US, which has committed many of the same crimes (of which Israel is accused) in its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and perhaps through its drone attacks, in Pakistan and other countries. This is the report's true danger, and why - from the US perspective - its accusations against Israel cannot stand. Specifically, the idea of treating a Western-allied state, Israel, and a resistance movement, Hamas, as equally capable of committing war crimes and being held accountable for them, sets an alarming precedent for the US as its engagement in Iraq stretches on indefinitely and deepens in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why not hold the US (or Pakistan, China, Russia, or India for that matter) to the same standards as we hold the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or opposition movements in Kashmir, Chechnya or Tibet? None of these powers would allow this to happen. Universal jurisdiction Moreover, the report condemns the "Dahiya doctrine," which involved the application of disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations. Although claiming to work hard to protect civilians in the countries it is occupying, one of the primary complaints against the US by citizens of Afghanistan or Iraq is the frequent killing of civilians and destruction of infrastructure, particularly if it could be deemed to be "supporting infrastructure" for "terrorists". And when such abuses are committed, paragraph 121 of the report reminds the world that "international human rights law and humanitarian law require states to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute allegations of serious violations by military personnel". This is an indirect stab at the US judicial system, which has so far failed to hold anyone but a few low-level soldiers accountable for the numerous abuses committed by the US in Iraq and the 'war on terror' more broadly. Perhaps the most dangerous suggestion in this regard is the report's call for applying "universal jurisdiction" to the conflict. As paragraph 127 states: "In the context of increasing unwillingness on the part of Israel to open criminal investigations that comply with international standards, the mission supports the reliance on universal jurisdiction as an avenue for states to investigate violations of the grave breach [of the] provisions of the Geneva Conventions." There is no power that wants its officials or military and security personnel subject to prosecution by other countries. Uncritical victimology In this regard, it is not coincidental that the same day resolution 867 was passed an Italian court convicted 23 former CIA agents of participating in the illegal rendition of an Italian imam, who claims he was subsequently tortured in captivity. In June, the Italian newspaper il Giornale published an interview with Robert Seldon Lady, the CIA's Milan station chief, in which he admitted, "Of course it was an illegal operation. But that's our job. We're at war against terrorism". This is a crucial statement, for it reveals that the US establishment believes that in a 'war on terror', there are no legal limits to what it can do. And if Israel is condemned for the same attitude, this would vitiate America's ability to take whatever actions it desires, however illegal, to pursue its interests. Obama might not take such actions, but his successors might. And if another major terrorist attack were to occur on US soil, there is little doubt that the gloves would once again come off, whether Obama wanted to keep them on or not. In such a situation, the psychology of uncritical victimology that characterised post-9/11 America will be crucial to enabling such policies to be (re)put in place. As the report quotes an Israeli professor (paragraph 1703): "Israeli society's problem is that because of the conflict, Israeli society feels itself to be a victim and to a large extent that's justified and it's very difficult for Israeli society to move and to feel that it can also see the other side and to understand that the other side is also a victim." This problem is equally difficult for Americans to overcome. Report's historical imprint Among the final coincidences accompanying the passage of resolution 867 was its release the day after Clinton held a high-profile meeting in Morocco to champion the country's recent official promotion of democracy. But in her celebration of the Moroccan example she neglected to mention that press freedoms, the core of any democratic system, are suffering increasing restrictions in the country. Freedom of speech or challenging the country's political-economic elite remains heavily circumscribed, especially when it comes from the country's principal Islamically motivated opposition movement. Of course, Clinton cannot push too hard for democracy in the Muslim world; democratically-elected governments would not tolerate many of the US' core policies in the region, from uncritical support for Israel to its own military and economic alliances and activities. The day after her Morocco meeting, Clinton was in Egypt, meeting once again with the Egypt's autocratic leader, Hosni Mubarak, with not a word about democracy. Against such policy interests, it might well be that the Goldstone report will be relegated to history without being acted upon. What few of its opponents understand is just how big an imprint this most exhaustive study of the Israeli occupation will leave. It might not help Palestinians and Israelis achieve peace today, but future historians will likely look upon it as a crucial document in exposing the realities of the American dominated Middle Eastern system for the world to see. Mark LeVine is currently Visiting Professor at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University, Sweden. His most recent books include Impossible Peace: Israel/Palestine Since 1989 (Zed Books, 2009) and Reapproaching Borders: New Perspectives on the Study of Israel-Palestine (Rowman Littlefield, 2008). The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 11 15:20:46 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:20:46 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Jeffrey Sachs: America's dirty little secret Message-ID: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/americas-dirty-little-secret/article1331242/ America's dirty little secret Influence wielded by coal-producing states - 25 of them - is the big reason the U.S. is a climate-change laggard Jeffrey Sachs From menecraj at shaw.ca Wed Nov 11 15:33:15 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:33:15 -0600 Subject: [R-G] James Cogan: The Plunder of Iraq's Oil Message-ID: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/pers-n11.shtml The plunder of Iraq?s oil 11 November 2009 The awarding of development rights over the huge West Qurna oilfield in southern Iraq to Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell last Thursday once again underscores the criminal character of the continuing US-led occupation. As the direct result of the Iraq war, major American and other transnational energy conglomerates are now gaining control over some the largest oilfields in the world. West Qurna has proven reserves of 8.7 billion barrels of oil. Iraq?s total reserves are currently put at 115 billion barrels, though dozens of potential fields have not been explored adequately. Before the US invasion in 2003, rights over West Qurna had been awarded by the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein to the Russian oil firm, Lukoil. The pro-US puppet regime in Baghdad has torn up all pre-war contracts. Exxon-Mobil is the first US-based oil giant to benefit. Under the terms of a 20-year contract, Exxon-Mobil and Shell plan to boost daily production at West Qurna from less than 300,000 barrels to 2.3 million barrels per day over the next six years. As well as the Iraqi government compensating the companies for the cost of upgrading the field?which may run as high as $50 billion?they will be paid $1.90 for each barrel extracted, or some $1.5 billion per year. Exxon-Mobil holds an 80 percent stake and Shell the remaining 20 percent. The contract is only the second signed by the Baghdad regime with foreign energy companies. Last Tuesday, the Iraqi government concluded a deal with British Petroleum (BP) and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), giving them development rights to the massive Rumaila field and its reserves of 17 billion barrels. BP holds a 38 percent stake and CNPC, a 37 percent share. The plan is to boost production from around 1 million barrels per day to 2.85 million barrels, generating profits of over $2 billion per year. The only disappointment for the transnationals is that the contracts are not based on the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) model, which gives access to as much as 40 percent of an oilfield?s total revenue. Even the venal elements that make up the Iraqi government rejected handing over the country?s largest oil fields on such terms. Instead, the deals are classified as ?service? agreements. This has enabled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, to ignore parliament and the lack of a hydrocarbons law to govern the energy industry. Further deals are in the process of being finalised. A consortium made up of the Italian company Eni, US-based Occidental and South Korea?s Kogas has signed a tentative agreement for the Zubair oilfield with reserves of 4 billion barrels. Eni, Japanese giant Nippon Oil and Spanish firm Repsol are bidding for a field in Nasiriyah which has similar-sized reserves. In northern Iraq, Royal Dutch Shell is negotiating a contract to develop untapped areas of the major Kirkuk oilfield, which is thought to have as much as 10 billion barrels in reserves despite being in production since 1934. After initially demanding better terms, the energy companies are agreeing to deals to upgrade existing fields in the hope that they will better positioned when more lucrative contracts, on the PSA model, over 67 untapped fields are auctioned later this year or next year. While it has taken far longer than anticipated, the major energy conglomerates now calculate that Iraq is now sufficiently stable to begin pouring in money to vastly expand the country?s oil production. The first step has been taken in opening up the Iraqi oil industry, which was nationalised in 1975, to foreign investors. Highlighting the neo-colonial nature of this operation, two former top American officials under the Bush administration are now facilitating corporate deals in Iraq. Jay Garner, the first head of the US occupation administration in Iraq following the invasion, is an advisor to the Canadian energy company Vast Exploration, which has a 37 percent stake in an oilfield in the Kurdish north. Zalmay Khalilzad, former ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the UN, has established his own corporate consultancy firm in the Kurdish city of Irbil. The US invasion and occupation of Iraq was always a war over energy resources. Over one million Iraqis have been slaughtered, millions more people maimed and traumatised, cities and infrastructure destroyed and tens of thousands of American soldiers killed or wounded to achieve American domination of Iraq?s vast oil reserves as part of its broader ambitions in the Middle East and Central Asia. The US failed to achieve its wider regional objectives after the first Gulf War in 1990-91. The Hussein regime remained in place and despite continued UN sanctions was signing contracts with companies such as French oil giant Total and Lukoil. From the late 1990s on, Russia and the European powers were pressing for the lifting of sanctions to allow these companies to reap the benefits. War became the only means of preventing US corporate interests from being cut out. American energy conglomerates were not passive bystanders. High-level representatives of Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, BP America and Shell took part in talks in early 2001 with the Bush administration?s ?Energy Task Force? headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. One document prepared for the discussions included a detailed map of Iraq?s oil fields, terminals and pipelines and a list of the non-US foreign companies that were preparing to move in. A May 2001 report by the task force bluntly stated the US aim: ?The Gulf will be the primary focus of US international energy policy.? The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were seized upon to provide a pretext for war. The lies over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were entwined with further lies about an Iraqi link to Al Qaeda. In the lead-up to the invasion, oil industry executives repeatedly met with Bush administration officials. As the Wall Street Journal commented on January 16, 2003: ?US oil companies are starting to prepare for the day when they may get a chance to work in one of the world?s most oil-rich countries.? Having drowned the Iraqi people in blood, the American financial and corporate oligarchy now believes that day has finally arrived. While US corporations are not the sole beneficiaries of the contracts, there is no question who has the final say over Iraq?s oil. With huge military bases in the country and a Baghdad regime tied to Washington, the US is positioned to dictate terms to its European and Asian rivals and, amid rising great powers tensions, to wield the threat of cutting off oil supplies?a longstanding tenet of American strategic policy. James Cogan The author also recommends: Oil and the coming war against Iraq http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/oil-f19.shtml [19 February 2003] From shniad at gmail.com Wed Nov 11 15:37:27 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:37:27 -0800 Subject: [R-G] At Fort Hood, Some Violence Is Too Familiar Message-ID: <83904d240911111437t59661138x7a20500e072bd3e1@mail.gmail.com> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10post.html?pagewanted=2&ref=us New York Times November 9, 2009 *At Fort Hood, Some Violence Is Too Familiar* By MICHAEL MOSS and RAY RIVERA FORT HOOD, Tex. - Staff Sgt. Gilberto Mota, 35, and his wife, Diana, 30, an Army specialist, had returned to Fort Hood from Iraq last year when he used his gun to kill her, and then took his own life, the authorities say. In July, two members of the First Cavalry Division, also just back from the war with decorations for their service, were at a party when one killed the other That same month, Staff Sgt. Justin Lee Garza, 28, under stress from two deployments, killed himself in a friend's apartment outside Fort Hood, four days after he was told no therapists were available for a counseling session. "What bothers me most is this happened while he was supposed to be on suicide watch," said his mother, Teri Smith. "To this day, I don't know where he got the gun." Fort Hood is still reeling from last week's carnage, in which an Army psychiatrist is accused of a massacre that left 13 people dead. But in the town of Killeen and other surrounding communities, the attack, one of the worst mass shootings on a military base in the United States, is also seen by many as another blow in an area that has been beset by crime and violence since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began. Reports of domestic abuse have grown by 75 percent since 2001. At the same time, violent crime in Killeen has risen 22 percent while declining 7 percent in towns of similar size in other parts of the country. The stresses are seen in other ways, too. Since 2003, there have been 76 suicides by personnel assigned to Fort Hood, with 10 this year, according to military officials. A crisis center on base is averaging 60 phone calls a week from soldiers and family members seeking various help for problems from suicide to anger management, with about the same volume of walk-ins and scheduled appointments. In recent days, Army officials have pledged to redouble their efforts to help soldiers cope with deployment. The base, which uses some of the most innovative approaches in the military, plans to expand a help center set up in September that provides a variety of assistance to soldiers, including breathing techniques for handling combat stress and goal-setting skills upon their return. "Fort Hood is very attuned to this," said Col. William S. Rabena, who runs the help center known as the Resiliency Center Campus. "It's the only thing to do." The Army has also sent an array of specialists to Fort Hood to help soldiers and their families, including chaplains, social workers, combat stress specialists, counselors and experts in crisis and disaster behavioral management. Army officials said more such assistance might be sent to the base. But interviews with soldiers who have deployed one or more times to Iraq or Afghanistan, and with family members of those who died violently back here in Texas, show that the Army's efforts are still falling short. Even some alarm bells rung by the Army leadership have gone unanswered. In July, two weeks after Sergeant Garza's death, Lt. Gen. Rick Lynch, then the base commander, told Congress he was in dire need of more mental health professionals. "That's the biggest frustration," he told a House subcommittee. "I'm short about 44 of what I am convinced I need at Fort Hood that I just don't have." Among the medical personnel brought to Fort Hood to help deal with the growing mental health issues was Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who arrived in July. Major Hasan is accused in the attacks last week, but little is known about what might have driven him. "Our soldiers are coming back and not getting the help they need," said Cynthia Thomas, an Army wife who runs a private assistance center for soldiers in Killeen called Under the Hood Caf?. "Whether it's self-medicating, anger or violence, these are the consequences of war, and you have to think about all the people affected by soldiers coming home, the parents, spouses, children, brothers, sisters, aunts and cousins." Pfc. Michael Kern, of Riverside, Calif., said he tried unsuccessfully to obtain help for stress last year in Baghdad, but was ridiculed by an officer in front of his tanker unit. "He said he would have to impose mandatory sleeping times," said Private Kern, 22, "and that health care was for people with serious problems." Back at Fort Hood, Private Kern said he had a breakdown that led to hospitalization and is now awaiting discharge at his request. If he had received therapy in Iraq, he said, "I might not be in this situation now." Military officials say the crime and violence associated with Fort Hood must be viewed with the base's size in mind. With 53,000 soldiers assigned to the base, it has become the largest facility in the country, and much of the surrounding area is tied to the military through family or business. Col. Edward McCabe, a Catholic chaplain at Fort Hood, said signs of fatigue and other strains are "rampant" on the base. "The numbers of divorces I've had to deal with are huge, the cases of physical abuse," Colonel McCabe said. "Every night in my apartment complex some soldier and his wife are screaming and shouting at each other." The Army influences nearly every aspect of life in Killeen, a cotton town until the base moved in during World War II. About 55 miles north of Austin, the town straddles U.S. 190 and is split by a long corridor of strip malls. Most of the 102,000 residents are soldiers, their families or Army retirees. Business here and in the surrounding smaller communities like Belton and Harker Heights ebbs and flows around the first and 15th of each month - military paydays - and around deployments. At The Killeen Daily Herald, which covers the base with a sympathetic ear to its military readers, employees see similar patterns play out with each troop rotation. One day, it is a homecoming, with hundreds of families waving flags and homemade signs along T. J. Mills Boulevard leading into the base's main gate. The next day, crime reports increase, especially cases of domestic violence. "Unfortunately, you see the trend every time there's a homecoming, when the divisions come home," said Olga Pena, the paper's managing editor. Nicolas Serna, the managing attorney of the local legal aid office, said requests for protective orders had steadily increased over the last several years. He questioned whether Fort Hood was doing nearly enough for soldiers or for victims of domestic violence. A few years ago, he said, the base refused the group's offer to provide legal assistance and to help with protection orders for families on Fort Hood. Some social workers in the area see it differently. The Army, while not perfect, has been trying to address the situation, said Suzanne Armour, the director of programs at the Families in Crisis shelter in Killeen. Michael Sibberson, the principal of Killeen High School, which has 1,880 students, a little over half with military parents, said in one sense the wars had helped the students relate to one another. On the other side, Mr. Sibberson said, the students are not getting the parental guidance they need because so many have parents deployed. That has led to poor grades, and more behavioral problems. "Kids are not getting the support at the dinner table they need because Mom or Dad is not there," he said, adding, "When you call the house you are likely to get Grandma, or a mom who says, 'I am so full I don't know what to do with him anymore.' " Henry Garza, the district attorney for Bell County, which includes Killeen, said increases in crime might reflect the town's rapid growth, though the federal crime data is adjusted for population changes. But the data may be understated because it does not count crimes prosecuted by the military authorities, who sometimes handle serious felonies and misdemeanors by active-duty soldiers even when they occur off base. Base officials declined to release crime data without a Freedom of Information Act request. Whether civilian or military official investigate deaths, the proceedings often leave families frustrated by the lack of clear answers. The list of medals awarded to Sergeant Garza (no relation to the district attorney) tell of a good soldier. After two tours in Iraq, he shared a tight bond with unit members and missed them greatly when the Army sent him to a base in Georgia for additional training after a second deployment. He was troubled by a breakup with a girlfriend. And though he seldom spoke with his family about his combat tours, he once confided to his mother that he had a killed a person in Iraq. "He said, 'It was him or me,' " Ms. Smith said. "But you could tell it troubled him." His family believes he did not get the care he needed, despite signs he had fallen into despair. In June, he left the Georgia base without permission, and the Army tracked him to a hotel room in Paris, Tex. In a suicide note he sent to a friend before leaving, he said he wanted to end it close to his friends. Among his purchases was a shotgun. Sergeant Garza was brought back to Fort Hood and committed for psychiatric care, first to a civilian hospital because there was no room at the base hospital, said his uncle, Gary Garza, who lives in Killeen. After three days, he was transferred to the base hospital. He was released after two weeks and assigned to take outpatient counseling. "We thought he was doing better," said his grandfather, Homer Garza, a retired command sergeant major who served in Korea and Vietnam and who himself had silently suffered for decades with post-traumatic stress. In fact, Sergeant Garza had shared misgivings about his treatment at the base hospital with his uncle. "He said he felt like he was getting really good treatment at the civilian hospital," his uncle said. "He said the civilian doctors seemed to care more. And for the military doctors, it was just like a job for them." True or not, on July 7 Sergeant Garza received a message on his cellphone canceling what was to be his first outpatient appointment. Though his family says the Army was supposed to be checking his apartment for guns and alcohol, that Sunday he put a pistol to his head and pulled the trigger. His mother later listened to the message. "They said, 'Sorry, we don't have a counselor for you today,' " Ms. Smith said. " 'If you don't hear back from us by Monday, give us a call.' " From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Wed Nov 11 17:15:36 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:15:36 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Countdown to the next crisis ... Message-ID: <20091112091536.c17c29be.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> ... is already under way by Wolfgang Munchau Financial Times FT.com (October 18 2009) We did not need to wait until the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit 10,000. It has been clear for some time that global equity markets are bubbling again. On the surface, this looks like 2003 and 2004 when the previous housing, credit, commodity and equity bubbles started to inflate, helped by low nominal interest rates and a lack of inflation. There is one big difference, though. This bubble will burst sooner. So how do we know this is a bubble? My two favourite metrics of stock market valuation are Cape, which stands for the Cyclically Adjusted Price/Earnings ratio, and Q. Cape was invented by Robert Shiller, professor of economics and finance at Yale University. It measures the ten-year moving average of the inflation-adjusted price to earnings ratio. Q is a metric of market capitalisation divided by net worth. Andrew Smithers {1} has collected the data on Q, a concept invented by the economist James Tobin. Cape and Q measure different things. Yet they both tend to agree on relative market mispricing most of the time. In mid-September both measures concluded that the US stock market was overvalued by some 35 to forty per cent. The markets have since gone up a lot more than the moving average of earnings. You can do the maths. The single reason for this renewed bubble is the extremely low level of nominal interest rates, which has induced people to move into all kinds of risky assets. Even house prices are rising again. They never fell to the levels consistent with long-term price-to-rent and price-to-income ratios, which are reliable metrics of the property markets' relative under- or over- valuation. But unlike five years ago, central banks now have the dual role of targeting monetary and financial stability. As has been pointed out time and again, those two objectives can easily come into conflict. In Europe, for example, the European Central Bank would under normal circumstances already have started to raise interest rates. The reason it sits tight is to prevent damage to Europe's chronically under-capitalised banking system, which still depends on the ECB for life support. The same is true, more or less, elsewhere. Now, I agree there is no prospect of a significant rise in inflation over the next twelve months, but the chances rise significantly after 2010. Once perceptions of rising inflation return, central banks might be forced to switch towards a much more aggressive monetary policy relatively quickly - much quicker than during the previous cycle. A short inflationary boom could be followed by another recession, another banking crisis, and perhaps deflation. We should not see inflation and deflation as opposite scenarios, but as sequential ones. We could be in for a period of extreme price instability, in both directions, as central banks lose control. This is exactly what the economist Hyman Minsky predicted in his financial instability hypothesis. {2} He postulated that a world with a large financial sector and an excessive emphasis on the production of investment goods creates instability both in terms of output and prices. While, according to Minsky, these are the deep causes of instability, the mechanism through which instability comes about is the way governments and central banks respond to crises. The state has potent means to end a recession, but the policies it uses give rise to the next phase of instability. Minsky made that observation on the basis of data mostly from the 1970s and early 1980s, but his theory describes very well what has been happening to the global economy ever since, especially in the past decade. The world has witnessed a proliferation of financial bubbles and extreme economic instability that cannot be explained by any of the established macroeconomic models. Minsky is about all we have. His policy conclusions are disturbing, especially if contrasted with what is actually happening. In their crisis response, world leaders have focused on bonuses and other irrelevant side-issues. But they have failed to address the financial sector's overall size. So if Minsky is right, instability should continue and get worse. Our present situation can give rise to two scenarios - or some combination of the two. The first is that central banks start exiting at some point in 2010, triggering another fall in the prices of risky assets. In the UK, for example, any return to a normal monetary policy will almost inevitably imply another fall in the housing market, which is currently propped up by ultra-cheap mortgages. Alternatively, central banks might prioritise financial stability over price stability and keep the monetary floodgates open for as long as possible. This, I believe, would cause the mother of all financial market crises - a bond market crash - to be followed by depression and deflation. In other words, there is danger no matter how the central banks react. Successful monetary policy could be like walking along a perilous ridge, on either side of which lies a precipice of instability. For all we know, there may not be a safe way down. Notes: {1} Wall Street Revalued: Imperfect Markets and Inept Central Bankers (Wiley 2009) {2} Stabilising an Unstable Economy (McGraw-Hill, 2008) munchau at eurointelligence.com More columns at www.ft.com/wolfgangmunchau Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. Print a single copy of this article for personal use. Contact us if you wish to print more to distribute to others. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. (c) Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2009. www.ft.com/wolfgangmunchau http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b82d2b96-bc02-11de-9426-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=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 menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 02:09:52 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:09:52 -0600 Subject: [R-G] How the US Funds the Taliban Message-ID: <> http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091130/roston The Nation November 11, 2009 How the US Funds the Taliban By Aram Roston On October 29, 2001, while the Taliban's rule over Afghanistan was under assault, the regime's ambassador in Islamabad gave a chaotic press conference in front of several dozen reporters sitting on the grass. On the Taliban diplomat's right sat his interpreter, Ahmad Rateb Popal, a man with an imposing presence. Like the ambassador, Popal wore a black turban, and he had a huge bushy beard. He had a black patch over his right eye socket, a prosthetic left arm and a deformed right hand, the result of injuries from an explosives mishap during an old operation against the Soviets in Kabul. But Popal was more than just a former mujahedeen. In 1988, a year before the Soviets fled Afghanistan, Popal had been charged in the United States with conspiring to import more than a kilo of heroin. Court records show he was released from prison in 1997. Flash forward to 2009, and Afghanistan is ruled by Popal's cousin President Hamid Karzai. Popal has cut his huge beard down to a neatly trimmed one and has become an immensely wealthy businessman, along with his brother Rashid Popal, who in a separate case pleaded guilty to a heroin charge in 1996 in Brooklyn. The Popal brothers control the huge Watan Group in Afghanistan, a consortium engaged in telecommunications, logistics and, most important, security. Watan Risk Management, the Popals' private military arm, is one of the few dozen private security companies in Afghanistan. One of Watan's enterprises, key to the war effort, is protecting convoys of Afghan trucks heading from Kabul to Kandahar, carrying American supplies. Welcome to the wartime contracting bazaar in Afghanistan. It is a virtual carnival of improbable characters and shady connections, with former CIA officials and ex-military officers joining hands with former Taliban and mujahedeen to collect US government funds in the name of the war effort. In this grotesque carnival, the US military's contractors are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes. It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting. And it is a deadly irony, because these funds add up to a huge amount of money for the Taliban. "It's a big part of their income," one of the top Afghan government security officials told The Nation in an interview. In fact, US military officials in Kabul estimate that a minimum of 10 percent of the Pentagon's logistics contracts--hundreds of millions of dollars-- consists of payments to insurgents. Understanding how this situation came to pass requires untangling two threads. The first is the insider dealing that determines who wins and who loses in Afghan business, and the second is the troubling mechanism by which "private security" ensures that the US supply convoys traveling these ancient trade routes aren't ambushed by insurgents. A good place to pick up the first thread is with a small firm awarded a US military logistics contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars: NCL Holdings. Like the Popals' Watan Risk, NCL is a licensed security company in Afghanistan. What NCL Holdings is most notorious for in Kabul contracting circles, though, is the identity of its chief principal, Hamed Wardak. He is the young American son of Afghanistan's current defense minister, Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak, who was a leader of the mujahedeen against the Soviets. Hamed Wardak has plunged into business as well as policy. He was raised and schooled in the United States, graduating as valedictorian from Georgetown University in 1997. He earned a Rhodes scholarship and interned at the neoconservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute. That internship was to play an important role in his life, for it was at AEI that he forged alliances with some of the premier figures in American conservative foreign policy circles, such as the late Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. Wardak incorporated NCL in the United States early in 2007, although the firm may have operated in Afghanistan before then. It made sense to set up shop in Washington, because of Wardak's connections there. On NCL's advisory board, for example, is Milton Bearden, a well-known former CIA officer. Bearden is an important voice on Afghanistan issues; in October he was a witness before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Senator John Kerry, the chair, introduced him as "a legendary former CIA case officer and a clearheaded thinker and writer." It is not every defense contracting company that has such an influential adviser. But the biggest deal that NCL got--the contract that brought it into Afghanistan's major leagues--was Host Nation Trucking. Earlier this year the firm, with no apparent trucking experience, was named one of the six companies that would handle the bulk of US trucking in Afghanistan, bringing supplies to the web of bases and remote outposts scattered across the country. At first the contract was large but not gargantuan. And then that suddenly changed, like an immense garden coming into bloom. Over the summer, citing the coming "surge" and a new doctrine, "Money as a Weapons System," the US military expanded the contract 600 percent for NCL and the five other companies. The contract documentation warns of dire consequences if more is not spent: "service members will not get food, water, equipment, and ammunition they require." Each of the military's six trucking contracts was bumped up to $360 million, or a total of nearly $2.2 billion. Put it in this perspective: this single two-year effort to hire Afghan trucks and truckers was worth 10 percent of the annual Afghan gross domestic product. NCL, the firm run by the defense minister's well-connected son, had struck pure contracting gold. Host Nation Trucking does indeed keep the US military efforts alive in Afghanistan. "We supply everything the army needs to survive here," one American trucking executive told me. "We bring them their toilet paper, their water, their fuel, their guns, their vehicles." The epicenter is Bagram Air Base, just an hour north of Kabul, from which virtually everything in Afghanistan is trucked to the outer reaches of what the Army calls "the Battlespace"--that is, the entire country. Parked near Entry Control Point 3, the trucks line up, shifting gears and sending up clouds of dust as they prepare for their various missions across the country. The real secret to trucking in Afghanistan is ensuring security on the perilous roads, controlled by warlords, tribal militias, insurgents and Taliban commanders. The American executive I talked to was fairly specific about it: "The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money." That is something everyone seems to agree on. Mike Hanna is the project manager for a trucking company called Afghan American Army Services. The company, which still operates in Afghanistan, had been trucking for the United States for years but lost out in the Host Nation Trucking contract that NCL won. Hanna explained the security realities quite simply: "You are paying the people in the local areas--some are warlords, some are politicians in the police force--to move your trucks through." Hanna explained that the prices charged are different, depending on the route: "We're basically being extorted. Where you don't pay, you're going to get attacked. We just have our field guys go down there, and they pay off who they need to." Sometimes, he says, the extortion fee is high, and sometimes it is low. "Moving ten trucks, it is probably $800 per truck to move through an area. It's based on the number of trucks and what you're carrying. If you have fuel trucks, they are going to charge you more. If you have dry trucks, they're not going to charge you as much. If you are carrying MRAPs or Humvees, they are going to charge you more." Hanna says it is just a necessary evil. "If you tell me not to pay these insurgents in this area, the chances of my trucks getting attacked increase exponentially." Whereas in Iraq the private security industry has been dominated by US and global firms like Blackwater, operating as de facto arms of the US government, in Afghanistan there are lots of local players as well. As a result, the industry in Kabul is far more dog-eat- dog. "Every warlord has his security company," is the way one executive explained it to me. In theory, private security companies in Kabul are heavily regulated, although the reality is different. Thirty-nine companies had licenses until September, when another dozen were granted licenses. Many licensed companies are politically connected: just as NCL is owned by the son of the defense minister and Watan Risk Management is run by President Karzai's cousins, the Asia Security Group is controlled by Hashmat Karzai, another relative of the president. The company has blocked off an entire street in the expensive Sherpur District. Another security firm is controlled by the parliamentary speaker's son, sources say. And so on. In the same way, the Afghan trucking industry, key to logistics operations, is often tied to important figures and tribal leaders. One major hauler in Afghanistan, Afghan International Trucking (AIT), paid $20,000 a month in kickbacks to a US Army contracting official, according to the official's plea agreement in US court in August. AIT is a very well-connected firm: it is run by the 25-year-old nephew of Gen. Baba Jan, a former Northern Alliance commander and later a Kabul police chief. In an interview, Baba Jan, a cheerful and charismatic leader, insisted he had nothing to do with his nephew's corporate enterprise. But the heart of the matter is that insurgents are getting paid for safe passage because there are few other ways to bring goods to the combat outposts and forward operating bases where soldiers need them. By definition, many outposts are situated in hostile terrain, in the southern parts of Afghanistan. The security firms don't really protect convoys of American military goods here, because they simply can't; they need the Taliban's cooperation. One of the big problems for the companies that ship American military supplies across the country is that they are banned from arming themselves with any weapon heavier than a rifle. That makes them ineffective for battling Taliban attacks on a convoy. "They are shooting the drivers from 3,000 feet away with PKMs," a trucking company executive in Kabul told me. "They are using RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] that will blow up an up-armed vehicle. So the security companies are tied up. Because of the rules, security companies can only carry AK-47s, and that's just a joke. I carry an AK--and that's just to shoot myself if I have to!" The rules are there for a good reason: to guard against devastating collateral damage by private security forces. Still, as Hanna of Afghan American Army Services points out, "An AK-47 versus a rocket- propelled grenade--you are going to lose!" That said, at least one of the Host Nation Trucking companies has tried to do battle instead of paying off insurgents and warlords. It is a US-owned firm called Four Horsemen International. Instead of providing payments, it has tried to fight off attackers. And it has paid the price in lives, with horrendous casualties. FHI, like many other firms, refused to talk publicly; but I've been told by insiders in the security industry that FHI's convoys are attacked on virtually every mission. For the most part, the security firms do as they must to survive. A veteran American manager in Afghanistan who has worked there as both a soldier and a private security contractor in the field told me, "What we are doing is paying warlords associated with the Taliban, because none of our security elements is able to deal with the threat." He's an Army veteran with years of Special Forces experience, and he's not happy about what's being done. He says that at a minimum American military forces should try to learn more about who is getting paid off. "Most escorting is done by the Taliban," an Afghan private security official told me. He's a Pashto and former mujahedeen commander who has his finger on the pulse of the military situation and the security industry. And he works with one of the trucking companies carrying US supplies. "Now the government is so weak," he added, "everyone is paying the Taliban." To Afghan trucking officials, this is barely even something to worry about. One woman I met was an extraordinary entrepreneur who had built up a trucking business in this male-dominated field. She told me the security company she had hired dealt directly with Taliban leaders in the south. Paying the Taliban leaders meant they would send along an escort to ensure that no other insurgents would attack. In fact, she said, they just needed two armed Taliban vehicles. "Two Taliban is enough," she told me. "One in the front and one in the back." She shrugged. "You cannot work otherwise. Otherwise it is not possible." Which leads us back to the case of Watan Risk, the firm run by Ahmad Rateb Popal and Rashid Popal, the Karzai family relatives and former drug dealers. Watan is known to control one key stretch of road that all the truckers use: the strategic route to Kandahar called Highway 1. Think of it as the road to the war--to the south and to the west. If the Army wants to get supplies down to Helmand, for example, the trucks must make their way through Kandahar. Watan Risk, according to seven different security and trucking company officials, is the sole provider of security along this route. The reason is simple: Watan is allied with the local warlord who controls the road. Watan's company website is quite impressive, and claims its personnel "are diligently screened to weed out all ex-militia members, supporters of the Taliban, or individuals with loyalty to warlords, drug barons, or any other group opposed to international support of the democratic process." Whatever screening methods it uses, Watan's secret weapon to protect American supplies heading through Kandahar is a man named Commander Ruhullah. Said to be a handsome man in his 40s, Ruhullah has an oddly high-pitched voice. He wears traditional salwar kameez and a Rolex watch. He rarely, if ever, associates with Westerners. He commands a large group of irregular fighters with no known government affiliation, and his name, security officials tell me, inspires obedience or fear in villages along the road. It is a dangerous business, of course: until last spring Ruhullah had competition--a one-legged warlord named Commander Abdul Khaliq. He was killed in an ambush. So Ruhullah is the surviving road warrior for that stretch of highway. According to witnesses, he works like this: he waits until there are hundreds of trucks ready to convoy south down the highway. Then he gets his men together, setting them up in 4x4s and pickups. Witnesses say he does not limit his arsenal to AK-47s but uses any weapons he can get. His chief weapon is his reputation. And for that, Watan is paid royally, collecting a fee for each truck that passes through his corridor. The American trucking official told me that Ruhullah "charges $1,500 per truck to go to Kandahar. Just 300 kilometers." It's hard to pinpoint what this is, exactly--security, extortion or a form of "insurance." Then there is the question, Does Ruhullah have ties to the Taliban? That's impossible to know. As an American private security veteran familiar with the route said, "He works both sides... whatever is most profitable. He's the main commander. He's got to be involved with the Taliban. How much, no one knows." Even NCL, the company owned by Hamed Wardak, pays. Two sources with direct knowledge tell me that NCL sends its portion of US logistics goods in Watan's and Ruhullah's convoys. Sources say NCL is billed $500,000 per month for Watan's services. To underline the point: NCL, operating on a $360 million contract from the US military, and owned by the Afghan defense minister's son, is paying millions per year from those funds to a company owned by President Karzai's cousins, for protection. Hamed Wardak wouldn't return my phone calls. Milt Bearden, the former CIA officer affiliated with the company, wouldn't speak with me either. There's nothing wrong with Bearden engaging in business in Afghanistan, but disclosure of his business interests might have been expected when testifying on US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. After all, NCL stands to make or lose hundreds of millions based on the whims of US policy-makers. It is certainly worth asking why NCL, a company with no known trucking experience, and little security experience to speak of, would win a contract worth $360 million. Plenty of Afghan insiders are asking questions. "Why would the US government give him a contract if he is the son of the minister of defense?" That's what Mahmoud Karzai asked me. He is the brother of President Karzai, and he himself has been treated in the press as a poster boy for access to government officials. The New York Times even profiled him in a highly critical piece. In his defense, Karzai emphasized that he, at least, has refrained from US government or Afghan government contracting. He pointed out, as others have, that Hamed Wardak had little security or trucking background before his company received security and trucking contracts from the Defense Department. "That's a questionable business practice," he said. "They shouldn't give it to him. How come that's not questioned?" I did get the opportunity to ask General Wardak, Hamed's father, about it. He is quite dapper, although he is no longer the debonair "Gucci commander" Bearden once described. I asked Wardak about his son and NCL. "I've tried to be straightforward and correct and fight corruption all my life," the defense minister said. "This has been something people have tried to use against me, so it has been painful." Wardak would speak only briefly about NCL. The issue seems to have produced a rift with his son. "I was against it from the beginning, and that's why we have not talked for a long time. I have never tried to support him or to use my power or influence that he should benefit." When I told Wardak that his son's company had a US contract worth as much as $360 million, he did a double take. "This is impossible," he said. "I do not believe this." I believed the general when he said he really didn't know what his son was up to. But cleaning up what look like insider deals may be easier than the next step: shutting down the money pipeline going from DoD contracts to potential insurgents. Two years ago, a top Afghan security official told me, Afghanistan's intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security, had alerted the American military to the problem. The NDS delivered what I'm told are "very detailed" reports to the Americans explaining how the Taliban are profiting from protecting convoys of US supplies. The Afghan intelligence service even offered a solution: what if the United States were to take the tens of millions paid to security contractors and instead set up a dedicated and professional convoy support unit to guard its logistics lines? The suggestion went nowhere. The bizarre fact is that the practice of buying the Taliban's protection is not a secret. I asked Col. David Haight, who commands the Third Brigade of the Tenth Mountain Division, about it. After all, part of Highway 1 runs through his area of operations. What did he think about security companies paying off insurgents? "The American soldier in me is repulsed by it," he said in an interview in his office at FOB Shank in Logar Province. "But I know that it is what it is: essentially paying the enemy, saying, 'Hey, don't hassle me.' I don't like it, but it is what it is." As a military official in Kabul explained contracting in Afghanistan overall, "We understand that across the board 10 percent to 20 percent goes to the insurgents. My intel guy would say it is closer to 10 percent. Generally it is happening in logistics." In a statement to The Nation about Host Nation Trucking, Col. Wayne Shanks, the chief public affairs officer for the international forces in Afghanistan, said that military officials are "aware of allegations that procurement funds may find their way into the hands of insurgent groups, but we do not directly support or condone this activity, if it is occurring." He added that, despite oversight, "the relationships between contractors and their subcontractors, as well as between subcontractors and others in their operational communities, are not entirely transparent." In any case, the main issue is not that the US military is turning a blind eye to the problem. Many officials acknowledge what is going on while also expressing a deep disquiet about the situation. The trouble is that--as with so much in Afghanistan--the United States doesn't seem to know how to fix it. About Aram Roston Aram Roston is an investigative journalist and the author of The Man Who Pushed America to War: The Extraordinary Life, Adventures, and Obsessions of Ahmad Chalabi (Nation Books). more... From shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp Thu Nov 12 02:38:32 2009 From: shimogamo at ashisuto.co.jp (Bill Totten) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:38:32 +0900 Subject: [R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] Anthropoclastic Climate Change Message-ID: <20091112183832.9ecfa6a3.shimogamo@ashisuto.co.jp> by Dmitry Orlov ClubOrlov (November 01 2009) When I published the previous article about the ever-more-dire forecasts of ocean level rise, little did I know that I was blundering into the midst of a "climate change debate". But then many readers reacted to this article by making comments to the effect that "climate change is a hoax" or that I am "just like Al Gore". Since that article reviews and attempts to interpret of some of the most authoritative, conservative and consensus-based scientific reports available, it should not have given rise to any controversy at all. A potentially controversial part of the article relates to its highlighting the fact that consensus estimates exclude certain categories of risk, which may be quite severe but are at present poorly understood. Given this high level of uncertainty, the scientists are being cautious in incorporating them in their estimates. This is understandable: a physician would no doubt think twice before telling a patient that she has anywhere between three months and thirty years left. On the other hand, if your doctor tells you that you are about to die ... sometime, then you would be within your rights to seek a second opinion. But few people raised objections based on that. I feel that discussion of climate change need not become mired in controversy. The controversy results from the fact that an attempt is being made to package and sell climate change as part of a political process: "Catastrophic climate change will result unless we curtail harmful industrial activity". This is the idea behind various international initiatives to limit greenhouse gas emissions, such as Kyoto and now Copenhagen. Scientific data goes in one end, enlightened policy comes out the other, and Nobel prises are handed out. The public at large is polarised into those who clap and cheer and say "The sooner the better!" and those who shake their heads or hurl invectives. There are also a few thoughtful individuals who variously think that international climate change legislation is the work of the Illuminati who are creating a world government, that the topic of climate change can best be tackled by studying sunspot activity while leaving the rest up to the miraculous workings of the free market, and that carbon dioxide does not cause a greenhouse effect but is simply the stuff makes champagne so delightfully bubbly (the latter proposition does require more research; please send along samples for me to test). Consider, however, the following allegory. Imagine that I am walking along a mountain ridge, while in a swank chalet in the valley below some scientists, politicians and progressive industrialists are meeting, discussing climate change mitigation while drinking Gl?wein and sampling amusing local cheeses and sausages. And then I, inadvertently (for I would never do such a thing on purpose!) dislodge a boulder. The boulder goes hurtling off the ridge and down the boulder-strewn slope, dislodging other boulders, and soon there is an avalanche of boulders, all following unpredictable paths as boulders are wont to do, but some clearly aiming for the chalet full of scientists and politicians. Alarmed by the approaching tumult, the scientists whip out their binoculars and their laptop computers, do a bit of plotting, and declare with great confidence: "This avalanche is being caused by Dmitry Orlov dislodging boulders from the ridge above and it is very likely that this chalet will be destroyed as a result!" And then the politicians decide to act on this authoritative, rigorously researched, consensus-based report, and propose an immediate forced evacuation of the chalet. They also sign an international treaty making it illegal for Dmitry Orlov to dislodge any more boulders from the ridge above said chalet. I, of course, do desist from dislodging any more boulders (wasn't going to anyway). The avalanche somehow magically misses the chalet, leaving it completely intact, and tumbling harmlessly into a ravine. The scientists and the politicians all die in any case, because, you see, the Gl?wein they were drinking was contaminated with something lethal. Later on, the swank chalet is destroyed by an asteroid. Confused? Sometimes a good way to clarify a point of confusion is to introduce a new term. Allow me to add a word to your vocabulary: "anthropoclastic", consisting of "anthropo-" (from Greek anthropos, man) and "-clastic (from Greek klastos, broken into pieces). It's a very proper-sounding yet virtually unused term. "Anthropoclastic climate change" is reminiscent of "anthropogenic climate change", which is a theory that climate change is being triggered by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), agriculture (through deforestation, bovine flatus and so on), cement manufacturing, leaking or flaring gas into the atmosphere, chemical manufacturing ... the list is very long. Anthropogenic climate change is the theory that these human activities are highly disruptive of the climate. Anthropoclastic climate change is the theory that a highly disrupted climate, which is what we already have, is highly disruptive of human activities, and, in consequence, highly destructive of human life. The anthropogenic theory is a case of man pointing the accusatory finger at man, while the anthropoclastic theory is a case of man pointing the accusatory finger at nature. I will leave it up to you to decide which of the two gestures is the the most futile, but, futile gestures aside, I believe that there are steps to be taken to let us survive climate change, and that these steps should be given due consideration before too long. I hope that focusing specifically on the anthropoclastic dimensions of climate change will eliminate most of the fruitless debate or political nonsense that clouds so many minds, because climate change per se is something we can all observe first-hand. Some of the particularly compelling bits of evidence require a trip to an exotic locale, such as the arctic tundra, the glaciers in Greenland, the Antarctic ice shelves or the ocean above the Arctic Circle, and since not all of us can make such a trip, or have the prior experience and knowledge to interpret what we would see there, we have to trust the observations of others. Take, for instance, what David Barber, Canada?s Research Chair in Arctic System Science at the University of Manitoba, said to the Canadian Parliament on the disappearance of the arctic ice pack that had persisted for tens of thousands of years: "We are almost out of multi-year ice in the northern hemisphere ... I?ve never seen anything like this in my thirty years of working in the high Arctic ... From a practical perspective, we almost have a seasonally ice-free Arctic now". Those who are loathe to trust the testimony of experts and prefer to only trust their own eyes can see for themselves. To be able to make your own observations, it would help for you to be one of the old people who have lived in one place their entire life, deriving some part of their sustenance and inspiration from the natural world that surrounds them, and are thus forced to pay attention to it. Short of that, some of your evidence would have to be second-hand: you could find a few people like that, and ask them if they've seen any big changes as far as the weather and such, trees and animals and so forth. If it looks to them as if you are really willing to listen, you will walk away with an earful, believe me! All around the world, but especially far north, we have, at the very least, entered a long period freak weather. In case it helps, I will share with you some of my own observations. I grew up on the Gulf of Finland in Russia, which is occupied Finnish territory. Before the Revolution the Finns were part of the Russian Empire, and sometime after they became independent they allied with Nazi Germany and started arming themselves against Russia. Then Nazi Germany invaded Poland, and shortly thereafter the Soviet Union invaded Finland and reconquered Karelia (Kariela), Finland's easternmost province. I grew up in Kuokkala; the neighbouring town was Kilomaki, but once the Russians switched the signs at the railroad stations, few people besides my grandparents seemed to remember what they were. In spite of the expulsion of the Finns, growing up in Karelia exposed me to Finnish cross-country ski culture at an early age. The per capita count of skis per household was quite ridiculously high. Attics were packed full of old wooden skis, and an entire branch of science was devoted to ways of waxing them. After I conquered all of the local hills, and the maze of cross-country trails that fanned out throughout the neighbouring forests (sometimes I was towed by a large and disobedient family dog) I ventured out onto the Gulf, all the way out to the shipping lane kept clear by icebreakers, and back to terra firma. One winter a huge storm blew up and toppled many layers of thick ice floes onto the beach. It didn't completely melt until mid-summer, and we had to climb over the ice barefoot to go wading across clean yellow sand to swim in fresh, cold, crystal-clear pale blue water. A few years after that my family moved away, and twenty years later, when I came back to visit my childhood haunts, the formerly pristine waterline wore a thick coat of rotting algae, the water was tepid and murky, and wading in it wasn't advised due to the risk of catching hepatitis, Giardia and an assortment of intestinal parasites. The Gulf of Finland still freezes, and in 2003 it froze solid, to a depth of eighty centimetres (2.6 feet) but for many other bodies of water the ice has become unreliable. One of my Finnish friends grew up in Vermont (a small mountainous province that borders Canada) where he used to drive a laden van across the ice of Lake Champlain, navigating by shore lights. He tells me that by mid-winter the ice used to be thick, smooth, solid, and blown free of snow. If you try making that passage today, you are more than likely to drown. The following chart tells the story in numbers: it shows the number of years per decade that the lake froze over by a given month: http://www.lakechamplaincommittee.org/lcc-at-work/global-warming-lake-champlain/ If strangely warm winters have become the norm, what about the summers? Last summer, while living on a sailboat in the middle Salem Harbour, Massachusetts, I decided to scrub my (boat's) bottom. And so I donned a snorkel, fins and the obligatory Speedos, grabbed a brush and jumped overboard. I emerged almost an hour later, not the least bit chilled, but encrusted with tiny shrimp which took quite some time to pick off. New England coastal waters are not supposed to be this tepid. Nor was I the only one who noticed the change. Salem News had this to say about it: "In July, ocean surface temperatures reached the highest ever recorded during that month, according to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. NOAA began keeping records in 1880 ... The average global water temperature in July is around 63 degrees [Fahrenheit, 17.2 degrees Celsius], according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Centre in Asheville [North Carolina]. On Tuesday, the ocean temperature at the buoy closest to Beverly and Salem was nearly 73 degrees [Fahrenheit, 22.2 degrees Celsius] according to the NOAA Web site." Thus, you don't have to think that humans caused climate change, or that humans can stop climate change before it is too late, but my feeling is that either you will agree that strange and dramatic climatic changes are afoot, or you just haven't done your homework. On this issue, I just don't see that there is any room for legitimate debate. The evidence is in. It is also not controversial that the unusual climactic conditions are affecting the ability of farmers to grow food. I don't have to look too far to find examples: in New England, where I live, farmers are receiving federal disaster aid, because they lost over half of their crop. According to the Massachusetts congressional delegation, which petitioned for federal relief, "rain was 148 percent above normal in June, which was also the sixth coolest June on record in both Boston and Worcester, and likely the second cloudiest June on record since 1885. In July, rainfall was 200 percent above normal, with corresponding lower temperatures." "Corn growers in Norfolk County saw 83 percent of the value of their crop destroyed. In Essex County, strawberry growers could not bring more than 35 percent of their crop to market" reported the Boston Globe. New England is by no means a unique case; everywhere you look, agriculture is under assault from the shifting climate. The barrage of strange weather makes it increasingly difficult for farmers to decide what to plant and when and where to plant it. According to the paleoclimatologist J P Steffensen, the stable climate that has prevailed during the previous 10,000 years is what made agriculture possible: You can ask, Why didn't human beings make civilisation fifty thousand years ago? You know that they had just as big brains as we have today. When you put it in a climatic framework, you can say, "Well, it was the ice age. And also this ice age was so climatically unstable that each time you had the beginning of a culture they had to move. Then comes the present interglacial - ten thousand years of very stable climate. The perfect conditions for agriculture. If you look at it, it's amazing. Civilisations in Persia, in China, and in India start at the same time, maybe six thousand years ago. They all developed writing and they all developed religion and they all built cities, all at the same time, because the climate was stable. I think that if the climate would have been stable fifty thousand years ago it would have started then. But they had no chance. Steffensen is a neo-catastrophist - a climatologist who believes in abrupt, catastrophic climate shifts. So is just about every other climatologist. They base their belief not on some exotic theory or complex computer model; in fact, they are often at a loss to explain the underlying mechanisms. Instead, they simply cannot disregard the overwhelming empirical evidence they have collected. Still, even after listening to a neo-catastrophist tell it like it is, I find no reason to think that agriculture will fail everywhere at once, and result in instant mass starvation. It seems more likely that, as agriculture becomes less and less reliable, malnutrition will become chronic in many places, resulting in high death rates, low birth rates and high childhood mortality, and an overall dwindling of the population over several generations. Anthropoclastic climate change does not have to be a catastrophe, but it can be made catastrophic by clinging on to a failing agricultural model of food production. If we insist that farmers produce monoculture cash crops on the industrial model, we shall surely all starve. But if instead people make a concerted effort to reclaim the entire landscape, both rural and urban, for informal food production, growing edible plant species on former golf courses, parking lots, cemeteries, town greens, suburban back yards, urban rooftops and balconies, and front lawns of stately homes, then it seems quite likely that, no matter which way the climate lurches in a given year, something somewhere will be bearing fruit, enough to make it to the next season. Wild foods can make a difference as well. Last summer, the forests of New England were full of berries that went unpicked. We did not pick any berries this year, but we did get a chance to pick some wild mushrooms, which had a fine year. As I write this, garlands of wild mushrooms are drying in our hallway. Man doth not live by mushrooms alone, but it's a start. And start we should, the sooner the better, but certainly before the shelves in the shops are bare, and so are the ones in your pantry. Mitigating anthropoclastic climate change will not be up to the politicians or the scientists or the industrialists, it will be up to me and to you. http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/11/anthropoclastic-climate-change.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 menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 05:26:39 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:26:39 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Take action to support Tea and Nestle Workers' Campaigns Message-ID: Ethical? Tetley's Tata Tea Starving Indian Tea Workers into Submission Tata, the transnational Indian conglomerate which makes the world famous Tetley teas, has taken 6,500 people hostage through hunger. The hostages are nearly 1,000 tea plantation workers and their families on the Nowera Nuddy Tea Estate in West Bengal, India. Permanently living on the edge of hunger, the workers and their dependants are being pushed to the edge of starvation through an extended lock out which has deprived them of wages for all but two days since the beginning of August. The goal of this collective punishment is to starve the workers into renouncing their elementary human rights, including the right to protest extreme abuse and exploitation. Act now - tell Tata and Tetley Tea to stop starving workers now! http://www.iuf.org/den6316 ====================== Stop Nespressure! Support the Nestle workers' campaign in Indonesia: www.nespressure.org Ron Oswald General Secretary, IUF International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) 8, rampe du Pont-Rouge 1213 Petit Lancy, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 793 22 33 Fax: +41 22 793 22 38 web-site: www.iuf.org From suzannedk at gmail.com Thu Nov 12 06:52:00 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:52:00 +0100 Subject: [R-G] Fwd: The Zionist Movement, misspelled thoughts on the collaberation between the C.I.A. and Dutch Inteligence, "Flie-Sharing" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Suzanne de Kuyper Date: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:43 PM Subject: Fwd: The Zionist Movement, misspelled thoughts on the collaberation between the C.I.A. and Dutch Inteligence,"Flie-Sharing" To: The A-List Thoughts written to E.U. lawyer friend whose specialty, being governmentally shut down, is immigration. Only one of 7 such in all the country now. The Netherlands has agreed with the warrior U.S. to demonize the Goldstone Report. The E.U. is based on International Human Rights Law, just as Islam in it's greatest times, was Sharia Law, 600 years ago the world's most advanced and nuanced law. Habeous Corpus briefly reappeared by Supreme Court fiat in the U.S. but it is obviously a whim like court of law, liable to change back at any time or incident. Habeous is from the Wittenburg Court in a German fiefdom 1400 something or other, or maybe from the Magna Carta or prereformation England maybe. The heavy thinking in the U.S. is Corporate Law led by, quess who, with it's Best Buddy, would be preferable, better than all others combined, past Hammurrabi probably. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Suzanne de Kuyper Date: Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:30 PM Subject: The Zionist Movement To: suzannedk at gmail.com Some information just put together which make what changes I have seen and see each Sunday understandable. Evidently, there are more Jewish people living in the Netherlands than any other country in Europe. That is a quote, do not know if it is true. The Zionist Israeli Foreign Minister Liebrman arrived for talks to the faithful in Amsterdam Wednesday, November 11, staying at The Golden Tulip Hotel where some dissident Jewish people will picket his visit. A Rabbi from Israel has just published a book in Israel in which he quotes the Torah as saying that Gentiles and children who threaten Israel may be 'legallly' by religious law, be killed. Then there is the Fourth Generation order to wipe out families of perpetrators of Israeli genocides. Having read the Palestinian newsletter for years now I would expect after the Goldstone Report that some 'frmal' religious justification for the shooting of infants and pregnant women in Gaza would be published to try and cover the guilt internally and externally. This information fleshes out the fabirc behind the hate I have felt has entered the lovely, warmly friendly church. I quess it is part and parcel of occupation. Holland joined with the U.S. stating the the Report is biased and will vetoe it not be considered, with the U.S.vetoe....but it is not going away. We have the International Court and we have a smaller country than we are who will do anything they can do to destroy our ability to use Human Rights Laws, which the present U.S. government intends to destroy as well. In technicolor or soto voce. Zionist desperation is fully usefull to U.S. international needs and plans. Zionism being it's foreign policy. So to speak. Devil's Advocate perhaps, but Queen's Day putsch, spontaneous fire in your flat, constant entrance into mine too, removal of things, alteration of substnaces and just things in order to terrify ...much efforts of various persuasions all to enrage and/or intimidate to the point of 'silence'? acquiescence? In short, International Law is in process of attempting to be changed completely by doing, forcing aqcuiesence.....? I think it is more than that, much more. I almost urged you to put in a hidden camera in your flat and office to atempt to forstall raiding them for information. Months ago. What ever Israel wants to do, the U.S. Military is 100% behind them ... I see that in the faces of the Jewish churchgoers to the tiny church. It represents a heart of Holland. And they are very sure that that heart is in their control. Though the pastor last Sunday, the entrepenuer, tried to sound dissaproving of unpeaceful acts. With energy around like that, the potential graceful peace of the Christ seems easily shredded to meaninglessness. From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 07:29:34 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:29:34 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Welfare and the Poorest of the Poor (Dissent Magazine) Message-ID: http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1969 Dissent Fall 2009 Welfare and the Poorest of the Poor By Peter Edelman Next year, welfare as we now know it is slated to come before Congress for reauthorization. By "welfare" I mean federally financed cash assistance to low-income mothers (and occasionally fathers) with children. Welfare as we used to know it was the program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children, in effect from 1935 to 1996. It was hardly generous (as well as being otherwise flawed), but it nonetheless succumbed in 1996 to three decades of conservative attack. The allegation was that it had created undue numbers of long-term recipients; it had fostered welfare dependency. The program was replaced by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which made it much harder to obtain assistance and imposed stringent time limits. A Brief History As a federal policy, welfare has gone through four stages, with some basic features remaining constant throughout. The level of benefits has always been left to the states, and in some states is barely more than 10 percent of poverty line income. Even in the most generous states, welfare (including food stamps, which became a significant factor in the 1970s) has never gotten people out of poverty. Everywhere, the adults in the program have been mainly women of working age and, disproportionately, women of color. These features of "welfare" have evoked a political and popular enmity that seems rooted in misogyny and racism-even though the official conservative critique (joined by some liberals) focuses on the importance of work and self- sufficiency. During stage one, which lasted until the 1960s, the states had almost unfettered discretion to help people they found deserving and turn away those they thought undeserving. Especially in the South, racial discrimination was rampant, and in many states welfare workers based their decisions on facts they dug up about women's sexual relationships. Stage two saw the welfare rolls rise sharply and become blacker and browner. An active welfare rights movement interacted with a new cadre of federally financed legal services lawyers and newly receptive federal courts to force welfare officials in many (but not all) states to grant benefits (however minimal) to large numbers of people who had previously been turned away or discouraged from applying. In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court decided (in the first case it had ever taken on the subject) that the 1935 New Deal statute created a legal right to help-an "entitlement," the word that became an epithet in the debates of the 1990s. The benefit level was still up to the states, but they could not turn away anyone whom the federal statute defined as eligible for assistance. Not surprisingly, stage three was not long in coming. Beginning in the late 1960s, conservatives began a war against welfare that went on until the 1996 law was enacted. The underlying politics was largely racial, capped and epitomized by Ronald Reagan's apocryphal "welfare queen." Helping to sustain the attack was the fact that over this period it remained relatively easy to obtain welfare because of the judicial decisions of the 1960s and the changed attitude of many welfare administrators. Nor was there ever a serious effort to help recipients obtain education and training, and to find and keep jobs, which would have kept the number of people on welfare in check. The consequent size of the rolls gave ammunition to the conservatives. All this led to stage four, which began with Governor Bill Clinton running for president on a platform of ending "welfare as we know it." Whatever his intention, the phrase opened the door to a radically conservative approach from the newly muscular and emboldened Republican-controlled Congress. Running for re-election in 1996, but also believing in the merits of TANF, Clinton signed the welfare reform bill into law. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) The meta-message of the TANF legislation was that states had to pare their welfare rolls. The primary tool given them was the repeal of the legal entitlement to benefits and the transformation of the legal framework into a block grant. A block grant is flexible and can be used for good or ill. States had no obligation to help anyone and could, for example, impose time limits far shorter than the new five-year ceiling on a family's eligibility for federally financed assistance. Many did that. But states also had the flexibility to reframe their programs in positive ways, with individualized pathways to work and continuing help for people who had a good reason-providing care for an elderly relative, say-to stay out of the job market. Some accepted the invitation to move in a positive direction. Nonetheless, the main message was to downsize the rolls, and downsize they did. The palpable result thirteen years later is the virtual disappearance in many states of cash assistance for low-income mothers with children, with caseloads going down by well over 90 percent. Overall, the rolls shrank from 14.3 million mothers (and a few fathers) and children in 1994 to under four million in 2007. In 1995, nine million of the 14.5 million children then poor were in families that received welfare. By 2006, only four million of the 12.8 million poor children were in families getting TANF. That the gap bespeaks a failure to respond to legitimate need seems obvious. These are the techniques of radical reduction: shut the front door almost completely; staff the back door with the equivalent of a tough nightclub bouncer; and, in between, hassle applicants to the point where they just give up and go away. At the front door many states just say no, evoking memories of the pre-1960s period, when unbridled discretion ruled. Some cloak the turndown with the euphemism of "diversion," which means, "You look able- bodied. Go out and look for a job." At the back door there is sanctioning-kicking people off the rolls because they were late to a work assignment (no excuses for sick children, late buses, or car breakdowns) or didn't show up for an appointment at the welfare office (no excuses for failure to receive notice of an appointment or inability to understand English). In some states multiple infractions of this sort can result, legally, in lifetime disqualification. In between there are requirements to bring an entire dossier of documents in order to navigate the application maze, intrusive questions about the applicant's private life, assignments to demeaning work programs that sometimes ask people to work without necessary protective equipment, regular and irregular summonses to come in for redetermination of eligibility, and much more. Many needy people refuse to undergo the indignities associated with asking for help. Since the current recession began, it has become even more obvious that TANF is not responsive to the real level of need. The number of people receiving food stamps, to which there is a statutory right, now exceeds thirty-three million, while the number receiving TANF has remained stuck at around four million. The numbers have increased somewhat in some states in recent months, but even a 25 percent average increase nationwide would bring the total caseload up to something like five million. And there are states where an eligibility administrator will routinely approve an application for food stamps and just as routinely turn away the same person's application for TANF. A sideshow barker might say, "Step right up, step right up. Only a nickel to see the incredible shrinking TANF program." Focusing on the Poorest of the Poor We cannot look at welfare in isolation. We need to ask why there is such a huge gap between top and bottom in this wealthy country and why there are so many people at the bottom. We need to ask why so many people with steady work don't make enough money to pay for basic living costs-which are in fact much higher than the unrealistic measure we call the poverty line. But we especially need to look at people at the very bottom and to understand that a disproportionate number of these are children who, whatever the sins or failings of their parents, deserve a decent chance to succeed. And even more fundamentally, we need to ask why there is so much hostility toward a group of people who, if we provided a modicum of assistance, at a cost that is not astronomical, could at least avoid the very worst of conditions. SOME NUMBERS: ninety million, thirty-seven million, fifteen million. Ninety million is the number of people-30 percent of the population-who have incomes below twice the poverty line, or below about $35,000 for a family of three. These people are not "poor," but much research shows that this is the minimum income they need to pay their bills and go to a doctor if they have to without worrying about what other necessities they will have to forgo. (And this is true even if they have insurance, what with deductibles and coinsurance.) These ninety million present critically important policy issues that are not being addressed fully. Thirty-seven million is the number of people who were poor in 2007 (the last year for which we have data) by the flawed definition we use to measure poverty in America-around $17,000 for a family of three and $21,000-plus for a family of four. Try to live on those incomes anywhere in this country-unless your home is abnormally inexpensive and you can grow your own food. No doubt the thirty-seven million figure increased substantially in 2008 (the numbers for the previous year are released around Labor Day) and will go up even more in 2009. Predictions are that the number of people living in poverty in 2009 will be forty-five to fifty million. That should be very troubling. Even so, fifteen million is the number I want to emphasize here. That is the number of people who live in "extreme poverty," who have incomes below half the poverty line or below about $8,500 for a family of three. This group represents about 5 percent of the population, a shockingly high proportion in my estimation, and it rose by about three million during the current decade. That so many people have such low incomes is testimony to our evident belief that there should be no basic income floor in American society. I stress those in extreme poverty as a critical facet of our policy discussion because of the large number of former welfare recipients, women with their children, who have ended up with neither welfare nor a job, and also have not obtained disability benefits, gotten married or moved in with a partner, or been helped by an extended family. These women and children may comprise as many as two million people and are clearly a major ingredient in the increase in extreme poverty during the current decade. I call them "out out out"-out of welfare, out of work, and out of any other major source of legal support. My purpose in the remainder of this essay is to discuss some of the components of a better welfare policy, with special emphasis on the "out out out" group, and to examine as well the question of an income floor for the most destitute of our people. TANF in 2010 No one should suppose that the advent of President Barack Obama and large (but hardly overwhelming) Democratic majorities in Congress will result in completely revamping the block grant TANF framework. Welfare has never been popular. TANF took the public's hostility toward welfare off the front burner (at a considerable cost), but it is only dormant. Even in today's changed political world, bold ideas for cash assistance to the lowest income people in our nation would be met with ideological resistance. There is no doubt that President Obama is strongly committed to taking action to reduce poverty. The Recovery Act passed earlier this year contains an amazing array of direct and indirect help for low-income people, probably the largest set of antipoverty measures ever enacted in Washington in a single piece of legislation. It is truly spectacular, but it is also true that much of the aid is legislated only for the next two years and will require further action to be made permanent. What we should have and what we can reasonably hope to get in the world of welfare are two different things. My ideal framework would feature a minimum benefit (which could vary regionally based on the cost of living) and a clear connection between income support and work (based mainly on incentives rather than penalties). It should also be possible for a relatively small number of people, who are not legally disabled but have good reasons not to be in the job market, to receive cash assistance without an expectation that they will work outside the home. My framework would include good child care, continuing health coverage, relevant education and training, and strong support services to help new workers succeed in the workplace. THERE ARE FOUR SETS of families to be served by a thoughtful cash assistance policy: (1) those with heads (single mothers, typically) who need temporary help in getting back on their feet due to a family breakup or who, during a recession, have exhausted unemployment insurance and may be out of work for an indefinite period; (2) those in which parents have low-income jobs, whether part-time or seasonal, and need an income supplement beyond the little or nothing they receive from the Earned Income Tax Credit; (3) those where an adult member can work outside the home but needs help while she gets appropriate education or training; and (4) those where the parents are not in a position to work because they live too far from available jobs, are caring for chronically ill children or elderly relatives, or have personal problems that make them functionally but not legally disabled and not good candidates for work. The first group is for the most part noncontroversial, although there are states where even people who are clearly in what is only a temporary bad patch are turned away. The second group should, again, not be a subject of great controversy, but many who apply for help are not helped. Worse, people who have gotten a modest welfare check to supplement low-wage work may discover later on that the check, small as it was, counted against their time limit. With regard to the third group, TANF policy has actually gotten worse. One lesson of the 1996 law is that there are people with multiple barriers to succeeding in the workplace who can nonetheless succeed if they get more individualized attention. The 2006 reauthorization of the law went in the other direction, mandating more stringent work requirements that make no allowance for the extra assistance some women need in order to get and hold a job. The fourth group is obviously the most controversial, since the whole design of the TANF law is unfriendly to the idea that there are people who should be permitted to continue indefinitely to receive cash assistance. But this idea, while it would not apply to a huge number of people, is critically important if we are going to create basic protection for the poorest of the poor. How much change in TANF can we expect? Of course TANF is not the only relevant policy. There are other programs that have a positive effect on extreme poverty. Food stamps, various refundable tax credits, help with child care, health coverage, and housing vouchers are just a few. Expanding each of these is not only intrinsically valuable but also has an in-kind effect in adding to income. All operate synergistically with welfare policy. But our focus here is on TANF itself. The broad challenge is to transform it into an antipoverty program that dovetails with the rest of a living-income strategy-one whose emphasis is on helping people find and keep jobs and that is also committed to a decent safety net for those who need it. Funding Federal funding for TANF has been flat since 1996, so by now the $16.5 billion annual appropriation has lost more than a sixth of its purchasing power. Nor has federal child care spending, already far from meeting the needs of those eligible, kept pace. Increased funding will not by itself help the lowest- income people among the poor, but it will create a better environment for advocacy and action at the state and local level. Performance Measures and Waivers It is difficult for federal law and policy to change the attitudes of individual workers in welfare offices and the culture of state and local welfare agencies, but there may be innovative and practicable ways for the federal government to incentivize state initiatives that would make a difference. One step would be to legislate performance measures instead of the current system of work participation requirements for those now on the rolls. We should ask not only about the size of the caseload but also about how many people have achieved stable and sustainable employment and how many have escaped poverty. And we might offer waivers of existing work participation and other requirements to states that produce plans that promise to do better with these last two goals. Reweaving the Safety Net Much can be done through a change in the messages going to the states from Washington. There is a provision that allows states to exempt 20 percent of their caseload from the five-year federal time limit, but many states do not use it even though it would cost them nothing to do so. The states that have time limits of less than five years are also leaving federal money on the table. Another provision allows states to keep child-only cases (in which the mother's needs are not factored into the benefit) on the rolls indefinitely, but many states do not use it even though it is financed fully by the federal government. All these policies would reduce the number of people who end up in extreme poverty because they have no cash assistance and also no job. Utilizing these options would require the states to make choices about how they use their federal allotment, which is an important reason why increased federal funding and increased allotments are needed. Ample research exists about the number of people who have been driven into extreme poverty by the triple whammy of losing welfare, being unable to find work, and having no other source of support. Federal leadership would influence some positive steps by the states. There are also important legislative steps that would improve TANF, especially as it relates to the lowest- income families: Regulate state behavior so as to tell outlier states that certain policies are unacceptable. We should outlaw lifetime full-family sanctions and require states to make a face-to-face inquiry into a person's individual circumstances before imposing a sanction. The purpose of a sanctioning policy, if we are going to have one, should be to help people come into compliance, not simply to reduce the rolls. Outlaw lifetime time limits shorter than five years. Require that the time clock on benefits not run during periods when people with a job receive a TANF benefit. Encouraging the states to use TANF as a wage supplement would help very low-income people cobble together (with food stamps and other bits and pieces) a somewhat more livable income. Mandate that the time clock not run and that work requirements not be imposed with regard to women caring for chronically ill children or aged and infirm relatives-and also for women in high school or college or in some other approved postsecondary or other job training program. Make legal immigrants eligible for TANF and other means-tested federal programs upon their arrival in the country, instead of requiring them to wait five years (and even then leaving the decision to the states). Mandate that states collecting child support on behalf of a TANF recipient give the entire payment to the children for whose benefit it has been paid. Other Measures to Reduce Extreme Poverty Beyond TANF, it remains vital to do a much better job of reaching all of those who are eligible for various benefits-especially food stamps and Medicaid-and do not seek them. The failure to extend the safety net to everyone who is currently eligible heightens the incidence of extreme poverty. Food stamps by themselves provide a family of four that has no income with about $6,000. This is the only national income floor that we have, minimal as it is (it should be recalled that the poverty line for a family of four is in excess of $21,000). Housing vouchers are an important benefit, but reach only one in four who qualify. Waiting lists are typically multi- year ordeals. Child care would help too, but federally funded assistance reaches only one in seven of those who are eligible. Beyond continuing to improve the adequacy and reach of food stamps, housing vouchers, and child care, it is time to make the federal Child Tax Credit available to every family all the way down to those with no income. The threshold for receiving the CTC was lowered to $3,000 in President Obama's Recovery Act, which means that families with children will begin receiving a 15 cent refundable tax credit for each dollar earned over $3,000. This benefit is work-based, so it is of no use to people who have no work at all, but for people with sporadic or part-time work, it is quite important. However, the $3,000 threshold expires in two years, and further legislation will be needed to keep it at that level or the threshold will rise to about $12,000. Maintaining the threshold at $3,000 is extremely important, and reducing it to zero would be even better. Creating an Income Floor for Families The presence and recent growth of extreme poverty in the United States is a national disgrace. Significant progress in eliminating it would come from creating a national income floor comprising food stamps, the Child Tax Credit, Medicaid, expanded funding of housing vouchers, and a larger investment in child care and Head Start. Steps to reverse the ways in which the TANF program exacerbates extreme poverty and to restore cash assistance to its proper role as part of a safety net for the lowest-income families would at the very least rescind the currently operative idea that public policies that actually worsen and perpetuate poverty are acceptable. Peter Edelman is a professor of law at Georgetown Law Center and was assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Clinton administration. From suzannedk at gmail.com Thu Nov 12 08:40:21 2009 From: suzannedk at gmail.com (Suzanne de Kuyper) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:40:21 +0100 Subject: [R-G] The Evil Empire In-Reply-To: <83904d240911111242u2b21f9f4h7c4416373b5e725d@mail.gmail.com> References: <83904d240911111242u2b21f9f4h7c4416373b5e725d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: We are neither a Republic of Fools nor the hapless members of An Evil Empire. Americans like to package idieas into catchy phraes, trouble is, often the ideas disappear into the catchinesses. Our system of government was an experiment. It has imploded into itself for basic functional problems never addressed because the leitmotif was so powerfully catchy! City on the Hill, Manifest Destiny, best most amazng country in the world that threw out the histories of the foreign countries we all cane from, believing we could make it up from scratch. In our headlong rush to be proven right, a new species beyond and better than theo old ones, our humanity got imprisoned in catchy phrases. Torture as policy, refusing the Goldstone Report are proofs that this is so. Suzanne suzannedk at gmail.com On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Sid Shniad wrote: > http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts11062009.html > > > Weekend Edition November 6-8, 2009 > > *Republic of Fools * The Evil Empire > > By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS > > The US government is now so totally under the thumbs of organized interest > groups that ?our? government can no longer respond to the concerns of the > American people who elect the president and the members of the House and > Senate. Voters will vent their frustrations over their impotence on the > president, which implies a future of one-term presidents. Soon our > presidents will be as ineffective as Roman emperors in the final days of > that empire. > > Obama is already set on the course to a one-term presidency. He promised > change, but has delivered none. His health care bill is held hostage by the > private insurance companies seeking greater profits. The most likely > outcome > will be cuts in Medicare and Medicaid in order to help fund wars that > enrich > the military/security complex and the many companies created by privatizing > services that the military once provided for itself at far lower costs. It > would be interesting to know the percentage of the $700+ billion ?defense? > spending that goes to private companies. In American ?capitalism,? an > amazing amount of taxpayers? earnings go to private firms via the > government. Yet, Republicans scream about ?socializing? health care. > > Republicans and Democrats saw opportunities to create new sources of > campaign contributions by privatizing as many military functions as > possible. There are now a large number of private companies that have never > made a dollar in the market, feeding instead at the public trough that > drains taxpayers of dollars while loading Americans with debt service > obligations. > > Obama inherited an excellent opportunity to bring US soldiers home from the > Bush regime?s illegal wars of aggression. In its final days, the Bush > regime > realized that it could ?win? in Iraq by putting the Sunni insurgents on the > US military payroll. Once Bush had 80,000 insurgents collecting US military > pay, violence, although still high, dropped in half. All Obama had to do > was > to declare victory and bring our boys home, thanking Bush for winning the > war. It would have shut up the Republicans. > > But this sensible course would have impaired the profits and share prices > of > those firms that comprise the military/security complex. So instead of > doing > what Obama said he would do and what the voters elected him to do, Obama > restarted the war in Afghanistan and launched a new one in Pakistan. Soon > Obama was echoing Bush and Cheney?s threats to attack Iran. > > In place of health care for Americans, there will be more profits for > private insurance companies. > > In place of peace there will be more war. > > Voters are already recognizing the writing on the wall and are falling away > from Obama and the Democrats. Independents who gave Obama his comfortable > victory have now swung against him, recently electing Republican governors > in New Jersey and Virginia to succeed Democrats. This is a protest vote, > not > a confidence vote in Republicans. > > Obama?s credibility is shot. And so is Congress?s, assuming it ever had > any. > The US House of Representatives has just voted to show the entire world > that > the US House of Representatives is nothing but the servile, venal, puppet > of > the Israel Lobby. The House of Representatives of the American ?superpower? > did the bidding of its master, AIPAC, and voted 344 to 36 to condemn the > Goldstone Report. > > In case you don?t know, the Goldstone Report is the Report of the United > Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. The ?Gaza Conflict? is > the Israeli military attack on the Gaza ghetto, where 1.5 million > dispossessed Palestinians, whose lands, villages, and homes were stolen by > Israel, are housed. The attack was on civilians and civilian > infrastructure. > It was without any doubt a war crime under the Nuremberg standard that the > US established in order to execute Nazis. > > Goldstone is not only a very distinguished Jewish jurist who has given his > life to bringing people to accountability for their crimes against > humanity, > but also a Zionist. However, the Israelis have demonized him as a > ?self-hating Jew? because he wrote the truth instead of Israeli propaganda. > > US Representative Dennis Kucinich, who is now without a doubt a marked man > on AIPAC?s political extermination list, asked the House if the members had > any realization of the shame that the vote condemning Goldstone would bring > on the House and the US government. The entire rest of the world accepts > the > Goldstone report. > > The House answered with its lopsided vote that the rest of the world > doesn?t > count as it doesn?t give campaign contributions to members of Congress. > > This shameful, servile act of ?the world?s greatest democracy? occurred the > very week that a court in Italy convicted 23 US CIA officers for kidnapping > a person in Italy. The CIA agents are now considered ?fugitives from > justice? in Italy, and indeed they are. > > The kidnapped person was renditioned to the American puppet state of Egypt, > where the victim was held for years and repeatedly tortured. The case > against him was so absurd that even an Egyptian judge ordered his release. > > One of the convicted CIA operatives, Sabrina deSousa, an attractive young > woman, says that the US broke the law by kidnapping a person and sending > him > to another country to be tortured in order to manufacture another > ?terrorist? in order to keep the terrorist hoax going at home. Without the > terrorist hoax, America?s wars for special interest reasons would become > transparent even to Fox ?News? junkies. > > Ms. deSousa says that ?everything I did was approved back in Washington,? > yet the government, which continually berates us to ?support the troops,? > did nothing to protect her when she carried out the Bush regime?s illegal > orders. > > Clearly, this means that the crime that Bush, Cheney, the Pentagon, and the > CIA ordered is too heinous and beyond the pale to be justified, even by > memos from the despicable John Yoo and the Republican Federalist Society. > > Ms. deSousa is clearly worried about herself. But where is her concern for > the innocent person that she sent into an Egyptian hell to be tortured > until > death or admission of being a terrorist? The remorse deSousa expresses is > only for herself. She did her evil government?s bidding and her evil > government that she so faithfully served turned its back on her. She has no > remorse for the evil she committed against an innocent person. > > Perhaps deSousa and her 22 colleagues grew up on video games. It was great > fun to plot to kidnap a real person and fly him on a CIA plane to Egypt. > Was > it like a fisherman catching a fish or a deer hunter killing a beautiful > 8-point buck? Clearly, they got their jollies at the expense of their > renditioned victim. > > The finding of the Italian court, and keep in mind that Italy is a > bought-and-paid-for US puppet state, indicates that even our bought puppets > are finding the US too much to stomach. > > Moving from the tip of the iceberg down, we have Ambassador Craig Murray, > rector of the University of Dundee and until 2004 the UK Ambassador to > Uzbekistan, which he describes as a Stalinist totalitarian state courted > and > supported by the Americans. > > As ambassador, Murray saw the MI5 intelligence reports from the CIA that > described the most horrible torture procedures. ?People were raped with > broken bottles, children were tortured in front of their parents until they > [the parents] signed a confession, people were boiled alive.? > > ?Intelligence? from these torture sessions was passed on by the CIA to MI5 > and to Washington as proof of the vast al Qaeda conspiracy. > Amb. Murray reports that the people delivered by CIA flights to > Uzbekistan?s torture prisons ?were told to confess to membership in Al > Qaeda. They were told to confess they?d been in training camps in > Afghanistan. They were told to confess they had met Osama bin Laden in > person. And the CIA intelligence constantly echoed these themes.? > > ?I was absolutely stunned,? says the British ambassador, who thought that > he > served a moral country that, along with its American ally, had moral > integrity. The great Anglo-American bastion of democracy and human rights, > the homes of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, the great moral > democracies that defeated Nazism and stood up to Stalin?s gulags, were > prepared to commit any crime in order to maximize profits. > > Amb. Murray learned too much and was fired when he vomited it all up. He > saw > the documents that proved that the motivation for US and UK military > aggression in Afghanistan had to do with the natural gas deposits in > Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The Americans wanted a pipeline that bypassed > Russia and Iran and went through Afghanistan. To insure this, an invasion > was necessary. The idiot American public could be told that the invasion > was > necessary because of 9/11 and to save them from ?terrorism,? and the utter > fools would believe the lie. > > ?If you look at the deployment of US forces in Afghanistan, as against > other > NATO country forces in Afghanistan, you?ll see that undoubtedly the US > forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It?s what it?s about. > It?s about money, its about energy, it?s not about democracy.? > > Guess who the consultant was who arranged with then Texas governor George > W. > Bush the agreements that would give to Enron the rights to Uzbekistan?s and > Turkmenistan?s natural gas deposits and to Unocal to develop the > trans-Afghanistan pipeline. It was Karzai, the US-imposed ?president? of > Afghanistan, who has no support in the country except for American > bayonets. > > Amb. Murray was dismissed from the UK Foreign Service for his revelations. > No doubt on orders from Washington to our British puppet. > > *Paul Craig Roberts* was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan > administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good > Intentions.< > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0307396061/counterpunchmaga>He > can be reached at: > PaulCraigRoberts at yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Rad-Green mailing list > Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green > From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 09:54:25 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:54:25 -0600 Subject: [R-G] A house made of straw and mud in Boise Message-ID: http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/966167.html A house made of straw and mud in Boise Boise's first complete straw bale house is under construction in Southeast Boise BY CYNTHIA SEWELL - cmsewell at idahostatesman.com Published: 11/09/09 On a small lot tucked between conventional homes on Boise Avenue, Mark Lung is hard at work stacking bales of straw and mixing mud. He is building a new home using local, recycled agricultural waste to form and insulate exterior walls. Plaster made from clay, sand, lime, straw and water will be used on both the interior and exterior instead of drywall, siding and paint. Similar in appearance to Southwestern adobes, straw bale structures are earth-friendly and energy-efficient, Lung said. Unlike the wall in a typical home, which is about 6 inches thick, a straw-bale wall is 18 to 23 inches thick, providing greater insulation against winter cold, summer heat and sound. Fire and pests are not a problem, advocates say, and straw is a cheap, easily renewable building material. "Straw makes sense. It is the building material of the future," Lung said. "The building industry is in a real revolution," said Lung's builder, Ron Hixson. Hixson's local company, Earthcraft, specializes in innovative, energy-efficient design and construction. With rising construction costs and a new economy, natural materials like straw are becoming more popular. Green building "should reflect the earth itself," Lung said. His house does: straw, dirt and sun - his passive solar design will help heat and cool the house. Lung lived in a straw-bale house in Gunnison, Colo., before moving to Boise. While there, he carefully charted the temperatures over an extended period. The outside temperature ranged from 20 to 80 degrees. Inside, the temperature stayed between 68 and 72 - without supplemental heat or cooling. The cost of building a straw-bale home is comparable to a conventional home. The materials - straw, sand and clay - are cheaper. The labor is more intensive, and includes applying multiple layers of plaster to the straw walls. To build his home, Lung purchased 250 bales at $2 a bale from a Meridian farmer. He held a "barn-raising" event to get his walls up. Lung is providing much of the labor himself and is using recycled materials, which brought the costs down to about $86 a square foot - he's spending about $165,000, not including land. Building the 1,900-square-foot home with conventional materials would have cost Lung about $103 per square foot. Lung and Hixson are sharing their straw-bale building experience with other builders, architects and students. They hosted a workshop last month; this month Timberline High School environmental science students will help apply a layer of "mud" to the house. Lung said that almost every day, curious passers-by stop and ask about the house. Lung gives them a tour and explains what he is building and why. Despite their positive attributes, straw-bale homes still haven't caught on with the mainstream in urban areas, primarily because city codes have not been updated to allow them, Hixson said. Boise has one other straw bale structure that was built in 2000 - a 600-square-foot addition to a conventional home - said city planning director Hal Simmons. The city decided then to implement a straw-bale policy. "That (permit) apparently took the owner almost two years to get approved," Simmons said. Cynthia Sewell: 377-6428 From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 10:16:33 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:16:33 -0600 Subject: [R-G] Cuba orders extreme measures to cut energy use Message-ID: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11371755.htm Cuba orders extreme measures to cut energy use 11 Nov 2009 21:58:49 GMT Source: Reuters * Cuba's energy situation termed "critical" * Some factories, workshops to be closed through December * Most other economic activities to be reduced By Marc Frank HAVANA, Nov 11 (Reuters) - Cuba has ordered all state enterprises to adopt "extreme measures" to cut energy usage through the end of the year in hopes of avoiding the dreaded blackouts that plagued the country following the 1991 collapse of its then-top ally, the Soviet Union. In documents seen by Reuters, government officials have been warned that the island is facing a "critical" energy shortage that requires the closing of non-essential factories and workshops and the shutting down of air conditioners and refrigerators not needed to preserve food and medicine. Cuba has cut government spending and slashed imports after being hit hard by the global financial crisis and the cost of recovering from three hurricanes that struck last year. "The energy situation we face is critical and if we do not adopt extreme measures we will have to revert to planned blackouts affecting the population," said a recently circulated message from the Council of Ministers. "Company directors will analyze the activities that will be stopped and others reduced, leaving only those that guarantee exports, substitution of imports and basic services for the population," according to another distributed by the light industry sector. President Raul Castro is said to be intent on not repeating the experience of the 1990s, when the demise of the Soviet Union and the loss of its steady oil supply caused frequent electricity blackouts and hardship for the Cuban public. The directives follow government warnings in the summer that too much energy was being used and blackouts would follow if consumption was not reduced. All provincial governments and most state-run offices and factories, which encompasses 90 percent of Cuba's economic activity, were ordered in June to reduce energy use by a minimum of 12 percent or face mandatory electricity cuts. The measures appeared to resolve the crisis as state-run press published stories about the amount of energy that had been saved and the dire warnings died down. The only explanation given for the earlier warnings was that Cuba was consuming more fuel than the government had money to pay for. The situation is not as dire as in the 1990s because Cuba receives 93,000 barrels per day of crude oil, almost two-thirds of what it consumes, from Venezuela. It pays for the oil by providing its energy-rich ally with medical personnel and other professionals. Cuba has been grappling with the global economic downturn, which has slashed revenues from key exports, dried up credit and reduced foreign investment. The communist-run Caribbean nation also faces stiff U.S. sanctions that include cutting access to international lending institutions, and it is still rebuilding from last year's trio of hurricanes that caused an estimated $10 billion in damages. In response, the government has cut spending, slashed imports, suspended many debt payments and frozen bank accounts of foreign businesses. It reported last week that trade was down 36 percent so far this year due mainly to a more than 30 percent reduction in imports. (Editing by Jeff Franks and Eric Beech) From shniad at gmail.com Thu Nov 12 13:00:25 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:00:25 -0800 Subject: [R-G] Bubble trouble: Policy makers strike warning note Message-ID: <83904d240911121200r781a68e1ra4c864635bbb72b7@mail.gmail.com> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/bubble-trouble-policy-makers-strike-warning-note/article1360315/ Globe and Mail Report on Business November 12, 2009 *Bubble trouble: Policy makers strike warning note* *"The bottom line is this: If you get off stimulus, you're going to cause a slowdown. But if you don't, you're going to cause bubbles," said Vitaliy Katsenelson, director of research with Investment Management Associates in Denver, who has long warned about bubbles brewing in China. "Identifying such bubbles is a lot easier than timing their collapse," he wrote in a note to clients. "But as we've recently learned, you can defy the laws of financial gravity for only so long."* BRIAN MILNER From menecraj at shaw.ca Thu Nov 12 13:11:43 2009 From: menecraj at shaw.ca (RICHARD MENEC) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:11:43 -0600 Subject: [R-G] The sleazy advocacy of a leading "liberal hawk" Message-ID: See embedded links at: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/11/12/galbraith/print.html The sleazy advocacy of a leading "liberal hawk" Peter Galbraith's vast, undisclosed financial interests in the policies he spent years advocating as an "expert." BY Glenn Greenwald Nov. 12, 2009 The New York Times today details the unbelievably sleazy story of Peter Galbraith, one of the Democratic Party's leading so-called "liberal hawks" and a generally revered Wise Man of America's Foreign Policy Community. He was Ambassador to Croatia under the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s and, in March, 2009, the Obama administration (specifically, Richard Holbrooke, Galbraith's mentor) successfully pressured the U.N. to name Galbraith as the second-in-command in Afghanistan. The NYT does a good job today of adding some important details to the story, but it was actually uncovered by Norwegian investigative journalists and reported at length a month ago in pieces such as this one by Helena Cobban. In essence, this highly Serious man has corruptly concealed vast financial stakes in the very policies and positions he has spent years advocating while pretending to be an independent expert. Galbraith was one of the most vocal Democratic supporters of the attack on Iraq, having signed a March 19, 2003 public letter (.pdf) -- along with the standard cast of neocon war-lovers such as Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Danielle Pletka, and Robert Kagan -- stating that "we all join in supporting the military intervention in Iraq" and "it is now time to act to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power." As intended, that letter was then praised by outlets such as The Washington Post Editorial Page, gushing that "it is both significant and encouraging that a bipartisan group of influential foreign policy thinkers, veterans of both Democratic and Republican administrations, has signed on to a statement of policy on Iraq that makes sense on the war." Throughout 2002 and 2003, Galbraith appeared in numerous outlets -- including repeatedly on Fox News and with Bill O'Reilly -- presenting himself as a loyal Democrat firmly behind the invasion of Iraq. In 2002, he was an adviser to Paul Wolfowitz on Kurdistan. After playing a key role in enabling the invasion of Iraq, Galbraith first became one of a handful of U.S. officials who worked on writing the Iraqi Constitution, and after he resigned from the government, he then continuously posed as an independent expert on the region and, specifically, an "unpaid" adviser to the Kurds on the Constitution. Galbraith was an ardent and vocal advocate for Kurdish autonomy, arguing tirelessly in numerous venues for such proposals -- including in multiple Op-Eds for The New York Times -- and insisting that Kurds must have the right to control oil resources located in Northern Iraq. Throughout the years of writing those Op-Eds, he was identified as nothing more than "a former United States ambassador to Croatia," except in one 2007 Op-Ed which vaguely stated that he "is a principal in a company that does consulting in Iraq and elsewhere." When he participated in a New York Times forum in October, 2008 -- regarding what the next President should be required to answer -- he unsurprisingly posed questions that advocated for regional autonomy for Iraqis generally and Kurds specifically, and he was identified as nothing more than the author of a book about the region. What Galbraith kept completely concealed all these years was that a company he formed in 2004 came to acquire a large stake in a Kurdish oil field whereby, as the NYT put it, he "stands to earn perhaps a hundred million or more dollars." In other words, he had a direct -- and vast -- financial stake in the very policies which he was publicly advocating in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and countless other American media outlets, where he was presented as an independent expert on the region. As Cobban wrote: For the preceding four years, while Galbraith was an influential participant in Iraq-related constitutional and political discussions, he also had an undisclosed financial interest in a KRG-authorised oil development venture. . . . Here in the U.S., Galbraith has long been associated with the "liberal hawk" wing of the Democratic Party . . . Many members of this group have been liberal idealists - though some of those who, on "liberal" grounds, gave early support to Pres. George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq later expressed their regret for adopting that position. Galbraith has never expressed any such regrets, and last November, he was openly scornful of Bush's late-term agreement to withdraw from Iraq completely. The revelation that for many years Galbraith had a quite undisclosed financial interest in the political breakup of Iraq may now further reduce the clout, and the ranks, of the remaining liberal hawks. Unfortunately, that last sentence is likely wishful thinking. What Galbraith has done, as sleazy and dishonest as it is, is simply par for the course in accountability-free Washington. Galbraith's relationship with the Kurds goes back many years. He undoubtedly knew that overthrowing Saddam would empower his Kurdish friends and their ability to dole out oil contracts. Indeed, in his own 2006 book, he recounts that he began working on Kurdish autonomy and independence "two weeks after the fall of Saddam Hussein." Less than a year later, having helped convince the public -- and many Democrats -- to invade Iraq, he formed a company that then acquired a huge stake in Kurdish oil. And he then spent years running around trying to use his status as Foreign Policy Community expert to exploit the war he cheered on for his own massive personal gain, while keeping completely concealed those glaring conflicts of interests. Reider Visser, a historian of southern Iraq, told The Boston Globe last month: "Galbraith has been such a central person to the shaping of the Iraqi Constitution, far more than I think most Americans realize. All those beautiful ideas about principles of federalism and local communities having control are really cast in a different light when the community has an oil field in its midst and Mr. Galbraith has a financial stake." So here's a leading advocate of the war on Iraq who used his influence in the U.S. Government and the Foreign Policy Community -- as well as the break-up of Saddam's regime -- to enrich himself on Iraqi oil. As the NYT put it: As the scope of Mr. Galbraith?s financial interests in Kurdistan become clear, they have the potential to inflame some of Iraqis? deepest fears, including conspiracy theories that the true reason for the American invasion of their country was to take its oil. It may not help that outside Kurdistan, Mr. Galbraith?s influential view that Iraq should be broken up along ethnic lines is considered offensive to many Iraqis? nationalism. Mr. Biden and Mr. Kerry, who have been influenced by Mr. Galbraith?s thinking but do not advocate such a partitioning of the country, were not aware of Mr. Galbraith?s oil dealings in Iraq, aides to both politicians say. Some officials say that his financial ties could raise serious questions about the integrity of the constitutional negotiations themselves. "The idea that an oil company was participating in the drafting of the Iraqi Constitution leaves me speechless," said Feisal Amin al-Istrabadi, a principal drafter of the law that governed Iraq after the United States ceded control to an Iraqi government on June 28, 2004. In effect, he said, the company "has a representative in the room, drafting." Remember how all those freakish and paranoid people -- on the crazed "Arab street" and in American-hating leftist circles -- actually believed in "conspriacy" theories such as the wacky notion that one of the motives for invading Iraq was a desire to exploit its oil resources? Here we have yet another example of one of America's most Serious and respected "experts" advocating various policies while maintaining huge, undisclosed financial and personal interests in his advocacy. He was given access to every major media outlet virtually on demand to do so -- the NYT, The Washington Post, NPR, CNN, Fox -- all while those interests remained concealed. His uniting with the country's most extreme neocons to support the Bush administration's attack on Iraq didn't prevent the Obama administration from pushing him to be hired as the U.N.'s number two official in Afghanistan. He continued to be revered by leading establishment Democrats as an important and respected expert. In other words, Peter Galbraith is a perfect face showing how America's Foreign Policy Community and our political debates function. From shniad at gmail.com Thu Nov 12 13:36:29 2009 From: shniad at gmail.com (Sid Shniad) Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:36:29 -0800 Subject: [R-G] =?windows-1252?q?The_plunder_of_Iraq=92s_oil?= Message-ID: <83904d240911121236t59eb1e2bgddf81c5242ed6dd0@mail.gmail.com> http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/11/11/the-plunder-of-iraqa-8217-s-oil#more8032 The Peoples Voice 11/11/09 *The plunder of Iraq?s oil* James Cogan Having drowned the Iraqi people in blood, the American financial and corporate oligarchy now believes that day has finally arrived. While US corporations are not the sole beneficiaries of the contracts, there is no question who has the final say over Iraq?s oil. The awarding of development rights over the huge West Qurna oilfield